HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPTEMBER 3,1996
I
38:0279 OliO ';"0
090. '1,;
t.C-
CITY COUNCll.. PROCEEDINGS ARE AUDIO AND VIDEO TAPE RECORDED AND ON
FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
MINUTES
CITY COUNCll.. OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
and the
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 3, 1996
The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a Regular Meeting on
Tuesday, September 3, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Arcadia City Hall Council Chambers.
INVOCATION Rev. Ron Fraker, Victory Chapel, Church of the Foursquare Gospel
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE Ronnie Garner, Chief of Police
ROLL CALL PRESENT: Council members Chang, Harbichl, Young, and Kuhn
ABSENT: None
I. SUPPLEMENT AL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
I
ORD. & RES.
READ BY .
TITLE ONLY
None.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht, and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows tbat ordinances and resolutions be read by title
only and tbat the reading in full be WAIVED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Cooocilmernbers Chang, Harbichl, Young, and Kuhn
None
None
2. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE TO NEW COUNCll..MEMBER,
GARY A. KOVACIC
Of I () _ .::!> - The City Clerk administered the oath of office to new Councilmember, Gary A. Kovacic,
who was appointed by the City Council on August 20, 1996, to fill the vacancy created
by the death of Councilmember Deunis A. Lojeski to April, 1998.
COMMENTS
FROM
COMBR.
KOVACIC
I
Councilmember Kovacic remarked as follows, "First of all, I'd like to !bank
the City Council..Barbara. Mary, Sheng, and Bob-for this honor, and their expression
of their confidence in my ability to serve the City of Arcadia. I'd like to introduce my
family...my wife, Barbara; my daughter, Kelly, who graduated in June from Arcadia
High School and will be attending U.C. San Diego; my son, Casey, who is a sophomore
at La Salle High School; my morn, Florence Kovacic, is here; and my in-laws, Pete and
Betty Apple, are also here. I'd also like to !bank the many friends in attendance here
and also the friends who were kind enough to send me a note of congratulations. And
finally, I want to recognize two very special people, Janet and Michelle Lojeski. In the
midst of a tremendous personal tragedy, Janet was one of the first to call me with words
of congratulations, encouragement, and support after my appointment. So, Janet, !bank
1
9/3/96
38:0280
you for being such a strong and caring person. It's with mixed emotions tbat I'm
here.. .1' d much prefer to stiJI be on the Planning Commission if Deunis could be sitting
in this seal. He was an exceptional leader and a good friend, and while on the Council I
will continue to use him as a model for dedication, integrity, and enthusiasm for the City
of Arcadia. Thank you very much."
I
3.
AUDIENCE P ARTICIP A TION
Marguerite Soencer. 1008 South Mayflower Avenue, stated, in part, her congratulations
to Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator, for a superb job done by staff
in preparing detailed minutes for six Planning Commission meetings regarding the
General Plan Update. She suggested tbat City Council meeting transcripts on the
General Plan Update be available for sale in the Library for five cents per page. Mrs.
Spencer stated tbat she is not a member of any organized leadership group working for
or against the initiative to be considered by the voters in November. Mrs. Spencer spoke
atlengtb about the General Plan Update and Transition Area No. I, development of the
southerly parking lot of Santa Anita Race Track.
Colleen Doan. planning consultant representing Neighbors for Arcadia and a second,
not-yet-named citizen group, offered condolences on the loss of Councilmember Lojeski.
She stated, in part, her thoughts tbat the most democratic selection for Council
appointment would have been Mr. Gino Roncelli, who received the next highest amount
of votes in the last election. Ms. Doan spoke at length with regard to General Plan
proceedings held by the Plarining Commission and City Council. She hopes the public
votes for Measure M, to keep the land-use designation of the Race Track property as
horse racing unless the people vote to change it. She requested tbat Council publicly
discuss citizen concerns in detail and postpone a final decision on a land-use change
until Measure M has been voted on.
I
Gail Marshall. 2300 block of Lee Avenue, stated, in part, she wished to set the record
straight as far as labels and the accusations against her. Ms. Marshall noted tbat she
does not speak for self satisfaction, but presents suggestions in order to be helpful to
Council and shed light on areas of concern for citizens to be informed. With regard to
Councilmember Harbicht's explanation of the re-bidding of a project to remodel the
Mayor's office, Ms. Marshall stated tbat her concern is tbatthe money should not be
spent at this time. Also, in reference to the $117,000 expenditure for a new street
sweeper, she inquired if anyone had looked into comparillg the cost of contracting out
the street sweeping. Further, if there are enough street sweepers to do the entire City
every week, it should take one-half tbat amounl to sweep each half of the City every
other week. Ms. Marshall quoted from a La Verne City Newsletter as to how tbat city
was able to build a sports park at no cost to their General Fund. Ms. Marshall referred
to the City of Arcadia's denial of a permit for filming a movie on First Avenue, and
thought such exposure would have been of positive value for the merchants. She asked
for some feedback on issues she has presented this evening.
Judv McKinlev. 17 West Sierra Madre Boulevard, stated in part her hopes tbat
Councilmember Kovacic brings integrity to the Council as he did to the Planning
Commission. She applauded Councilmember Chang for his comments at the last City
Council meeting.
I
2
9/3/96
I
38:0281
4. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
YOUNG Councilmember Young welcomed Councilmember Kovacic to the Council.
(Welcome to
Combr. Kovacic)
(DARE.
Program)
(Design of
Housel
Ping. Comsn.
Minutes)
KOVACIC
(Concert at
First Ave. Sch.)
With reference to Council's recent discussion of the D.A.RE. program, Councilmember
Young feels Council would be very remiss to consider doing away with the program,
especially after reading in the newspapers about the increase in drug use.
Council member Young is appalled at the design of a house being coustructed on First
Avenue. It looks like "downtown Chicago in 1900." She requested tbat Planning
Commission minutes be provided to Council within the appeal time so tbat if there is
something wonhy of looking into the Council can do so.
----
Councilmember Kovacic congratulated the Recreation Commission and the Recreation
Department for the concert they sponsored at First Avenue School on Augnst 28. It was
a wonderful concert and a really good idea, and he hopes there will be more concerts in
the future.
CHANG Council member Chang offered congratulations to Councilmember Kovacic on his
Congrat. to appointment to the City Council.
Combr. Kovacic)
I
(Thank-you
to citizens)
HARBICHf
(Welcome to
Combr. Kovacic)
KUHN
(Summer
concerts)
(Arcadia
Weekly)
(Weekly mtgs.
with residents)
("Meeting
Hot Line")
I
5.
Councilmember Chang thanked the citizens who have offered compliments for the job
he is doing on the Council.
Mayor Pro tern Harbicht welcomed Councilmember Kovacic to the City Council.
Mayor Kuhn tbanked the Recreation Department and its staff for doing a wonderful job
on the summer concert series. She is looking forward to future concerts; perhaps more
advertising will bring a greater attendance.
Mayor Kuhn hopes tbat everyone has received a copy of Arcadia's newest newspaper,
Arcadia Weeklv.
Mayor Kuhn noted tbat, as a member of the City Council she has made keeping an open
line of communication with residents one of her top priorities. To help maintain a high
level of communication, she will be available to meet with members of the community at
her office at City Hall every Wednesday morning from 9 a.I!I. to noon. No appointments
are necessary, but requests for specific appointments can be addressed to Mayor Kuhn by
telephoning City Hall.
In another effort to meet the community's desire for enhanced communication, the City
has established a "Meeting Hot Line" for citizens to call to obtain information about
upcoming City meetings and special events. The hot line is a recorded message tbat is
accessible by calling the main City Hall telephone number.
CITY COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
3
9/3/96
]1':,-(2. 30
f!JPV ,.:;~}
5a.
ROLL CALL
5a.
MINUTE
APPROVAL
(Aug. 20, 1996)
(APPROVED)
ADJOURN-
MENT
6.
6a.
6b.
TEMPORARY
BANNERS
(CALIFORNIA
ARBORE11JM
FOUNDATION)
(APPROVED)
60.
AGRMT.
CITY/COUNTY
SANITATION
DISTS. RE
INDEMNITY
PROTECTION -
PUENTE HILLS
LANDFILL
(APPROVED)
6d.
~ <;" " 0 - b:J FINAL MAP
NO. 52089
(APPROVED)
38:0282
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Agency Members Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic, Young and Knhn
None
On MOTION by Agency Member Harbicht, seconded by Agency Member Young and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows, the minutes of the August 20, 1996, regular
meeting were APPROVED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Agency Members Chang, Harbicht, Young, and Kuhn
None
None
Agency Member Kovacic (he was not present at the meeting)
The meeting ADJOURNED to 7:00 p.m. on September 17,1996.
CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED
CONSENT ITEMS
Considered separately. See page 5.
APPROVED request by the California Arboretum Foundation to install approximately
36 temporary banners on City-owned street light poles on Baldwin Avenue, from
September 25 through October 28, 1996.
APPROVED Residential Waste Indemnification Agreement by and between the City of
Arcadia and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts providing indemnity protection
at the Puente Hills Landfill; AUTHORIZED the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney.
APPROVED Final Map No. 52089 for a 14-unit residential condominium project at
314-320 Genoa Street, provided tbat before the final map is recorded all outstanding
conditions of approval are complied with to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS 6b, 60, and 6d WERE APPROVED ON MOTION
BY COUNCILMEMBER CHANG, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM HARBICHf
AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic, Young, and Knhn
None
None
4
9/3/96
I
I
I
I
I
I
38:0283
6e.
Considered separately. See below.
6f.
Considered separately. See below.
6g.
6h.
Considered separately. See page 6.
Considered separately. See page 6.
6a.
MINUTE
APPROV AI..
(Aug. 6 & 20,
1996)
(APPROVED)
On MOTION by Mayor Pro tem HaIbicht, seconded by Councilmember Young and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows, the minutes of the August 6, 1996, joint City
CounciVSchool District Governing Board meeting and the August 20, 1996 regular
meeting were APPROVED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Councilmembers Chang, Harbicht, Young, and Kuhn
None
None
Councilmember Kovacic (he was not present at the meetings)
6e.
ANNEXA nON Consideration of request to direct the City Engineer to file a report with the City Clerk
PROCEEDINGS calling for the annexation of certain parcels benefiting from streetlights installed in the
OF PARCELS Consolidated Lighting Maintenance District (CLMD). In answer to Councilmember
INTO THE Chang's question, the City Manager stated tbat the "unzoned areas" indicated in staff's
CONSOLIDATED report are areas without street lights. The citizens in those areas must initiate a request
LTG. MAlNT. for street lights if desired. Council member Young asked if the citizens whose properties
DISTRICT are being annexed know that there will be an assessment on their tax bills. The City
(APPROVED. Manager replied tbat those property owners will be notified of the public hearing
REPORT TO BE process, which will begin if Council approves the proceedings to annex the referenced
Fll.ED wrm parcels into the CLMD. Councilmember Chang asked about putting information in the
CITY CLERK) City Newsletter as to how residents may go about the process of having streetlights
o 'i <(0 _ () 0 installed. Mayor Pro tern HaIbicht noted tbat tbat has been done in the past and could
, be done again; however, many residents simply do not want street lights.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Mayor Pro tern HaIbicht, and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to DIRECT the City Engineer to file an
Engineer's Repon with the City Clerk to begin proceedings to annex approximately 303
parcels into the Consolidated Lighting Maintenance District.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic, Young, and Kuhn
None
None
6f.
PURCHASE OF Consideration of the purchase of weapons and less-tban-lethal munitions for the Police
WEAPONS AND Department by expending $36,556 in Asset Seizure Funds. The Police Department
LESS-THAN. currently deploys a rifle and a shotgun in each police car. It is proposed to
LETIW.. MUNJ. replace the current rifle with a more effective model and convert the shotgun to a non-
nONS FOR letbal weapon by arming it with bean bag rounds. Councilmember Chang asked how
POLICE DEPT. outdated weapons are disposed of. Police Chief Garner stated tbat bids are taken from
(APPROVED) vendors who wish to buy the old weapons. In response to Mayor Pro tern HaIbicht's
IJ :: '1 f) . .' (J question, Chief Gamer stated that this is an appropriate expenditure of Asset Seizure
Funds.
5
9/3/96
6g.
EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT .
GERALD
GARDNER
(LIBRARY
PROJ. MGR.)
(APPROVED)
O;2,;)O-j/
0130_ "(;
38:0284
It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Council member Young, and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE the expenditure of $36,556 in Asset
Seizure Funds for the purchase of police weapons and less-than-lethal munitions from
Aardvark Tactical.
I
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic, Young, and Kuhn
None
None
In the role of Assistant City Manager, Fire Chief Gardner served as Project Manager for
the Library expansion project. Upon his retirement and subsequent vacation, the
Maintenance Services Director, Patrick Malloy, was assigned to work on the project
pending Mr. Gardner's return. The staff report of September 3, 1996, noted tbat it is
important to maintain continuity and have the expertise and knowledge of the person
who has been the Project Manager from the beginning. Additionally, this type of
arrangement will allow Mr. Gardner to provide services to the Fire Department, either
before or after the hiring of a new Fire Chief, should such services be needed. Mr.
Gardner has agreed to work for the City as a contract employee at the rate of$70 per
hour for a period not to exceed twelve months.
In response to Councilmember Chang, the City Manager advised tbat, Mr. Gardner, as
Project Manager from the start, is the only one who has all of the history, the
communications and linkag~s, and the level of information required to get the project
finished correctly. This in reference to Mr. Malloy continuing as Project Manager. The
City Attorney added that post-job mediations and arbitrations are anticipated on some of
the change orders and extras, etcetera, and Mr. Gardner's services will, at the least, be
needed for such procedures. Councilmember Chang explained tbat he raised the
question because he wanted to be sure it was absolutely necessary to spend taxpayers'
money for Mr. Gardner's services. The City Manager stated tbat, hopefully, this will
save taxpayers' money. Mayor Pro tem Harbicht commented tbat he is in favor of
having Mr. Gardner continue as Project Manager; however, he would like to have an
estimate of how many hours will be required. The City Manager stated tbat the
maximum funds to be allocated to this project will be $10,000. If additional costs arise,
authorization will be sought from Council before such expenditures are made. It is
hoped tbat all work will be completed by the end of the calendar year.
I
It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Young and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE the retention of Gerald Gardner to
provide contract "consultant" services to the City of Arcadia for the completion of the
Library expansion/renovation project, not to exceed twelve months, with a limit of
$10,000; and to provide services to the Fire Department, as needed; AUTIIORIZE the
City Manager to execute an Employment Agreement With Gerald Gardner, subject to
approval as to form by the City Attorney.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Council members Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic, Young, and Kuhn
None
None
6h.
TAX REV. FOR The City of Arcadia has utilized the Street Lighting Act of 1919 to establish Lighting
LT'NG. MAINT. Maintenance Districts within the City. The current lighting districts were formed
& PK'NG. D1STS. puruantto the Street Lighting Act of 1919to provide a source of revenue for the cost of
03'-0 i power, maintenance, and other capital improvements within the respective districts.
;;. "'/v<...\-
I
6
9/3/96
I
RESOLlJIlON
NO. 5947
(ADOPTED)
03:>0./";."
I
7.
38:0285
The City contributes up to 50% of the power and maintenance costs, with the remaining
costs collected from the property owner from funds derived from a tax applied to land
values. The City also formed two Parking Districts in the downtown area in accordance
with the Vehicle Parking District Law of 1943. Funding for the maintenance of these
districts is derived in part from property assessments and in part from contributions
from the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency. Each year a resolution is adopted fixing the
amount of revenue required to be raised from property taxes to pay the authorized
maintenance and operating costs of the City's Lighting and Parking Districts. This
information is the basis for establishing tax rates which are forwarded to Los Angeles
County and applied to properties in the specific districts.
The City Treasurer explained the process for establishing tax rates for maintenance and
operation costs of the City lighting and parking districts, which figures are set forth in
Resolution No. 5947.
It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Councilmember Young and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT Resolution No. 5947, "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE REQUIRED TO BE RAISED
FROM PROPERTY TAXES NECESSARY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 TO
PAY THE AUTHORIZED MAINTENANCE AND OPERA nON COSTS OF THE
CITY LIGHTING AND PARKING DISTRICTS."
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Council members Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic, Young, and Kuhn
None .
None
CITY MANAGER
(A TRANSCRIPT OF THE FOLLOWING ITEM HAS BEEN PREPARED)
7a. Lloyd Zola of LSA Associates explained tbat, following the close of public hearings on
ADOPTION OF the Draft General Plan Update and the related Draft Environmental Impact Report
1996 ARCADIA (EIR), Council directed a number of revisions to the General Plan document, which
GENERAL PLAN have been accomplished. Mr. Zola reviewed the findings for Council. He confirmed
AND RELATED that the terminology "commercial entertainment" has been removed from the General
ENVIRON- Plan in reference to the race track property. It was noted tbat any proposed projects at
MENTAL the race track tbat would come before Council would require a new EIR.
IMPACT REPT.
0>..>'<; .11.
I
Mr. Zola answered questions from Council. He explained what the review process
would be if and when a proposal is submitted by Santa Anita for Transition Area I. He
noted that a specific plan for the site would be subject to environmental review. There
was considerable discussion regarding the increase in traffic which would occur when
all land uses are built. With regard to the issue of crime, it was acknowledged tbat there
would be an increased demand on police services from all transition areas. However, a
report by Agajanian and Associates concluded tbat revenues raised by new general plan
land uses would be in excess of costs to the City. Discussion continued regarding
changes which would be brought about by new development' additional jobs; the
increased enrollment in City schools of students registering whose parents are employed
within the City; increased revenue to the City; and building guidelines with regard to
earthquakes.
7
9/3/96
RESOLlJIlON
NO. 5945
(ADOPTED)
05'.3, ,":)
RESOLlJIlON
NO. 5946
(ADOPTED)
"''l('''q' 10
rr~." ,,,.
Th.
DECLARATION
OF VACANCY
ON PLANNING
COMMISSION
AND APPOINT-
MENT TO FILL
UNEXPIRED
TERM
(TABLED TO
SEPT. 17, 1996)
01,)0- .J>O
38:0286
It waS MOVED by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Young and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT. and encompass comments made by
Council, Resolution No. 5945, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AS ADEQUATE FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 1996 ARCADIA
GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT."
I
AYES:
Councilmembers Chang (with reservations and concerns), Harbichl,
Kovacic, Young, and Kuhn
None
None
NOES:
ABSENT:
It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Young and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT Resolution No. 5946, "A
, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE 1996 ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN AND
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT."
AYES:
Councilmembers Chang (agreeing with only 51 % of the overriding
considerations), Harbicht, Kovacic, Young, and Kuhn
None
None
NOES:
ABSENT:
Declaration of vacancy on the Planning Commission and consideration of appointment
to the Planning Commission. With former Planning Commissioner Gary Kovacic being
sworn in as a member of the City Council, there is now a vacancy on the Plauning
Commission. In accordance with Charter Section 805, Council must first declare a
vacancy and then may discuss how to fill the unexpired term through June 30, 1997.
I
It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Chang and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to DECLARE that a vacancy exists on the
Planning Commission.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chang, Harbichl, Kovacic, Young, and Kuhn
None
None
It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tern Harbichl, seconded by Councilmember Young and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to TABLE appointment of a Planning
Commissioner to filllhe current vacancy through June 30, 1997, to the next Council
meeting on September 17, 1996.
Councilmember Kovacic commented tbat six Planning Commissioners are sufficient to
conduct business while this matter is tabled. Council member Young stated tbat she has
been on the Council when there were five Planning Commissioners and when there were
seven, and the Plauning Commission works more efficiently with five members. Mayor
Pro tern Harbicht agreed.
AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic, Young, and Kuhn
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
I
8
9/3/96
38:0287
I
7c.
APPROPRIA- Consideration of appropriation of $30,000 from the General Fund for a Special Election
TION OF FUNDS to place Measure "M" on the ballot in the Statewide General Election scheduled for
TO PLACE November 5, 1996. An initiative petition by members of the citizens' group "Neighbors
MEASURE "M" for Arcadia" has qualified a ballot measure to be decided by vote of the electorate of
ON BALLOT Arcadia in conjunction with the upcoming Statewide General Election. Ballot Measure
IN NOVEMBER "M" deals with amending the Land Use Element of the City of Arcadia General Plan,
(APPROVED) pertaining to the area of the City designated for horse racing. The cost the City will
inC\lr as a result of this ballot measure was not included in the Fiscal Year 1996-97
(0 " ,) - <If)
budget.
In response to questions from Council members, the City Manager stated tbat the
$30,000 will go to the General City Council Department Account, which pays for
elections. The funds will probably come from the Equipment Replacement Fund. The
City Clerk explained tbat the estimate received from the County for placing one item on
the ballot was $23,000, and the City has already spent approximately $6,900 for
verification of signatures on the initiative petition. The cost could be more; $30,000 is
the figure based on the County's estimate.
It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tem Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Chang and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROPRIATE $30,000 in the General Fund
for a Special Election to place Measure "M" on the hallot at the Statewide General
Election scheduled for November 5, 1996.
I
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic, Young, and Kuhn
None
None
7d.
STREET LImIT Status report on street light conversion project for the Upper Rancho area. This is an
CONVERSION approved Capital Improvement project. Since 1989 the City has been working to
PROJECT convert older, inefficient street light systems into a newer, less expensive to maintain,
(STATUS REPr. more reliable system. Until this point there has not been much resistance. However,
RECD. & FILED) some residents in the Upper Rancho area expressed unhappiness with the yellowish
01,SO .';;'0 color of the streetlights. Color-corrected lights with a less-yellow glow have been
selected for use in this area. Even so, there is still some opposition from a few residents.
Council discussed the matter and concurred tbat, in the interest of saving money and
energy, it is necessary to move ahead with the project using the color-corrected lights.
It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Chang and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to RECEIVE AND FILE the report presented by
staff with regard to the streetlight conversion project in the Upper Rancho area.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT,
Councilmembers Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic, Young, and Kuhn
None
None
8.
CITY ATTORNEY
I
8a. The City Attorney presented for adoption and read the title of Resolution No. 5943:
RESOLUTION "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
NO. 5943 APPROVING AND ACCEPTING NEGOTIATED EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX
(ADOPTED) REVENUE RESULTING FROM "REORGANIZATION NO. 1-96, PARCELS I AND
(llf/() " ,~""
0' (,(., . bO
9
9/3/96
KOVACIC
(In Memory of
Russell Hugh
Simon)
38:0288
2" (DETACHMENT FROM CITY OF MONROVIA, ANNEXATION TO CITY OF
ARCADIA)."
I
It was MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Kovacic, and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows tbat Resolution No. 5943 be and it is hereby
ADOPTED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic, Young, and Kuhn
None
None
Councilmember Kovacic adjourned the meeting in memory of Russell Hugh Simon. "It
is with great sadness tbat we adjourn in memory of Russell Hugh Simon, age 16, who
passed away on Monday, August 26, 1996, due to injuries sustained in a traffic collision
while riding his bicycle. Russell was born in Pasadena on July I, 1980, and would have
been a sophomore at Arcadia High School. He had just finished his first practice session
with the Arcadia High School sophomore football team when he was killed. Russell was
active in football, baseball, and enjoyed fishing on his vacations, especially with his
grandfather, after whom he was named. Russell also contributed time as a Junior
Volunteer at the Arcadia Methodist Hospital. Russell was in the same grade as my son
Casey, and I knew Russell from my coaching career at Arcadia Coast Lillie League and
.AJcadia Pony League. He was a wonderful kid, always smiling, always happy, and
always optimistic about the future. He was taken much too soon in his young life and
will be greatly missed. Russell is survived by his parents, John and Rona Simon, his
brother Stuart, his grandparents, Virginia and Russell Simon and Carol Sutherland, his
Uncle Jeff Simon, and many other relatives and numerous friends. A memorial service
to celebrate Russell's life was held today at the Arcadia Presbyterian Church. Donations
may be made in Russell's memory to the Extra Point Club, in care of Russ Simon
Memorial Fund, Arcadia High School, 180 Campus Drive, Arcadia, California 91007."
,I
ADJOURN- At 9,33 p.m. the City Council ADJOURNED the Regular Meeting to Tuesday,
MENT September 17, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers for a Regular
(Sept. 17, 1996 Meeting to conduct the business of the City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment
7:00 p.m.) Agency and any Closed Session necessary to discuss personnel, litigation matters and
evaluation of properties.
./~~~ Mayor
Barbara D. Kuhn, Mayor of the City of Arcadia
Pro Tern
A1TEST:
() j) ~2,
~d,City k '\
I
10
9/3/96
I
T RAN S C RIP T
(Insofar as decipherable)
RELATING TO
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ADOPTION OF 1996 ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN
I
SEPTEMBER 3, 1996
I
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 3, 1996
ADOPTION OF 1996 ARCADIA GENERAL PLAN
WILLIAM KELLY. CITY MANAGER: Mayor and City Council, the first item deals with the adoption of the 1996 Arcadia
General Plan. You have before you two resolutions. I will turn the presentation over to Lloyd Zola from LSA who will give
the Council an overview of where you are this evening and where you could proceed. Mr. Zola.
LLOYD ZOLA, Thank you. Following the close of public hearing, you directed a number of revisions to the General Plan
Document which has been accomplished. The document has been given to you. It is dated August 23, 1996 and the revisions
which you requested are shown in the red line in the shaded portions of the plan. So, tbat is all of the new text in that
document. You have in front of you two resolutions. One is number 5945 which would certiJY the final environmental impact
report as being adequate, including the findings tbat are identified in Exhibit A and would adopt the mitigation monitoring
program that you have as Exhibit B. The second resolution is 5946 which would improve the plan and adopt a statement of
overriding considerations which is incorporated as part of Exhibit A. You will find in the resolutions reference to Exhibit C
which is the General Plan Document. What I'll do is quickly walk you through the findings. The first portion of the findings
I'd like you take note of is, it starts on Page 2, which (inaudible) found to be insignificant. This is based on the initial study
which was completed early in the general plan program and incorporated as part of Appendix A to the EIR, as well as the
findings tbat are incorporated in the EIR document. Starting on Page 2 are impacts which were reviewed and found not to be
significant. Starting on Page 22 of the findings, which is Exhibit A, are significant environmental effects. These are listed
by number begiuning on Page 23. All of the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR are listed,
along with findings as to whether they have been mitigated to a level of insignificance or not. And tbat is the bulk of this
portion of the findings. Beginning on Page 57 is a description of the project alternatives. If you remember, the beginning of
the project alternatives occurred in July of 1995 when we appeared before this Council to present an alternative assessment
report which was later incorporated into the EIR. Beginning on Page 57 is the summary of the alternatives which werc
reviewed as well as the reasons for rejecting the alternatives in favor of the General Plan as it is now before you. Begiuning
on Page 63, our findings as to the applicability of the final EIR to the General Plan as it proposed to be adopted.
As I had stated at your last meeting, you directed certain changes to the General Plan as recommended by the Planning
Commission and as assessed in the draft EIR. Those included elimination of the commercial entertainment designation for
transition area one in favor of a commercial designation reducing general plan maximum densities, expanding mixed use in
transition area one of the Santa Clara Slreetlransition area and then several modifications to the text. These findings identify
tbat the EIR adequately addresses the impacts of these changes, as well as the general plan as originally proposed. Finally,
beginning on Page 65 is a statement of overriding considerations. The California Environmental Quality Act permits this
Council to adopt a project to approve the 1996 General Plan even though significant environmental impacts have been
identified, but you can adopt this General Plan only if you adopt the statement of overriding considerations. And what this
statement of overriding considerations is saying is that there are factors which need to be considered tbat outweigh the
I
I
I
I
I
impacts. And these benefits of the 1996 General Plan are identified as diversity in the City's economic growth as evidence by
the fiscal report prepared by Agajanian & Associates, expanded employment opportunities tbat will resnlt from both
commercial and industrial development, continued provision of a high level of services to the community, housing
opportunities for all economic segments of the community and your ability to meet the requirements of the California SurfaCl'
Mining and Reclamation Act as it affects transition area four. Begiuning on Page 68 is a review of each of the significant
adverse impacts identified in the final EIR and a weighing of those benefits against each of the impacts, and tbat runs, as [
said, beginning on Page 68. You have essentially two questions in front of you this evening. One is do you concur with the,
findings identified in Exhibit A and the second question is does the General Plan Document, tbat is before you, reflect the'
changes which you requested at your last Council meeting? With tbat I would be glad to take any questions you might have.
MAYOR BARBARA KUHN, Any questions?
COUNCILMEMBER MARY YOUNG, Well, I have one. From whatI've read and all I understand tbat the terminology
commercial entertainment has been removed?
ZOLA: Correct.
I
YOUNG: Correct. All righl....so tbat we are only considering the EIR on the General Plan and it has nothing to do with the
racetrack development?
ZOLA, It has nothing to do with any subsequent development. You are not approving a subsequent development. We are
not analyzing any specific subsequent development. We are analyzing potential commercial development of tbat site, along
with the rest of the City.
YOUNG: And I understand, and I think tbat the public should understand, tbat any proposed projects tbat would come
before us could and would probably require a new EIR for those. And I think that the public should understand tbat.
ZOLA: Thank you.
YOUNG: Thank you.
KUHN: Any other questions? Yes, Gary.
I
COUNCILMEMBER GARY KOVACIC: Lloyd, I have several housekeeping questions and then some substantive questions.
I guess I'm in the same position as you are and Ms. Doan in tbatthe three of US have probably read these documents more
times than anyone else combined maybe. First of all, on the Page 2 of your Statement of Findings and Overriding
2
Considerations, the last sentence tbat begins "as a result", I've read tbat and reread tbat and I can't get tbat to be a complete
I
sentence.
ZOLA, It is not anticipated.
KOVACIC: So, the disruption of residential uses is not anticipated?
ZOLA: Correct.
KOVACIC: Okay. On the General Plan itself, and again, let me know if I'm being too picky, these are what I call
housekeeping issues....on Page 2-12 you discussed the General FAR for commercial as being .50, and then you reduce to a
footnote the FAR for Fashion Park to be .40, and the FAR for the southerly racetrack parking to be .30. I'm just wondering if
putting these in a footnote sends the wrong message about how important it is that these areas are distinguished from our
general commercial? Is there any reason why they were put in a footnote as opposed to given equal footing with the general
commercial FAR?
ZOLA: Since it's a housekeeping item, it was simply easier to do that in terms of fitting it if there is a concern on the part of
the Council. There would be no problem showing .5, .4, .3 in the main body.
I
KOVACIC: I just didn't want to send a message tbat somehow we thought it was less important in tbat we decided to put it
in a footnote instead of the text. Again, on Pages 2-14 and 6-3 you talk about horse racing and I know tbat's something tbat
we dealt with at a considerable or with....we spent a lot of time discussing tbat at the Plauning Commission level. We don't
talk about live horse racing and I'm just wondering in the age of virtual everything if we're ruuning the risk tbat tbat can be
construed to mean satellite horse racing or video horse racing or virtual horse racing as opposed to live horse racing. I
wonder if live horse racing is something tbat should be specifically noted as what our goal is as opposed to some other kind of
horse racing. I don't even know what you'd call satellite horse racing, but I imagine that could fall within the parameters of
horse racing.
ZOLA: Probably the best way of wording tbat would be, as an example, the beginning of second paragraph on Page 214 to
say "it is Arcadia's long-term vision to retain live horse racing at Santa Anita Park," and that becomes very clear.
KOVACIC, Just for the record, we talk about horse racing at 2-14, 6-3 and figure 2-3 and maybe at those spots we should
insert live horse racing. At Page 2-18 you talk about the unique architecture of the southerly grandstand facade which again
is something we dealt with at great length at the Planning Commission level. But then the findings go on and talk about the
paddock area, the circular receiving barn, the clubhouse, the saddling stalls, the stables and the grandstands themselves as I
being eligible for the California Register of Historic Structures. Should we be including these other structures when we talk
3
I
about the unique architecture of the southerly grandstand facade or are there policies and procedures in place now to conside r
those features at a later time?
WLA, There would be policies aJld procedures to consider those. The reason tbat was not done is tbat the general plan ill
now recommended as no changes.... proposed for the paddock area. The idea of retaining the grandstand facade is not
because it's going to be changed, but because there will be development proposed to the south or proposed to the general plan
to the south which could cut off the use and tbat's what we wanted to maintain. It'll be no problem to making the change tbat
you're discussing.
KOVACIC, So the intent is sti11to, I don't know if preserve is the right word, but to continue those various architectural
features of the current structures? Is that what you're saying?
ZOLA: Correct. And we do have a policy or strategy towards the end of tbat chapter to tbat effect which was added hased
on, actually, the recommendations of the Planning Commission and we do use the phrase "live horse racing." "Significant
community feature worthy of preservation," tbat's the phrase related to the entire track facility.
KOVACIC: Okay. Thank you.
I MAYOR PRO. BOB HARBICHf: I think this specific reference to the grandstand was because of its visibility with the
paddock area....it doesn't have....
ZOLA: Right
KUHN: It doesn't have....
KOVACIC, So we're talking about the view-scape as far as the facade is concerned but there's still some protection for the
actual architectural features that comprise the racetrack?
ZOLA: Corncct.
KOVACIC: The performance standards. First of all, tell me what you envision performance standards to be? What does
tbat.... what do performance standards do for a City for the Planning Department?
I
ZOLA: The reason tbat this was originally recommended in the form tbat we have is so tbat in one portion of the plan the
basic rules for reviewing individual developments would be found in the typical general plan in order to determine
consistency of an individual project, you need to thumb through an entire document and pick out from a myriad of
4
policies....welllet's see, in this case number one, three and five have something to do with development, two, six, nine....!
think it's very difficult to find them. What we wanted to do here was to essentially consolidate the basic policy statements I
related to individual development into one portion of the plan, provide a set of rules against which individual development
projects could be measured.
KOVACIC: Okay. I want to take one set of performance staridards as an example, Page 6-13 of the EIR, Crime Prevention.
Let's assume for the sake of argument, a proposal is submitted and let's assume for the sake of argument tbat staff with City
Attorney input has decided tbat it would be appropriate to require a dedication for a police substation or other public facility,
would tbat be permitted under these performance standards? Again, assuming tbat it's a legal dedication? Do we need a
performance standard tbat gives us that option or are these performance standards broad enough tbat it would come within
the review of one of them?
ZOLA: I think the number 27 would be broad enough for the issue you have and of course the legality of tbat would depend
on the nexus between the project and the requirement.
KOVACIC: But it's not your intent to preclude something like that assuming it's a legal dedication?
ZOLA: That is correct. We also have as part of this the performance standards related to provision of services and that's
probably the one tbat would come more into play in relation to the issue you are raising, which would be response time and
ability to provide adequate service.
I
KOVACIC: Okay. Following up on Mary's comments about what we're doing here tonight and what we aren't doing herc
tonight, when and if a proposal is submitted by Santa Anita for transition area one, can you tell us what the review process
would be and the opportunities for public input would be?
ZOLA,. The first portion of the review process would be determining whether in fact the application tbat is ultimately
submitted is adequate and complete. Does it meet the City's requirements for complete application? If it is a specific plan, is
tbat specific plan complete, is the application form filled out, is the information that's necessary there. So, that's the first
part. Second part would be preparation of initial study to determine whether or not an environmental impact report or
negative declaration would be appropriate. Are there any potentially significant impacts? If there are potentially significant
impacts and no mitigation measures provided that would reduce those impacts to a level of insignificance, there would be a
requirement for an environmental impact report. If there is a requirement for an environmental impact report, there will be
consultation with public agencies, there will be a notice of preparation distributed and made available to the public for a 30-
day review period. Following that 30-day review period, presumably an environmental impact report would be completed. A
specific plan document would be, at some point, made available for the public prior to release of an EIR The environmental I
impact report would be available for public comment for a 45-day period. Following....at tbat point, there would also be
5
I
public hearings. First in front of the Plauning Commission and then in front of the City Council. And that would be thl:
typical process. So four points of public input. The notice of preparation, the environmental impact report, plauning
commission hearings and City Council hearings.
KOVACIC: Now, the fear expressed by Ms. Doan about what this EIR is doing and not doing is tbat somehow a subsequent
application would escape an EIR or significant environmental review. Are you telling us that tbat' s not the case?
ZOLA: The provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act apply. The determinations as to whether a project luu:
the potential for significant impact still applies. As we've said through the hearings, there are levels of detail in terms of
traffic tbat still need to be discussed as part of any individual project. Site specific issues, the arrangement of individual uses
on the site, would need to be subject to environmental review and whatever the appropriate level of tbat review is would
occur. This general plan was not intended to suffice for the environmental review of a specific project of that size.
KOVACIC, Okay. And, you also mentioned in the EIR the fact tbat a project may be tiered or phased. Can we have....are
we assured tbat at some point the overall project is going to be considered even if it's going along by phases?
I
ZOLA: Yes. An entire....the project application, whatever tbat first application is tbat arrives at the City would be the
subject of the environmental review. If a specific plan were to arrive at the City on any site, there may still be subsequent site
plans, area plans, subdivision maps tbat would occur and that is the concept of tiering.... those later more detailed levels of
review tbat could occur on any large project.
KOVACIC: So, you don't contemplate it being piecemealed as far as the analysis is concerned?
ZOLA: No. What you could not do would be to say we are going to address only a portion of this project and then we are
going to come back with another portion of the project and then another one and another one.
KOVACIC: Okay. A couple of specific concerns that have been voiced about a potential project at the racetrack. How,
under the documents we're going to be considering tonighl....how do we deal with setbacks?
ZOLA: The setbacks would be the subject of a specific plan document and we are talking about development in transition
area one. They would be established by tbat or in the absence of that tbat would be established by existing City zoning. The
issue for the environmental review would be are those setbacks....do those setbacks accomplish the performance standards
included in the general plan? Do they achieve an adequate buffer between adjacent uses and in particular, in this case, would
be the residential uses across Huntington Drive?
I
KOVACIC: Okay. And how about circulation and parking?
6
ZOLA: In terms of parking, is there adequate parking? We have a very basic rule in the general plan that, if Council adopts
this document, would get applied. And that is tbat the net effect of new development in transition area one cannot exacerbate I
the off-site parking problem that you now see. And so the determination would need to be made as part of tbat document, as
part of the review of a subsequent approval of subsequent project, it would be is there adequate parking for these being
proposed?
KOVACIC: Okay. And how about circulation?
ZOLA: In terms of circulation, we would look at the specific list of uses tbat are being identified. Determine whether they
are consistent and those uses would yield development consistent with performance standards included in the general plan,
which is level of service D on roadways with the exception of Michillinda, a level of service E, and local residential streets
level of service C. At a project level, as the City has done in the past, we would also look at intersection movements of the .
specific project and specific listed uses being permitted by tbat subsequent project.
KOVACIC: Okay. And one final set of questions. You talk about the internal circulation system as being a goal that
it.... tbat you have an adequate circulation system that operates internally and there's a linkage between the mall and a
potential project on the southern parking lot. But you don't menlion....you do mention some. specific remedies but you don't
mention other specific remedies that would come to mind like shullle service or permitted or time parking on adjacent streets.
This document wouldn't preclude us from posing those kind of conditions ifwe felt they were adequate would it?
I
ZOLA: No. The purpose of the project review is to determine the specific manner in which a specific project will meet the
performance standards of this general plan. There were Several, comments on the EIR related to transportation demand
management, reduction of traffic and travel demand. And there were requests tbat we include as requirements very specific
requirements tbat transportation demand management be met in this and this and this way. It would be the requirement of
the specific plan, the specific manner in which transportation demand management whether it's shuttle or so on. One place
you do not have discretion would be the parking for any new commercial development. It must be on the site.
KOVACIC, Okay. And finally, I'm correct in stating that the overriding considerations, which are legally required for a
document like this, aren't exclusively relevant to the racetrack property? They're relevant to other aspects in the general plan
as far as citywide concerns? Is tbat how you anticipated it would be handled?
ZOLA: Yes. That is correct.
KOVACIC: Thank you.
I
KUHN: Thank you, Gary. Any other questions? Dr. Chang.
7
I
COUNCILMEMBER SHENG CHANG: First of all, Mary just asked this question tbat we have this EIR for this General
Plan 1996 and then when you have a specific plan submitted then you have to have another specific plan EIR, which ha;
nothing to do with this General Plan 1996. My impression....is it the impression tbat you get, Lloyd?
ZOLA: At such time as a project is submitted for transition area one, it will require its own environmental review. And [
would not say it has nothing to do with the General Plan because the General Plan sets the basic performance standards tbat
tbat specific project must meet, but a specific project requires its own environmental review.
CHANG, Okay. What I'm saying is tbat it looks like it gives tbat impression tbat maybe it was not intended to be tbat But
my....am I correct tbat the...the EIR tbat we now have would relate to the Santa Anita transitional area or we can say tbal.
(inaudible) has....(inaudible) is derived from the Santa Anita transitional area when it's fully developed?
ZOLA, The general plan analyzes build-out ofland uses based on the proposed land use map throughout the City including
transition area one, but it does so at a general plan level. It does not analyze the particular operational characteristics of any
specific project,
CHANG: Of course. It also includes the other (inaudible) transitional area? Right?
I
ZOLA: Correct.
CHANG: I guess my point is that, when you have a specific project submitted, and of course you need an EIR, I think it's
, possible tbaL..because what we have done in this EIR is mostly based upon the concept or the study on the build-out of the
transition area.... Santa Anita transitional area in terms of commercial uses. So tbat the specific plan EIR could be borrowing
quote unquote the resnlt of this General Plan 1996 EIR I think it could borrow a lot of conclusions of this EIR here. Am I
correct?
ZOLA: It could....we're discussing a project tbat hasn't been submitted so it's rather diffjcultto identilY what it could and
could not use. The General Plan EIR addresses citywide impacts. It addresses.. ..and all of the City is built according to the
land use map. These are the impacts that you get ~a total. When an individual project comes forward it would analyze the
specific impacts oftbat project....would be more detailed for a large project tban would this General Plan EIR
CHANG: Okay. Let me ask a few questions with regard to some important issues here. With regard to traffic, I understand
tbat this may have been mentioned before....! just want to bring it up again tbat with the traffic issue, I understand tbat there
would be a 60,000 more vehicles per day throughout the City when the transitional area....when Santa Anita transitional area
is built up...commercially.
I
8
ZOLA, The 60,000 is approximately correct but that would be when all land uses are built; including transition area one, all I
of the permitted uses within transition areas two, three and four as well as increases in traffic tbat will come from outside the
City. So it is not only, ifl remember the numbers correctly....
CHANG: But mainly from the build out of Santa Anita transition area? Is it correct?
ZOLA: The largest single generator would be transition area one.
CHANG: Okay. Now, the....I....it is stated here tbat the....most of the traffic would be during the night and also during lunch
time. Is it correct?
ZOLA: Most of the traffic would occur outside of the two peak hours, and the two peak hours being the a.m. peak hours and
p.m. when people are going to and from work. We have analyzed the traffic as is typical for a general plan on an average
day. Now, what we did was we also looked at what are the characteristics in this City in the p.m. peak hour, which is the
greatest traffic hour tbat occurs and also the hour that basically sets the capacity of the streets, because tbat's when they
become congested. We looked at what occurs in the existing case. How much of your daily traffic comes in tbat hour? We
also looked at how much traffic, based on the standard iustitute of traffic engineering, peak-hour characteristics would occur
from the mix of land uses tbat are being proposed in new development in the City. Based on tbat, we came to the conclusions
regarding how much traffic could be put on the streets without exceeding the threshold limits tbat are identified in the
General Plan.
I
CHANG: Okay. I....from the study....from the conclusion here is that for 60,000 more vehicles per day throughout the City is
acceptable?
ZOLA: Sixty thousand vehicles could be put on the street based on the land uses tbat are being proposed in this General
Plan. Exceeding the thresholds along Michillinda, between Colorado and Sunset and then on Holly south of Huntington
Drive....on Holly south of Huntington Drive traffic could be routed around which would reduce the amount of traffic there.
The thing to keep in mind is this is not 60,000 cars running past anyone location at anyone time. If you, for example, would
drive down the block to visit your neighbor or around the comer, that's one trip. You now drive home. That's two trips.
You drive to the market. That's three. You drive home. That's four. Those occur at different times during the day. So, that
is how you achieve tbat. Sixty thousand tiips also needs to be compared to how many are already on the street. So this is not
like we've got five trips today and we're going to go to 60,000 and five in the future. It spreads over....
CHANG: I believe that 60,000 vehicles is additional 60,000 vehiclcs.
I
ZOLA: Sixty thousand is additional beyond what occurs today.
9
I
CHANG: Okay. With regard to Holly Avenue, it was mentioned that we can avoid the problem to keep it at what (inaudible)
D?
ZOLA: Correct.
CHANG: By two ways. One is by shunting the traffic. One is by creating four lanes. Is tbat correct?
ZOLA: There is a third way which is identified in the EIR and that is by reducing the size of a future development. What
will happen is when a future development comes forward, part of the analysis will be a required demonstration as to how tbat
project will not cause level of service E to be achieved on Holly.
CHANG: How do you create four lanes on Holly? Is it by elimination of roadside parking and the creation of traffic lights?
ZOLA: The most likely ways that the level of service D would be achieved from development of transition area one would be
routing of traffic around tbat location, or reduction in size of the project, or with transportation demand management tbat
wonld reduce the travel demand of the project.
I
CHANG: Ifyou....I don't think that it was considered. If you shunt the traffic, then the traffic would go to other roads such
as Baldwin, Santa Anita...you know, and then....did you take tbat into consideration when you are considering Baldwin or
Santa Anita in this situation?
ZOLA, Yes. The amount of traffic tbat would need to be rerouted is not a huge amount, but tbat is the reason tbat you need
and that you must have the specific analysis of the subsequent project. Because even though the General Plan, for example,
may permit a maximum of 1.1 million square feet of development on tbat site, you are not as a Council obligated to approve
any project that happens to show up with 1.I million square feet. We do not know for certain tbat any project tbat comes
forward will in fact have 1.1 million square feet. So what the General Plan does is establish a performance standard tbat
must be met. If it cannot be met at the maximum 1.1 million square feet, then you cannot approve 1.1 million square feet.
CHANG: Yes. I agree with you but I think we are approving the EIR here that gives that kind offeature.
ZOLA: You are approving an EIR or you are being asked to certify an EIR that establishes a mitigation measure which has a
performance standard. It has a performance standard that must be met and that performance standard is level of service D on
Holly south of Huntington.
I
CHANG: I just want to point out that it was not really stressed, it just mentioned that for additional 60,000 vehicles per day it
would be spread out throughout the City in 24 hours. I think a more correct addressing.... way of addressing the issue is tbat
10
these additional vehicles would be mainly spread out during the peak hours. Noon and evening on some main roadways, like I
Huntington, Duarte, Baldwin, Santa Anita, you know, Michillinda, Holly....sometliing like this.
ZOLA: The majority of traffic will be on the major roadways. That is correct In the peak hour, right now, on your streets
you have, in your peak hour, the largest peak hour which is the p.m., anywhere from 7to about 11% of the total daily traffic.
The a.m. peak hour is somewhat less. So, at most, on any street, in those two peak hours, you have 20% of the traffic....ofthe
daily traffic and tbat is a very typical situation.
CHANG: Well, I think....
ZOLA: I'm sorry.
CHANG: I think what I'm talking about, the peak hours, is relative to the establishment of Santa Anita transitional area
project Okay. How many....1et me talk about some issues about parking. We know tbat there are good days for the race
track, for racing, right..:when there's a big-name horse racing here. How many days in a year do you have this kind of
situation?
ZOLA, I'm trying to remember the number. It is less, typically, than JO if I remember. And that is the reason we have the
general plan rule tbat says that any new development in tbat south parking lot may not exacerbate the situation you have now,
which is off-site parking in the neighborhood.
I
CHANG: Well, I'm trying to point out tbat..:1 believe during those 10 days we have the parking...the whole parking lot is
full, right?
ZOLA: Correct (Inaudible) up to JO days.
CHANG: So, you have the (inaudible) the parking into the neighbor's street given those situations. Now, with the addition
of this transitional area one project, or (inaudible), how do you hanclle the parking? I would assume tbat there would be more
severe (inaudible) parking problems during those JO days.
ZOLA: Basically, what you're asking me is to identify how we are going to make a project work tbat has not yet been
, submitted. From the general plan standpoint, the document tbat is in front of you today, the rule is it may not exacerbate the
problem. Now, we can identify several ways in which that might happen. First of all, we do not..:.there could be additional
on-site parking built. There could be structured parking built. Therc could be underground parking built as part of a future I
project. There could be off-site parking provided as part of a subsequent project. It is the job of the general plan to establish
the rules. It is the job of the subsequent project to meet those rules and that is what is before you.
11
I
CHANG: Okay. Now, with regard to the air quality I guess there is nothing we can do, right? I'm talking about the long-
term not the short-terms. The short-term during the construction you can do something. You can do a lot of things there to
alleviate the air pollution problems, but for the long-term consequence created by the increase of traffic and the worsened ai,
quality there is nothing we can do, right? We have to deal with it?
I
ZOLA: There are many things tbat can be done to reduce the amount of pollutants tbat would otherwise occur and those an:
part of this general plan. We had quite a discussion at Council regarding extension of Metrolink service, extension of Blue..
Line service. That is one of the things tbat would be done to reduce air pollutant as part of the project, as part of the general
plan project. We have a transportation program as part of this general plan tbat the Southern California Association of
Govepunents read, reviewed and called commendable. That reduces the amount of air pollution tbat would otherwise occur.
But if you ask the question "is there anything we can do to reduce the amoUnt of future traffic to the point tbat we do not
exceed the thresholds of significanceT' The answer is no and not allow things to be developed. The only way you conld do
tbat would be to say we will not allow anything to be built in this City. The thresholds for significance are relatively low and
so any major project, and this is very typical, not only in this City but any City, any major project in Southern California is
likely to have significant unavoidable adverse air quality impact. That is because in any general plan the only general plans
tbat I have seen tbat do not have significant air quality impacts fall into one of two cases. One is the hopeful situation tbat
somehow all the mitigation measures are going to work or are going to reduce travel down to next to nothing, or you have a
City tbat is already fully built out and nothing left to be built. Every general plan I have worked on, even in cities nearly built
out, have significant air quality impacts.
CHANG: Okay. With regard to the crime issue, issue of crime, I understand tbat from the report tbatthere would be al>out 5
to 14% increase ofthe...or increased demand for the police force when the transition area is built out?
ZOLA: I think you're referring to the figures that were used for transition area one which said tbat it could be the build out
of transition area one, 1.1 million square feet or 1.5 million square feet in tbat artalysis.
CHANG: 1.1
ZOLA, I think...the EIR I believe, in ,the 5 to 15% was based on 1.5, could have an impact on police services anywhere from
similar to the existing racetrack operation, which I believe is about 5%, up to the mall which takes up about 15% of the police
department's effort.
CHANG: No. I think it's increased demand for the police force.
I
ZOLA: Right. That would translate into increased demands, something equivalent to adding the demand of the racetrack up
to adding the ~emand of the mall to what the police department has now.
12
CHANG: So tbat means we have to spend more money for this?
I
ZOLA: There would be an increased demand on police services, not only from transition area one but from all the other
transition areas. Part of the Agajanian & Associates report looked at, do these new land uses that would be put in place by
the general plan or could be permitted by the general plan raise revenues in excess of what they would take in cost, and tbat is
the case and tbat was the conclusion of the Agajanian report, is tbat the general plan land uses, the new land uses, generate
more in revenue than they would in terms of cost. So there would be a net increase to the City.
CHANG: Now, about the schools. I think this is more related to transition areas 2 and 3 when we build al>out 580 more
household dwelling units and you have .4, you create .4 students per dwelling unit. So tbat would equal to about 200 or
something students, right?
ZOLA: Correct.
CHANG, If we consider tbat, I understand that the school district would accept the children of the people who work here? Is
tbat correct?
ZOLA: If there is room. Right now state law says that you can register your children by place of employment or place of
residence.
I
CHANG: Okay. So that's correct, right?
ZOLA: Yes
CHANG: Okay. Now, we are talking about transition area one. We are talking about creation of, in my understanding,
al>out six thousand more jobs. Six thousand more....Ithink it's more jobs or employees, whatever.
ZOLA, If I remember correctly the six thousand figure is City wide, but it would be a substantial number of jobs on tbat site,
in transition area one.
CHANG: Does il....we didn't consider what kind of impact, in terms of the increase of student enrollment from tbat area if
you're out of the area. That was not considered here.
ZOLA: Yes. What we did was we talked to Arcadia Unified School District, determined the number of students now
attending Arcadia schools that are registered by their parent's place of employment and then take tbat same proportion of I
number of students based on place of employment in Arcadia to number of jobs and apply that to the total increase of jobs
13
1
inside Arcadia Unified School District as a result of this general plan, and the EIR does have tbat figure as part of it. It i:;
something like 23, 24 students. I can dig out the exact number if you like.
CHANG: Only 23 or 24?
ZOLA, There is a very small number now registered by place of employment
CHANG, That's the present situation, right?
ZOLA: Right. And what we did was compare the number now registered by place of employment to number of jobs in the,
City and work the assumption tbat as you increase the number of jobs in the City the number of students would increase
proportionately.
MARY YOUNG: But the schools only take them if they have room for them, don't they?
'I
ZOLA, First priority goes to a registration by place of residence. The other thing to keep in mind is that the general plan
performance standards, again on Page 6~, there is a table that has performance standards for school facilities, along with
other facilities. School facilities (inaudible) performance standard is maintained adequate capacity to meet projected annual
enrollment The general plan requirement is that every project meet tbat standard. So that if at some point in the future it is
found tbat the number of children registering by the parent's place of employment is greater or if the school district would
come up with a generation factor by place of employment, different than what they have, it could justify tbat for a
development project this requirement would come into place, and that will be part of the review of any subsequent project, is
meeting all of the standards on Page 6~, schools, fire, police, roads and so on.
CHANG: The primary school and secondary school are near the full capacity? Is tbat correct? From the table they both
reach the lal>el 95% capacity, for junior high it is beyond 100% capacity already.
ZOLA: The junior high is close to capacity as I remember the general plan figures in the EIR show that with build out of the
general plan as proposed, enrollment at the junior high level or middle school level would exceed existing capacity by about
one classroom.
CHANG: The primary schools are also reaching full capacity. They are all 95%.
I
ZOLA: They are near capacity but you have a number of schools. You have a small amount of capacity at the various
schools which is identified in the environmental impact report. We analyzed the 580 dwelling units and the increased
amount of commercial industrial development occurring inside Arcadia Unified School District; identified number of students
14
based on the existing ratio of students coming from commercial industrial from job creation as well as the .4 students per
dwelling unit; took a total number of students, allocated tbat by each of the grade levels, primary, middle school and high I
school; found adequate capacity in the elementary and high school levels; found tbatthere would be a shortage of one to two
classrooms at middle school level. We then identified the amount of developer fees that would accrue to the development tbat
would occur in Arcadia Unified School District, and tbat is far more tban the cost of one to two classrooms. But beyond tbat
is the reqnirement tbat I just mentioned which is every project, and the large projects in particular, will be analyzed to meet
this specific performance standard which is adequate enrollment capacity.
CHANG: The build-out of Santa Anita transitional area has at least two advantages. One is increased revenue for the City
and one is to increase employment for the residents of the City. It could accompany tbat when they are picking up the
employees, they could preferentially pick up the.... with regard to the residence, okay, because this company is here and they
want to put a preference for those applicants who live in Arcadia.
ZOLA: That is a legal question I do not know the answer to as to whether it would be appropriate for a private entity to give
preference based on place of residence. I do not know the answer to that one.
CHANG: But one way or the other perhaps we would have more employment opportunities for the residents of Arcadia?
ZOLA, That is correct.
I
CHANG: Now with regard to the revenue, I think this is the biggest thing we are hoping for. Right?
ZOLA: I'm sorry I didn't understand.
CHANG: Okay. I guess we are expecting increased revenue for the City so tbal...to keep us in a high service level for our
Community of Homes, right?
ZOLA, Yes. The information on revenues was derived from the fiscal impact report prepared by Agajanian & Associates.
CHANG: I want to point out from the EIR, the book ofEIR, Page Doan 39, the item Doan 126.
ZOLA: You are referring to the response to comments.
CHANG: That's correct. Doan 126.
I
ZOLA: Okay.
15
I
CHANG: These conclusions are substantiated by the general plan fiscal impact report prepared by Agajanian & Associat~,
March 8, 1996 which identifies the municipal revenue of 5.87 million for the (inaudible) alternative and a 6.77 million for
the proposed general plan with 975,000 square feet of development within the southerly racetrack parking lot. This revenue,
I guess, is the sales tax revenue? Right?
WLA: It is the total of revenue minus the total of expenses.
CHANG: Okay.
ZOLA: I'm sorry. Municipal revenues. No tbat is the total revenue.
CHANG: For the sales tax revenue.
ZOLA: Sales tax, property tax and any other revenues which would accrue to the City.
I
CHANG: Now, let's go on further. The primary difference in these figures is increased sales tax. The net municipal revenue
for the non-project alternative is estimated in the Agajanian & Associates' report to be $292,613. While the net municipal
revenue for the proposed general plan with 975,000 square feet of development within the southerly racetrack parking lot is
estimated to be $617,136. So the difference we are talking about is really $325,000.
ZOLA: In net income to the City.
CHANG: In net revenue.
ZOLA: Correct.
CHANG, Does it mean tbat when the Santa Anita transition area is built out with this hundred million square feet, the City
would get only $325,000 net revenue?
I
ZOLA: No. The reason for that is you have at the same time other portions of the City that would be developed. One of
which being the residential portion of the City. So there would be 580 new dwelling units tbat would occur through this same
period of time. The new dwelling units, those required to meet your obligation under state housing element law as is the case
for most of the houses in the City take more in services than they provide in revenue. So the basic revenue picture of this City
as most cities, is except for extremely expensive houses that are not taxed back at old figures. So you buY a house new for
half a million dollars and it is taxed at half a million, not a house tbat is worth half a million and assessed based on what it
was worth back in 1978. Housing'tends to take more in services than it generates in revenue. The net is made up with the
16
commercial sector; in particular sales tax revenue. So it's sales tax revenue and the money generated by residents of the City I
who spend it in the City, as well as by money spent by residents from outside the City in your community tbat pays for the
services tbat residents enjoy.
CHANG: So, it could have been more were it not for the additional expense for transitional area 2 and 3, those residential
development build up?
ZOLA: That is correct. If you would take a commercial project in isolation or take all the commercial projects in isolation
you would have a figure greater than the numbers you see here. The problem with tbat is you do not have a choice under state
housing element law al>out tbat residential portion of the plan.
CHANG: Well, I have no question on transition area 2 and 3. I'm just questioning tbatl thought I had a figure that the City
would get 2.3 million dollars additional revenue, but when I look at this we are talking about $325,000.
ZOLA: Keep in mind, whatever figures have gone on before there has not been an analysis done by the City of any specific
project tbat yields a 2.3 million dollar figure. That is a number I believe is supplied by the land owner.
CHANG: Okay. So you're saying that $325,000 is more correct?
I
ZOLA: The numbers you see here are the net income of build -out of the entire City and all the land uses in the general plan.
CHANG: Okay. Thank you. (Inaudible)
KUHN, Mr. Harbicht
HARBICHf, Yes. Just a couple of comments here. A comment was made that this plan, general plan concentrates on Santa
Anita. It doesn't concentrate on Santa Anita. All of the comments made by the public have concentrated on Santa Anita.
This concentrates on the entire City and then specifically concentrates on four transition areas; one of which is Santa Anita. I
think the other thing tbat needs to be made clear is this is a general plan and it has been said over and over it sets out the
rules within which any development would be processed. And that I think that it's important tbat everyone understand tbat
we've had significant developments throughout the City over the last several years at several hotels, the Landmark
development on the south side of Huntington Drive where the Auto Club is and several restaurants, development on the north
side of Huntington Drive over by Second, between Second and Fifth. All of these have gone on within the general plan that
was operative. Each one of those was a specific plan and went through the environmental review process, the public
hearings, all of these things. So there's nothing, nothing has changed here other than we are adopting a new general plan I
which in many ways is similar to the old one and it just lays out some rules that have to be met for any
17
I
development. It does not lay out rules specifically for Santa Anita, it doesn't lay out rules specifically for the gravel pit in th.:
south part of the City, it doesn't lay out rules specifically forthe empty property north of the hotels between Second and Fifth,
it doesn't lay out rules specifically for Foulger Ford property or any other property in the City. It lays out general rules in tbat
any development would have to meet those general rules and have to specifically address them.
I did have one specific question and we talked about this before but I need to have it explained again because to me it look:;
wrong. I'm looking at Page 5-4 with regard to environmental hazards and it's talking about earthquakes. And it shows then:
a table and it has shaded in unacceptable safety risks, and then back on Page 6- I 9 it says tbat implementation of projects haVlJ
to be consistent with table 5A which is found on Page 5-4. And what I'm seeing here is tbat what's defined as a major
earthquake, which is up to JO severe injuries, which would happen in what is defined as rare which is between once in ten
thousand years and once in a million years, is unacceptable safety risk. And so we've got something tbat's going to happen
sometime between once in ten thousand years and once in a million years and 10 people are going to be badly injured, I mean
that to me is how can anything pass tbat criteria? Because, we are going to have earthquakes between ten thousand and a
million years from now and I imagine there may be 10 people injured. I'm just, I know I've brought this up before and I
don't know if I just gave up or I was satisfied with the your explanation, but could you address tbat again because this seems
to be extremely restrictive? I'm not even talking about what they call severe earthquakes and unlikely....
I
ZOLA: I think maybe you did give up on that one. In looking at this it....what the table now says is that building would be
designed so tbat basically there may be structural repairs in tbat major earthquake tbat need to be done and only a few minor
injuries. The severe or tbat rare earthquake would be something along the lines of, I know I'm going to get in trouble but,
where they use the phrase "The Big One," which is along the lines of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Well, it doesn't
mean that we can wait ten thousand years and we're safe. In looking at this table it may be appropriate for the Council to
modifY the table to say tbat in tbat major earthquake or in that rare earthquake, the one tbat would occur between once in ten
thousand and a million years, that it would be appropriate to assume that there may be up to JO severe injuries. In other
words, to take tbat major category and make tbat....essentially identifY tbat as an acceptable safety risk. The second question
wonld be if you looked at the severe. And the major difference between the major column and the severe column is structural
collapse of buildings not housing large numbers of people. That would be small apartment buildings, individual houses. And
I think tbat it would be appropriate to have a standard that says even in the very large earthquake, "The Big One" as it were,
buildings would not be collapsing, they may be damaged beyond repair but they would still be standing and the people could
get out of them. That would be a basic standard for new construction. Now, this does not mean tbat we are all going to run
back and force everybody to retrofit every house and every building in the City. This becomes a standard for new
development. But it would be appropriate to take tbat box that's essentially defined by rare and major and show tbat as being
acceptable. I think you are correct in your assessment of that one.
I
HARBICHf, Does the Council have any problem with erasing the shading in that box?
18
YOUNG, None
I
KOVACIC: Where did these figures come from? Because you could count the I number of earthquakes we've had in
California over the last 15 or 20 years and come up with several that fit tbat category.
WLA: Yes. It seems like after every earthquake you hear the geologists on the television saying "gee, we're learning a lot
al>out earthquakes from this one". In nearly every earthquake tbat's occurred over the last several years, particularly the
Northridge and the previous Northridge as well as Loma Prieta up in San Francisco, the comment is "the ground moved
faster than we thought it would." This table is based on significance thresholds used by Santa B3Ibara County,who went
through a good deal of effort to come up with a standard of safety tbat's applied to determine significance for in their CEQA
review.
KOVACIC: Well, is it possible that it would be rare in Santa Barbara County but not rare in Los Angeles County?
ZOLA: I would say, now you've got some major faults running up through that area. So, the difference in risk of a large
earthquake, Arcadia to Santa Barbara County, should be pretty similar.
KOVACIC: What's the role then that this table and the definitions...what roles do these play in terms of the general plan?
I
ZOLA: Okay. What would happen then is the guideline would be; for example take the box to find my minor and likely, tbat
it is acceptable in an event that would occur between once a year and once in a hundred years to have a small level of public
risk, minor property damage, buildings would be structurally sound, some may be temporarily closed for repairs or clean-up.
But in tbat basic event, we should not be red tagging buildings and having to tear them down. You may red-tag buildings,
have them unoccupied for a while but they should be repairable and restorable...in that same earthquake that might occur
between once a year and once in a hundred years, so the once in a hundred years is really the key here. What we would not
want to see is a major level of public risk. We would not have moderate to significant damage throughout the commercial!
industrial, throughout large structures. We would not have unusable buildings that could not be repaired and tbat's a basic
standard and we would not have significant numbers of injuries or siguificant severe injuries in tbat earthquake occurring less
than once in a hundred years.
KOVACIC, I don't think this works as a guideline. It's not really understandable and....! mean it has these definitions but I
don't know how our planning or building department would take this particular page and apply it to a proposed project. So, I
don't see where it's really giving us anything here. I think tbat we've gone into a great deal of trouble to try to define
something here which really isn't going to be of much value.
I
KUHN: Is this just a boilerplate type chart?
19
I
ZOLA: No. I think if there's a concern in the way tbat the chart works, I think what we could do wonld be to essentially do a
narrative tbat in certain types of events there is a certain level of risk that will occur and essentially line this up so tbat you
aren't forced to, as you have to with a matrix to, run back and forth between the table.. ..and basically the UBC will apply.
You do have some situations, particularly in this City where you have a fault running through, that you may want or need
better resistance to an earthquake, particularly the ground motion than you might need by general. You don't want a building
collapsing or you don't wanl....you want it functional afterwards. We can define tbat in a simpler manner. It would take a
little bit more text than this and it would just layout this is an acceptable level of risk in this level of event. .
YOUNG: I think tbat would be very good because I think more people would understand it.
HARBICHf: I really only have trouble with tbat one box, the rare major. The other one is a disastrous frequenl....! mean
obviously those aren't acceptable but the rare major, as major is defined here which is 10 injuries which I assume means in
the City of Arcadia.
ZOLA: Correct.
I
HARBICHf: That's....! don't know how major tbat is, having lived all my life in California and seen a lot of earthquakes. It
just seems too restrictive for the once-in-every-ten-thousand-year earthquake which hurts 10 people.
KOVACIC: Would this change the way we do business, L1oyd....currently in the City of Arcadia as far as permitting and
response to earthquakes?
ZOLA: No. This would come into play on your larger projects where you are required to make findings of general plan
consistency....where you are simply coming in with a building permit and you are not required to make tbat finding tbat
would not apply....single family house on an individual lot unless you decided to change your building code.
KOVACIC: So, with these guidelines in place the City would be required to, or the City would require a safer building than
currently applicable under the building code?
I
MIKE MILLER. CITY ATTORNEY, Let me just add to Mr. Zola's comments and I think that will help answer the question.
The City right now is incorporated to uniform building code and we have legal requirements to adopt tbat on a regnlar basis
to be current with statewide requirements, and based on where Arcadia is located we have existing seismic protection
ordinances in the City. Those will not be changed at all. I think the general plan just deals with potential measures tbat can
be taken with regard to given projects in the future. It will not change the operation of the police power as it exists now and
will exist in the future to protect the public from the seismic realities tbat impact on Arcadia.
20
HARBICHf: I don't want to run this into the ground. I'm willing to give up again if it's really not going to have a
significant impact. I
KOVACIC: I think you are, though, correct on tbat one box that's lined up with rare and major.
HARBICHf: Should we go along with removing that from tbat one box and I'll stop?
KUHN: Sure, I would agree with tbat.
HARBICHf: Okay.
KUHN: Okay. I....Yes, Dr. Chang.
CHANG: I just want to comment on Bob's commenl....two comments that would regard the general plan with due respect. I
think people have been voicing a lot of opinions about the Santa Anita transition area. It is because this area, when it
(inaudible) has the most significanl....would be affecting the entire City the most so tbat people....it spreads the most concern
about this transitional area. Not because they like this or they don 'tlike this, but because they are concerned about this. In
fact, the immense effect of this transitional area when it's built out. Number two is tbat I think tbat it's right tbat we treat all
the projects the same, They should all be treated the same whether it's a small or a big project. And we don't have rules for
this Santa Anita transition area, however, we do layout a lot of concerns about this area when il....so tbat when the owner
sends in the application for a specific plan, they will know all of these concerns. One more question for Lloyd is that, is my
understanding correct that, I think...first I want to compliment tbat your company did a wonderful job in making a response
to the comments with regard to the EIR. Now, when I'm seeing this final EIR, is it correct that nothing really changed with
respect to the draft ErR? Is tbat correct?
I
ZOLA: No. The response to comments....let's start with this. The final EIR consists of the draft EIR, the response to
comments, as well as the 1995 Alternatives Report. So, one major difference between the draft EIR and the final EIR is
there's two documents part of the final EIR, response to comments and the Alternatives Report, tbat are not part of the draft.
In the response to comments thcre were some modifications made to a couple of the mitigation measures. Those are
described in the findings and the changes tbat were made were either making things consistent with general plan policy,
correcting wording or, in one case, eliminating a potential conflict in the EIR which in relation to Michillinda Avenue said
we have a significant adverse impact, we cannot achieve level of service D, and there was actuaIly a mitigation measure tbat
said tbat you will achieve level of service D. So that was modified. Those were the basic changes in draft EIR and there are
findings to the effect that this does not change the....they are not significant modifications to the draft EIR
CHANG: Thank you.
I
21
I
KUHN: Well, I've sat very patient all evening and I'd like to say a few words. I'm not going to belabor any more of the
motion because you have shared a great deal with us and it's been very informational for everyone, I'm sure. But I am very
satisfied personally that this general plan addresses the issues of the future health of this City as a general plan should, very
responsible way. My main concern with the general plan, to be honest with you, is the housing element. And I know wc:
have to do tbat, we don't have a choice, but I'm not totally happy or satisfied tbat tbat is going to be to our best interest but
tbat's what we've got to do. So, I've accepted tbat, but I think every issue has been addressed in a responsible way. Thc:
specific plan....anytlme development is done in area I, specific plan is going to cover all of our concerns and issues at tbat
time with the new EIR and with the specific plan application process. So, I'm perfectly content to move forward with thi!:
general plan. Bob.
HARBICHf, Madam Mayor, I move adoption of Resolution number 5945.
YOUNG, With encompassing comments made tonighl...there are some tbat are going to be changed aren't there?
(Inaudible
YOUNG: Yes. I'll second tbat
I
KUHN: Roll call please.
JUNE ALFORD. CITY CLERK: Council member Chang.....
CHANG, I want to vote yes, but with a lot of reservations and concerns as I've mentioned before in the questions and
comments.
ALFORD: Harbicht
HARBICHf: Yes
ALFORD: Kuhn
KUHN, Yes
ALFORD: Young
I
YOUNG: Yes
22
ALFORD, And Kovacic
I
KOVACIC: Yes
ALFORD: I'm going backwards.
KUHN: That's okay.
HARBICHf: Move to adopt Resolution number 5946.
YOUNG: Second
KUHN: Roll call, please
ALFORD: Council member Chang.
CHANG: Again, I'll vote yes, but with....agree with only 51% of the overriding considerations.
I
ALFORD: Harbicht
HARBICHf: Yes
ALFORD: Kovacic
KOVACIC: Yes
ALFORD: Young
YOUNG: Yes
ALFORD: Kuhn
KUHN: Yes
KUHN, Thank you. Bill.
I
23