HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 10,1996
I
I
I
38:0222
OliO . ~'O
07/0 <'16
cc
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDiNGS ARE AUDIO AND VIDEO TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE iN THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
l.
ROLL CALL
2.
3.
LOJESKI
(Flag Salute)
HARBlCHT
(Roller Hockey
Facility)
O'l.:J.o- 60
N.'>"
4.
CONTINUED
PUBLIC HRG.
(Draft Gen.
Plan Update
& Draft EIR)
or/S"-ltJ
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
and the
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
JULY 10, 1996
The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in an Adjourned Regular
Meeting on Wednesday, July 10, 1996, at 6:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers for
the primary purpose of continuing the public hearing in consideration of the Draft General
Plan Update and related Draft Environmental Impact Report.
PRESENT: Council! Agency Members Chang. Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Kuhn
ABSENT: None
TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE iN THE AUDiENCE TO ADDRESS THE
COUNCll.J AGENCY MEMBERS
No one wished to address the Council! Agency
MATIERS FROM ELECTED OffiCIALS
Member Lojeski requested all Council meetings begin with a salute to the /lag. Mayor Kuhn
and Member Young agreed.
Mayor Pro tem Harbicht reported the Recreation Commission studied the possibility of
bringing roller hockey to the City. The former Mounted Police property on Live Oak Avenue
could be a site for such a facility. A draft proposal has been submitted to the City and funds
raised by a group of residents. City Manager Kelly noted staff are working on a Draft
Request For Proposals. Staff hopes to have this item on the August 6, 1996 Council agenda.
Member Harbicht would like to see the City move on this matter as quickly as possible before
nearby cities are contacted by potential concessionaires. Member Lojeski felt this to be a good
idea and also mentioned that prior to the last City election the Council had given the go-
ahead to pursue the idea of siting a hockey facility on the Live Oak property. He felt this
would be a good place for such a facility and would help the surrounding areas also.
(A TRANSCRIPT OF THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN PREPARED)
COl)tinuation of the July 8, 1996 public hearing. 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 firm, to prepare both the
General Plan Update and the related Environmental Impact Report (ErR). with Agajanian &
Associates to prepare a fiscal impact analysis and with Freilich, Kaufman, Fox and Sohagi for
supplemental legal services regarding environmental issues.
7/10/96
38:0223
I
July 8. 1996 was the beginning of the formal public hearing process before the City Counci I.
In order to proceed through the hearing process, the July 8, 1996 staff report was organized
into five sections as follows:
- The Draft General Plan Update (GPO)
- Transition Areas
- Planning Commission Recommendations
- The Draft General Plan Update EIR (DEIR)
- City Council Action
Mayor Kuhn reopened the public hearing and announced the guidelines to be followed for
this business meeting.
Barbara Cogomo, 365 West Duarte Road, expressed concern that an entertainment center
located at the race track would create too much traffic. Ms. Cogorno requested that Council
not make a decision about this area until after the November 5, 1996 election on the initiativ<:
ordinance.
Jane Clark, 324 North Old Ranch Road, stated she and her husband endorse the position of
the Planning Commission with regard to Transition Area No. 1. Mr. and Mrs. Clark strongly
oppose rezoning the race track south Parking lot without adequate environmental studies.
I
Warren Stute, 859 West Foothill Blvd. stated he is a licensed trainer. Mr. Stute mentioned
that racing has been declining in the United States for a number of years. He believed an
entertainment center on race track property should be allowed to help maintain Santa Anita
as it has been maintained in the past.
Ken Gille!!, 400 South Baldwin Avenue. General Manager of Santa Anita Fashion Park.
representing the Hahn Company, who is the Mall's general partner. They believe the
proposed change in land use to commercial for the race track parking lot is appropriate and
the City Council should change the zoning to facilitate future planning for that site.
Frank Waite, 143 West La Sierra Drive, encouraged the Council to be proactive and support
the rezoning to commercial use for the Santa Anita property.
Judv McKinlev. 17 West Sierra'Madre Blvd., said the Environmental impact Report is totally
deficient. The Planning Commission concluded that only an EIR dealing with a specific plan
would be sufficient for Transition Area No. I (Santa Anita property). Mrs. McKinley urged
Council to take into full consideration the economic and legal ramifications of any
development in that area. Further, she would like Council to approve the Planning
Commission recommendations.
Jeff Bowen. 1919 Wilson Avenue, believed the people in attendance this evening are
somewhat in general accord that the highest and best is not an empty parking lot at the race
track. This is a non-performing asset for the owners of the property and for the homeowners
in the City. Mr. Bowen has concluded the only logical conforming use for this island of real
estate is that it be zoned commercial.
I
John Gregorv. 1250 North Santa Anita Avenue, stated it makes sense to zone the race track
south parking lot commercial. Santa Anita is willing to come back with a scaled down
commercial plan if the City will first show some good faith.
Fred Zahnke. Considered the question, "whom do you trust to do the best thing for the
citizens of ArcadiaT' Mr. Zahnke noted the moneys spent by the City in the preparation of
2
38:0224
I
the General plan Update and EIR., the numerous consultants, additional hearings, then Sanw
Anita withdrew their plan and may have caused the City to spend about $200.000, which may
be wasted expense. It is his hope that the City Council will consider all the factors involved
in the zoning ofrace track property and make the right decision. He has concerns about the
quality of life in this City. Also. the vacant commercial properties in the City. Changing the
general plan now for the Santa Anita property is not necessary and will not benefit the
citizens of Arcadia. The general plan zoning can be amended when and if Santa Anita or
another owner submits a realistic. specific development plan. He believes the Planning
Commission reached a very well thought out and realistic decision.
Richard Maninez. 301 West Magna Vista, stated he supports the Planning Commission
recommendations to the City Council. And, waiting until November to see what Arcadia
voters have to say. Mr. Martinez has concerns about the magnitude of the Santa Anita
proposal and the negative impact such a project would have on the community. The Council
should not rezone property until it knows what will be built on it.
Eugene Moscaret. 1125 Encanto, commended the Planning Commission and , in particular.
Chairman Bob Daggett. who admirably represented the commission on behalf of the Council.
Mr. Moscaret is very concerned about traffic on Michillinda Avenue. There is no solution to
the traffic implications on this street if Council grants the request for commercial
entenainment zoning on race track property. He believes Council should know in advance
what exactly it is that Council would be imposing upon the citizens of this community. This
in reference to the traffic problems which would be created in the Lower Rancho by a
commercial development at the race track.
I
Gail Marshall, 2300 block of Lee Avenue, related on idea her sister-in-law mentioned for a
development at the race track. such as an equestrian center where people of all ages could
learn to ride. jump horses and such... with a restaurant overlooking this activity, and shops
etcetera.
John Cafarella. 146 East Altern, spoke of the science of traffic analysis which is of ulmost
imponance for a City such as Arcadia with a built-out roadway system and no reasonable
alternative. To increase traffic capacity, which would add traffic volume, which would
exceed actual realistic roadway capacity. Mr. Cafarella provided the Council with his repon
on peak hour traffic volume.
Irene Goddard, 620 West Huntington Drive. spoke in suppon of the Planning Commission's
recommendations and recommended that Council not change the zoning at the race track
until a specific plan is filed and a complete EIR She implored the Council to be sure changes
that coine about in the community are beneficial and not detrimental to the City.
Colleen Doan. 422 West Gerona, San Gabriel, planning consultant, responded to the
summary of deficiencies in the General Plan Update and ErR which she had previously
presented to the Council. Ms. Doan noted the deficiencies that she had pointed out are
backed up by California Land Use Regulations statewide. and have to do specifically with
general plans. Ms. Doan highlighted traffic problems at peak hours; air quality deficiencies;
traJPc emissions. Ms. Doan noted Council does not have to give Santa Anita a land use
designation change without accurate and infonnative infonnation.
I
At this point in the proceedings Mayor Kuhn read a letter from the McCaslin Company
stating concern of the proposed general plan with regard to the Anoakia property. and the
City's interest in maintaining its cultural significance. Mr. McCaslin noted the problems
with the structures on the property coupled with the fact that the mansion is situated at the
center of the 19 acre site which is zoned for approximately 30 homes. There are no current
3
38: 0225
I
plans for development of the Anoakia property. The McCaslin family requests that th.:
general plan not single out the Anoakia property for unnecessary administrative procedure:;
and study, which is not warranted by the condition of the property and its limited ongoing
cultural value to the City.
Peter Ulrich, Fairview Avenue, one block south of the race track property. urged the Council
to designate the race track south parking lot for commercial use. Mr. Ulrich believes the rae(:
track to be good neighbors that care about Arcadia.
Manruerite Soencer, Mayflower Avenue, displayed zoning maps of the City. a map of the
Raymond Fault which covers one-half of the race track property and commented on a 1970
plan to develop this property. Mrs. Spencer also expressed her concern of traffic problems
which would accompany a commercial development on race track property and the
recommendation of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regarding
reasonable expansion of public transit services within Arcadia. Mrs. Spencer noted the
lawsuits filed by residents who were unwilling to lose footage of their front yards in order to
widen Baldwin Avenue when Santa Anita Fashion Park was developed.
Lonell Soencer. 1008 South Mayflower, commented on the barbed wire fence between the
race track and Fashion Park. He noted also the findings in the Agajanian Report, No.5,
regarding high capital improvement costs for municipal facilities and the report of the City
Administrative Services Director that funds in the Capital Outlay Fund are low.
I
Everett Clark, 324 North Old Ranch Road, stated he is very much in favor of the work the
Planning Commission accomplished on the general plan. Mrs. Clark suggested Council look
at all of the commercial areas including the Rodeffer property, and consider what the net
effect is going to be.
Colleen Doan, commented that the people of the various business areas in the City are rather
isolated in their own business area. it would be beneficial to the City if they communicated
with each other. Mayor Kuhn thought the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce had already
covered that matter.
Mayor Pro tern Harbicht MOVED to CLOSE the public hearing. seconded by Councilmember
Lojeski and CARRIED on roll call vole as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Council/Agency Members Chang, Harbicht, Lojeski. Young. and Kuhn
None
None
At 8:07 p.m. Mayor Kuhn called a RECESS. The Council/Agency RECONVENED at 8:23
p.m.
I
Ms. Butler, Community Development Administrator, and Mr. Lloyd Zola, LSA and
Associates. reviewed the process to be taken prior to Council's adoption of the General Plan.
Ms. Butler explained that Council would first examine the General Plan Land Use Map and
the ,four Transition Areas. Next would be the document text, focusing on the goals. policies,
and implementation procedures. The letters from the public requesting text changes in the
General Plan Update should be addressed and the issues reviewed by Council. The
Environmental Impact Report must be reviewed; is it adequate; does it respond to issues
related to land use? Following Council's review of these documents staff requests Council's
direction as to modifications to the Updated General Plan and any additional changes Council
might request to the ElR. Staff will then finalize their response to public and agency
comments. The response will then be sent back to the Council for review. Final action will
4
38: 0226
I
include certification of the EIR; a resolution which will include all response to comments, and
the final General Plan wording.
Mr. Zola added that Council would need to discuss housing requirements in relation to the
General Plan, and meeting housing requirements and objectives under state law. Mr. Zola
noted the requirement to build 552 housing units. which would include build-{)ut of various
R-2 and R-3 properties south of the downtown area, to achieve the County housing
requirements for the City. The second housing issue is providing housing for low and
moderate income residents. A moderate income resident is simply a household with an
average income. able to afford rents of up to $1200 a month, and low income households who
could afford to pay $813 per month.
Mr. Zola clarified that the housing objective for 552 units was established by the Southem
California Association of Governments (SCAG). Under state law. each regional Association
of Govemments is required to detennine each community's fair share of housing for all
economic segments of the community for its housing element. The City is not required to
build the housing units or cause them to be built, but to provide open land adequately zoned
so it could be possible. and provide adequate programs to facilitate low and moderate incoml:
housing. This requirement is included in the housing program in the Updated General Plan.
as proposed.
I
In the discussion, Mr. Zola noted, under state redevelopment law the Agency is required to set
aside 20% of its tax increment to be used for low and moderate income housing. Further. if
the City is not in compliance with housing element law, the City would run the risk of losing
control over its own land use. it was noted that the Plauning Commission recommended that
Council adopt the numbers and the housing element that will run through the year 2003. The
552 number to the year 2003 is consistent with SCAG's forecast for the City for use in the
housing element.
Mayor Pro tern Harbicht expressed approval of the Planning Commission designation for the
Transition Area 3 of up to 24 dwelling units per acre on most of the property between Santa
Anita Avenue and Second Avenue, and that First Avenue from California south be a mixed
use of multiple-family and commercial. Mr. Zola noted the 552 unit buiId-{)ut of the City is
based on the recommendation of the Planning Commission which does include and account
for 24 rather than 30 units per acre. He advised that the 552 housing unit requirement could
be met by construction in Transition Areas 2 and 3 for multi-family housing, as well as the
Anoakia site on Foothill Boulevard; commercial on First Avenue; and 15 units in the
northern hillside area. Mr. Zola verified also that Transition area 2 between Santa Anita and
Second Avenue could be built with up to 24 units per acre and 30 units per acre for senior
housing projects. Also, the R-2 area east to Second Avenue up to Fifth Avenue can be built at
up to 18 units per acre and 24 units for senior housing. The Planning Commission
recommendation for Fifth A venue was a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre and
up to 18 units for senior housing.
I
Referring to the required housing and related traffic, Mr. Zola said they found when
prel'3ring the traffic study that there are two places in the City where significant traffic
problems could be expected; Michillinda Avenue and Holly Avenue south of Huntington
Drive. Drivers on Michillinda. which is a residential street, travel at 50 miles per hour. Holly
Avenue has a significant amount of traffic for which mitigation measures have been provided
in the General Plan.
The discussion turned to Transition Area 4, which includes the Rodeffer quarry pit. The
Updated General Plan states this area should remain industrial. Also the Rodeffer application
for a landfill indicates it would take approximately eight to twelve YeaIS to fill the quarry.
5
38:0227
I
Mayor Pro tem Harbicht referred to comments at the July 8. 1996 General Plan meeting
regarding the LSA traffic study and specifically comments about an analysis of linkage versus
intersections and peak periods versus traffic. He asked Mr. 20la to clarify if there is any
conflict between these things. and what is required, and is the EIR deficient in analysis of
such? Mr. 20la explained in detail his credentials and that of LSA principals. The traffic
analysis they prepared for the General Plan, which they believe is adequate under General
Plan law as well as CEQA requirements. The traffic studies were reviewed by City staff and
staff believes the traffic analysis is adequate. Further, Ed Cline, the City's consulting traffic
engineer, believes they are adequate also. The issue of links versus intersections was raised at
the Planning Commission hearings. The purpose of the circulation element is to identify,
essentially, how wide roadways should be. which is measured typically on the line, which is
the travel lanes between the intersections. Testimony before the Commission indicated the
General Plan is inadequate because it did not address intersections.
Mr. 20la discussed analyses of peak hour traffic versus daily. There is a peak hour factor built
into the average-day analysis. The City has a nearly built -out roadway system and a nearly
built-out land use. LSA looked at areas where there was a potential for traffic problems, how
many cars were actually on the street in the peak hours, and directional traffic. Mr. 20la
explained in detail how the traffic studies were done as setforth in the Traffic Appendix to the
EIR which was reviewed by City engineering staff and the traffic engineering consultant, all
of which believe that the documentation presented to Council is adequate and accurate. Mr.
201a verified the average-day traffic analysis takes into account average peak-hour conditions.
I
In reference to potential parking problems occurring with development in the race track south
parking lot, Mr. 20la noted that the policies of the General Plan require that any new
development permitted on that site will be designed with adequate parlting and will not make
off-street parking any worse than it is now. Further, the City parking ordinance has
requirements for commercial or entertainment uses that could be permitted in that area. Mr.
20la further explained the traffic analysis as it relates to development at the race track.
The matter of terminology, in particular, General Plan amendment versus update and
Program EIR and its definition and applicability was addressed by Mr. 2ola. The General
Plan is being brought up-to-date in terms of what the City policy is at the time the General
Plan is adopted, through the amendment procedure as specified in the Government code, City
Charter and Arcadia Municipal Code. Update and amendment are mutually exclusive terms.
In regard to a program EIR, this is a series of actions characterized as one large project,
which is the policy and the projects that follow from that policy. The General Plan EIR is
intended to address City-wide issues and analyze the impacts of a General Policy to the extent
the issues in the EIR address the site-specific or project-specific issues which will come later.
At this point in the discussion, Mayor Pro tem Harbicht suggested that each councilmember
study the statements in the Draft General Plan, which will become, if adopted, City Council
statements of Council strategies to implement the General Plan. The statements referred to by
Mayor Pro tern Harbicht deal with community development, facilities and services,
environmental resources and environmental hazards. In total, there are 155 statements to be
studied. all of which are important elements of the General Plan. These statements can then
be cjiscussed and changes made if required.
I
Council then agreed to briefly discuss land use and the four transition areas in the Draft
General Plan to provide general direction to staff for incorporation into the General Plan
resolution. The discussion will continue at the July 16 Council meeting.
6
I
I
I
ADJOURNMENT
38:0228
Transition Area 4 - The industrial area alone Lower Azusa Road
It was the consensus of the City Council that the properties within Transition Area 4 remain
zoned "Industrial", as recommended by the Planning Commission. This area includes the
Rodeffer quarry pit.
Transition Area 3 - Downtown Residential District
The City Council concurred with the recommendation of the Planning Commission:
That the existing R-3 zoned properties be designated as multiple-family residential with a
maximum of 24 dwelling units per acre; that senior citizen housing within this area be
pennilted on minimum half-acre parcels at a maximum allowable density of 30 dwelling units
per acre.
- That the existing R-2 zoned properties be designated as multiple-family residential with a
maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre; that senior citizen housing within this area be
pennilted on minimum half-acre parcels at a maximum allowable density of 18 dwelling units
per acre.
- 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 half-acre lots and that senior
citizen housing within this area be pennitted on minimum half-acre parcels at a maximwn
allowable density of 30 dwelling units per acre.
Transition Area 2 - Mixed Use alone Santa Clara Street and Huntinlrton Drive
The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation that properties
on the north side of Huntington Drive from the Metro Railroad east to Fifth Avenm,
(including the properties fronting on Huntington Drive) be mixed use commercial/residential
with a maximum of 24 dwelling units per acre and 30 dwelling units per acre for senior
citizen housing developed on minimum half-acre parcels, and the remainder of Transition
Area 2 be "Commercial."
Transition Area I . Santa Anita Racetrack/Santa Anita Fashion Park Mall
Following extensive discussion a majority of the City Council detennined to maintain the race
track area as "Horse Racing"; maintain the existing mall site of approximately 18 acres as
"Commercial", with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.40. and designate the southerly parking
lot at the race track of approximately 85 acres as "Commercial" with a maximum floor area
ratio of 0.30.
Following discussion of the transition areas, Mr. 201a advised Council that the next part of
their task would be review of the General Plan text, which includes the rules by which the
various land uses just discussed would be pennitted.
At 10:30 p.m., it was MOVED by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht, seconded by Member Chang and
CARRIED to ADJOURN this meeting to Tuesday, July 16, 1996 at 7:00 a.m. in the Council
Chambers for an adjourned regular meeting with the School District governing board.
rkcrr{41~ <I ~y
Barbara D. Kuhn, Mayor of e City of Arcadia
ATIEST:
~' , J-&~S(
une D. Alford, C' lerk ""
7/10/96
"I::. .
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 10, 1996
I
ADJOURNED CITY COUNCll. MEETING - JULY 10, 1996
PUBLIC HEARING
CONSIDERATION OF TIlE DRAFT' GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
AND TIlE RELATED DRAFT' ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT
I
MAYOR KillIN: The public hearing is officially opened. however before we begin, I see some new faces with us
this evening. I'd like to recover, just brielly, the guidelines. They remain the same as they were on Monday. 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 participating, an orderly process will be required and as such, demonstrations,
applause, etc. are inappropriate. They serve no real purpose except to be disruptive and we ask for your cooperation.
The purpose 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 and we want to give
everyone who wishes to, a chance to speak. Those of you who spoke on Monday, if you have something you would
like to share with us, something additional this evening, please feel free to do so, but try not to repeat. 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 a particular speaker. This is truly democracy in
action where everyone has the opponunity to address the\!" 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 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: 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 try 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 have 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. Because of the limited...Oh, I was going to
say because of the limited seating space but we don't have that problem this evening. 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 of the City of Arcadia and we are all here because we
want to do what is best for the City. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation and if you would like to step
forward, state your name. There is a roster to the right of the podium; if you would please write your name and
address after you are through speaking. we would appreciate it.
I
BARBARA COGORNO: I'm Barbara Ccigorno.
KUHN: Barbara, could you pull that mike...thank you...down towards you. It's awkward, I know. That's better.
.1
I
I
COGORNO: I'm Barbara Cogomo. 1 live at 365 West Duarte Road. which is just three doors east of Holly Avenue..
Well, first of all I wanted to thank all the courtesy and patience the Planning Commission had, and 1 understood they
suggested to you that we don't rush into this. That we wait for a while and see...things can become a little clearer.
But anyway, I live where there is almost too much traffic already. It is sometimes very difficult to get out of our
driveway, even with a circular drive. And I was interested in reading in the paper this morning the attitude of the
people at Santa Anita Fashion Park saying that they were afraid that, perhaps with too much traffic, maybe people
would not come to shop at our mall. . And when I was getting petitions.. .getting signatures on petitions a few months
ago, I had a lot of people from Sierra Madre and Monrovia come up and ask if they could sign the petition. I said,
"No, I'm sorry, this is just for residents of Arcadia." They said, "But we love to come to Arcadia to shop. but we
won't come if there is going to be a lot more traffic that this entertainment center will probably draw." Anyway I
just am really, really worried about living so close to one of the main ingresses and egresses from this possible
entertainment center with cars going down Holly Avenue at night with radios blaring and leaving a bunch of litter
along Holly and Duarte there.
,.
I
So. I implore you to wait until November before you come to a decision. Let the citizens vote in November. We're
saving you a special election. We're saving you the money. You won't have to put in a special election for us. But
if the majority of voters in Arcadia want this entertainment, well and good; but if they don't, maybe we can put our
heads together with Santa Anita. I feel they should be able to develop their property since it is not being used. But
on the other hand, I think it should be a win/win situation where they win and also the residents of Arcadia win, not
just that a lot of us will be sacrificed just so they will be making more money. And I'm suggesting that if the citizens
of Arcadia...ifthe majority of them do vote that they do think the entertainment center is a good idea, 1 think there is
going to be a lot of homes. including my own, up for sale, and maybe some of the Santa Anita officials, or maybe
some of you who are so much for this entertainment center would like to buy my home and a lot of my neighbors.
Thank you very much.
KUHN: Thank you for your comments.
JANE CLARK: r.e Clark and I live at 324 North Old Ranch Road, And my husband and I came primarily
also to voice our endorsement of the position of the Planning Commission with regard to the Transition Area No. l.
We attended all of the Planning Commission meetings, and we deeply appreciate the really careful analysis and
evaluation by these Commissioners of the numerous letters ...and on your part a1so...and the long hours of public
testimony by residents on both sides of the issue. So we do appreciate our public servants. We also strongly oppose
rezoning the transition area at this time without adequate environmental studies.
I
2
Success for a commercial area depends upon having a sufficient number of patrons, and the patrons generally come
in cars, greatly increasing traffic congestion. In fact, unless you have adequate traffic, it wonld appear that a new
commercial cx:nter would soon dwindle to obsolescence and failed businesses. I have worked for about six years in
the City of Vernon, which is a very interesting City. During the past seventy-five years, it grew from a little farming
area into a very heavily industrial area. An area only about five square miles in size, but one of the very wealthiest
cities in the state. The careful planning and management there resulted in a city with a nlghttime population of 94
persons at the last count and a daytime census between forty and fifty thousand, more like our City. The attractive
buildings there attest to the thoughtful development. But to permit this successful business has required immense
traffic volume, which is very appropriate to the essential nature of Vernon. The two-mile drive from the freeway to
my place of work takes four or five minutes on a Saturday or Sunday, but on a Monday through Friday workday, no
matter what time of day, its average is at least twenty minutes. And if there is one signal out of order, which
happens quite often, unfortunately, and has a blinking red light instead of its usual operation, the drive time of the
two miles extends to at least forty-five minutes, sometimes longer. This works very favorable for Vernon and fits
into its essential nature, but 1 would strongly object to traffic even in much less excess than this in our residential
community. And incidentally, Vernon is famous for being the worst air quality zip code in either California or the
United States, I don't know which it is. But the air pollution is bad.
I
I think Arcadia has several unused portions of land in commercial zones right now, and business transferred from
one enterprise to a competing one will not help the city or its residents. It would appear to me that the wider region
around us also has more than enough commercial enterprise to meet the needs of the citizens. And I strongly believe
that a sound enterprise or venture occurs when it satisfies a definite need, and not when it relies upon advertising or
public relations to pull clientele from one area to another or to pull from one...competitors in surrounding areas. I
think that all of us, as responsible citizens. truly need to search for a vision of our future Arcadia. Some analysts
indicate that large malls and concentrated centers have already peaked, and begun to recede into history. Our vision
may need to reach into activities not yet produced in our neighboring cities. We don't have the information at this
time, in my opinion, to sign up for a permanent zoning. Personally, 1 favor moving away from a consumer
entertainment-{lriented society. I believe that the deepest satisfactions come from creating and producing rather
than looking passively for something to entertain us. Our very well qualified Planning Commissioners reviewed
detailed studies and ultimately concluded that rezoning Transition Area No. I at this time should wait for more
adequate infotmation. And I sincerely hope that the Council will accept this recommendation. Thank you.
I
KUHN: Thank you. Please come forward.
WARREN S11JTE: Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Warren Stute. I'm a licensed
trainer for over fifty years, and I'm a homeowner in the City of Arcadia for over thirty, and I'd like to say a word on
behalf of Santa Anita and the entertainment center they ar~ asking for...say a word about racing in the United
I
, 3
I
States...has been declining for the past several years, such as (inaudible) in Omaha, Nebraska, is closed up this
year...they're not racing at all. Delaware Park in the State of Delaware had almost closed. They got slot machines,
and that salvaged them for this year. Bay Meadows Race Track in the San Francisco area is in the process of having
a shareholder's squabble. They have sold part of the race track and are trying to close it down. Hollywood Park
bnill a giant gambling casino. and it is open twenty-four hours a day. Santa Anita, in my opinion, is the Number
One race track maybe in the world. And it's always been a first-class operation. And if they feel...Santa Anita
management feels that they should have an entertainment center to help maintain Santa Anita in the way it has been
in the Past, I think it should be allowed. I have been to several meetings through the years with horsemen and Santa
Anita management and, believe me, the City of Arcadia is uppermost in Santa Anita's management's mind. Such
as a few years ago the City of Arcadia had a water shortage. Santa Anita brought, I don't know, thousands of
automatic water nozzles...distributed to all of us horsemen, free, and then made it mandatory that we use them. So,
in my travels, mostly in South America, and occasionally in Europe, when 1 mention I'm from Arcadia. almost
everyone says, "The home of Santa Anita." And the ones who have been to Santa Anita rave about it continually.
So. I just want to say that I'm proud to be part of Santa Anita in a very small way, and also proud to be living at 859
West Foothill. Arcadia. Thank YOIl very much.
KUHN: Thank you for your comments. Please sign the roster on your right. Thank you.
I
KEN GiLLEIT: Good evening. I'm Ken Gillett, 400 South Baldwin Avenue. I'm the General Manager of Santa
Anita Fashion Park and I'm here tonight representing the Hahn Company, who is Santa Anita Fashion Park's
managing general partner. We think that the proposed change in land use for the Santa Anita Race Track parking
lot is appropriate. and we think that the Council should change the zoning in order to facilitate future planning. We
believe that a carefully choreographed development will create a positive synergy between the mall, the new
development, and the Race Track. The Hahn Company, like each of the major department stores, is concerned about
potential traffic problems, and we would like to be actively involved in the planning process to ensure that any
potential traft'It problems are effectively mitigated. We also feel that there should be a viable connection between the
mall and the new development, and feel that that, too, should be carefully considered during the planning process of
this stage. Santa Anita Realty has indicated to Hahn that we will be invited to participate in the planning process,
and they are also concerned about the new project's effect on ftihion Park and its tenants.
Again, the Hahn Company recommends to the Arcadia City Council that the zoning be changed from horse racing to
commercial for Santa Anita Park's south parking lot. Thank you.
KUHN: Thank you. Don't forget the roster.
I
4
FRANK WAITE: Madam Mayor and Councilmembers, my name is Frank Waite and 1 live at 143 West La Sierra
Drive. It's a pleasure to speak to you tonight, and it is a true process of our democratic lifestyle. I don't have any
statistics or past newspaper articles to quote from, but 1 do have some thoughts from my heart. My wife and I have
enjoyed the last thirty years in this great City, and we have raised our two children, and now our grandson who will
start school at Holly Avenue in just a couple of weeks. We've seen the City grow with new construction and, as
always, accompanied with good and fair planning. Fashion Park is certainly a great example of this process. I
encourage the Council to be proactive and take the next step in this most exciting project and support the rezoning to
commercial use for the Santa Anita properties. Thank you.
I
KUHN: Thank you. Don't forget the roster. Will the next speaker please come forward.
JUDY McKINLEY: I'm Judy McKinley. I live at 17 West Sierra Madre Boulevard in Arcadia. Councilmembers
and Mayor, recently there was a newspaper article about the utility taxes Council passed. The article indicated that
Dr. Lojeski and Dr. Chang voted against the tax because they were concerned about somebody suing the City. It
seems to me that the chances are much greater of someone filing a lawsuit against the City regarding the totally
deficient environmental impact report. I think there is a responsibility that the Planning Commission, which
indicated that the Race Track should be able to maximize the use of this property, was concerned about a lawsuit
against the City when they conducted...when they concluded that only an environmental impact report dealing with a
specific plan would be sufficient. It is my hope that each of our City Council members will make decisions regarding
the Santa Anita entertainment center based upon what is legally appropriate rather than their own personal feelings
about the project.
I
Monday evening after leaving the City Council meeting, Bill and 1 went to the office building where Kinko' s is
located on Huntington Drive. We took a swvey of the entire building. We found that over 50% of the offices are
vacant, in disrepair, and poorly...the building is poorly constructed. I believe this building was constructed about six
years ago. I have grave concerns regarding the quality of construction that has taken place in that case. We recently
insta1led a second water heater. My husband carefully followed all the instructions of the Building Department
regarding the installation of a water heater. I believe that the Building Inspector came to check this insta1lation
more than three times. Do the rules apply to homeowners get overlooked when it comes to building commercial
buildings? There is a project...this project is in the redevelopment...in a redevelopment zone. It.s an illnstration that
there is always risk associated with any development. Please take into full consideration the economic and legal
ramifications of any development project in this City. I feel the Planning Commission considered all the issues and
risks. 1 hope that you will approve the Planning Commission recommendations.
There are two other items I would like to share with you. I have a good friend who works for a property rights group
in the State of California. Recently she sent me some information that 1 would like to share with you. This is in
I
5
I
regards to a smaIl city in the city...in the State. About 25% of the registered voters in this Califoriria community
signed an initiative petition calling for the deactivation of a redevelopment agency which was created without a vote
of the people. Even though the signatures were verified by the County Registrar of Voters, the city council declined
to adopt the measure. and instead brought an action to block the initiative from going on the ballot. A lawsuit has
been filed against the city that maintains that the action taken by the City was illegal and a clear violation of the
Constitution and the current court...court case law.
I have a second issue to address with you which just came to light this afternoon. I'm currently working in a project
at Arcadia Presbyterian Church for what we call day camp, which is Bible school. Two of our girl. which I
would...are probably 12 or 13 years old. left Arcadia Presbyterian Church, which is on the comer of First and Alice
Streets in Arcadia, and went to Ace Yogurt yesterday afternoon. The kids from our church have always patronized
both Carl's Jr. and the yogurt shop in that shopping center that's right there on the comer of Second and Duarte
Avenue. These two girls came back to church yesterday afternoon, after having been accosted by 20 gang members.
Two girls. They were terribly afraid. They did not want anybody at the church to call the Police Department. 1
believe the Police Department was called today. I think the issue of safety in regards to this development project at
Santa Anita is of grave concern. I am very familiar with what goes on at...in Old Town in Pasadena, and I am very
familiar with the incidences that are not reported in the newspaper that take place by gang members in Old Town.
.
I
1 also have another issue that Bob brought up regarding the skating rink. Friends of ours are currently negotiating
with the City of San Dimas to put in a major state-of-the-art skating rink, which is two rinks. One of the rinks with
a 2,500-seat arena which would enable the colleges within this local area...San Gabriel area...to have hockey...ice
hockey games and have an arena to have them. I really think that all of you really need to assess whether or not the
geographic area can support two major skating rinks. This skating rink is already before the city council...has been
passed...and the redevelopment agency in San Dimas. I also have some concerns about some statements that have
been made in regard to Colleen. Yes, Gino Roncelli has been paying her to help us. We could possibly have had an
attorney rather than a city planner. I feel that the City has many resources available to them through their
consultants that the general public does not have. I think it's totally unfair to...to say anything about Colleen other
than the fact that she has been a source of information. I think any of you in your businesses, when you need help,
hire consultants. and that's all basically that the citizens for Arcadia have done. Thank you very much.
KUHN: Thank you.
I
JEFF BOWEN: Good evening. My name is Jeff Bowen, and I've lived in this great City since 1950, and I jotted a
few of my thoughts down this afternoo,n with regard to the Santa Anita property. First, I feel that we probably have
pretty much general accord in the room that the highest and best use is not an empty parking lot, that is a given. But
it goes a little further than that. It becomes what I think is a non-performing asset for the owners of the property,
6
Santa Anita; but more importantly, maybe, it's a non-performing asset for those of us that own homes here in
Arcadia as well, for it could be generating income to help ns with the services that we've been used to here. AJ; a
result of thaI, my conclusion would be that the only logical conforming use for this island of real estate, which it
basically is, is to be zoned very simply commercial. And, by the way, I'm not a stockholder in Santa Anita, but I do
feel that I'm a stockholder in the City of Arcadia, having my largest asset, my home...our home...here in the City.
And, finally, I have to personally say that I think Santa Anita has been somewhat shortchanged in this process SO far,
and I'd like to see the consideration go their way for this project that appear; to be right on track as far as I'm
concerned. Thank you very much.
I
KUHN: Thank you, Mr. Bowen. Please sign the roster. O.K., thank you.
JOHN GREGORY: Mayor and Councilmembers, my name is John Gregory, of 1250 North Santa Anita for the last
18 years. And I'm also speaking in support of the commercial zone for the Area 1. I was trying to think of ways
to...to go over what's been happening on this issue, and a rather unusual thought came to me. What if the roles were
reversed and the property had originally been zoned commercial and somebody came along and said, "Well, we want
to put a horse racing track there with a residential overlay." And in that bizarre kind of a setup, let's say that with
that property the Plamring Commission had said, "Well, right now we want to leave it commercial, but if you'll
come back with a plan we'll then consider this zoning change." So you can just imagine the architects and the
planners getting together.....Let's see now, we have a horse racing track with a commercial overlay. Do we bnild a
new track with half-acre lots around the infield? Do we put a new track with condominiums over it?" You can see
how difficult it would be to try to plan with the current zoning. And, of course, that doesn't make sense; but what
does make sense for that property is commercial. Leave it the way that it is zoned now and you'll have an
unworkable parcel, an invitation to eventual urban deterioration and decay as it... that portion of the property that
could not be developed. Santa Anita is certainly willing to come back with a sca1ed-down commercial plan, but
can't keep throwing more money into planning to do so if the City cannot first show some good faith. So, again, I
support the commercial change zone [sic]. Thank you very much.
I
KUHN: Thank you for your comments.
FRED JAHNKE: Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Fred Jahnke, II Hacienda
Drive, thirty-some years in the City. I'd first like to state and make it very clear that I have no affiliation with any
group regarding this matter. I have friends on the City Council, I think, SO far. I have friends who work for Santa
Anita, I think, so far. And I have friends on both sides of this proposition. Fortunately, or unfortunately. that's the
way the ball is bouncing in this City today. I would like to spend a few minutes, however, referring to a matter
which came up at Monday's meeting under the label of "Whom do you trust," that was raised by several speakers on
Monday. One gentleman cited a number of laws under which the City Council, and Santa Anita as a corporation,
I
7
I
must operate and stated that because of these laws, these two bodies should be the ones we should trust, implying the
exclusion of those who may oppose. I don't think anyone in this whole process has questioned the legality of any
else's actions...not to my knowledge. No one has accused another party of anything illegal, so let's not get ourselves,
please, confused between tnJsl and legality. Let's consider the question, "Whom do you tnJslT' and I prefer to state
"Whom do you tnJsl to do the best thing for the citizens of ArcadiaT' Santa Anita approached the City with a rather
specific plan for the development of an entertainment center just as the City started its General Plan review. Initial
hearings were held and we were assured, strongly assured, that Santa Anita would pay all the costs relative to their
portion of the draft EIR and the draft General Plan Update. We were also provided with a rough time schedule for
these events. Then Santa Anita, as things went along, decided to amend their original plan and there occurred a
delay of several months where we all sat and waited for the Arcadia City General Plan to go forward. Now as best I
can recall, and I may be a little fuzzy on this, the original City budget for the General Plan review and draft EIR was
something in the area of $100,000. More hearings were held, more work by the staff, numerous consultants, and the
vast majority of what was going on related to Santa Anita, not to the other three areas. Several times the Council
increased the budget for this whole program. Then just as the General Plan and draft EIR were handed over to the
Planning Commission, and after the City had spent in excess of $300,000, Santa Anita withdrew their plan. Now
Santa Anita gives you a verbal request for a change in the General Plan. Frankly, I'm not sure whether it's a request
for commercial. for entertainment, or for commercial entertainment. Even the proponents of the program have stood
before you and used all three of those tenus Monday and this evening. We don't know what the "behind the closed
doors" program is at Santa Anita. Depending upon what they eventually submit, and I'm sure that something will
be submitted, I would estimate that the draft EIR be non-applicable, and it would appear Santa Anita may have
caused the City to spend something around $200,000 in what I now term as "wasted expense." So do I trust Santa
Anita? Yes, I tnJsl Santa Anita to act as a corporate entity, a profit entity. Do I trust them to act in the best interest
in the City of Arcadia? No, not necessarily. Now as the City Council, I hope you will consider all the factors that
are involved in this and will make the right decision. However, I have some concerns about that. If I didn't have
those concerns, 1 wouldn't be standing here taking up our time tonight. The 1995/96 City deficit was something
around $1 million dollars and the need to cut expenditures for 1996/97 are also, no doubt, weighing very heavily
upon your shoulders as the Council. But I urge you to recognize what I consider to be factors that will override strict
financial factors, those primarily being the quality of life in this city. The Council championed the First Avenue
project which went way over budget and. frankly, from what I can see, so far we're not anticipating getting any of
the anticipated results. I've driven that street many times in the last two months looking at it. First Avenue is now a
fancy, deserted parking place. I doubt that the increased tax revenues, if there are any, over the next year, will
finance the recently authorized $40,000 a year landscape and maintenance contract for that area. We have several
large blocks of vacant property, commercial property, in the City of Arcadia. as well as the vacant (inaudible)
property which doesn't really fit into all of this. This should not be ignored in a rush to change the General Plan for
Santa Anita. Keep in mind that the original Santa Anita plan already chased away a solid, reasonable theater
development on the Foulger property. I have heard, but have no evidence, that another development for the Foulger
I
I
8
property was also chased away. I submit that changing the General Plan now for the Santa Anita property is not
necessary and will not in any way benefit the citizens of the City of Arcadia. The City can amend the General Plan
and the zoning when and if Santa Anita, or another owner, submits a realistic, specific development plan. "Do not
make a change now" does not send a pre-rejection to Santa Anita of a good plan, it does send a signal to business in
general that Arcadia is unfriendly to business, as has been claimed. And. as a matter of fact, doing that may well
send a signal to prospective tenants in the First Avenue shops, in the Arcadia Lumber property, and in the Foulger
property, that this City Council is looking out for the total welfare of the City, at the total available commercial
package, and for a balanced City development. Some say the Planning Commission did not do a good planning job;
I disagree. They looked carefully at all the factors in the City, they reached a very well thought out and realistic
decision, and I urge the City Council to do the same thing. Thank you very much.
I
KUHN: Thank you for your comments.
RICHARD MARTINEZ: Good evening. My name is Richard Martinez and 1 live at 30 I W. Magna Vista, Arcadia.
I am here in support of the Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council. I'm here in support of
waiting until November to see what the voters of Arcadia have to say. You have a very good Planning Council, they
heard testimony from many more people than there are here tonight and they heard it for a long period of time.
They did a very complete analysis as to the impact it would have in the city as proposed, and they made a
recommendation to you to wait until we have more specifics on it There is no rush to do it now. Why don't we
wait? These were good professional individuals who made up the Planning Commission and who will make their
recommendation. it would be a slap in the face as far as I'm concerned to say to them. "Wait a minute, you are not
qualified, we don't agree with what you said because..." There was an article in the LA Times stating that the
proposed project that they had, entertainment center in Santa Anita over here, would be the biggest complex ever
recommended or built in any community. predominantly a residence community. No one has ever. in the whole
country, attempted anything of that magnitude in an area like ours. So have we really analyzed the negative impact
of it? What will it do to property values? What will it do to traffic if we talk about the environmental impact. Have
we really looked at all the negative impacts ofit, and agree that it will have impact even on the mall. Have we really
analyzed all of that? The L.A. Times says no one has ever attempted it - why should we, especially in a community
such as ours? How can we approve a change without knowing what is going on? If 1 have an RI property right now
and ask you for an R3, are you going to give it to me? No, you're not. Is this Council set a precedent now where we
just rezone and then we decide afterwards what people are going to propose to build in those locations? Is this a
precedent that we are setting? Are we going now to automatically rezone properties without knowing what's going
to be built on it? 1 say we don't do that. One thing we have to do is...no, we have a motto in the City of Arcadia and
that is we are the "City ofHomes"..are we going to change that motto? We're going to be now "Entertainment City"
for people to corne 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's what we have to decide. What will be the impact on our
community at that point and why do we have to improve now? It doesn't have to be done now. I support, again, the
I
I
9
I
Planning Commission recommendation to keep it the way it is. Once you do it, remember this...once you do it, you
can't undo it. it's too big ofa complex...it can't be undone.
KUHN: Thank you Mr. Martinez.
I
EUGENE MOSCARET: Good evening. I'm Eugene Moscaret. I am at 1125 Encanto Drive. I have been a citizen
and resident for over 35 years. First of all, let me commend to you the Planning Commission. 1 have attended eveI)'
one of their meetings on this issue and I specifically want to commend the Chainnan, Bob Daggett, who I think
admirably represented the function of the Planning Commission on behalf of you, the City Council. We often do not
give adequate recognition for the amount of hours and time and effort put in on such a highly controversial issue as
this one. So with that, let me comment on something that I've done on my own and that is attempted to understand
the draft Environmental Impact Report relative to this General Plan and I paid vel)' close attention to the traffic
situation because Encanto Drive ends at Michillinda at the western edge of the city. As you already know, that
which the City has set, the level D as the desired traffic level. I've had two personal encounters trying to exit off of
Encanto onto what has become a highway...it's not longer a street. The problem is complex because of the
ownership of the County along with the City. We have a school sitting dead smack in the middle. The zoning on
that street for speed is 35. 1 have personally monitored it on three separate occasions...nothing below 55 on the
majority of the times that I've been there. Perfectly rational because it's an open-ended, from one end leading up to
that entrance of the freeway. Now the draft impact statement states that in all probability, we will go to one level,
even minimum beyond level E. Ladies and gentlemen, that is an intolerable situation. You can rationalize any way
you wish, but as indicated in that statement, there is no solution to the traffic implications that are Michillinda if you
pursue the path you're on now in terms of the request to grant commercial entertainment zoning. So that is a major
issue, especially with the school. No matter how we've attempted to influence the exit and entrances to the school,
which really come in from De Anza, there are...I've counted 65 vehicles on one morning entering, coming north to
south on'Michillinda, making left turns across on-coming traffic. Now there are children in these cars and on one
occasion we had a vel)' close accident. So is it worth exposing that kind of incident to accommodate a highly
controversial situation here and especially to rush it. And I suggest to you nothing is worth that kind of danger
without better understanding of the total implications that this entire situation is bringing before us. 1 would counsel
you that your Planning Commission, who did an extremely competent job, did not brush this off lightly, has
recommended to you do nothing until you know what is the full implication of what is being proposed. it seems vel)'
difficult to me anyway that you would even consider going forward with, as the previous speaker said, may become a
precedent setting situation where you. grant a zoning change, conditional as it may be, upon receipt of material. It
seems it should be the other way around. In managing the number of businesses I have done in the years in the past,
1 never could have succeeded with that kind of a process. And it is somewhat amazing to me that we are spending so
much time and effort to look down that path. On the other hand, I can understand the problem that here we have a
major corporation, substantial shareholders. a contributor to the economic base of the city...no question aboutthal...it
I
10
brought a lot of fame to the City, the kinds of things you want. A good citizen in that sense of the word and they
have a major problem and we need to figure out how to do it. How to solve it while we don't split the City and I
suggest to you the referendum issue is the first evidence of a major fissure developing. None of us want that. So
why not sort of let the cooler heads prevail? Why not just back off a little bit and let's wait and see and it's a
reasonable request to the applicant to tell us what you have in mind, not to say "Grant us this first and then we'll go
back and put something together and then come to you." That doesn't seem like the rational way. In spite of all the
different forces at work here, logic and common sense needs to prevail. That in addition to the traffic situation for
which there is no solution...! stress. no solution known on Michillinda Avenue that serves roughly 650 homes on all
the streets and the feeders that lead to Michillinda for those of us that have to exit in the morning and enter in the
afternoon and the myriad number of cars during the day for the members of the households, when you consider that
every household generally has two cars. I think that is a very powerful argument of why we've got to know in
advance what exactly is it we're imposing upon the citizens of the community. As some of you know, 1 took enough
of an interest in this to generate my own letter and distributed it to all the homes I could find in that Lower Rancho
section. And 1 say to you again. "Is this the quality of life we want to impose on the citizens of that section of the
community at least to accommodate a highly controversial situation that has dubious and doubtful economic
justification?" Prognostication, yes. but not necessarily factual. Thank you very much.
I
KUHN: Thank you.
I
GAIL MARSHALL: Hi. Gail Marshall, 2300 block of Lee Avenue. I noticed there was an article in the Star News,
I believe a day or two ago, about Sierra Madre, I don't know if everybody saw it. McDonald's was asking to go into
Sierra Madre and I guess the citizens in Sierra Madre went absolutely berserk. They didn't want a McDonald's in
there, they dido't want the arches in there, they said it would ruin their town look and it would draw the wrong
element. I couldn't believe it when I was reading it to be honest with you. They said they have a bumper sticker that
states "Where in the heck is Sierra MadreT' and that's the way they wanted to keep it and after I read that, I went
"How would they have reacted if they would have been presented with what the Arcadia residents have been
presented with." So maybe some of the people aren't quite as eccentric as they've been painted to be, but anyhow, I
wanted to bring this fact up because 1 know that some of the Santa Anita people are here and I don't have the
opportunity to be able to talk to them but 1 kind of wanted to throw this out to them. My sister-in-law and I, she's
too shy to get before the microphone so I'm always the mouth, we walk our dogs every night and really enjoy the
walk and we get into a lot of conversations and stuff and we've talked about the Santa Anita project a lot and she's
been disturbed about the traffic situation and certain things. She lives by Longden and Baldwin. And I said well
you know you can really understand that people want to develop their property which she understood that, it's sitting
vacant. But she says, you know, it's got to be with the right thing. I said "What would you suggest" (I'm playing
the devil's advocate with her) and she never ceases to come up with these ingenious ideas that just blow me away. I
quickly realized why I ended up being a business partuer with her and enjoyed her ideas. And she looked at me and
I
11
I
she says. "1 can tell you what they can do" and I said "What's that?" She said "They could put in this wonderful
equestrian place where people, kids or adults. could learn riding, jumping, all kinds of stuff with horses, which
would tie in with the horses for the racetrack, they could do beautiful grounds." When she got done, 1 had it all
pictured in my mind, it would be gorgeous, and they could built a real nice restaurant-type area with the windows
that people could look at all this and enjoy it while they're eating dinner and such and then, you know, they could
have some shops and different stuff and 1 sat there and I went, "You know, that was really clever, it really was" and I
thought that would tie light in with the racetrack theme and everything and I bet you there isn't anybody that would
be opposed to that. I thought it was a really great idea. So I just thought I'd throw that out. Maybe Santa Anita
would like to hire her as a consultant and she could probably solve all the problems of keeping the citizens, Santa
Anita and everybody happy. Thanks.
KUHN: Thank you Gail. Does anyone else wish to comment?
I
JOHN CAFARELLA: My name is John Cafarella. I live at 146 E. Altern. Madam Mayor, City Council. I've been
to most of the meetings on these proceedings and there has been a lot of good testimony offered. However, there has
also been a lot of testimony for and against Santa Anita. I hope the essence of the testimony given is not lost in this
conflict. There's been many comments on the traffic ranging from significant concerns, its value as a planning tool,
knowing there are problems, and since it is a mystery, having to go on faith on report representations. These
concerns have been associated with past events and that people oppose change. To be concerned with change is a
natural human response but let's not confuse it with fact. The science of traffic analysis is a fully developed study to
objectively provide the front end facts necessary to Arcadia before major decisions, such as those before you, should
be made. But it reqnires a complete analysis now. This is of the utmost importance to a City with a built -out
roadway system with no reasonable alternative, to increase traffic capacity should added traffic volumes exceed
actual realistic roadway capacity. It is with this intent 1 attempted to offer information Monday evening on traffic
and its economic growth. A report not for or against, but important to Arcadia's citizens, existing businesses, and
Santa Anita. Unfortunately, I was counted out by the 5-minute clock. Since this information in its entirety is
important to Arcadia, I have taken the time to put it in a report, with attachment, and offer it for your consideration
in this important matter to the City. I have here, and I guess 1 give this to the City Clerk...anyway, I have 6 copies in
here of the report with attachments, one for each Councilperson and one for the City. In closing I offer the City's
roadway system currently provides acceptable service. However, when traffic volumes become level of service D,
you will need a traffic analysis by a traffic professional. You'll know for yourself. Thank you.
KUHN: Thank you very much Mr. Cafarella. It's appreciated. Next speaker please.
I
IRENE GODDORD: Madam Mayor, Member of the Council. I'm Irene Goddord. 1 live at 620 W. Huntington
Drive and have lived there for almost 10 years now. I was not planning to speak today except that 1 read my
12
morning's SIM News and found this article. It's really amazing that the 3 large department stores at the mall
evidently have written letters to the Council as early as April 4th...Macy's and others...they said in April and May.
Macy's, Robinson's and J.C. Penney's. And they have yet to receive answers. Robert Gil Martin who is the real
estate representative for.Macy's department store in the Santa Anita mall said that no change in land use should be
approved until Santa Anita Park has provided a new application to built its entertainment complex, complete with
details and mitigating pollution and traffic. They are especially concerned about the traffic and one quote from him
is that they have not considered weekend traffic or traffic during the racing season. He made that statement
yesterday. The Clmncil should, therefore, reaffirm the Planning Commission's decision and not grant Santa Anita's
request for change in land use and not even consider it until Santa Anita has a concrete proposal with a complete
Environmental Impact Report. And personally, evel)'one has been vel)' civilized and polite about it a1\ and I admire
it My feelings are vel)' strong about this. I am amazed at the gall of Santa Anita to keep asking for the change to
commercial entertainment upfront. It is asking for a carte blanche...give US what we want now and then we'll decide
what we'll do with it at our leisure and you pay for whatever else yon want to do about it. It's like tIying to sell us a
cat in a bag. Only if we buy it, it may turn out not to be a cat at all...maybe a snake or just an empty bag. And in
any case, we, the citizens of Arcadia, will be left holding the bag. That's make me feel better and 1 apologize if it's
rode. Some members of the Council have been ardently preaching change as their goal for Arcadia. Change does
not necessarily mean progress. Rapid growth is not necessarily progress or beneficial. Just think of the human body.
When it is functioning properly, it is in a state of (inaudible) and all conditions are stable and everything is fine and
life is good. If the body is subjected to sudden change or physical or mental trauma, the equilibrium is upset and the
body becomes sustepl1ble to iIlness and the tax of invading organisms. When vel)' rapid change is represented, like
a rapid growth of cancer, it is a growth and vel)' rapid one, but instead of being beneficial, it is malignant and in the
end, kiIls the host. A wise, long-time resident of Arcadia wrote recently, on the 25th of June, in a letter to the
Pasadena SIM News where among other things he is saying "The Los Angeles Turf Club is only interested in making
money. They don't care about the City. We have a nice community. I first moved to Arcadia in 1941. There have
been many changes since the town had a population of less than 10,000 people. Some have been good and some not
SO good. Now we are faced with a real problem. If we let ourselves be persuaded into allowing the Turf Club to
bnild their complex, I am afraid the City will resemble a beautiful woman dying of cancer." I am afraid, I think, to
agree with his analysis of the situation and I beg of you to please be sure that the changes that come about are
beneficial and not detrimental to our City. Thank you.
I
I
KUHN: Thank you Mrs. Goddord. Anyone else wishing to speak?
COLLEEN T. DOAN: Colleen Dnan, 422 N. Gerona Avenue in the city of San Gabriel. I too was taken out by the
time clock SO 1'11 jump back in. I'd like to respond to the summaI)' of deficiencies that I gave the Council in a packet
and remind them that I also gave them a 11 page, page:by-page list of both EIR and General Plan deficiencies.
These deficiencies are backed up by California Land Use Regulations, state-wide, having to do specifically with
I
13
I
General Plans and nothing else. I'd just like to highlight a few of them. We talked a lot about traffic; I mentioned
the race season traffic being typical and a necessity for adequacy of a General Plan. I'd like to add that I suspect that
some of that information may already be available as Santa Anita bas spent several hundred thousand dollars as well
out of their own pocket for the environmental analysis of this specific plan they had recently withdrawn. Getting
back to the refined link analysis which 1 mentioned the other night, and also in response to Councilman Habricht's
question of Mr. Cafarella the other night regarding the 24-hour regarding the peak hour analysis, this deficiency
does not only affect Santa Anita. Regardless of Santa Anita, this deficiency reflects policy decisions for the entire
City for the next 15 to 25 years. The refined link traffic analysis is supposed to be an analysis that looks more
carefully at the traffic situations, and in every case. it's very troubling that it bumps the capacity up, and admittedly
so in the appendix of the analysis, 50% city-wide for your roadways. 50% beyond your LOSD - which is already at
90% capacity. And they've done that in three different ways: First, yes, they looked at peak hour analysis. Peak
hour analysis is not counted, it's generally taken 10% of the daily traffic and that's what is done, widely accepted
state-wide for general plans. However, based on observations, the consultant bas reduced that to 8% of daily traffic.
There are no observations, statistics or charts available in the appendixes, that is typical and necessary as well. This
boosts the capacity up 20%. Then the directional split boosts it another 25%. That's people turning off the roadway
in-between intersections. This bas been increased from the recommended standards state-wide in the guidelines
from 60-40 to an observed 50-50. Again, no observational statistics or charts. 1 expect the other 5%, although it's
not spelled out specifically. have to do with now taking those bumped up capacities and spreading them out over a
24-hour basis. This is not recommended in the General Plan Guidelines, it's not recommended from Parsons,
Sprinkerhoff, Quaid and Douglas which is an international transportation engineering firm that 1 have discussed this
issue with. I haven't found a City yet that recommends this for General Plans. Instead, it is recommended to do peak
hour analysis. You don't spread it out over 24 hours because then, as this EIR leads us to believe, the traffic will be
increased overall it says, 24 hours a day, but somehow magically not at peak hour and this is based on these unusual
and amazing commercial uses that we're proposing. And if you look, whether it's called commercial entertainment
or not, the broad commercial uses are office, medical, ticketed entertainment, specialty commercial, retail, and a
broad use of generalized commercial ranges that are utilized everywhere. So now, again, let's not talk about Santa
Anita for an instance. You have a 50% capacity boost for your policy base in your General Plan for your City for the
next 15 to 25 years. Is that a good idea? Look at the alternatives comparison in the ErR. The "No Project
Alternative", which is basically 15 to 25 years built out of everything that's presently available in your General Plan,
commercial and industrial, which, by the way. is within 300,000 sq. ft. of what's being proposed with the largest
scenario with Transition Area 1. But getting back to the "No Project Analysis", with the existing General Plan the
analysis only looks at impacts to Michillinda and Holly Avenue. Why? Because the way the General Plan is set up
with this 50% boost, we are led to believe that in one case, 60,000 (which is about 25 million more cars a year on our
roadways) will only impact Michillinda and Holly Avenue and the full build-out of the City. if you looking the
"Alternatives Analysis" will also only impact Michillinda and Holly Avenue. This doesn't sound reasonable and it's
I
I
14
not good policy. Then I just want to skip quickly to the air quality deficiencies because the inconsistencies in that
section are frustrating.
I
KUHN: Colleen, your 5-minute clock is going to get you.
COLLEEN T. DOAN: I'll burry. DE & F says that all scenarios exceed the Southcoast Air Quality Management
and the City's emissions criteria by hundreds of thousands of pounds per day. Yet, in several pages later, it Says this
is not significant and it's not exceeded. Several pages later, and I've identified these in your information, it says that
somehow magically if we gll along with the General Plan change in any of the scenarios, because we're building
intensely in a close area, traffic and air emissions will actually be reduced. Both things cannot be true. Whether you
approve commercial, commercial entertainment, self-parking lot, 900,000 sq. ft. or nothing, you have to have an
accurate and consistent General Plan and these revisions must be made. I'll remind you that in response to Santa
Anita's request, you can give them a tiny little indication as Cliff Goodrich asked the other night. You can don't
have to give them a land use designation change without accurate and informative information. Thank you.
KUHN: Thank you Colleen. Please sign the register. Anyone else wishing to speak? Okay, seeing no one, I have a
letter that we......oh I can't turn Peter away. Peter, while you're walking up, why don't you let me read this letter
real quickly if you don't mind. It came today from the McCaslin Company and 1 think it should be read into the
record:
I
RE: Anoakia Property
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am sorry that I have been unable to appear in person before the City Council this week. I am hopeful, however.
that this letter will suffice to advise the Council of our concern of the proposed General Plan. While the position of
our family as owner of the Anoakia Property has been forwarded to the Planning Commission by letter June 13,
1996, we request that you re-visit the concerns that we raised. As we stated, while we fully understand the support
the City's interest in maintaining properties of cultural significance, we face the very real prospect that the Anoakia
mansion may not practically or feasibly be maintainable under a future development program. The mansion and
surrounding structures sustained significant damage, in fact, several have been condemned. Further, the electrical
heating and plumbing system will require complete retro-fit at an estimated cost of close to $2 million dollars.
Beyond the repair cost issues, we have secured an architectural expert's opinion that the mansion is not
representative of any particular style of architecture. Finally it is difficult to imagine the use to which the mansion
would be used after spending considerable sums to rehabilitate. In view of the above, and combined with the fact
that the mansion is situated at the center of 19-acre site zoned for approximately 30 homes, we are concerned that
I
15
I
the current draft of the General Plan allows for our unreasonable time, expense and procedure prior to future
demolition. There are no current plans for the development of the Anoakia property. Prior to the conceptualization
of such a plan by us for a future buyer, we plan to solicit the comments and concerns of the neighboring homeowner
groups. This effort is under way. Our only request at this point is that the Council will appreciate our willingness to
cooperate and our request that the General Plan not single out the Anoakia property for unnecesS3Jy administrative
procedure and study not warranted by the condition of the property and its limited ongoing cultural value to the City.
And then it's sort of the end of that letter that 1 want read into record. Okay, Peter Ulrich.
I
PETER ULRICH: Good evening Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council. I am Peter Ulrich. I live on
Fairview Avenue at the intersection of Holly, one block south of the racetrack property. I must say first of all that the
world looks different from this side of the dais. We've heard a lot of discussion, and keep hearing it, about the
entertainment center issue and as you know, that's not the subject that we're discussing, or should be discussing.
We're discussing the General Plan designation for the racetrack property, also known as Transition Area 1. I urge
you to designate this property for commercial use. I look upon this action as unlocking the door for future
development. I said unlocking, not opening. The opening comes if and when the Council approves a specific plan
and zoning request. Ail the unlocking of the door means that it gives the green light to Santa Anita to go back to the
drawing board for future use of the property. This might be for entertainment use, might be strictly for commercial
use, a combination of the two, it might even be the use that Ms. Marshall mentioned. Secondly, I feel compelled to
discuss the very unfortunate, uncalled for maligning of our City Council members. 1 heard accusations last Monday
of their being beholding to Santa Anita, of perks they received from Santa Anita. I worked for 9 months with 4 of
the 5 Council members and I can tell you they are not pawns of Santa Anita. They are all independent thinkers with
one purpose: to do what they think is best for Arcadia. As for perks from Santa Anita, during my time on the
Council, 1 attended one free luncheon at a Directors room. if anyone thinks that my vote would be influenced by one
free luncheon, or for that matter, the vote of any of the Councilmembers, I'm sure they are terribly mistaken. I
received no free tickets. In fact, when I took a group from my service club to the track while I was on the Council, we
paid the full admission price. Not only that, 1 couldn't even get them to name one of the races for our service club.
So much for special favors from Santa Anita management. I think that it's pretty evident from Santa Anita's past
perfonnance. that they do care about Arcadia. Ail we need to do is take a look at the financial support they've given
to the library, to the hospital, to the Arcadia Tournament Association and to many other good causes within the City.
They are good neighbors and they do care about Arcadia. As I said earlier, it is far from certain that the ultimate use
of the property is as an entertainment center, but since this was originally proposed last year, my wife and I went
down to Irvine last Fall to the Spectrum which has been mentioned negatively by several speakers. We found it to be
well planned, attractive, and an area with restaurants, shops, multi-screen theater and an lMAX theater. I asked
several shopkeepers and security guards if they'd had any gang or crime problems and was told the only problems
they've had was a few people who had too much to drink in the restaurants. 1 mention this only since so many
I
16
negative statements have been made about entertainment centers and the Spectrum in particular. In summary, I
hope that the Council will see fit to unlock the door for properly planned future development of the south portion of
the mcetrack property, designating for commercial use in the
General Plan. Thank you for this opportunity to share my thinking.
KUHN: Thank you for your comments. Please sign the roster Peter. Any other comments?
I
MARGUERITE SPENCER: Marguerite Spencer, Mayflower Avenue, Arcadia. This is the regular zoning map you
see in the Planning Commission office. I've colored it in to show yellow for current zoning Rl, the aqua is the Sl,
and this is the commercial area. Also, you see in the plan in the office the Ml Wilson quadrangle and this is the
area of the Raymond Faull This is the blow-up of one portion that shows exactly that the fault area covers one-half
of the mcetrack. This is what they intended, in 1970, to do if Santa Anita left. The plan to have a green area - park,
walkways, and this was all to be housing. And we were promised we had to vote for Santa Anita as a little carrot
hung out in front of us - if you vote for this project, you don't have to worry about ever losing that buffer zone of
residential. it will never be all commercial. Actually tonight 1 want to talk about the traffic problems. In my
opinion. you are going to vote yes. You are going to approve commercial for this area. And going to pages 7 and 8
of the SCAG commentary on the GPU and the EIR, they suggest that you reduce the need for vehicular traffic by
supporting the reasonable expansion of public transit services within Arcadia, including the establishment of rail
transit and connec:tions between major destinations within the community and the metropolitan area. Number 2 -
pursuing the expansion of Arcadia's transit service to include shuttle service for major destinations, and Number 3 -
promoting the use of public transit and ride sharing through the development of convenient and attractive facilities.
Last week it was announced that a final agreement with MT A had been reached so that the Blue Line would run
through Pasadena, much on the old Santa Fe tracks, havjng originated in Los Angeles. The line will run through
Pasadena on the 210 to Sierra Madre Villa. This coincides with the Geneml Plan amendment which shows the
Santa Fe Railroad marked as Metro Rail. Some $12 million dollars was eliminated by MTA from the cost of the 6
Pasadena stations that Pasadena wanted. So City funds are to be used to partially make up this loss, with the City of
Pasadena dipping into the $5.9 million dollar City Reserve Fund they set up for such costs. The City of Duarte has
been seeking extension of the Blue Line for some time and it would be wise, as SCAG suggests, to work with them to
alleviate the traffic problem by bringing the line from Sierra Madre Villa, whatever, through to Duarte. Back in
1973, when Fashion Park was being built, the first roadblock entered by Santa Anita Realty and the construc:tion of
the Fashion Park were two lawsuits by residents who were led by fonner Mayor Jack Saelid, and the lawsuit covered
the fact that they were unwilling to lose 22-feet of their front yard in order to widen Baldwin. Any widening was, of
course, necessary if you put in Fashion Park. Holly Avenue will be similarly targeted. Some may not realize, they
do not own the front parking area of their plot. The City may seize it qnickly when widening is required and
property views may be ruined. Along lower Holly Avenue are many million dollar homes, frequently owned by our
Asian neighbors. These people must be informed what lies ahead. Perhaps Dr. Chang can help with that. We have
3 to 5 years to solve this traffic problem. I propose placing sawhorses to partly block off the southern exit leading
I
I
17
I
onto Holly and encouraging traffic to head north and exit off of Colorado onto Huntington Drive. Continue to Santa
Clara where it leaves Huntington Drive, as Huntington Drive is now encumbered with frequent concrete bunkers and
follow Santa Clara clear to Fifth, turn at Fifth and then re-enter Huntington and head for the 210. Of course, this is
going to require widening of Santa Clara and Fifth. Provisions must also be made for a Metro Rail depot on Santa
Clara with the Redevelopment Agency buying up Arcadia Lumber Company or. some other closer property. A large
lot is necessary for parking since this lot will serve as a pick-up and drop-off area for shuttle service for your newly
created grand commercial area. With a 5 year planning period, there is plenty of time to set up large capital funds to
pay for street widening, depot parking lots, and other costs caused by commercial development. Leave residential
areas alone. Let other commercial areas pay the price for this dream development. Think carefully before you vote
to approve this proposition, this General Plan amendmen~ and this EIR Thank you for your time.
KUHN: Anyone else wishing to speak?
I
LONELL SPENCER: My name is Lonell Spencer. I live at 1008 S. Mayflower. One of the gentlemen talking about
Fashion Park and how we could combine things - Fashion Park, the entertainment center, racetrack - I wonder at
what point they wilI take down the fence that's topped with barbed wire between Santa Anita and Fashion Park. The
other thing is down in findings of the Agajanian Report, #5,
Municipal Facilities: capital improvement costs are expected to be high with all the alternatives analyzed due to the
capacity limitations of the existing municipal facilities. It seems to me that Mr. Dale made some comments about
funds being low in the capital outlay fund but anyway, depending upon the alternative, the amount of facility
expansion needed to accommodate an increased municipal labor force will range between 9% and 25%. Thank you.
KUHN: Thank you Mr. Spencer. Please sign the roster. Anyone else wishing to speak? You're reacting more
slowly tonight.
I
EVEREIT CLARK: Well, I had spoken at the Planning Commission but I didn't really intend to speak here but my
name is Everett Clark and I live at 324 N. Old Ranch Road and I am vel)' much in favor what the Planning
Commission, their approach and what they did. However. I think in all of the testimony thus far, has concentrated
with regard to Transition Area #1. 1 think it's important that in looking at a total General Plan, that there is a
balance among all areas. Like you can't necessarily designate something as a big commercial area and expect it's
going to necessarily succeed. With the General Plan, when we look at Transition Area #2, that, initially in the
Redevelopment Agency concept, was to be primarily commercial, however subsequently in discussing Transition
Area #2, it said well that could be subsidized senior housing or it could be this or it could be that. And that comes
up now because in some ways, it might appear we have a surplus of commercial area as its exists. Now I first came
to work in Arcadia in 1952 and I don't intend to go down memol)' lane, nevertheless, over that time, there have been
many changes. One of the changes when Ernest Hahn and the Santa Anita Fashion Park development came was a
18
change that, in effect, took a great deal of what was our little group...I was a member of the Downtown
Businessmen's Association...a number of our people left because that no longer was the retail center. When West
Arcadia started, then people shifted there and as each commercial area we develop, it has an impact on the others.
Now it brought out in Transition Area #3 that with the lots and the increased number per acre and the population,
this would be beneficial to downtown Arcadia. That there would be more people who would then come. While in
the budget hearings, Councilman Harbicht referred to the peacocks and , often thought his statement was classic. '"
opened the front door and there was a peacock" which' thought well that's a little farfetched but on the other hand,
his situation with regard to downtown Arcadia is something 1 can sort of agree with him. You don't really make it
all just by putting things there...you have to have reasons for people to come and go and do the different things. 1
had businesses that came into downtown Arcadia during the time we had our business there and in our business,
people came to us. Like if a Bob Marget! wanted to bid with us, he came to us. But the other people were depending
on people coming - waIk-by traffic, impulse, other things, and' said you'll never make it and because of the fact that
you have Santa Anita Fashion Park, you have these other areas. And' think it would behoove the Council. even in
considering Rodeffer's property, which' notice his representative is here again tonight, to look at all of the areas and
say, "What is the net affect going to beT' Because it's almost like a little bowl of jelly...you push in one area and
everybody leaves or something else, but there's a limitation on how much effective commercial you can have within
a City and yet have it all be growing, developing, and that's the ouly thing , really wanted to say because it seems
like the other transition areas and the others have not been addressed at all hardly. Thank you vel)' much.
I
I
KUHN: Thank you for your comments. Be sure and sign the roster. A11yone else wishing to speak?
COLLEEN T. DOAN: Am' allowed to talk again?
KUHN: No. What did you want:
COLLEEN T. DOAN: I just want to make a really quick comment. I've had the opportunity to talk to some
business people in Arcadia recently and something came to...something , realized from talking to them was that
none of the different areas of Arcadia's business people meet together. 1 think it's an issue for the Chamber of
Commerce and , think it is an issue for the City Council. The Arcadia business people do not meet with the West
Arcadia business people and those people do not meet with the people in the mall and those people do not meet with
the people in South Arcadia. Now, in education when that takes place, there's a reason for it. They want to shut
people up and they want to keep them isolated in their own little group. 1 really think that somebody needs to look at
the fact that all the businesses in Arcadia are not meeting together as a group and are rather isolated onto their own
business area and , think it would be vel)' beneficial to business and , think it would vel)' beneficial to the City if all
the businesses communicated with each other from all the different areas. Thank you.
I
19
I
KUHN: Thank you. That's a good comment. I think the Chamber of Commerce has already covered that but thank
you very much. Any additional person wishing to speak?
ROBERT HARBICHT: I move we close the public hearing.
KUHN: RoIl call, please.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Councilmembers
NOES:
ABSENT:
(ROLL CALL IS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE TAPES)
KUHN: How about a break? O.K.? Say ten minutes. OK, there'll be a ten-minute recess. [RECESS] The
meeting will please come to order. Mr. Kelly, would you like to sort of explain procedure from here?
I
WILLIAM KELLY: Mayor and Council, you have several ways of trying to approach this rather large process.
Council could begin deliberation among themselves as to specific transition areas or parts of the General Plan, or you
could refer it to the staff and consultants who respond to some of the issues. I think the staff would recommend to
those, too, refer it back to staff and consultant to try and clarify some of the questio~s or comments at this point, and
then also have a discussion of what the process will be once the Council moves through this process, what still must
happen before we actnaIly can move to adoption of the General Plan. There cannot be adoption this evening, and
that needs to be understood. The Council cannot adopt the General Plan. There's a number of processes to be
completed. It's a matter of which way the Council wants to move. Begin the Council discussions or refer back to
staff and consultant for some response to comments and directions.
KUHN: What's the wishes of the Council? Do you want your questions addressed now?
HARBICHT: I think it might be appropriate to have the Planning personnel briefly review the steps that we need to
accomplish to adopt the General Plan. And then if we have any general-type questions that have arisen from the
testimony, we could ask those for clarification.
KUHN: O.K., does everyone agree with that process?
I KELLY: That being the Council's direction, I'll refer it to Donna Butler and Lloyd 2ola.
20
KUHN: Donna, you're on.
I
DONNA BUTLER: Thank you. As Bill has somewhat described, the process now would be, of course, to start the
review of the General Plan. The first thing we would recommend is to take a look at the land use map, including the
transition areas. The next thing that you should be looking at is the text, the document, focusing on the gnals,
policies that are established, the implementation procedures...a11 ~f these should be addressed as weIl as the letters
that you've received from the public that have requested some text changes. We received, and you heard one
tonight, from Mr. McCaslin. There has been some letters received from Santa Anita, Colleen Doan...so you need to
review these issues. Once you've reviewed the General Plan, you need to then take a look at the Environmental
Impact Report. Is the Environmental Impact Report adequate? Does it meet the needs to respond to the decisions
and what you are looking for as part of a land use? And Mr. 20la wiIl explain that a little further. Once you've done
that, then you need to give direction to any modif...to us, staff and Mr. 2ola, as to what modifications you would like
to make to the General Plan, if there's any additional changes you would like to the EIR studies, that type of thing.
Once we do that we wiIl finalize all the response to comments. Now, these include the responses from all the
agencies that we have received...not only agencies but people that we have received comments from through this
evening. These responses wiIl be finalized and sent back to the Council for your review, as well as submitted at least
a minimum often days to the people that res...excuse me...sent in their comments. So these will be going back to the
people that sent in their comments. You wiIl have an opportunity to review the responses for adequacy. Once we
have done that-and that's going to take about two weeks to prepare all the necessary responses-once we bring
everything back, the final action will [be], of course, to bring back a resolution. And that resolution will include all
the response to comments, the final wording on the GP, General Plan, what changes you wanted, text changes, land
use changes, and then we'Il have an opportunity for adoption of the resolution if you feel everything has been
adequately responded to; and you wiIl have to certify the Environmental Impact Report prior to even approving the
General Plan. So that's kind of a brief overview, and Lloyd will explain a little more about the procedures. Mr.
2ola.
I
LLOYD ZOLA: Now comes the fun part for you. What we would be looking for is your direction on the General
Plan document. As Donna said, once you give us direction we will then finalize that document for your review prior
to any action. You wiIl also be required to review the Environmental Impact Report. You have now in front of you
what is called a Draft Environmental Impact Report, a Draft EIR. On top of that we wiIl provide, as Donna said,
response to comments based on the direction you wish to take with the General Plan. So from that we can wrap
those issues up. Two...or one issue that was not reaIly raised in the public hearing process that we do need you to
discuss in relation to the General Plan are housing requirements, and meeting the housing reqnirements and the
objectives under State law. And we have discussed that previously. Right now the recommendation in front of you,
if you bnild out on the entire land-use map all the housing that could possibly be built in the City, you would end up
I
21
I
with about 552 units. That includes building on all the various R-2 and R-3 properties south of the downtown area,
about 100 different lots. And you would get to your objective, which would be 500 units. And we need you to
discuss whether you believe that it is a reasonable scenario that all of the housing on all of those lots, as weIl as the
other sites available for residential, could in fact be built on through the next seven years.
There has also been discussion about doing the minimum--I think there was one comment in the public hearing-
doing the minimum required for the housing element. Now that wiIl be one of the findings you'll be asked to make
with regard to the minimum required under the housing element...the ability to reasonably achieve that objective.
The second issue is providing housing for low- and moderate-income residents. Those are unfortunate terms that the
State uses, because low and moderate income tends to raise the scenario of Central Avenue in Downtown Los
Angeles and the people hanging around the Union Rescue Mission.
I
A moderate-income resident is simply a household with an average income. These are people who are teachers in
your School District. They are the account clerk who keeps track of the books in your businesses. They are the
secretaries at your businesses. All of those actually are low-income residents, low-income households. They can
afford rent up to about $813 a month. So when we're talking about low-income households, we're talking about
households and housing that would be affordable to about $813 a month. This is not public housing. When we talk
about moderate-income residents we're talking about the auto mechanics, we're talking about executive secretaries,
we're talking about starting policemen in the LAPD or L. A. County Sheriff. We're talking about your starting
policemen and firemen. Those are moderate-income residents and people who can afford rents up to about $1,200 a
month.
When we talk about very low income, next time you go into the bank look across the counter. You're looking at a
very low-income resident. When we talk about low, very low, moderate income, we aren't talking about running
down to the Bowery and scooping up the homeless people and hauling them out here. We're talking about providing
for housing for people who are working, for people who have incomes that are average or somewhat below average.
These are your children right out of school, or some of your parents and grandparents who are retired and not with
large amounts of money saved up over time. That is the requirement under the housing element, and when you go
through this the choice that you have is what is the most palatable way of meeting those objectives under State
housing law...not do we or don't we. With that, if there's any specific questions you have on process, General Plan
document or EIR, we'd be (inaudible).
HARBICHT: Could you claritY on this housing requirement, you mentioned our objective...mentioned the number of
five-hundred-and-some units. How is the objective established?
I
ZOLA: The objective that we're using of 500 units is actnally established by the Southern California Association of
Governments. Under State law, each local or regional Association of Governments is required to determine each
22
community's fair share of housing for all economic segments of the county, so that in the Southern California
region, SCAG, Southern California Association of Governments, determines the amount of housing that would be
each community's objective for. its housing element. The 500 number is derived from the housing element which
was originally reqnired for the City to be adopted...! believe it was 1989...which had an objective of about 800 units,
3()0 of which have been built, leaving about 500 units. So that is what we're using as an objective through 2003,
which would cover not ouly the last two years of this housing element period, but getting a head start on the next
housing element and its required update that you would need to adopt by 1998.
I
HARBICHT: So this doesn't reqnire the City to build those units or cause them to be built, but to just provide the
adequate zoning and open land adequately zoned so it could be possible.
ZOLA: Correct. The City is not required to build any of this housing. You are required, in addition to making the
zoning available, to provide an adequate number of programs to facilitate Iow- and moderate-income housing.
Those are already included in the housing program in the General Plan as proposed.
SHENG CHANG: Is it true that the law comes from the State and then the housing capacity comes from the
Southern California Association of Governments, (inaudible) population according to this?
ZOLA: Yeah, the total amount of new households that each regional government needs to provide for comes from
the State. And those are State estimates that account for natural population growth, as well as in-migration into the
State, minus the number of people the State projects to leave. Then the Southern California Association of
Governments is responsible for taking that large number, breaking it down into the number of new households for
each city and each county, as well as setting objectives for how many of that...how much of that total growth needs to
be provided for as low-income households, very-low income, moderate, and above-moderate-income households.
I
CHANG: But I thought that the law comes from the State...the requirement....
ZOLA: No, the total number comes from the State. The number for each economic group is derived on a county-by-
county basis by the local regional government, in this case SCAG.
CHANG: O.K., so we are required...whatever...by the law...whatever it comes from...the State or comes from the
regional Association of Governments, that...to build this amount of houses to be...for the very-low, low, and
moderate-income households.
ZOLA: Not to build them, to provide opportunities for those houses to be built.
I
23
CHANG: OK
I
ZOLA: You do not have to bnild them yourself.
CHANG: O.K., to pro.... And, OK., how...do we have to do it? That means...is...do we have to do it? Because
somebody mentioned that San Marino or other cities, you know, I don't...whether they will do it or not or.... I'mjust
mentioning, you know, what they're doing may not bear on what we are planning to do, but I just want to bring this
up for the reference that, is it necessary that we do this?
I
ZOLA: Yeah, let me go through how...!'m not sure in San Marino how they do it or don't do it. One thing in San
Marino is if...possibly, if they are not building anything new, then the possibility of challenge is a lot less than in a
city where you are bnilding something new. The way that some upper-end cities have approached low- and
moderate-income housing...in Orange County, Irvine, Newport Beach does it with high-density housing, in some
cases densities as high as 40 to 50 units per acre. The City of Indian Wells out in the Palm Springs area, which is
the wealthiest city in the United States per capita, went out...the City bought land, the City designed the project, the
City built low- and moderate-income housing, only you'd never know it was low- and moderate-income housing
because it is so heavily subsidized. Other cities have gone to the Resolution Trust Corporation and purchased
existing housing that was owned by the RTC and subsidized it. Still other cities, upper-end cities, will do it simply
through a combination of density bonuses and density. So you have the choice as to how you provide it.
I think the other part of the question is...maybe I'm working ahead...what happens if we don't?
CHANG: That's right.
I
ZOLA: O.K., what happens if we don't meet the law? Let me give you some of the worst things that could happen.
I think Mr. Miller was in the City of Newport Beach when they got sued. If you would ever turn down a housing
project, any housing project, for any reason, a disgruntled applicant could come back, sue the City on the basis of an
inadequate housing element, and you could then be forced by the courts to approve a project that you just denied, for
whatever reason you denied it. You can also be forced by the State, on a project that has no residential at all. Say
you go to approve a project, and I'll use as an example the Foulger Ford site, you approve a commercial project on it.
A disgruntled housing advocates group sues the City, saying, "Nope, that should not have been a commercial site or
a commercial development. You have an inadequate housing element. You haven't provided housing for low- and
moderate-income residents. That site should have been made available." And the courts could overturn your
approval. So, nearly any non-residential approval could be at risk if somebody could make a reasonable argument
that you haven't met your housing obligations under the law, and that site might have been used for housing.
Another scenario is that, under State redevelopment law, you're required to set aside 20% of your tax increment to
24
be used for low- and moderate-income housing. If those increments are in fact not used, the State can effectively
seize 20"10 of those. tax increments, take them from you, hand them to the County Housing Authority telling the
Housing Authority, "Here, go use this money to build public housing in the City, and you don't have to worry about
any local approvaI." But the bottom-line answer is, if you are not in compliance with housing element law, you run
the risk of losing control over your own land use, and losing control over any approval that somebody could tie back
to a potential for residential or denial of a residential project. No matter how it goes, it's not a pleasant scenario.
I
MARY YOUNG: I have a question, too, about that. I can understand the State having the requirement, and I can
understand them enforcing it, but SCAG says it has to be in these different divisions. How can that be enforced?
ZOLA: OK, under State housing law the State has given each regional government the authority and responsibility
to allocate to each city in each county a determination, and essentially objectives, of their fair share of housing, and
the key phrase is ''for all economic segments of the community."
YOUNG: But suppose the city wants to do it in a different way?
ZOLA: The way that you accomplish it is yours to decide. What State law says is not yours to decide is, what are
the objectives. You're given a one-time chance to protest the numbers that SCAG comes up with. SCAG has the
legal authority to make the final decision as to what those numbers are. And once the numbers are adopted by the
regional agency, you are effectively and legally stuck with them.
I
YOUNG: Like...are ours already adopted?
ZOLA: Yes.
KUHN: So we're stuck with that 800 figure from '70 or '80.
ZOLA: From 1989, correct. And the City is in a little bit of a strange position that is both maybe a problem and an
advantage. The process under housing element is very different than the other elements of the General Plan. When
you adopt the General Plan, all the elements are adopted and done and finished with, and they don't go back to the
State for review. Under housing element law, when you adopt this General Plan, you will then send the housing
element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for their review. Back in, I believe it was
1990, when you adopted your last update of the General Plan, the housing element was sent to the State for their
review of the adopted element, and the State didn't get around to sending written comments until we had actnaIly
started on this update of the General Plan.
I
25
I
So the position you are now in, according to the Department of Housing and Community Development, is with the
adoption of the General Plan document that is in front of you, you will actually finish the process that was started
back...or should have been completed in 1989. Now, your next update for a housing element is required to be
adopted July I, 1998. It does not make a great deal of sense to adopt a housing element, five-year housing element,
for a period that theoretically ended two years ago. So the recommendation of the Planning Commission is to not
just deal in the past and say, OK, now we've finished 1989 to 1994 even though it's '96, but to say that the
numbers we are adopting and the housing element we are adopting is not ouly the completion of the housing element
through 1998 but is the housing element that will run you through the year 2003. So when it is adopted we wiIl send
the housing element to the State for review of that, and that's the reason we get that long period of time. So you do
get the advantage of being a little bit ahead of the game that yo~. would nonnaIly be two years from now and
establishing those numbers for the next two years... or next seven years in this case.
BUTLER: I just want to...oh, I'm sorry...! just wanted to point out one thing. When the number, the 800-plus units
that were approved by SCAG in '88, that number was reduced from their original requirement. We did appeal...they
had required, as I believe, it was close to 1,200 units...and at that time we went back and appealed that decision and
we had it reduced to the number of units that we are currently working with. So we were able to get a reduction at
that time.
I
YOUNG: Can we appeal or apply for another reduction?
BUTLER: Unfortunately, no.
ZOLA: Once those numbers are finally adopted, they are done. The 500 comes from what we originally looked at as
a two-year housing period. The numbers of the 500 to the year 2003 are in fact consistent with SCAG, forecast for
the City. We have used, in terms of the breakdown of very-low, low, moderate, above-moderate, SCAG
methodology. So we believe that the number of 500 to the year 2003 is an appropriate number for use in the housing
element. It can save you having to do the housing element allover again two years from now.
HARBICHT: Just a couple of comments, and I'd like to ask a couple of additional questions on this, but it must
seem strange to people who have watched the last six or seven hours of public testimony that, "How come those
people aren't talking about Santa Anita?" The fact is, is that this General Plan is for the entire City, and this is it
along with the EIR. It contains provisions that affect every single area of this community. And this particular one
that we're discussing now, the housing requirements, is obviously a very important one because we're bound by law
to meet these requirements.
I
26
Another question I...correct me if I'm wrong. The designation of the R..what is the R-3 area, 7-plus dwelling units
per acre, which currently would go up to...since it's a plus...would go up to 21 or 22 dwelling units per acre. The
recommendation that that be increased to 30 units per acre in certain areas and under certain conditions is an
attempt to provide the opportunity to meet these housing requirements' numbers, is that correct?
I
ZOLA: That is correct, yeah.
HARBICHT: The Planning Commission...there was a...the original General Plan for Transition Area 3 had that
designation of up to 30 dwelling units per acre on most of the property between Santa Anita and Second Avenue
with the exception of First Avenue, which was all zoned commercial. The Planning Commission's
recommendation...and frankly, one which I like...would be between Santa Anita and Second Avenue all to be up to
24 dwelling units per acre; but that First Avenue from California south be a mixed use of multiple-family and
commercial. And I think that there's a lot to recommend that particular approach because of the fact that I don't
think that we can suppon that much commercial along that road. But my concern is, since we're talking now 24
instead of 30 even though we've increased the area for multiple-family residential by including that part of First
Avenue, what does that do to the numbers?
ZOLA: The 552-unit buildo{)ut of the City that I referred to earlier is based on the Planning Commission's
recommendation. That does include and account for 24 rather than 30 units per acre.
I
HARBICHT: Oh, that does include the (inaudible).
ZOLA: Yes. As recommended to you by the Planning Commission, buildo{)ut of the City would add 552, or up to
552, dwelling units.
HARBICHT: So that meets the....
ZOLA: It would meet the 500 (inaudible) if you could make the finding that it was reasonable that all of those uitits
in this area would be built through the year 2003, or could be built through the year 2003.
KUHN: I have a comment I'd like to make about that mixed-use recommendation on First Avenue. When I drove
up and down that area I counted 12 small residential houses still left. Everything else is commercial. It doesn't
seem to me like its worthwhile...it seems like it has all gone commercial except for these smail, very smail parcels.
It didn't seem worthwhile to me to reverse gears, especially after spending all the money downtown, to turn it into a
commercial area.
I
27
I
BUTLER: I think one of the things that the Commission looked at was, there are as you mentioned, there are still
some single-family lots. You also have an area that...a stretch of property...you've got sort of an interesting
combination of uses there. The thought was, was that if somebody could combine on minimum half-acre parcels,
that there could be the potential to build multiple-family. In addition, there could be the potential to make
commercial, multiple-family projects. In other words, you could literally take down some of the, perhaps, older
commercial units and combine uses. You could take down the older commercial uses [sic] and build even a
multiple-family project. This came before the Commission at the request of Mr. Worsley, who has the Arcadia
House, and he was just looking for some perhaps potential for future use of the land, some other alternatives other
than strictly commercial. The properties are unusual, they're very narrow, 50 by about, I believe, it's 150, 160. So
you would have to combine lots based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission in order to bnild
multiple-family in the area. But there is some potential there.
KUHN: What would that do to the impact of the school, both on First Avenue and (inaudible) as far as the traffic
impact?
BUTLER: The traffic? That is something I don't (inaudible) turn to Lloyd here for a minute.
I
ZOLA: We're looking at the traffic on First. The daily traffic volume of a multi-family dwelling would be about 8
trips per day, and that would actually be less than an equivalent size commercial use. So that by moving from
commercial to multi-family, you're taking on some of the small lots, you'd actually be reducing total traffic volume.
CHANG: I just want to make some more comments and questions here, ask a question here. With regard to Bob's
comment about we're not talking about Transitional Area l...don't worry, we'll have a lot of questions afterwards.
But what I'm asking here is, for the transitional area, for this number of 552, that would be...this objective would be
met when Transitional Area 2 and 3 for multi-family housing projects are built up, right?
ZOLA: Correct. As well as the Anoakia site, some of the commercial on First Street, and I think it was 15 units up
in the northern hillside area. So we have counted...! think we also had, yeah, Areas 2, 3, the hillside, and the
Anoakia site, that's what it adds up to.
CHANG: So you a1so..just the Transitional Area 2 and 3 are not enough to meet this requirement, in terms of
multi-...in tenus of the housing requirements?
I
ZOLA: Areas 2 and 3, the hillside areas, there are some privately owned lands that are not in open space that are
vacant...we figured, I think, 15 units up there. A reasonable build-()ut of the Anoakia site with a moderate number of
units on that site. A multi-use in Areas 2 and 3 as well as the density. All of that yields you 552 units.
28
CHANG: You are also considering the Anoakia property? Am I correct?
I
ZOLA: Yes. That is correct
CHANG: Is it correct that the...with the Transitional Area 2 between Santa Anita and Second Avenue we have a
maximum for all three you can build up to 24 units per acre, but for senior housing projects you can build up to 30
units per acre with a minimum of a half-acre development? Is that correct?
BUTLER: That is what is being recommended, yes.
CHANG: By the Planning Commission?
BUTLER: Right. Transition Area 2 and even, not only by the Planning Commission, but the recommendation in
the original General Plan was to include multiple family. It was a mixed-use commercial/multiple family with 24
dwelling units per acre.
CHANG: For senior housing projects it will be increased to 30, right?
BUTLER: For senior up to 30 units.
I
CHANG: Now, for area east to Second Avenue and up to Fifth Avenue, the...that's, I believe, that's R-2, and
building...you can build up to 18 units per acre. But for senior housing projects you can build up to 24 units per
acre?
BUTLER: In the area south of Huntington Drive, are you referring to?
CHANG: Yeah, between Huntington and Duarte.
BUTLER: Yeah, the area south of Huntington Drive between Second Avenue and...
CHANG: Fifth.
BUTLER: Fifth Avenue, the Planning Commission's recommendation was to go a maximum density of 12 dwelling
units per acre, and up to 18 dwelling units per acre for senior citizen housing.
I
CHANG: So it's 12 versus 18, not 18 versus 24? Oh, 12 versus 18.
29
BUTLER: Right.
I
CHANG: Now, what does it mean here in terms of time limit, time deadline, 2003...for year 2003, does it mean that
by that year all the housing requirements should be met? That means all housing, 552 houses, should be built
completely?
ZOLA: The objective would be for 500 housing units to be built through the year 2003. The ultimate potential, all
you have available if everybody built everything, would be 552 units. I mean, it's....
CHANG: Not including those projects under way. You can say that 2003, let's say we build half...completed 300
units, but with 250 more being planned in the Planning Commission or the Planning Department...so...or you had to
finish the whole project, 552 units?
ZOLA: The way State housing element law works, would be completion and occupancy of 500 units between now
and the year 2003.
CHANG: So we are talking about seven years for 552...that's about 80 units per year in average.
I
WLA: Yeah, the objective, again, would be 500...so about 75 per year.
YOUNG: I have another question. I assume we do not have any 30 units per half acre in town now. If that is
achieved, how tail a building would that have to be?
BUTLER: We were discussing that with the Planning Commission. You might be able to get away with two stories.
However, generally speaking, when you get to that point you are looking at three stories. To let you know, we do
have some older units in the City that would be equivalent to approximately 30 units per acre if you were to, you
know, go 30...up to 30 units. Some of the older units that were built where you ouly require (inaudible) parking
spaces per unit, and this is (inaudible) the one on Fairview Avenue, Arcadia Avenue (inaudible). In fact, you even
have some over in East Arcadia where you have up to 10 units on lots that now would only allow up to 6 units. So
there are places within the City that, because of the design, because of the fact that they were smaller units, less
parking, less open space, built under very old requirements, are at that density.
YOUNG: I'll get that from you. I'd like to go look at them.
I
30
BUTLER: The senior citizen housing project on Naomi Avenue, just to give you an example, that is bnilt at over
seventy (inaudible) units per acre. And that is four stories high, also. And that's on a 50...1 believe it's 56,000-
square-foot lot, 100 imits.
I
CHANG: Are there any remarkable environmental impact from this housing project when it's completed, in tenus
of every aspect...traffic, or....
BUTLER: ActnaIly, no. Senior citizen... that particular senior citizen housing project has very little problems with
traffic. Many of the people don't drive. We have not had...ever had any complaints relative to parking problems,
traffic... .
CHANG: But I'm talking about when the whole project is completed in 2003.
BUTLER: Oh, you're talking about the 500 units.
CHANG: I believe it was mentioned here, but I just wanted to see whether you remember any remarkable
environmental impact or consequences.
WLA: Well, that's going to take us...you heard a lot of discussion about the traffic study that was prepared for the
General Plan and its EIR. Our finding was, in preparing the traffic study, that there are two places where you will
have traffic problems. One is on Michillinda, one is on Holly south of Huntington. Those are the two places that you
. wiIl have sOme significant traffic problems. On Michillinda, that is a problem that exists today, and this is one of
the curiosities of traffic engineering, because the amount of traffic that is on Michillinda today...we've heard
testimony...is at Level of Service E. Theoretically, at Level of Service E, we shouldn't have people driving up and
down a residential street at 50 miles an hour because it should be so crowded that people are driving slow. But that's
the reality of it. On Holly, you know the problems on Holly, and that does have a significant amount of traffic, and
we have provided mitigation measures in the General Plan and EIR to deal with those. Five hundred and fifty-two
units are pretty much equivalent to your existing General Plan and zoning, so there's nothing unusnal about those
densities that would create traffic problems in the future.
I
CHANG: Can we ask a question about Transitional Area 4? We know that there's a lawsuit involving the Rodeffer
property, and El Monte City is part of the...! don't know...is part of the city that (inaudible). What...would this
lawsuit affect the...our planning for this property?
MICHAEL MILLER: No, there would be no effect.
I
31
CHANG: So we can do whatever we want.
I
MILLER: That is correct.
YOUNG: Is there a time limit on Transition Area 4? There is a time limit on having dumps filled, isn't there?
BUTLER: No. Transition Area 4 just simply says that the area should remain industriaI, which it is currently
designated on the existing General Plan, and that recommendation was made by the Planning Commission as weIl as
in the draft that you have before you, that it just remain as it currently exists, which is industrial.
YOUNG: And there's no time limit for doing anything down there?
BUTLER: They...as part of the application, they had indicated it would be approximately 8 to 12 years to fill the
quarry, but that we did not establish a maximum time limit.
YOUNG: Thank you.
I
KUHN: Bob.
HARBICHT: (Inaudible) my notes of the comments that were made last night and tonight, there were some
comments regarding the traffic study and specifically comments regarding an analysis of linkage versus
intersections, and also peak periods versus total traffic. And I wonder if you could clarify for us what the...is there
any conflict between these things, and what's required, and are we deficient in our analysis?
I
ZOLA: Let me start by saying that I've been working on general plans now about 20 years. The president of our
company, Les (inaudible) is a traffic engineer with well over 20 years' traffic experience. People working on the
traffic analysis are well trained, with anywhere from 10 to 15 years worth of traffic and transportation planning
experience. We prepared a traffic analysis which all of believe are adequate under General Plan law as well as
CEQA. The traffic studies were reviewed by City staff, including City engineering staff. They believe that this is an
adequate traffic analysis. Further, the traffic analysis and circulation element were reviewed by Ed Cline, who is the
City's consulting traffic engineer. He believes that what is in front of you is adequate. The issue of links versus
intersection is one that we have heard ever since the beginning of the Planning Commission hearings. The purpose
of the circulation element is to identitY, essentially, how wide roadways should be. How wide roadways should be is
measured typically on the link, which is the travel lanes between the intersections. So any General Plan traffic
analysis needs to analyze the links. The question then is, beyond analyzing the links, should there have been an
analysis of intersections? The Planning Commission heard testimony from the same people who spoke to you
32
regarding that the General Plan is somehow inadequate because it did not address intersections, but the testimony at
the Planning Commission and some of the written testimony as well as the verbal was that it is the City's choice as
to whether you anaIyze intersections or not in the General Plan. And that it is neither typical nor atypical to do a
link rather than intersection analysis. It's the City's choice. Question...the second question is analysis ofpeak hour
versus daily. Again, at most, it is neither typical nor atypical to analyze average day versus peak hour. The average
day analysis that is done to the General Plan follows, first of all, the basic roadway capacities that are used on an
average day. Those roadway capacities for average day are built on, what is the average amount of traffic in the peak
hour? So when we say that the daily roadway capacity of a street is 12,000 cars in a day, that is based on an average
assumption that there will be 1,200 cars in the peak hour, 10% of the average day's peak hour or 10 times the peak
hour as the average day. So there is a peak-hour factor already built into the average-day analysis. You also heard
testimony...and if I remember the words correctly...that somehow we magically increased the capacity of the
roadway. One of the comments that we received in writing was that...and you heard, I think, these words, that the
City has a nearly built-Qut circulation system and we should be using the most accurate form of analysis possible.
But what we did, because you do have a nearly built-out roadway system and a nearly built-Qut land use...Iand uses in
the City, we looked at, street by street, wherever there was a potential for traffic problems, how many cars were
actnaIly on the street in the peak hour. What...you also heard testimony regarding directional. And, as you know,
on the streets during the peak hour, during rush hour, one side of the street is busier than the other side of the street.
And the typical State-wide average, the State-wide average (inaudible) is 10% is the peak hour, was in that peak
hour there's 60% of the cars headed in one direction, 40% of the cars headed in the other direction. Those are the
averages State-wide. What we did was, anywhere there was a potential for traffic congestion based on those
averages, we looked at actnaI counts--what is the traffic in the peak hour compared to the day, what is the directional
split in that hour. And there are tables in the appendices of the EIR in the traffic study that show, for each one of the
scenarios and alternatives that were analyzed, how we came about determining what the real roadway capacity is.
We've heard something actually very strange at the public hearings and in the letters. One is that we should analyze
the peak hours, and we should provide a more detailed analysis than is typical, maybe. And then after we did it, no,
we should use the averages, the 10% and the 60/40 split. But if you look at the traffic study, what's called a refined
capacity analysis that runs through all of these numbers, and those tables that you heard earlier that theoretically
don't exist are right hete. There are Tables A-2 through A-8, in the Traffic Appendix to the EIR, identitY how these
numbers came about and how the capacity was determined. This refined capacity analysis was reviewed in our
office, it was reviewed by your Public Works Department, by your engineering staff, and also by your traffic
contract...consulting traffic engineer, all of whom believe that what is in front of you is adequate and accurate.
I..
I
HARBICHT: So just to clarify, then, when...even though there is discussion of total traffic volumes or average-<iay
traffic volume, that does...definitely does not assume that that volume is going to be spread evenly throughout the 24
hours.
I
33
ZOLA: Exactly.
I
HARBICHT: OK So in essence, an average-day traffic analysis does, in fact, take into account peak periods.
ZOLA: The average-day traffic analysis takes into account average peak-hour conditions.
HARBICHT: OK And then, in cases where it was getting close to a problem, you looked at actnaI traffic counts
rather than just using this rule of thumb for directional flow and peak periods.
ZOLA: We looked at the actnaI p.m. peak-hour volume. We looked at, as they exist, the actual directional split, as
well as the peak-hour volumes predicted from the specific land uses we were predicting or projecting in the General
Plan and their directional splits, added them together so all of that is in the General Plan. And that is how the
ultimate refined capacities were analyzed.
HARBICHT: Sounds like a very rigorous examination to me. Thank you.
1
CHANG: Can I go back to that housing requirement thing. How about by 2003 the housing requirement was
partially met. What would happen?
ZOLA: This was a real problem for cities through the downturn, that as they updated housing elements it was
not...they had not achieved the actnai objective on the ground. As part of each housing element...so let's say by the
year 2003 there's 350 new units on the ground. What you will be asked to do when you update your housing element
at that time is to analyze why you fell short of your objective. Did you fall short of your objective because you did not
have adequate land available, because you had inadequate housing programs, or because there were government
constraints that prevented the housing, in which case you need to fix your housing element and essentially the State
will say, "Remove those constraints, remove the problems you created and make up the problems." Or, if it was
simply, "We did everything we could, we implemented every program, we went out and begged developers to come
in, we implemented all of our programs and the housing market was so lousy nobody wanted to build," in that case
you have provided reasonable effort and you have met your housing obligations.
CHANG: So there are some flexibilities there.
ZOLA: Yes. The ultimate criteria for the success at the end of the housing element period is, did you remove
governmental constraints to the production of housing, and did you make.a reasonable good-faith effort to implement
your programs and get the housing built? You cannot be held responsible for the fact that the housing market is in a
I
34
down cycle and because half the developers that existed at the beginning are now bankrupt. That, they don't come
back and say you failed.
I
CHANG: Let's get back to this traffic issue. I believe you haven't mentioned that the analysis was made without the
consideration, or with the consideration of the Race traffic.. .Race Track traffic and seasonal traffic, like Christmas
time in the mail.
ZOLA: General Plan traffic analysis...! think the thing to keep in mind that what we are doing is a City-wide land-
use policy. The City-wide land-use policy in terms of traffic is based on setting roadway size. So the question that
we're analyzing is, how large should our roadwaYs be? This City, in looking back through your history of project
approvals, in project approvals such as the mall expansion, you, analyzed Christmas traffic...you analyzed a
combination of maIl and Ra~ Track traffic. But the decision as to roadway capacity and size of roadways,
traditionally, in Arcadia has been based on weekday, non-racing season, non-Christmas. The criteria that you have
applied in the past through your EIR is to mitigation. When do you physically require roadway building has been
based on Level of Service D, non-racing season, weekday. So for those reasons we based the analysis leading to how
large should roadways be on the same criteria: weekday, non-racing season, non-Christmas. So we have really
changed nothing from how you have made the decisions on roadway sizing. Now that is a policy decision that you,
as a community, can make. You as a community, you as a City Council could say, "We want our roadways' size
based on racing season. We want our roadways' size based on Christmas shopping season." That is within your
power as a Council to ask for. The reason we suggest not doing that is, first of all, the Christmas shopping season is
relatively, short. The racing season, you have heard testimony, has grown relatively long. But during the racing
season your intersections... the key intersections are controlled by policemen manually controlling signals. You have
a much steadier flow during those times. And so, the other reason is that in cities that size roadways based on
special events, very high peaks".and you can see this in some places in Irvine where for the peak-hour period traffic
flows just fine. Go look at Jamboree Road on weekends, and you have a massive, expansive roadway that the city
needs to maintain that is used, essentially, ten hours a week. So that is the question, the policy question, for you as a
Council. We have used the policy, as you have in the past. If you want to change it and want additional analysis,
we'd certaiuly be glad to get that for you.
I
CHANG: Is it also reasonable to request information which includes the consideration of this Race Track traffic
in...that's about Race Track...traffic in Race Track racing...horse racing season. That's about six months a year,
right? And the shopping season in the mall, that's about two months in a year.
ZOLA: Your question, "Is it reasonable?", that's a policy choice. If you ask it, if you need it to make your decision
on sizing roadways, it's certainiy reasonable.
I
35
I
CHANG: Well, what I'm saying is that, I think that this information should have been there, too. That's what I
mean. The other thing is the parking. O.K. This is related to the traffic. Have you...with the parking
issue...because I heard some comments and some considerations, some concerns, about the parking problems. There
are already some parking problems in terms of... that the people who attend the, you know, Race Track would not
pay the fee and park (inaudible). And when we had this entertainment center completed, this additional...that will
create additional parking problems. Is it considered, or....
I
ZOLA: Yes, it was considered. I think the way that we approached it was to say that, with development in the south
parking lot of the Race Track, there will clearly be an increase in demand for parking. But the assumptions that we
need to make with the General Plan are, number one, that all of the policies of the General Plan will in fact be
adhered to; and number two, all of the ordinances of the City will be adhered to with any new development. The
policies of the General Plan reqnire that any new development that is permitted in that south parking lot will
not...will be designed with adequate parking and will not make the problem of off-site parking worse than it is now.
Number two, you have a parking ordinance which has requirements for any of the uses that would...commercial uses
or entertainment nses that could be permitted on the south parking lot. And SO the zoning ordinance would require
that, if you create the uses there, adequate parking will be available. So given those assumptions that the ordinance
is met, adequate parking for the new uses, that the General Plan policy will be met, which is that the site be designed
so that we don't make the problem of off-site parking any worse, based on that we came to the conclusion that, yes,
there will be an increased demand for parking, but there will not necessarily be an increased parking problem.
CHANG: Would you make a comment about this...one of the comments from the audience, the 50% beyond the
actnaI things that would happen. What I mean is that, your analysis here is using something which makes the effect
of the traffic 50% less than it should have been. For example, I think the breakdown is this...for peak-hour analysis,
from 10% you go down to 8%, that's a 20% reduction. For the directional split, you make it 60/40, you change it
from 60/40 to 50/50...if I'm correct, that will be 25%. And then another thing is you spread it in 24 hours instead
of...you spread it in 24 hours, or something like that, that's another 5%, so that's 50"10. Do you want to make a
comment on that?
I
WLA: I think the testimony you heard oversimplified the analysis. If it were that easy, my traffic engineers in our
office would have been done with the traffic study in about 15 minutes instead of several weeks. The table I'll refer
to is Table A-3 of the Detailed Traffic Study. This analyzes the scenario of the General Plan as it was originally
recommended,. with a commercial entertainment center at about 975,000 square feet, which is what I believe Santa
Anita had requested in their hearing. There is one, and only one, street where we assume an increase in capacity of
50%, and that is Santa Anita Avenue. Let me explain how that came about. The basic capacity of Santa Anita is
about 35,000 cars per day. In the peak hour, based on what is actually observed and counted today, plus the traffic as
it would actually occur based on what we know of future uses...we know the peaking characteristics of commercial
36
uses, of office uses, of residential uses... we know, based on those uses, home-to-work, home-to-other kinds of trips,
work-to- work kinds of trips, the directional flow of those trips. When alI of that is added together, what we know is
that in the peak hour on Santa Anita there is 7.68% of the trips...ofthe daily trips wilI occur in the peak hour.
The directional split on Santa Anita is...with all of that knowledge, is 51/49...51% of the trips in one direction, 49 in
the other. Based on that we get modification, and it's shown in the table, so we're looking at a 55% increase in the
capacity of Santa Anita from Colorado to Huntington. From Huntington to Duarte those peak-hour percentages are
slightly different, we're looking at a 49"10 increase.
I
We'lI take a different example. Second Avenue from Huntington to Duarte. The peak hour is 9.30/0, 56/44
directional split yields a 15% increase. And just so you know that we did this and looked at all the streets.. .and we
looked at Holly. On HolIy Avenue from Huntington to Duarte the pt,ak-hour percent is 9.220/0, the directional
split...ifyou look at HolIy it's far different, it's highly directional...and in that peak hour it's 66/34. And so this very
same refined capacity analysis lowers the capacity of HolIy Avenue as it was assumed in the General Plan. So we
looked at streets anywhere from 99% of this theoretical daily average on HolIy to 15% increase on Second, 18% on
Huntington, up to the highest, which was 55 on Santa Anita Avenue. So each street was analyzed separately. It
wasn't just, "WelI, it sounds good, 50/50 and 80%."
YOUNG: I have another question.
1
KUHN: Mary.
YOUNG: The executive summary that we received. It talks about the potential environmental impact and the
mitigation measures, and then it says "Level of Significance." What standards were used for that significance, or for
those levels?
ZOLA: Those are.. .sorry. The standards of significance were.. . are identified in each of the detailed analysis sections
in the Environmental Impact Report. There is a section at the beginning of each detailed discussion that will have
the thresholds of significance. And those are the criteria that were used to determine...if I could pullout an
EIR.. .!'ve got lots of different documents here. As one example, on page... the first section I turned to was mineral
resources. On page 4.6-4 of the EIR is the criteria for determining significance of mineral resource impact. And
there's a paragraph there. In terms oLlet's find another one...in terms of air quality, the standards of significance
are shown on page...! said that so easily...
CHANG: There's no 4.64.
I
37
I
ZOLA: I got ahead of myself on that one. Let me get those. But those are shown on page 410-7. Again, there
are...there's a listing of, "Air qnality impacts are considered significant ifany of the following occur." Each section
has those.
YOUNG: OK, thank you.
CHANG: Could I ask you something about the legal issues? I have this letter in front of me which has concerns
about the general planning up... these two documents, General Plan Update and the EIR. I believe that you also saw
the letter. What's your comment about this, with regard, more specifically, number one mentioned about the
terminology amendment versus update, number two mentioning the concern of Program EIR and its definition and
applicability to this particular document.
1
ZOLA: The first comment, I believe you're referring to the June 20, 1996, letter from Colleen Doan. The issue of
what we are doing here, whether it is an update or amendment, those tenus are not mutually exclusive. They refer to
different things. We are updating the City of Arcadia General Plan. We are updating the data base upon which it is
based. We are updating the policies. We are bringing this General Plan up to date in terms of what is City policy as
of the time you take action to adopt it. It will be adopted through an amendment procedure, just as any action to
change the General Plan must be adopted and can only be adopted through the amendment procedure specified in
the Government Code and your Charter and Municipal Code. So if we want to draw a distinction and say "update"
and "amendment" are mutually exclusive tenus, there is no such thing as an update, because the only way you can
ever adopt a change is an amendment. And if you'll also notice, following...the term "update" is used in the rest of
the letter.
"Update" is a convenient term. It really is not critical, and in the end the distinction between the two words doesn't
really change anything. I think what is more significant in that first comment is the implication that...and I think
the letter states...that an amendment can only be initiated for the public good. Well, if that's the case we would
never have individual applicants bringing General Plan amendments in that ultimately get denied. The quote from
the Government Code or from the General Plan guidelines that follows says when you as a Council take action on
this update, this amendment to the existing General Plan, you must take your action in the public interest. Well,
your job as Council is to do exactly that. And so we aren't asking, in terms of calling this an update, that you do
anything other than take action on the update, on the document that's in front of you, in the public interest. The
other thing to note is, if you take a look at the proposed General Plan that's in front of you, the word "update" is not
used. When you take action and adopt this document in whatever form, it's simply the "General Plan."
I
The second issue is in regard to a Program EIR, and there's a quote on what a Program EIR is. It's a series of
actions that can be characterized as one large project that have related impacts. The General Plan...when you take
38
action on the General Plan in whatever form, it is not like taking action on a site plan to build a specific project. As
has been noted through the hearings, adoption of this Plan ouly gives permission for you as a City to hear projects
consistent with that Plan. It will be implemented through subsequent development projects, subsequent public works
projects. What the General Plan EIR does is it analyzes what are the impacts, in general, of all of those later
development projects and public works projects that will follow and be consistent with the General Plan. Well that,
by its very definition, is a Program EIR. A series of actions characterized as one large project, which is the policy
and the projects that follow from that policy.
I
The concern that's raised in'regard to whether we call this a Program EIR or not is the concept of what's called
tiring. The ability to say, in a later project, we've already addressed these issues and they don't need to be addressed
again. Well, State law and the California Environmental Quality Act, one of its objectives is to reduce paperwork.
It's hard to imagine, looking at the size of some of these EIR' s that the reason you do the analysis up front is so you
don't have to go back through the same issues over and over and over again on subsequent projects. The General
Plan EIR is intended to address City-wide issues and analyze the impacts of a general policy, and ouly to the extent
that the issues in this document, this EIR, address the site-specific or project -specific issues that (inaudible) going to
come later, can you streamline the later approval. I believe the letter tries to use the example of the contract for the
project for the EIR that we had with the City for the specific plan on the entertainment center. And in that case,
we...we're contracted with the City to do an EIR on a project that's subsequently been withdrawn but with a specific
plan, that was site specific, brought to...and project specific for that specific plan. It's easy to see how, after you
adopt a specific plan you now have a site plan come in, how a site plan would not raise any new issues that were not
raised in that specific plan EIR.
I
So, do we need to do another EIR on the site plan? Not if they were all...not if the impacts of that site plan were all
addressed. It is much more difficult to say, and to identify, how a General Plan EIR which is not analyzing any
specific project or development project eliminates the need for an EIR on that development project. In fact, even
understanding at the time that the project was still filed with the City that there was a General Plan EIR, the City
still required a full EIR on that development project. So the scenario, and the kind of the horror scenarios raised in
the letter of somehow this General Plan EIR, we call it a Program EIR, will eliminate the need for analysis of an
entertainment center project when and if it's ever submitted is really not the case.
And the other thing I need to point out is, whether or not the words "Program EIR" ever show up in this document,
the State law still permits the use of a previous EIR for anything relevant for subsequent projects. So you're asking
for something that, really in the end, runs counter to the Environmental Quality Act and doesn't really make much
of a difference.
CHANG: Thank you.
I
39
KUHN: Bob.
I
HARBICHT: Madam Mayor, I'd like to suggest a procedure from here. As the City Manager stated in his remarks,
we cannot adopt a General Plan tonight, there is much work to be done, as well as resolutions to be written and
things to be incorporated into the General Plan based on whatever the City Council decides they want. I think that
it's important to note that we have, in each chapter of the General Plan and summarized in the booklet given to us,
the General Plan strategies, and these are statements that become, if adopted, our statements, the City Council's
statements, of our strategies to implement the General Plan and make this community the kind of community that we
want it to be. And they're broken down into a number of areas, and I think that it's important that we take a look at
each individuaIly, at each one of these statements and consider those statements and think about, do we want that
statement in there and does it in fact express what the majority of this Council wants to see as the implementing
strategies for our General Plan. I'm not suggesting we do that this evening. I'm suggesting that the next time we
get together we come prepared to talk about those things.
I
And just for the public's information, there are a number of statements about community development, and many of
them are detailed. An example of one, here, is, "Promote a balance between protecting existing residential
neighborhoods, the need for new housing for all economic segments of the community, a wide array of recreational
opportunities, and commercial office and industrial uses to meet retail and service needs of Arcadia citizens,
contribute to a sound local economic base, and provide local employment opportunities." Well, there are 38 of those
community development statements, the one I read being one of them. By coincidence, there are also 38 facilities
and services statements; there are 52 environmental resources statements; and another 27 environmental hazard
statements. So in total there's 155 statements, all of them very important elements of the General Plan. And, so, I
think that, as I said, I think we should come next time prepared to discuss any of those that we'd like to see changes
on.
I think this evening what I would like to see us do is go through and...the four transition areas...and briefly comment
on each to give staff some idea of where we're going on those particular areas so that they can start thinking about
how to implement what the Council's direction is and also how to put it into a resolution, and what modifications
would have to be made to the Draft General Plan and the Draft EIR to accomplish the Council's direction, and then
at that point adjourn the meeting to...are we planning to pick this up again next Tuesday, Bill? Is that on the
agenda?
KELLY: Excuse me. Yes, it can be put on the agenda.
I
HARBICHT: That's what I would like to see. I think that would give staff some time to react to some of the things
that have come out this evening, and will come out this evening, and also will keep us moving on this thing.
40
KUHN: Would they have time to respond to the responses tonight and answer the responses by Tuesday's meeting?
BUTLER: Not response to comments, no, we wouldn't have adequate time to do that.
I
KUHN: I thought you said two weeks for that, so....
HARBICHT: Yes, well, what I'm saying is Tuesday we may want to continue discussion...we have, you know,
hundreds of pages here of documents, so I suspect there are going. to be other things we may want to discuss, things
that after we think about what's said this evening that we may want to talk further about. I'm not even suggesting
that we make a final adoption on Tuesday. I'm just saying...basically what I'm saying is, let's talk briefly about the
transition areas and get some general idea of where the Council is going on that this evening, continue our
discussion on Tuesday. It's just another step in the journey, here, towards getting at the General Plan.
KUHN: Focusing on the strategies on Tuesday.
HARBICHT: That's what I would suggest.
CHANG: Bob, are you talking about the General Plan or the EIR, or both?
II
HARBICHT: I'm talking about the General Plan at this point. Well, the EIR, of course.... You know, until we get
some fairly specific direction on where we're going in each area we can't really talk about the EIR, because the EIR
might need some modifications, if I'm correct, depending on where we're going in each area.
CHANG: Is it correct that...correct me if I'm wrong...that we have to sort of go from Draft EIR to Final EIR before
we consider the General Plan?
ZOLA: Before you take final action on the General Plan, the process that we're requesting you do is to give us
general direction on where you want to go with the General Plan document because that will affect whether the
appropriate responses to many of the written comments we've received. We will then provide you with a proposed
set of response to comments. You will then consider those response to comments to the Draft EIR as well as the
testimony you have received, and that together will constitute the final EIR.
CHANG: Well, yeah, my question really is that...should we kind of discuss the EIR first ~fore we even discuss the
General Plan? I just want to comment about this. Or we can discuss both at the same time?
I;
41
1
BUTLER: Right. What you should be doing is focusing on the land use, including the transition areas and the text,
and that will assist us. And then, what you make a decision on, then you're going to evaluate the EIR (inaudible).
You're going to be doing this kind of as a combination, but you need to focus on the land use because you need to
determine, then, does the EIR address...you may make some significant changes that weren't...you know, we did not
review in the EIR. Let's say you decided you wanted Transition Area 3 to all be changed to single-family, which we
didn't address in the EIR. Then we'd have to go back and do some additional work on the EIR. That's an extreme
case. But, no, you need to focus on the General Plan first, you need to look at that and discuss that first.
CHANG: Is it logical that we discuss the Environmental Impact first and then to decide whether...to decide what
kind of things we'll do in each transitional area?
I
ZOLA: In discussing...! think we're asking...and it's kind of an (inaudible) back and forth process, that may be
what's difficult here. The Environmental Impact Report analyzes a specific series of land-use choices. So one
question that we have for you is, what is the land use you wish to see? The next question would be, does the EIR
even address those land uses? When you address land uses, and that's where we're asking you to start, because this
does go a little bit back and forth...and you consider should Area l...what is the appropriate land use, long-term, for
Area I, you need to consider the impacts identified in the Environmental Impact Report when you look at what
should the long-terrn land uses be. When you then come close to a consensus on, this is what we want the long-terrn
land uses to be, the question that we will put to this Council and the question that you, effectively, will put to us is,
does the EIR even address this land-use scenario? The extreme example, and I'll use one even more extreme than
Donna used, let's say we decide to take Transition Area I and say, "O.K., we're going to build a million and a half
square feet of offices. Nobody complained about offices yet, so that's a great solution, we'll build those." The EIR
does not come close to ~ddressing a million and a half square feet of offices. So if that's the land use you want, our
EIR discussion is very short, which is, "We'll be back when we're done analyzing what you asked us to." So that's
the reason it's going to be a little bit of a back and forth. You need to consider the EIR in your initial discussion of
land use, and then you will come and focus on the EIR and its adequacy to address the land uses you desire.
KUHN: OK, I would like to suggest that we start with Transition Area No.4, simply because it's...well, it's
complex, it's... the answer is relatively more simple.
HARBICHT: Madam Mayor?
KUHN: Mr. Harbicht.
I HARBICHT: Just make sure I've got my numbers right, here. Transition Area 4 is the Rodeffer Pit?
42
KUHN: Right.
I
HARBICHT: And the recommendation is that that be zoned industrial?
That's correct.
ZOLA: Yeah, the recommendation oLthe original recommendation of the General Plan and the Plauning
Commission's for industrial designation of Area 4 which includes the Pit, as well as the...! believe it's the 8-acre
parcel to the south....
BUTLER: ActnaIly, l2-acre...total l2-acre parcel to the south.
HARBICHT: I'm in favor of that. It's what it is now, and I think that's what makes sense down there. So I would
be in favor of that.
YOUNG: That results in, actually, no change.
BUTLER: That's correct.
I
YOUNG: I would...are you making a motion?
HARBICHT: Well, I don't know if we're really making motions. We're just getting a general feel of the Council.
I'm just saying that if I were making a motion it would be....
KUHN: Whatever you are ready to do.
HARBICHT: I guess you ntight ask if there's any disagreement.
KUHN: Is there any disagreement with that?
CHANG: I kind of think that it's probably more appropriate (inaudible) ideas, they can comment about each area.
KUHN: Do you have a comment on this area, Transition Area 4?
KUHN: Deunis, did you have any comments?
I
43
LOJESKI: I have nothing to add.
I
KUHN: Do I hear a motion?
YOUNG: I thought we weren't going to have motions.
MILLER: I don't think you need motions now.. just comments for guidance. Motions will be appropriate later on
in the process.
KUHN: O.K., so we're sort of in agreement on No.4.
YOUNG: That there are no changes.
KUHN: Right. OK, Transition Area No. 3...open for comments.
YOUNG: Well, I like the idea of having the whole area, the 24 units, rather than going to the 30, and the ouly 30's
would be senior if there are any, is that correct?
I
BUTLER: Actually that is partially correct. Recommendation of the Planning Commission, which is what I think
you may be thinking of, is the area between Santa Anita and Second Avenue which would be 24 dwelling units per
acre consistent with the underlying zoning. The area between Second and Fifth Avenue would be 12, basically,
dwelling units per acre which is also consistent with the current zoning. They also recommend that the area on First
Avenue South of California down to approximately Duarte Road be a mixed-use commercial/residential 24 dwelling
units per' acre, and that the area designattd as 24 dwelling units per acre be allowed 30 dwelling units for senior
citizens if you have a minimum half-acre lot, the area between Second and Fifth be allowed up to a maximum of 18
dwelling units per acre for senior citizens if you have minimum half-acre lots. So' they are not recommending 30
dwelling units per acre for the entire area for senior citizens, only within the area that is currently 24.
YOUNG: Correct.
HARBICHT: Mary, are you a1~ going along with the Planning Commission's recommendation of the next
commercial (inaudible) on First south of California?
I
YOUNG: Yes, I am. This was discussed some time back as a possibility of even having store fronts on the first floor
and apartments above, and I think that certainly is feasible in some of that area.
44
HARBICHT: I like that, too. I just don't think we can support that many blocks of commercial alone. I think it will
pretty much lie fallow as it is.
I
YOUNG: No, I don't either.
LOJESKI: No, particularly when you look at historically what's been there. It's been a mixed-use area, that's
exactly what it is. I'm glad to see that they put that in there, myself. It's a (inaudible) option.
KUHN: Do we know how many R-2 and R-3 parcels are left undeveloped in that area?
ZOLA: What we did is in the housing appendix to the General Plan there is Exhibit 2, that actnaIly has a table
going parcel-by-parcel to the R-2 and R-3 area, showing numbers of units existing, numbers potential under the
existing zoning, which should be very similar to the recommendation of the Planning Commission. We have done
that...build that under the existing zoning of all those R-2, R-3 properties that yield, I believe it's 392 dwelling units.
The net increase is 392.
CHANG: According to this figure here, there is no paging here, showing the recommendation from the Plauning
Commission, there seems an area of pure commercial, is that correct?
c
I
BUTLER: That is correct .
CHANG: That was not stated in the....
BUTLER: No they recommended that that area remain as it currently is designated in the General Plan, which is
commercial, and that that area remain commercial.
CHANG: OK that is the current situation, right?
BUTLER: That is correct.
CHANG: And, what we mentioned here is the changes.
BUTLER: That's right.
CHANG: I would concur with the Planning Commission recommendation of changes of these three areas, for the
Transitional Area 3.
1
45
KUHN: Are we ready to move on to Transition Area 2?
I
HARBICHT: With regard to Transition Area 2, I have some concerns with the Planning Commission
recommendation there. I guess I would ask the question, does the five hundred and some units that we are trying to
meet here, does that use the Planning Commission's recommendation or the original General Plan recommendation,
the number that we came up with?
ZOLA: The 552 units is based on the Planning Commission recommendation.
HARBICHT: Even in Transition Area 2?
ZOLA: Yes.
HARBICHT: And, basically what they're recommending there is the mixed use of commercial multiple-family, and I
don't know how much...! mean how many dwelling units you assumed for that area given that designation.
ZOLA: I don't remember the answer to that.
I
HARBICHT: I would have to assume it's relatively few, because a good portion of it is built out with hotels and
office buildings now.
ZOLA: It was a relatively small number, I don't remember what it is. I would say the way to proceed is to identifY
the land use you feel most appropriate and then we can come back to you next Tuesday with the residential results in
the build-out figure. It was a relatively small number in that area.
KUHN: It would have to be.
CHANG: If we, O.K., ifwe design this area as totally multi-family, is it possible that then we don't need to consider
the other area, like Hillside or Anoakia property, to be part of t1)e site for the proposed....to meet the housing
requirement?
I
HARBICHT: The problem is that 'a good portion of it is already commercial, the hotels are there, the old Dutson
Agency Development is already there, and the other concern that I have is, we're currently working with the City of
Monrovia on the easternmost part of that along Fifth Avenue as tying in with the development they're trying to put
in on the other side of Fifth Avenue, and which would most definitely be commercial. So to designate it only multi-
family would certaiuly thwart those efforts right now. So I wouldn't be in favor of that.
46
KUHN: The Plarming Cotnmission recommendation, though, was mixed use.
I
HARBICHT: Yeah, which means it could go either way. Since most of it is already developed I guess there is really
no problem with it.
LOJESKI: Lloyd, do we get any credit for... when does a hotel become a permanent residence? You've got
(inaudible) called Residence Inn, people are living there. Do they suffice for dwelling units?
ZOLA: They are there on a temporary basis. It would be when Residence Inn allows people, or when typically used
by people who make that their primary residence. Years ago the State actnaIly favored a (inaudible) called single-
room occupancy hotels. Basic criteria for what is a housing unit under the housing element is it must be counted by
the census as a dwelling unit. Rooms in any of those hotels, whether or not they have kitchen facilities and the fact
they are apartments, are not counted in the U.S. Census.
YOUNG: But they are people in town permanently living in some of it.
ZOLA: The way that housing element works is it uses the Federal definition for dwelling unit (inaudible) U. S.
Census. So units in a hotel like the Residence Inn would not count in the housing element. Under any
circumstances the Residence Inn is already there so we can't use that. If it were closed as a hotel and rented as
apartments, then they could be counted as adding to the residential build-<lut of the City.
I
YOUNG: But some of the social service agencies put families in, like, Motel 6, and they live there.
ZOLA: In those cases, when they are in a place like the Motel 6 or some of the motels or hotels, that is what would
be typically called under State law "transitional housing." They are there on temporary basis; they are families who
are otherwise homeless. It's temporary shelter and that does not count against that 5oo-unit objective. That is a
whole separate objective and a whole separate discussion under the housing element's need for transitional housing.
The State has this all figured out.
KUHN: That figures, right.
LOJESKI: I think the designation bfmixed use, you know, kind of...what else you going to call it? It allows for, but
it doesn't predicate that it has to (inaudible).
KUHN: But chances are it probably (inaudible).
I
47
I
HARBICHT: I guess, really, we are thinking in terms of a land use designation long term, and there is no guarantee
that what Monrovia is talking about is ever going to happen. It is possible that we might want to develop some of
that for senior housing (inaudible). And so maybe the mixed use does give some flexibility, and it also gives some
direction to potential property owners and developers as to what would be acceptable.
LOJESKI: Prime Kiewit East may be a nice location for senior housing.
KUHN: That is true, and gives another option.
I
DONNA: Just to let you know, we did not count that area as providing required housing, because it is...because of
the mixed and the fact that a good majority of it is built out. We also know that we've got some projects that are
currently underway, you've got the water storage tank. There's really only a couple of sites that may have the
potential, but we felt that if you' take a look at the difference in recommendations, it doesn't hurt to allow the mixed
Use because it does provide potential. As an example, you've got (inaudible) Landmark Center, got some empty and
vacant office spaces up there. Theoretically (inaudible) some redesign in the potential for housing. So it is not a bad
recommendation, it does provide for an expansion, but we did not count that in the 552 units. The other thing that
we will be showing on the land-use map just as a matter of information will be the Metro Rail site, which is,
approximately at St. Joseph and west of First Avenue, and will be shown on our land-use maps. I know that question
came up tonight and that is something that City has taken into consideration and has addressed in general
(inaudible).
CHANG: Donna, for a mixed-use commerciaIlresidential, you can use completely for residential, is that correct?
/
DONNA: That's correct.
CHANG: Or, on the other side you can also use completely for commercial.
DONNA: That is right.
KUHN: I tend to go with the Planning Commission's recommendation (inaudible).
LOJESKI: It's Transition Area 3 that is going to (inaudible) your greatest housing need in the area.
KUHN: Right... OK, are we through with Transition Area 2. Dr. Chang.
I
48
CHANG: Yes, I have one more question here. The Planning Commission recommendation for this Transition Area,
also recommend that smaIl triangle area, that means south of Huntington, west of Metro Rail... west of the Rail and
east of the Fifth...west ofthe...east ofFifith Avenue as commercial, that is correct?
DONNA: That is correct.. ActnaIly the current General Plan designation in that area is planned development which
is the existing general plan designation. They are recommending that it be change strictly to commercial.
I
CHANG: O.K., now, when we talked about the mixed use you can have for commercial/multi-family and there is
great flexibility in that definition, I would recommend that the whole area be designed as mixed use.
DONNA: This area to the South is...because it is completely developed, and unlike on the north side of Huntington
Drive, you've got several hotels which theoretically could be, if for some reason it was abandoned...have somebody
come in, change the hotel use to a residential development. It was logical to create a mixed use there. Here, because
it is strictly offices, commercial, retail, we felt it was better to keep this strictly as commercial because there is less
potential for ever... to see any multiple family in this area, it would be very uniikely that you would get the types of
uses that currently exist here to ever change to a multiple-family use.
CHANG: What is the current zoning for this one?
DONNA: The current zoning is Commercial Planned Development.
I
CHANG: Commercial Planned Development...essentially it's commercial, right?
BUTLER: Right
KUHN: O.K., are we through with that one?
CHANG: Yes, I am through with that, and I concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation.
KUHN: OK, on to Transition Area I.
HARBICHT: Madam Mayor.
KUHN: Yes, Bob.
HARBICHT: In regard to Transition Area I, the Planning Commission's recommendation is essentially that it not
be zoned, or designated, or that it actually remain a zoning which we know is not going to apply to anything. And I
I
49
I
I
I
think that with regard to a General Plan, it is a plan for the City, a 10ng-tenn plan for the City, and the property use
is expressed by the zoning designations that we put on that. And we've heard a number of comments this evening
about wanting this property to be zoned commercial, and we've heard a number of comments this evening and
Monday evening, people saying no, don't zone it. And I think thal...!'m thinking about the alternatives here, the
alternative of not zoning the property basically says to Santa Anita, "Come to us with a proposal." And I think that
sometimes we have to step back from something and take a look at... there is no guarantee that Santa Anita is ever
going to come back to us with a proposal that in any way resembles what they had originally proposed. People's
minds change, needs change. They could come back to us with a proposal to build a stove factory, they could come
back to us with a proposal to build 3,000 condominiums, they could come back to us with a proposal to build a
retirement home, a huge retirement home. They could come back to us with a proposal to build a bunch of stores,
and I think that the ouly responsible thing to do is to indicate to every property owner what this City is looking for in
each area of the City. That's why we have zoning. This would be like if there was an empty piece of property that
you are looking at and thinking of buying to build a home on, and you fmd out that it was not zoned, so you went to
the City and you said, "Well, what is the zoning here?" And the City says, "Well, there is no zoning," and you said
to them, "Well, if I bought the property could I build a house here?" And they said, "Your guess is as good as mine.
Why don't you desigu the house and bring it in, then we'll tell you whether or not you can build it? And if we tell
you, you can't build it, maybe you'd like to put in a mini mall or something, come back and try us on that." It
doesn't make any sense. I think that it's the responsibility of a city to designate by zoning what kinds of things they
can expect, what kinds of things a property owner or a potential property owner can do with a piece of property.
This is a planning issue.
There's been comments about the fiscal health of Santa Anita, and some people have told us that Santa Anita has
some financial problems. That's none of my business and it doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is the zoning
designation of this community. Some people have come in and said that Santa Anita just wants to make money by
doing this. That doesn't matter to me, either. I've had my own business for 22 years now, and I'm probably not
revealing 3IIY secrets when I say that my purpose in having that business is to make money. As a matter of fact, the
free-enterprise system is the very backbone of our country, and so the fact that they want to make money, SO what.
There have been people who said that we should not designate this commercial because what Santa Anita may build
would compete with other businesses in the City. Well, the backbone of the free-enterprise system is also
competition. Free enterprise means free, everyone is free to go into to any business that he cares to go into, he's free
to succeed and he's free to fail. And I think that if somebody were to come to us and say they were planning on
opening a bakery in a particular lOcation and we said to them, "Well, we're sorry but we're afraid you might take
business away from another bakery down the street," I thing they would be irate, and they have any right to be.
I think no zoning is basically no planning, and I don't think that is what we want to do. I think that it is incumbent
on us to plan. For us to have spent over $300,000 developing this General Plan, for us to have had our Planning
50
Commissioners put in, God knows, how may man-hours on this, and this City Council to have put in all the time
we've put into it, not only the public hearings but the hours and hours and hours that all of us have spent at home
studying these voluminous documents and then say our General Plan is going to be no plan... that's ludicrous. I
think that if I were to agree that no zoning was the proper thing to do because we don't have a specific proposal
before us, then the logical extension of that is to take every other piece of property which isn't currently developed
and remove the zoning from it. Remove the zoning from Foulger Ford property until somebody comes to us with a
specific proposal and then we'll tell him whether or not we're going to zone it to match their proposal. That makes
no sense. We determined a long, long time ago what the zoning of the Foulger Ford property should be and, as a
matter offact, what the zoning of every other property in the City should be.
I
So basically what we have here is a piece of land which is currently lying fallow. I don't think there is anybody who
thinks that land is going to continue to lie fallow. I don't think there is anybody who can honestly say to...that, if
they owned that land they would let it lie fallow. And so I think we have to recognize the reality of it, that the land
is going to be developed. And it is going to be developed and it is irresponsible of us not to express this City's
wishes as to how we want it developed. Then come down to the point of what are the alternatives...one alternative
is industrial. I don't want industrial there. Another alternative is residential. I don't want residential there.
Residential creates far more demand for services than providing (inaudible), so that would detract from the services
we provide to the rest of the community. I think the only zone that make sense there is commercial, and I think that
we should designate it commercial in the General Plan, I think we should recognize and everyone should recognize
that, when a specific proposal comes before us, that a specific plan will be required, and that the proper scrutiny of
that plan as well as Environmental Impact Report and all of the other things that go with a specific plan will take
place. And we have to separate what most people seem to think that specific plan is going to be from this general
plan designation. I don't know what that specific plan is going to be, and I don't think anybody else does either,
and so we have to keep in mind that this is a general plan and I believe that commercial should be the designation.
I
YOUNG: Are you talking about the whole....
HARBICHT: I am talking about the...what has been referred to as the south parking lot. I also feel very strongly
that the northern part which encompasses the grandstands, the parking lot to the north and some of the parking to
the south there should stay as horse racing, because that's...! want to see horse racing stay there.
YOUNG: You referring to the map we got tonight?
HARBICHT: Yes, I want to see horse racing stay there, I think the community wants to see horse racing stay there.
I'm basically referring to the part of the property that is no longer being used for horse racing.
I
51
I
I
1
LOJESKI: (Inaudible) encompass, Bob, at all in that area...include or exclude the stabling area?
HARBICHT: Stabling area will be excluded, stay part of the horse racing designation.
YOUNG: This goes down then to City Center Drive, basically.
HARBICHT: Essentially, yes, City Center Drive then it dips down below all of the parts in the saddling area and
everything there, essentially goes over and abuts the mall.
YOUNG: I can go along with a commercial designation for that area as outlined on this map.
HARBICHT: . That's what I am referring to.
LOJESKI:. Your conimentS Boo, in regards to, if and when a specific plan'was filed at that time also, obviously a
. - .
specific environmental impact report would be filed too, coinciding with that specific plan. I think there is confusion
all along this process of wh3t the Environmental Impact Report with the Draft General Plan is in relationship to a
specific plan that may someday come down (inaudible). And this is in no way, shape, or form carte blanche
(inaudible) Santa Anita (inaudible) they've got the approval and they're off and running. That's far from the facts.
HARBICHT: I think there has been confusion created because we happen to have
.
a specific plan and the General Plan going on at the same time, they were separate but they were happening at
generally the same time. That's no longer the case.
YOUNG: I am talking about the General Plan and there is a comment on this map about density, but I am not
referring to any density.
HARBICHT: No.
LOJESKI: With the commercial designation that you're advocating, Bob, are you advocating it as our definition of
density in the commercial zone today or you....
HARBICHT: I think we should Il3ve a more restrictive density than that The density restriction right now as I
understand, for example, in the commercial downtown is .5, the mall is .4. I'm thinking of something more like .3
to guarantee more open space, somewhat less dense development.
LOJESKI: I would certainly support that, I'd like to see a less dense situation.
52
YOUNG: I would, too.
I
KUHN: Dr. Chang, do you have any comments.
CHANG: I dido't really prepare to come in on this one tonight, but, just a comment first. I think there is a zoning
for this property, which is horse racing...that'sjust in response to Bob's comment. I think Santa Anita Company has
been a good corporation and good business in our City and has been supporting our City, and when we are talking
about this, the whole thing, I think we should take this into consideration. I support the business, I think this time
they come to us with a good tradition of helping the community. and also, helping the citizens of Arcadia, and I
think we should try our best to work with this company.
They come out with this entertainment center idea which is part of the commercial... which is considered as a
commercial purpose, as indicated before that this is the best among the others like industrial and residential.
However, when we consider these zoning changes, we have to also consider the changes the environmental impact
which would be the result of these zoning changes, as you'll see that we spend a lot of money to study the
environmental consequences, for this zone change and I believe that a lot of these studies are devoted to this area,
Transitional Area I. And I believe that when we... to totally ignore this EIR before we give the consideration of
zoning change is not proper. I think there are lot of controversies and uncertainties about this EIR report. To
upset...to go ahead and change the zoning, would be in a sense accepting whatever is written down here in EIR,
because this EIR is based upon these proposed zoning changes, more specifically that entertainment center. I think
it's right that when you want to have the specific plan it should be consistent with the General Plan, so it's kind of
egg and chicken. If we want to develop this as a commercial, if the applicant wants to...the corporation...the Santa
Anita Company wants to come back with specific plan, while it is still zoned as horse racing, it's kind of
inconsistent.
I
I think that...my idea is that...I don't know whether legally it's workable or not, is that, I think we should give the
permission for the company to work toward this direction as commercial, but this is condi~oned upon their
submitting a specific plan with a complete EIR which is satisfactory to the City and also the citizens. I believe that
in the beginning of this report there's mention that the City as well as the citizens should be part of the process in
formulating the General Plan. That is why the citizens' concerns should be taken into consideration. So what I am
saying is that we give a kind of conditional commercial rezoning, let's say for a year and with the extension for
another year, during this time the .Santa Anita Company should submit a specific plan as I indicated with EIR and
proper mitigation measures. Upon acceptance of this specific plan then the change of zoning would become also
permanent. So, by this way we fulfill the purpose of the Santa Anita Company, we also fulfill our City's purpose, in
a sense of developing, in a sense of progressing, developing...and we also take into consideration of the citizens
concerns. So that is my (inaudible) .
I
53
I
KUHN: OK I think after all is said and done what really is at stake is the philosophical view of where Arcadia is
now and where we vision it to be in the future. We have an underutilized major portion of land located centrally in
the center of Arcadia adjacent to current commercial property. Residential homes makes absolutely no sense to me
at all, and it's zoned R-I with horse racing overlay. I agree that it should be commercial. All of the concerns that
I've heard expressed, and they're my concerns as well, the traffic, the crime, the design element and all that, it is all
going to be addressed at the specific project time, that's when the EIR is critical, that's when the controls are set.
But as far as I'm concerned I think it makes absolutely perfect sense to go with this particular area commercial, with
the residential (inaudible) overlay for the current track, because we all want the race track to be able to maintain and
stay, and that would leave the northern lot still R-l, am I correct, Donna? The northern part of the property beyond
track.
BUTLER: Well, that will be the zoned, and the G General Plan designation would remain horse racing.
KUHN: That would remain horse racing as well, but R-l with horse racing overlay?
I
BUTLER: No, the General Plan designation currently is horse racing for the entire site. The zoning on the property
is Sol, with R-l on the northerly perimeter and southerly, but the actual General Plan designation that you are
looking for would be horse racing for the remainder of the site I believe. So everything other than that southerly
parking lot would be horse racing.
KUHN: Would be horse racing...O.K.
CHANG: Madam Mayor, let me ask clarification, this Transitional Area I is the boundary of which is south side
parking lot, 123 acre, or the entire Race Track property?
DONNA: As Transition Area I was (inaudible) it included the entire race track property plus the mail. What I am
understanding from what Councilman Harbicht is saying, is he is recommending that the southerly parking lot area
'"
be changed to a commercial designation with a .30 FAR, that the mall be a commercial designation with a .4 FAR,
and that the remainder of the race track, in fact everything north of the parking lot, be maintained as horse racing,
which is the current general Plan Designation.
YOUNG: But part of the south parking lot would be horse racing, from City Center Drive east.
I
BUTLER: Well, then, yeah, the area identified in (inaudible) on the map that was handed out, the area identified
here.
54
YOUNG: Yes, that is what we are changing.
I
BUTLER: Right, and that everything north of that be horse racing.
YOUNG: And I would like to say, I think I do not agree with Dr. Chang in his wanting to delay things for a year or
two before we make it a permanent zone. I think that's not being at all proactive, and I thought we were trying to be
proactive.
CHANG: Well, I think....
YOUNG: Because they're going to come back with a plan and with an EIR anyway, before anything is changed.
CHANG: Well, I think it is proactive from different prospective point, from different point of view. I just want to
clarify my position here, what I am talking about is south side parking lot, (inaudible) of the race track which...as
indicated in this map that we just got today.
KUHN: Yes, Dennis.
LOJESKI: Just a comment, I think it's prudent planning to look at that southerly parking lot and the west of that
parking lot right now is commercial. To the north of i~ even though its racing, that's a commercial enterprise. And
to east of it, what's there? It's a commercial medical building. So you're really bounded commercially on three
sides. It's a natural addition into a commercial element, with Huntington Drive and everything else, and the hospital
becoming a buffer zone, on to the residential units around it. We keep talking about it, and I heard Dr. Chang again
mention entertainment center. There is no entertainment center proposed, there is no proposal in front of this
Council, and if the designation becomes commercial with the density as indicated, Santa Anita could come back and
put office buildings, just a medical building all the way around that (inaudible), and it would be a viable proposal. I
think we should stop talking about if its not our project. If they want to talk about the potential entertainment center,
so be i~ but I don't see one in front of me tonight.
I
KUHN: So do they have a sense of direction?
,
HARBICHT: I would assume the staff has a sense of direction from the Council here.
BUTLER: Yes we do.
I
KUHN: OK so...
'.
;<' 55
I
I
I
CHANG: I just want to ask a question here. Deunis indicated the horse racing...the race track, that is not
commercial, that's horse racing.
LOJESKI: Well, It is (inaudible), w~t I am saying, you know that's a pretty commercial enterprise, I would think.
KUHN: They are intent is to make money.
LOJESKI: I hope so, I would think so. You know, if I were to suggest something to Santa Anita, if and when a
project, if a project was ever submitted to the Council to tuck it and attach it as closely to the Santa Anita MaIl
project as possible, it was certainly allay the concerns of the people who are concerned about loss of the visual site of
the grandstands and the architecture, it would also attach the appendage on to the actnaI commercial development
that's there rather than set it apart from it, and that is just a suggestion.
ZOLA: The General Plan does include rather extensive text regarding the manner in which these commercial uses
or commercial entertainment, commercial uses, should be built which includes linkages to the mail. The next part
of your task is review the text of the plan which will get into the rules by which the various land uses permitted by
the map we just discussed would be permitted, that would be the next step (inaudible)
HARBICHT: Move to adjourn.
KUHN AND CHANG: Second.
KUHN:' The City Council and Redevelopment Agency will adjourn to 7:00 a.m., July 16, 1996 in Council
Chamber... with bagels l11ld coffee.
56