Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPTEMBER 30,1986 f I ! 29:0018 CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK I ROLL CALL CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION S U T R M A N M S C A R I R P T Y A V I A 0 I L N A B L L E Y M I NUT E S JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 The City Council and the Planning Commission met in a joint session, at 7:00 p. m., September 30, 1986 in the City Hall Conference Room. PRESENT: ' Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski and Young A8SENT: None PRESENT: Commissioners Amato, Galinski, Hedlund, Kovacic, Papay and Szany ABSENT: Commissioner Fee A prepared agenda was presented for general discussion. R-l - MINIMUM LOT SIZE Staff had submitted the history of the R-l lot size dating from 1940 to date. The 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size has been standard since 1949. It provides sufficient area for the development of a single family dwelling and adequate out door area to provide a safe and decent living environment (from staff report). The Planning Department did not recommend increasing this minimum lot size and it was not considered appropriate based on results which would occur. These were enumerated in the staff report. However, it was set forth therein that if there are areas of the City which warrant larger minimum lot area in order to preserve the character of the area, then the owners of properties 'within such area would.be free to request the City Council/Planning Commission to initiate such a change. Discussion ensued with comments about specific developments made by some of the members. It was the general consensus that the 50 ft. wide lots with the existing 7,500 sq. ft. requirements are. reasonable there are some areas in the City which could justify more than 7,500 sq. ft., but they could be handled on a case by case basis. NO CHANGE. R-3 ZONE - DEVELOPMENT OF 50' WIDE LOTS It was noted in the staff report that the majority of the 50' wide lots in an R-3 zone are located in the area bounded by Huntington Drive on the north; Duarte Road on the south; Santa Anita on the west'and~Second Avenue on the east. Within this area there is a total of 342 residentially zoned lots which are approximately 50' in width. These lots contain a total of 846 dwelling units. Refer- ence was made to a recent survey made by the Planning Department as to the number of lots and the number of units comprising the 846 dwelling units. Within the area there are 7 multiple family projects 9/30/86 -1- 29:0019 which are located on 100' wide lots with a total of 63 dwelling units. There are 3 multiple family projects located on 150' wide lots with a total of 26 dwelling units. The report outlined the history of the 50' wide lots dating prior to 1911. The City's General Plan was adopted in 1972 with the land use designation for this area shown as Multiple Family 7+ dwelling units per acre. Covered in this presentation were the R-3 regula- tions and amendments for parking spaces for below grade driveway parking and parking. An explanation was submitted for the R-3 regulations after 1980 when they were changed for open space, drive- way backout and parking. The footage for these was increased. The Planning Department recommended granting reasonable modifica- tions for the development of the existing 50' wide lots and not requiring lot consolidations. It was also recommended that considera- tion be given to continue tb having the Modification Committee handle the review of multiple family project modifications. I Considerable discussion ensued with what is now transpiring ... there is so little space remaining for development of this nature and some control should be instituted. It was felt that 3 units would be appropriate for 50' lots. Mayor Young submitted that Monrovia, Sierra Madre and Temple City have now placed a moratorium on building permits.. Commissioner Szany circulated pictures of various projects with which he has been associated. His personal opinion was that 3 units on the 50' wide lots work well and blend in better with the area. The various members submitted views con- cerning modifications ... pointing out that time is of the essence when reviewing requests for modifications ... that in many instances time does not permit a depth review. General Consensus -- no change in the Code. R-3 ZONE - MODIFICATIONS (Driveway Backout/Driveway Overhead Encroachment) Report presented and reviewed. No change. ARCHITECTURAL/DESIGN REVIEW Staff noted that various cities and counties throughout the State have enacted architectural controls for the purpose of assuring that the appearance of structures will be compatible and harmonious with the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. There are five single family residential homeowner associations architectural review boards within the City at the present time ... they review new projects and external additions and/or alterations to single family dwellings and I accessory buildings within each of their respective districts. The decisions may be appealed to the Planning Commission and, subsequently, ~ to the City Council. The purpose of such a Board was' set forth in the staff report ;.. an adopting ordinance should include the review criteria which would be used in the evaluation of projects. A typical list of such review criteria was included in the report. Considerable discussion ensued on the merit of Architectural Review Boards. Reference was made to projects in commercial zones ... mostly mini malls ... one proposed for the northwest corner of Duarte and Santa Anita; one across from Hinshaws next to the West Arcadia Post Office; one under construction at the northwest corner of Baldwin and Arcadia Avenues. ... No one will know what they will look like until the fences are removed. 9/30/86 -2- ~ ~ I I .j.,. . "'..11 II- "." ~ t ' ('f. 29:0020 It was the general consensus' of most. of the City Council members that an architectural review board could perform well for the City... but only in commercial/industrial,.. not residential. Councilmember Harbicht said, in part, that he is in favor of free enterprise and really did not think such a board appropriate. Councilmember Chandler felt it would entail delay and added cost for the applicant. - - Consensus: A Board will be so formed ... as of .now to consist of Mayor Young, Commissioner Szany, Planning Director ... staff to prepare criteria ... all to be worked out later. The members of.the.Board may be increased and/or other persons be appointed. ThlS wlll be brought back to the Council at a later date. This would be for Commercial, Industrial, Multiple Family Dwell ings. Commissioner Szany, who is an architect, referred to the Willdan Report (Downtown Revitalization Program) and said, in part, that businesses should be encouraged to dress up their facilities. The funds are available from the Grant and they should be told 'that the money is available ... staff could impart the information and be of help to them in what they may and may not do. Staff advised that at the next Council meeting a report on reallocation of Community Development Block Grant funds and revisions to the Downtown Revitaliza- tion Program will be presented to Council for consideration. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p. m. City Council's next regular meeting will be at 7:00 p. m., October 7, 1926. Vh 13/~ Mary B~9' May ATTEST: ~,~ 5l~~ Chri s 1 ne an Maan~, City erk . 9/30/86 -3- ~:' >:~ r- . , I --..- ~-- ~- --- ~- -- ---. ----- T RAN S C RIP T (Insofar as decipherable) RELATING TO JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 " "- ~ , I MAYOR YOUNG ROLL CALL MA YOR YOUNG COUNCILMAN GILB MA YOR YOUNG COt~rHSSIONER HE DLUND MAYOR YOUNG HEDLUND GILB HEDLUND GILB HEDLUND GILB MA YOR YOUNG HEDLUND MA YOR YOUNG COUNCILMAN HARBICHT JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COM~IISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER.30, 1986 I will call the meetin9 to order... may we have a roll call, please? PRESENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski and Young. Commissioners Amato, Galinski, Hedlund, Kovacic, Papay and Szany. ABSENT: Commissioner Fee. Tonight we have a new agenda.. did everybody get a copy of that? Ok. The first on that list is the R-l Zone - Minimum Size Lot. Does any- body have anything to say? The R-l Zone Minimum Size Lot at present is what? Seventy-five hundred? Seventy-five hundred. Except in some areas where it's more than that.. and I have some- thing to say about that. The City approved a modification down on Holly Avenue which was a total break, as far as I'm concerned, in the minimum lot size that's been traditional. There's no other'lot in that whole area that is that small and I think it was a total violation of the code. Is that the one on El Monte Avenue? No, it's on Holly.. east side of Holly just south of Longden. When was that done..... No, just in the la$t $ix months. Did Council approve it? Yes. Just south of Longden by Morris and Seidner.. they're building on it now. But it was a total break in the minimum square footage. That was a year ago.. I wasn't here... I was in North Carolina. Ok, east side.. it's 80 by.. ok, that's the one I voted against. They took two lots and made it into three. (Several talking simultaneously at this point) . But I think it was a broach in our general lot size.. and any developer will come in and say that, 'I've got to get one more lot' ...... well, this is hogwash. And so, at the hearing I asked Mr. Wong, "is there any lots in that whole block..... over all the way to El :10nte that had been gi yen a vari ance?." And there hadn't been. So I thi nk we just gave in. Well I think we give in too easily to a lot of developers on a lot of their variances. I think the question, though, is should the minimum lot size in the entire City be changed? And my response to that is, no. But I think 7500 as a minimum lot size is a good minimum. The second question is, should we look at individual areas and set higher minimum lot sizes in those individual areas? And the answer to that may be, yes, depend- ing on the area. And on the one you're talking about were they less than 7500 feet that were approved? Less than what's normally...... -1- 9-30-86 ) HEDLUND HARBICHT HEDLUND COUNCILHAN LOJESKI WOOLARD MAYOR YOUNG LOJESKI WOOLARD HEDLUND LOJESKI HARBICHT COUNCILMAN CHANDLER GILB 11AYOR YOUNG COf1f11SSIONER KOVACIC , --~-~- I The argument was because on the west side of Holly there are a lot of smaller lots, but on the east side of Holly all through the whole Baldwin-Stocker there are no smaller lots and.... it was just a break. So what happened was,is that in an area that normally has say 10,000 square foot lots and a 7500 lot was approved. No, i t's e i the r . . . . I'd like Bill Woolard's response on 100% correct. That certainly isn't Council . A lot of areas don't comply to the code... the only difference was the lot was 80 feet in width instead of 100 feet. Yes, the lot size was alright. The total square footage was fine... the frontage.... The frontage was a little narrower than you'd expect... the total Not 100 foot. Well that is. a great deal of difference then between square foot minimum. I guess the question tonight is not should there be a change in what is or in any specific area. I would suggest that there not be any changes in lot size as the rule that we set down here from this meeting. 7500 square foot is certainly a nice minimal size and any variation from the minimal would have to be decided pretty darn close and I'm sure there have been some that have been pretty close. And I certainly see no need to add onto the minimal size for any particular area. I think that was the attempt of the horse property owners when we went through the moratorium and all that sort of thing, and we turned out not going for that. So I would just suggest to this group that this is the minimum lot size.. I think stands well and serves us well and that's the thing that made you un- happy.. that's history, I guess... take a pretty close look each time. I agree. Any other Planning Commissioner's have anything to say? Yes, Gary. I may have been the provocateur of this and many other things. I had first thought that 7500 square feet was much too small and so I went home and measured my own lot and realized that it was close to or less than 7500 square feet. I think the problem we had was' that we had a rash of subdivisions come before us and a number of the lots within the subdivision were below the 7500 foot minimum and I think we all felt that that was a bare minimum for most developments and developers were coming in and trying to squeeze five lots into what might give us four good sized lots, but they were at the bare minimum and I think that kind of bothered me. But on reflection it appears to me that a standard of 7500 feet is reasonable and we should probably deal on a case by case basis on those requests that are less than 7500 square feet. I do think there are some areas in the City that might justi fy somethi.ng more that because I don't think that's the way it was presented to the 1 frontage. 7500 to redebate this particular one, but now the minimum lot size City wide I -2- 9-30-86 ) KOVACIC (Cont'd) MAYOR YOUNG WOOLARD lIII "VOR YO"" COMMISSIONER SZANY I :' than 7500 square feet but I don't think we're in any position to pick those tonight. But I think that. what bothered me at. the time was the dev~lQpments coming in with less than 7500 square feet and I feel safe that we can handle those on a case by case basis. Does everybody agree on that? Well we'll move along then. R-3 Zone - Development of 50' Wide Lots - I will start that... yes, Mr. Woolard. I might mention that one of the hand-outs I have is the revised Pages 1 and 2 of that report. The only changes on the revised pages is in some of the numbers... like 315 lots in that area instead of 300 and I think, 40 something of that original......There is a strip of R-2 property that should certainly be included in the original before us. The only thing that's changed is the numbers~,.... Thank you. I might start this off by saying that I feel the 50' wide lots, if they once develop them into apartments or duplexes should... are fine because you get only three units on them and that will help us control density. If they get two of them they can put up 10 units. I don't know how many of you are aware, ,but Temple City, Monrovia and Sierra Madre all have moratoriums on their building permits. And we are getting to.. we are a mature City and we're getting to the point where people are wanting to crowd in more, and I feel that's one way we can, somewhat, control it. Anybody with a different..... Sometime ago I did a little researcr on my own, I've got a little part of it I'd like to pass around on 50' lots compared to 100' lots. The reason I took such an interest in this.. we own a 50' lot on St. Joseph, I was going to tear down a very old building and I was going to put a little ., some type of office up for myself. At the time I approached the Planning Department and they said I could not develop this lot unless I 'could acquire one lot next door.. it's an industrial area. We consequently sold the property.. the Southern California Gas Company bought it an~fremodeled it. We pushed for a building on this 50' wide lot because/a person cannot acquire the properties.. either side of the property,. we tried and the people we sold it to tried and as a conse- quence/~~signed a building on that lot..sort of a . building onto the right side.. it blends in very well with the existing homes on the lot.. All the parking's in the back except for the handicapped zone out in the front.. low profile; no impact on the neighborhood.. very little impact..possibly off the alley where the parking is. Also, I've done quite a few lots.. I had a project before the Planning Commission last wEek and the client had come to me, he bought a piece of property involving a 50' wide lot, and I told him that our office wouldn't take that project because we didn't want the controversy at that time. I re- commended he buy the property next door. So he bought the property next door.. a total of $250;000..' both pieces of property...: there'd been three units on them.. and he's back at 11 incredible on that.Rrojectb. There's no alley, all it is is off of Baldwin. Architecturally we d1i:l tfle est we coul d. A . 2 1/2 story building which would dwarf both homes on both sides. T~e modifications he asked for was .8 foot driveway instead of 30 fo"ot, .a. partial landscape planter in back, a 3' instead of 5' portion of it. -3- 9-30-86 .... ~..;..~~- ~ SZANY (Cont'd) MAYOR YOUNG SZANY HARB I CHT COMMI SS IONER GALINSKI , , r .Basically we met with, ~lLth!!. ~ode. If I was buildii1Lthat 50' wide lot witb a 3 unit apartment house I would have needed quite a few more mod, f, cet, ons.. I in, nR " the building itself would have enhanced the neighborhood, possibly, a little better than this 11 units that we'd done the best we could at... at the time. Our fees were much, much better for the 11 unit.. so I'm not, you know, I didn't try to get rid of the client. But, I think, looking at _ having a 5' setback in lieu of a 10' setback that are sometimes the solution, or the remedy, is worse than the problem. And then I think if we'd look at some of the 3 units and how well they blend in and don "t confl i ct wi tti the houses next door... if we were to go in and saYf "Ok, we're not going to approve anymore'of these 3 units because I th~y qS K for .".... ' moa,f,cations. you can only put a duplex on the units and have an alley.. and put a two car garage off the alley with just one unit and have a two car garage off the street with a unit. Now that would only be the units with an alley.. the other units single dwelling in an R-3 zone that, possibly, the clients tried for two years to get the property next door and failed and said, 'I've got to do something', they're going to condemn this old house that's on the property,which is the case many times.. so he deve10pes the lot and puts 3 units on there - finally a year later, the person next door sells the lot and the lot next door with the 10 units on it. Now, I've got this up and down all a10hg the street and I've got duplex, a 10 unit, a duplex, a 10 unit or, possibly, a single family home. A three unit, I think, blends better in with the majority of... of the streets right now, we generally have 300-400 pos- sibilities yet.,.,... Well, I've been driving around looking at them, too, long rows of half underground garages look terrible squeeze all that in... it should be two lots. So, those are my personal feelings on this project. I've had the last three or four years....., I brought this up about a year or so ago when I was on the Planning Com- mission - the idea of, shall we try and encourage people to put two lots together and we did discuss it and the staff's feeling that ~any times it's more desirable to have two 50' developments next to each other with 3 units on each or to consolidate them and have 10. And .at that time I thought we kind of put the thing to bed, you know, the Commission at that.. I didn't remember any controversy and it satisfied me that that was a desirable way to go. I've tended to vote against the 50' wide lot developments for a couple of reasons. No.1 - I think we tend to 'have a dual standard in terms of what kinds of modifications we approve for single-family home owners and what kinds of modifications we approve for commercial development of 3 and 4 units on 50' lot developments in that category. And I said at the Planning Commission it's time to carry out what I think is the intent of the City Council. It seems to me that we approve things for develop- ers on 50' wide lots, and I say developers in a slightly negative sense and I think those when they try and I -4- 9-30-B6 """ ~, . I I -,-- GALINSKI (Cont'd) COMrlISS lONER PAPAY KOVACIC , r ~ because I don't think they're necessarily permanent residents on the lot they're developing. We approve things for developers on 50' wide lots that we would not approve in the sense of modification of single- famil y homes bu il t: in the 1 ast 6 to 8 months. So I'm looking for some direction from the Cbuncil..in terms of what do you want us to do? I do not buy the argument... I do not buy the density argument, I will.. if we.. if it's as simple as on 50' you can put 3 units and if you happen to put 2 together and get 100' you can put 10 ,and that's doubled 2 1/2 times or whatever density and that's -bad, therefore, we ought to approve 50' wide lots.. I don I t buy that City Council powers to change the code and not allow on a 100' lot , if we don't like that. So I don't buy this d~nsity argument at all.. that it's better to approve these things because you get the applicant/developer code. So, I tend to be against the development of these things for two reasons. I think there are two problems here that I can see on the 50' 10ts..No. 1 - it's almost impossible to put one of the 3 unit developments .in without asking for a series of modifications and if we believe the requirement, and I realize the requirements are guidelines.. but they are requirements. And if it's impossible to put up a development without asking for a minimum - it's usually what.. about 3 to 4 (inaudible) I think there's an inherent conflict when you look at one of these coming in front of you and you know it's going to have the same aesthetic modification request, e~entia1ly when you've seen what was put in there as far as the code is concerned it stands to good reason you know it's in front of you for modification... that's 1. And the second is, some of the treatment of these leaves something to be desired aesthetically, especially on that far wall where you get a structure that runs, what, 100 feet or so and it may look rather bland with a few windows. And I picture myself as a the homeowner on that side of the development and I get this equivalent of a wall from a prison wall .type of thing... and I think that offends me aesthetically and I realize that may not have anything to do with what's required or not required from a City code point of view, but I think aesthetically it's difficult. I also agree on the double lot.. when you look down that "bowling alley" with all the garages in there.. that's not really shown either. About the only thing positive I can say is.. that is internal to the development itself and the fronts of the apartments, or the units, are outside. But I think the sense of frustration that I've experienced and on the Planning Commission.. when these come up you know that they're going to come up with modification requests and you know aesthetically they may be less than Yes, I agree with Larry, it's kind of a double edged sword. I think it's not only improbable, I think it's impossible to put 3 units on a 50' lot without modifying the current requirement. So if I was a -5- 9-30-86 .-: ---- " .. KOVACT.C (Cont'd) HARBICHT developer I would, somehow, question a zoning ordinance that is routinely abused because that's the only way you can get these multiple family units on the lot. But on the other hand we have, what's called, leverage... that every time one of these deve10pers'wants to put a 3 unit develop- ment on a 50' lot he has to come before us and we have control, in essence, over that development, and I see that as necessary as with some other kind of architectural review structure or something like that. I guess my initial problems with the overall concept is, 1) Let's envision every 50' l.ot in that area being developed with every 3 units... is that really what we want? And that was my first concern, apparently I guess,it is because it's consistent with the zoning and the general 1 plan and I don't think anybody is suggesting that, that ought to be changed.. so looking long range, that's an awful lot of development in that area, but apparently that's what we're perceiving. 2) What kind of modifications should be required? As I say,you can't build one of these things without modifying existing code requirements.. should we change those code requirements and omit the 3 units or should we leave them intact giving us a certain amount of control over every 3 unit development that comes into the Planning Department. I kind of like the control... not because I'm power hungry, I just think that I've seen enough of these projects come through that.. they do need modifications and they do need conditions imposed by us to make them more palatable to the neighbors. And, 3) Who ought to do the review? Although I think highly of our staff, I disagree with their recommen- dation in this portion of the staff report... "that a lot of this ought to be done at the Modification Committee level".. I'm serving on the Modification Committee now, and you just don't have time to go indepth in researching these projects.. you don't even get a staff report ahead of time. And I think that something like this.. something as critical as a 3 or 4 unit development ought to have close scrutiny by the Planning Commission as opposed to the staff_ So, I don't know if I can summarize what I've said, but I think that 3 units are here to stay,it sounds like, I and I think that the City; the Planning Commision; the City Council should exert as much control over those as possible to make them quality developments. I can understand your frustration.. we've got a situation here that I you've all described. I think that the advantage of forcing these to come before the Planning Commission or some body, is that we do have some control over factors that we wouldn't have control over if we were to change the ordinance that we shouldn't allow these to go through. It avoids having just a box sitting there on the property. The second part of your frustration, which is, I think that it's incumbent on the Council to give you an expression of the Council's philosophy of what we're looking for.. and then for you to take that and use as your guidance in what you do when these things come before you. I don't know if I can speak for the entire Council.. my own personal feelings are, that I -6- 9-30-86 ,: -- : , I HARBICHT (Cont'd) HEDLUND HARBICHT HEDLUND IIAYOR YOUNG HEDLUND MAYOR YOUNG HEDLUND HARBICHT WOOLARD HARBICHT COMMISSIONER GALINSKI HARBICHT GALINSKI HARBICHT GAll NSKI CHANDLER MAYOR YOUNG GALINSKI CHANDLER think that the 50' lot with the 3 unit developments are desirable. And that we should give them modifications when it's going to result in a desirable development. And that we should exercise the power that you have to make sure that the development is desirable and if it's not you should have the power to turn it down. But I think we should encourage these kind of developments Well Bob, you know that, you know that 20 feet and 30 feet is 50, you know, so we've got to give up on the side yard some place.. we have to give up ,some landscaped area.. and do we want to continue to have.. we're down dealing with A1ta Street and Alice and all those. But do we want to have Arcadia Avenue and Fairview full of cars? They're full of cars now and do we want to continue that? I think it's a real basic decision the City has to make.. you go down Arcadia Avenue or Fairview and it's a parking lot, and is that what we want up there? I don't know if that' would happen because we have a requir~ment... the parking requirements are a 'lot more stringent on what we're building here than what was built over there. You can't deny the fact that when we redid the R-3 condo code the staff made a survey and they said there was no parking problem. and yet go over on Fairview and Arcadia Avenue and it's a parking lot. Do they park there all night? Yes. They all get permits to park all night. They get permi ts.. but I mean, they're there. The requirement now for an 8 unit development would be.. I mean for a 3 unit development would be 8 spaces. Is that correct, Bill? Two and a half. A lot of the things on Arcadia and Fairview were built when 1 1/2 or 2.2 per unit, so a lot of the older units are obviously short. I think that if you compared having a 50' lot with 3 on it requiring 8 spaces and having 100' lot with 9 or 10 on it requiring 25 spaces, that the parking problem on the street is going to be worse with the larger development. Bob, discourage 100' developments because they're too dense? No. 50? I'm saying that 50' lots should be encouraged. What should we do with 100' lots? That's fine too, if they can put them together. Well, and if they get the proper parking, We can't go backwards on what's a 1 ready bui 1t. ...,..Started out by saying we Well, it's not either/or, it's both, and I would follow on what Bob has said, in that I think, particularly in the mid-part of our town.. Alta and Alice and all those streets.. that is our destiny for this town. -7- 9-30-86 ., I CHANDLER (Cont'd) GILB HARBICHT CHANDLER GILB KOVACIC HARBICHT KOVACIC CHANDLER MAYOR YOUNG SZANY r~A YOR YOUNG KOVACIC ~A YOR YOUNG That is the best possible use that I think that we can come up with... is nice 3 unit developments. It was at 4 at one time.. we've reduced it to 3, and that if somebody is fortunate enough to put together 2 lots and come up a 100 I lot.. then so be it. He'll come up with a 10 unit project.. which we have some. But while we're doing that don't discourage 50 footers because we have a whole lot of them and it seems like that's our only destiny. You cannot build a single-family dwelling in that area any longer.. a new one, it's R-3. So, you know, then that's our destiny. Aren't there some lots up on St. Joseph.. some of those streets.. that are developed 50' lots..they're just waiting to get the house next door to put up another one? I know there's one of those buildings, I just looked at it... looking at it the other day, they'r~ waiting to move the two houses next door to run the building down and put two more buildings up just like it. Isn't that true? Yes.. Di fferent Zone. but we're talking R-3. Well, I agree with Harbicht's analyzation of it and I think that's the way we should go. Two points - One.. I feel the density is not necessarily that 100' developments are not desirable but it's a mitigating factor so that 50' developments, that you can bend a bit on the requirements because you're going to get less than half of the units you would get if they 'con- solidated the two lots. The problem I have, because I represent enough developers, is the fact that it's desirable to have 50' development.. is it also desirable to have a zoning ordinance that doesn't permit 50' developments unless you come before the Planning Commission for modification? Again, it's a strange dichotomy.. we've got a desire to have these 50' developments, but we're forcing every developer to go before the Planning Commission to get his modifications. I enjoy this, but I'm not sure, honestly, that it's fundamentally fair. Gary, I agree with you, but I think that from a pr~ctical standpoint it works. There's nothing wrong with exercising that point. Yes, I agree with you, too. And I'm just throwing out the fairness issue because I think a lot of people are aware of it. We have the opportunity to change at least one of those constantly requested modifications tonight... 'it means that would at least ease a bit of it. But, I don't see anything wrong with their having to come before the Planning Commission. ,Ie 11. it does prov i de.. as Ga ry ment i oned, the a design review we can level them a little bit I see nothing wrong with that. But you know, we're backdooring aesthetics and I'm not sure whether that's fundamentally fair. I think it's appropriate under the circum- stances because we had ,no other mechanism to do it. 1 I checks and balance from and get a little bit more.... Isn't it fair if we want it that way? That's our prerogrative. -B- 9-30-86 I I ) HEDLUND CITY ATTORNEY MILLER HEDLUND MILLER HEDLUND H.'l.RB I CHT COMM I SS lONER Af1ATO ? MA YOR YOUNG HARBICHT CHANDLER KOVACIC I would like to be able to use some-leverage, 'and I'm not real keen on design review, but I would like to give a little.. you know, a little take. And the City Attorney says that we can't do that., that, if they come in for a modification for a side yard or a trash enclosure or some- thing like that that we can't do any arm twisting to..... In fact that isn't really totally correct..... Ok, correct me then, but I got that impression. You can always... '.' condition any project, if the conditions are reason- able. And I also advised the Commission that to the extent they're able to get these developers to abide by what 'you're i~posing on them.. no- body is going to raise the issue.. nobody is going to contest it. What I have is, in some situations totally unrelated to the modification and I just... as a warning because that's part of my job, indicated that in those instances should they go to court, you know they might.. they might prevail. But I didn't say you shouldn't'impose conditions or use persuasion.. get them to agree to certain conditions. I feel a little bit different on tentative maps.. I'll be honest with you, but on modifications ...:........ Bob Huddy said just the other day..... I think that the basic point is, is that we don't want to discourage the 50' lot. They ought to be considered as we've been considering them, and I think we've gotten some nice developments as a result of them coming before the Planning Commission. I think what happens is that we get these modifications time and time and time again,. first thing that happens is that we say, 'We're doing it day in and we're doing it day out. Why are we doing it?' We forget the fact that we're doing it because we have control of the situation that way... I.think that's what happens there. I see a lot of development is not in the City of Arcadia some of them really look like boxes..... really bad. We're kind of running Items 2 and 3 together on the agenda,and I see nothing wrong with that because they kind of go hand-in-hand. Do we have a consensus then that we will proceed as we have been with 50' lots and that they will come before the Planning Commission? And now about the modifications., I see no reason why we can't make some guidelines on 4.. maybe even what they would be if we made them more permanent than guidelines. Well, I think the staff recommendation on Number 3 is to make a change to 25 feet, rather than 30 and also to change the overhead limitations. And I have no problems with that, that's one of the ones that we're routinely granting as a modification, and it seems to be a little unreasonable in comparison with the other cities that are shown in the report. I would like to second Bob's feelings on that 100%. My only concern is with the control of these unit.. I'd like to ask"- -9- 9-30-86 KOVACIC (Cont'd) WOOLARD ? WOOLARD HARBICHT WOOLARD HARBICHT HEDLUND KOVACIC WOOLARD MAYOR YOUNG WOOLARD MAYOR YOUNG WOOLARD HARBICHT WOOLARD MAYOR YOUNG SZANY GllB SZANY MAYOR YOUNG , 1 staff a question. If the requirements would change how many of the developments we now review would excape our review? In a typical month you'd still see them all,because.it just wouldn't be enough... . ...., still adds up to 60 instead of..... Yes, still doesn't quite fit on the site so you might... like the one Dave had on Baldwin Avenue - that one had a 28 foot backout that was within the requirement and there was a few other things possible on a large site ,like that.. . before the Commission, but generally there's a couple of modifications that's necessary on each project........ That's not the only thing that's bringing them before the Commission. Right. Yes, of course I think there's a test of reasonableness, too. But, I think it is the one thing that does show up on all of the re- quested modifications. They claim little difference in setback.. 5 feet on the one side and 20 feet 'on the other.. but they all ask for the 25 ........,. My only concern is a major development excaping all sorts of review except for compliance with the building code. I think that would be a travesty of..,..".. If somebody could build anything they wanted to build as long as they complied with the building code..... My only care about something like this is that somebody could sneak in these developments that doesn't comply..... I think there's maybe one or two projects a year that doesn't comply with the modifi cati on.. . .. . Do you think any project would come in and meet all the codes and not be seen by anybody but the plan check? We've had a couple. We have a couple each year that managed to get...... ^re they... They're generally just the same.. like other projects, I mean, we've had modifications that were granted and the project's turned out ugly and we've had other projects that have turned out beautiful and no one said a thing. Would this particular change have any effect on the numbers? I don't really think so. Does anybody else have any comments? Yes, Dave Szany. One.. The thing I'm concerned about is with the 30 foot backout.. is the length of the building and Fairview. You can get themali ttl e further apart and .the opportunity bei;ng to get some landscape down the driveway Also, I study a couple of years ago and they required any city that contracts with the county for plan check.. it requires ~6 feet for them to hook and ladder truck I I What's the name of this? Bill, has the Fire Chief had anything to say about that? -10- 9-30-86 ?:-----.- ,- .- ~- - I I WOOLARD CHANDLER WOOLARD HEDLUND HARBICHT HEDLUND HARBICHT HEDLUND WOOLARD HARBICHT GILB HARBICHT MAYOR YOUNG .a.MATO , I chance that they may want to change the code... before that would happen we'd do a full report on that and the Fi re Department ~Ie haven't checked on it at thi s Doi nt. .1 think our projects are probably different :because our requirements on multiple family housing as far as fire protection goes is, I think, greater than some of the other cities requirements in the first place. t We have wet sand piped and as far as I know the Fire Chief generally says that they're not going to d\ive into any of these projects.. they're not going to get trapped down in one of these things..., Burn up the truck and everything. They have on the larger projects they make a run in with the hose and hook up on the property site. It may be a little different method of fire fighting so that our requirements could be different in a bigger fire then the County, relatively. But if you want to change the code.all we do is check with the Fire Department I before we do it. Mary, I sat on this committee with Bill and we personally drove almost every project in town where they were less than 30 feet with a standard size car and you just can't hack it in 25 feet. Incidently, the County requires 26 feet for 4 lots on a "flag" lot.. I'm doing a little "flag" lot subdivision out in Covina and they require 26 feet plus a hammerhead.. and I don't think 30 feet is unreasonable. The argument we've got was that everybody is going to"you know, compact cars nowadays.. well, they're not going to compact cars they're buying big cars and you just. can't do it in 25 feet. We spent a lot of time on going up to the 30 feet.... Well, it sounds to me like we .have no compelling reason to change it because we're changing by modification in some cases. (Several talking simultaneously) Except you can't get it on a 50 foot lot. Yes, but even if we change this there still can't be over.... That's right. Try to get the 30 feet when you can, but you really can't hold a hard line against somebody on a narrow lot requesting a modification I guess my feeling is that.. if we can get it, fine, but that we shouldn't be rigid on the thing. We should recognize that this is something that we could modify, all of their conditions being desirable. But we should leave it at the 3D? changing it for a 50 foot and so this allows us some Yes, if we change it to 25, we're not only lot, we're changing it for a 200 foot lot 1 ati tude... It at least gives a little more open space on a large development. that the general consensus of everybody? You've still got the control for modification..... Is -11- 9-30-86 i;':' - --. ;;'-. - MAYOR YOUNG WOOLARD MAYOR YOUNG WOOLARD MAYOR YOUNG WOOLARD CHANDLER WOOLARD WOOLARD MAYOR YOUNG WOOLARD ~AYOR YOUNG CHANDLER AMATO MAYOR YOUNG HARBICHT Alright.. general consensus, then. What about the Overhead Encroachment? What we used to have.. it' was always 20 foot clear and..... Are you talking about a driveway going down? A driveway going down and, let's say, buildings on each side, and the Fire Department always said:~e11 we should have 20 feet clear.. down the center." Now they really don't care because they say they're not going to drive in there anyway. It may be desirable to change that, in any event, just'so.. to make it subject to the approval of the Fire Department". they may want 18 or 24 or whatever they feel requ ired. Are you talking about the width or the height? I Well, this shows you...... pictures. Balconies? In this area here you have a driveway down below, let's say, at .30 feet between the garages and then you have the facilities overhanging... they want the area between the two buildings...., (Several talking simultaneously) Now, they don't really seem to care whether they have 20 feet clear or not, and what it ends up to is.. it ends up being, usually, another modification.. it looks like they'll be asking about... a request for modification. Well, I don't see any point in changing that either, then. Because if we get the 20 foot and if they want to.modify it to l8...why, ok, other- wise it's more open. When they do ask for Fire Department look problems with it. Lean off your balcony and shake hands with the man across the court? What is your width on that? Leave it alone? Alright, we're moving right along. You' guys are going to make all the same old modifications over there. At least we'll know what to..... , (Several talking simultaneously) Next is the General Term Modifications - are there any other modifica- tions I'd like to comment on this. The Planning Commission has a rule that all multiple family modifications come before the Planning Commission. If, for example, someone were to add on to their home and they were going to have an awning sticking out into the setback.. that could be handled administratively or it could go before the Modification Committee. But if that same person was going to build a triplex and had an awning sticking into the setback, it would automatically go to the Planning Commission.. and that doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that we should use the same criteria for deciding whether multiple family go before the Planning Commission as we do for the single family... that is, if it's something very minor that can be handled administratively.. the modification from the at the thing to make sure 20 feet we they don't do have have any the I -12- 9-30-86 " HARBICHT (Cont'd) AMATO HARBICHT I WOOLARO SZANY KOVACIC HARBICHT WOOLARD MAYOR YOUNG , KOVACIC . it should be. I mean, why clutter up the Planning Commission's agenda - whY put staff through doing a whole long report on something which is so minor and it's only there because it happens to be multiple family. I think that if you were to use the same criteria you'd still see every important modification coming before the Planning Commission, but you would get away from some of these really minor things. I'd agree, Bob. I think there's a lot of things that come up before us that just don't make sense. Some things could be handled right over the counter... right away the request could be known and taken care of. I think what happens is.. was that a Planning Commission decision that was made four or five years ago, Bill? yes..... . minor modifications have come .....Any number before us We've had inquiries and people want to put thing like that requires a modification... up a trellis structure.. some- when we inform them of the process That's a potential problem, too. They may want to do some architectural treatment to the front that would require a minor infringement on the setback.. but then say, 'no, I don't want to do it because I don't want to go through all that when I can handle the whole thing without that'. That's usually what happens. They build right back to the setback line and then they want to put a little balcony or a little trellis or some- thing. What's your comments, Bill? Well, this came up a number of years ago... about five years ago and we proposed to the Commission at that time that the Commission ought to consider the modifications for new projects for building expansions and addition projects so that people who were looking for fence encroach- ments, trellis' and other minor things wouldn't have to go to the Com- mission because at that time the Commission felt that it didn't want to see everything. So, I 'guess the question now is, does the Commission want to see these things or not? Yes, Gary. I agree that if it's minor there's a less amount of work to be done. The problem, is defining minor. I just don't see the Modification Com- mittee as being an effective way of doing anything on a major scale and it's my fault, and it's everybodies fault.. it is just not conducive to indepth analysis of projects. You've got at least me who's trying to .get the work; you've got the applicant who's trying to get the work; you don't have a written staff report and Will's doing the best he can to explain it all.. what's going on; you've got 9 or 10 items on the agenda, sometimes, and you just can't give it the detailed analysis that is required. What brought it to light for me, was the ,project across from the library.. the northwest corner of Duarte and Santa Anita. That's something I think that should have gone to the Planning Commission -13- 9-30-86 '. f: -r--- .) KOVACIC (Cont'd) HARBICHT AMATO KOVACIC HARBICHT KOVACIC ? KOVACIC t~A YOR YOUNG KOVACIC HARBICHT , '. . initially. That is a major project, in my mjnd, that could have a potential impact on the City and should have a detailed review of it. But it was before us as a Modification Committee and I just didn't think we gave it enough treatment, and that's why I suggested at our pre-meeting that if somebody else was interested in taking a look at it you better do it now,because we just got his modification plan. I, again, I agree with Bob that if it's minor we ought to... let's make it as easy as possible. I just don't know what the definition of minor is and I think, personally, that if it invo1ves.anything commercial or industrial 'and, maybe, anything multiple-family, it ought to go to the Planning Commission. I don't mind reviewing these things... I know it's 1 a heartache for the staff, but we all set aside every other Tuesday to do it and we might as well do it.. what else are we going to do? The only comment that I would make on that is, the way it is now no multiples are going to the Mod Committee.. it's going all the way to the Planning Commission. The other thing is, do we trust staff to decide what's minor on single-family.. shouldn't we trust them to decide what's minor on other things? But I haven't seen any evidence that they're abusing that privilege on the single-family.. and I really am talking about the minor stuff. And I think Bill's plan is a good one - that sometimes you may get an architectural treatment.. if it could be handled administratively.. with administrative modification, that they're just going to drop the whole idea and nobody every sees it and it never happens. So, I think that, you know, maybe we're only talking about 10% of the stuff that's coming before you now and maybe a few architectural treat- ments that are happening now would happen.. but it's not a major change. But I think that it would cut some of the staff time required,and all the important stuff you're going to see anyway. I agree with you. How would one define minor and what kind of criteria would be set up to differentiate between a minor modification and something not minor? What are you doing now? How do you decide it? Well, it's like it's almost determined.. there's no decision. 99% of it. If we're dealing with multiple-family, obviously, we'd have a new project.. or a project that's addin9 units or jot includes square footage, in addition projects, and that seems like that's what the Planning Com- mission would want to see. If you're talking about some other type of architectural feature.. a trellis structure; patio cover or something like that it seems like that's something that shouldn't come before the Planning Commission. What if a patio cover wanted to go to the property line? Well, it couldn't do that anyway because the building code is not sup- posed to allow that, so they'd have to maintain a certain... 3 1/2 foot setback anyway. Plus, another thing is you get notices of all administrative modifica- tions as do we...,... -14- 9-30-86 I 1 ) KOVACIC MA YOR YOUNG GALINSKI GILB LOJESKI GILB LOJESKI GILB A/1ATO i Commercial/industrial -_. -- .-- we have sent to the Commission and If you start sending all commercial/industrial projects to the Commission the number of reports the Commission will have and you'll have to add to them. A lot of other things.. we don,' t. see major modifications. In fact at Duarte Road and Santa Anita we didn't see the need for modifications.. doing modifications for a sign encroach- ment - 28 inches, I think, and then for that one property line to be zero adjacent to the other building..would have a zero property line also. That seems minor.. the project may be major, but the modifications requested were minor. t~r.' Galinski. Viewing it from what the say, the report.. sitting on the Planning Commission, I think staff does a great job in selecting they can decide and those things they send to us... sometimes there might be a little error made on one of the others.. but I would have no argument at all with content of the material that's sent to us I don't know whether this is the time to bring this up, but in the Rede- velopment Area the Council, you know, can look at every project and every building that goes in. But the rest of the City,when they start putting things up, if they don't need any modification they just pull a permit and put it up.. and we get it. And we don't really have a lot to say about it, and I don't know where we start and stop on this subject. As an example the medical building down on Santa Anita.. I didn't even know the thing was.. I didn't even know where it was going'to be. I don't think anybody on.the Council even knew what it was going to be when it just started building. And now, over on Baldwin Avenue they're putting in that mini-mall on the corner, that we have no idea what it's going to be: I have seen no plans: I've seen no pictures of it.. nothing. And so, I can see us concentrating on the Redevelopment Area and getting all this and then the rest of the town just putting up buildings. And I don't know.. and I'm not looking to create work and I don't say that we have to approve everything, but somewhere along the line I think we've got to see what is going in the town or we're going to have a town full of buildings that nobody has ever even seen.. seen a picture o~or even know what they are. Have you seen the new Yon's building? building. Oh, yes.. Yon's? (Several talking though. I haven't..... the new Yon's I go down there every weekend simultaneously... plans..) ~Je and see it. haven't seen any plans I haven't seen the plans. Oh no, I haven't seen the plans. I think if we had an architectural review board........ -15- 9-30-86 !. ~~.+ .- GALINSKI GILB GALINSKI GILB MAYOR YOUNG KOVACIC GALINSKI KOVACIC MAYOR YOUNG KOVACIC MILLER GILB KOVACIC CHANDLER KOVACIC CHANDLER c (Several talking simultaneously) Well, that's what a Modification's Committee is...... Maybe, I can ask Mr. Miller this... maybe we're not legally entitled to do that.. but it's in our City and I don't know.. before it'gets any further out of hand, and I think it's getting out of hand, we're going to have this entire town built with those little mini-malls on every corher and we're going to have a nice part of town and a bunch of allover town.. with those washing machine things and all that other junk. You could have... ,major buildings require no modifications on large pieces of land and the first time you see what they look like is when they hold a "Grand Opening............ I don't know if that concerns anybody else but it sure concerns me. Alright, Gary. That is my fundamental concern. On the medical building I think we did review that.. if I'm not mistaken. That thing was in modification....., But what's going across from the 7-11,. Lord only knows. And there's a lot of those corner lots, and all you have to do is read that article in the LA Times magazine and lots of people.. they're looking for every corner lot that's available and what they said in the article was, "They build according to the building code", so they don't have to go through any of this I get many calls from people living down along Live Oak there.. real unhappy with it. I'll give you one more example. An item came before the Modification Committee which would, in essence, put a mini-mall where the Christian Science Reading Room and the laundry.. next to the Post Office, and again, I'm sitting there making a judgment and they were only requiring a minor modification't~athink, on the rear yard setback.. and I really think something like/deserves more than just a cursory review by three people on a Tuesday morning. This, as Hr. Gilb was saying..you really are getting in the next subject matter because you're looks.. appearance and you can condition every building permit in the City on design review if you get into design review. Other than that, there are situations where somebody , could put up a development and get the buildilng permit and submit a seria act.. it's almost automatic if they meet basic requirements and there is not much you can do in those situations. What happened with the project you're talking about over there next to the Post Office? I The modification was approved. Those are the types of developments - the one across from the library and the one .... Christian Science..... But Gary, you approved it though. I approved it because he was asking for a minor modification. I don't see how you can sit on a Modification Committee the fact that' it's just going through being approved and you're sitting -16- 9-30-86 .r-',~. :-. .~. ':--': , CHANDLER (Cont'd) MAYOR YOUNG KOVACIC GILB KOVACIC ? I AMATO MAYOR YOUNG GILB MAYOR YOUNG GILB A~1ATO GILB I GAlINSKI GILB GALINSKI CHANDLER GILB MAYOR YOUNG , [ there voting for it. Couldn't you say this needs to go to the Planning Commission? Yes, I could... I probably should have, but again, I don't know what the game plan is. They're here for a minor modification - what they're requesting was minor. The impact on the area is major. It's got to be considered. Right.. but I'm not sure it's my role to consider the overall impact if they're asking for a minor modification and my role is to either grant or deny that modification. And that's being reviewed. He's back to No.4...... Yes, I was going to recommend....... I agree that No.4 and 5 are going to overlap. What is your wish as far as the Modifications and the desire to have the p1ans go to the Planning Commission and/or the Council? I'm just wondering if we couldn't have........ I'm .not in favor of an architectural design review on residential.. but I am on commercial. I will express my thoughts.. and I think the City is getting to a point where we need to have control. But as far as every house is concerned and because the people don't like the house that's next door.. we're going to be so busy. I think the major problem - the way I personally see it is on the commercial ventures in town.. if we had some kind of an architectural review of some kind on these projects.. at least look at the things, otherwise we're going... I think it's gettin9 way out of hand.. we don't have that much property and once they start developing and tear down.. I think nothing is going to match anything else. I mean, that's my personal opinion. I disagree with you for the simple reason that you have an architectural review board review it.. everybody has to abide by. They're all s;ngle- family dwellings, you know, ok? If you didn't have them and the guy next door to you could put up a block building, what would you say? Well I'll have to tell you.. we've got an architectural review board in our area and it was the biggest mess you've ever seen up there. Every house is di fferent - everybody has got a bl ue roof or a red roof... they used to have a shingle roof.. so there's a few modifications. I wouldn't say that... I live up there... I think it's nice. What? You don't live up there.. where do you live? Six houses from you. It's your house he's talking about. We've got an architectural... but what I'm saying is, that's what they wanted in our area or that's what they'll want in another area. I think that if we go and try to do the whole City at once.. with the residential and commercial and everything we're going to have so much to do we won't have anything else to do, you know. Why think on that point.. let's go back and finish the modifications and you can think about that and then we'll get into the architectural review. Yes, Gary. -17- 9-30-86 r;/" ~, . KOVACIC . AMATO KOVACIC MAYOR YOUNG A.'''ATO MAYOR YOUNG AMATO HARBICHT MAYOR YOUNG KOVACIC 11AYOR YOUNG \~OOLARD My feeling is, at least all of commercial and industrial .developments should ,go before the Planning Commission if they require any modifica- tions. Now that might sound intense, but I'm throwing that out for discussion. I feel almost the same way for all multiple-family projects unless they meet some kind of "Harbicht" minor criteria and that that's going to be developed by somebody.... How are you goi ng to know whether it's mi no~ 'or major....? Well, as with any zoning ordinance or code it has to spell out the specifics and that's why we',ve hired a very good City Attorney to tell us if we have the right language. I.agree, totally, that if it's minor and.., let's make it easy for.the developer. But I'm concerned about industrial projects; commercial projects...... I'm concerned about modifications on the commercial.. particularly right now because when we started putting in these crosswalks we had some downtown people come to us and one of them was asking a question without really saying what was in his mind, I'm sure, because he wanted to know if he would be limited in additional building on his property. And the answer was, no, you won't be. But I'm sure, since it was a gas station, that he was considering the mini-mall type of thing, and that because of the corner where he is, would create a traffic problem. And that's what he was asking. So, I think, before he gets to that' point we better get to some meeting of the minds on this. And if it takes a sub-committee to set up some rules and then it could come back for review.. I don't know.. but I think we need to make some rules. modifications.. we were discussing it. I think we should set a moderate ,dollar amount. I think this would solve it..... It's a minor thing.. it's going to be within the parameters of, say, $1,000 or $2,000 could be a minor. , The cost? Yes. And anything major in there, if they're,going to clear aesthetically.. it's impossible with something major.. you've got a big dollar amount. Bill, aren't you now deciding what's minor and major for a commercial and industrial? What is your criterion for minor? How about asking, 'What's major?' Alright, let's go with major. Ok, The ones we've had here before where there's substantial parking lots.. 5 spaces means 305 parking lots A smaller modifications can be important, too, for parking.. one would be the redoing of the Crocker Bank building downtown, that was a minor modification on that, but because of its location we sent it to the Commission. Usually things in the Downtown Area involving parking will. go to the Commission. I I (End of tape 1, side 1) (Beginning of side 2) -18- 9- 30-86 ,.....- c I , ? an application would come in.. receive the Conditiional Use Permit.. we didn't know what they were doing for signs and then when they'd come back tn for the signs send those modifications to the Commission for the Commission to act on the Conditional Use Permit approving the use in the first place.. ? Also, for example, the clause that wanted light standards that worked twice so that went through the Commission It's 'usually where there's a danger of.. Talking about a mini-mall that meets all the codes, but it won't have a major traffic impact. You wouldn't stop it for that reason? We have no criteria for traffic impacts in the zoning ordinance. That sort of belongs with the curbage no one's seen it because there's no modification before.us ? ? You know.... concerned with it have brought up this thing about.. modifications because, you know, to say.. define it,is a dif- ficult thing to do. It's like, you know, I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it. These guys are professio~als.. that's their job.. they're planners. They know what's minor or what's not minor and I, frankly, trust them to decide which is whid, and as a matter of fact we've all been 1 iving with them deciding on c()rr:mt,,'cial, on industrial and on single-family.. they've been doing,it all along. There's been no problems that anybody knows of. The only question be- fore us is, are we going to let them also decide on multi-family what's minor and what's major or are we guing to continue to say no matter what multi-family has to come before He Commission. I don't know why n'ulti-family is any different than c.cmmercial or industrial or single- family. And, we've got somethi ng that's worki ng for three of the major classes and I'm saying for the fClrth class let's allow them to use their professional judgment to decide what's major or minor. All we're talking about is occasionally some of these things that come before us or come before the Commission, aren't going to because they're very minor things. It also allows them to kind of work with the developer a~d say, 'We'll give you a two foot modification on the setback if you put awni I:gs on and you won't have to go before the Pl anni ng Com- mission'. All this is fine, so what do we end up with? We end up with an architecturally well pleasing building. The other thing is, that I think that we have to recognize that everyone of us will sit around and bitch about government ard how g()vernment is, you know, getting into our lives... well folks, that's us. We're the government and if we're going to say every little thing h~s to go through this whole process then we're part of the problem and I think that we.. all we're asking for.. or I'm asking fo~ is just to give a little bit to allow us to work with these people and avoid some of this work which really turns out to be busy work.. it's only a few cases that we're talking about. -1 g- 9-30-86 - " ) , , ? and why put those few people through all of this for a lousy awning or a trell is. I agree. I agree. Anybody disagree? Well done, Harbicht. Ok, by general consent then we will go along with that..... We will now move on to the Architectural Design. Two probl ems ? ? ? MA YOR YOUNG ? (INTERRUPTION IN TRANSCRIPTION DUE TO MALFUNCTION OF TAPE) -20- 9- 30-86 I I ;.._,. , f~~~'.~~- , .. .!:.^-- ;:........ I , MAYOR GILB CHANDLER KOVACIC GILB HEDLUND CITY ATTORNEY GILB MAYOR HEDLUND GILB ) ) Tom and I are good friends, but his final argument was it was just too big a house for the lot -- there was no variance. He overbuilt for the neighborhood. He just overbuilt for the neighborhood, but I think everybody has gotten used to.it. It looks a lot better than it used to. They are overbuilding in South Arcadia -- I can tell you. I can go aiong with Bob. I just think it is something we should review on occasion because what is a minor problem now could be a major problem later on. ----- t have a question ... if we have an architectural design review board, I know what its function would be, but what would their power be? ... the architectural rev.iew board. 1 am just asking the question -- I am being the Devil 's advocate.now. The place on ...the LaMancho building down there on the corner ,.. 1 guess 'he can put up anything he wants he will show us plans and pictures, but it never looks the same ... they always have. fewer cars than,how many are actually parked there but what would the power of the group actually be? My argument would be ... they do ,not want the parking in the back... they want it in the front,. I can understand that for pol ice reasons, etc., and I can understand that ... but we have a requirement for land- scaping ... they go in and plant a few bushes and later they are all brown and full of beer cans and what not. I think that should be tightened up ... we should be able to do that ... we should do that ... I do not know of any shopping.area we have that isn't run down ... down on Live Oak ... for instance ... we would be better off to require astroturf ... perhaps they should put up a bond or something. (In response to Mr. Gilb's inquiry) It could be set up properly and provide conditions ... the Board would have conditioing power ... It would also have the power to deny... if the applicant did not comply after their request was granted the approval' could be revoked just like we do with conditional use permits ... I think the value of such a committee or board would be for aesthetics. Then there could be the power ... The Board could be given guidelines. One thing that bothers,me.is traffic ... for instance mini malls and the one being constructed on Baldwin Avenue I can see a real problem there... I can at Duarte and Santa Anit" _. even with a biqqer buildinq and maybe can we have traffic flow requirement? Santa Anita and Duarte is .goi ng to .be a d,i saste.r: Well why didn't you show up at the meeting when we called him in and .. I mean, we had him here and you didn't come. -21- 9/30/86 . 1+< ,--- ~~ MAYOR - S ZANY GILB MAYOR ? G1LB MAYOR G1LB MAYOR G1LB MAYOR ? ? G1LB SZANY G1LB SZANY G1LB SZANY r f Well I think that in a case like that, it has to be a one way entrance and a one way exit and control it. Well a two lane exit.. We could have criteria governing items like driveways. .. Certain distances away from corners. Maybe we ought to get .. are we talking about architecture? We're talking about everything. Architecture and design review Well I understood design to mean design of the building. Design of the project What would you think about having somebody get together with the staff I with the Planning Division and with the staff to come up with something or some suggestions as to just exactly what the criteria might be rathe than sitting here tonight and saying what about this and what about that. Let me ask a question. I think that is an excellent idea because I think it could be worked out with a smaller group very easily. We can get back to all of you with what we have arrived at. Look,.somebody.fromthe Planning Commission has got to be on this crew. We can do that. But I think we should include .. what do you think about including the multiple dwellling situation with this? I thmnk.so. (voices indistinguishable) I don't (voices indistinguishable) I don't I would like to add a couple of comments. I would say that 90% of my projects that I have done in the last five years have been for an architecture board -- there is Rancho Cucamonga - Monrovia has a very good setup - they meet on Thursday afternoon with the manager -- Don Hopper -- the Public Works director and the staff. Who is Don Hopper? Don Hopper is Redevelopment. ... Monrovia. For three hours -- we get an agenda -- and get an overview of everything that is going on in the city - just review.it -- just quick comments - that (indistinguishable) - want to dress up this building. They make some mistakes over there but on the whole most of their projects look I pretty good. Maybe that is what we need. There was one project --- that I was concerned about -- it was in Redevelopment - multiple family - Alta and Second --I had' seen the plans. I felt this wasn't a project that at least followed some of the criteria that had been set up in the Willdan report which was agreed upon by professionals in planning and design. I came to that meeting and nobody - including, you, Charlie - liked that building - but you approved it - you did not care for'the building - even the remarks from the Redevelopment said that the building did not work well with the rest of the neighborhood designwise, impact, everything. But you still approved it. The building will last until approximately 2025. -22- 9/30/B6 :.-'.. c. SZANY GILB SZANY GILB SZANY I GILB SZANY GILB SZANY MAYOR HARBICHT I MAYOR HARBICHT HEDLUND MAYOR CHANDLER MA YOR , ' f I ~ Now a mistake like you buy a bad car, you run it for a year or two -- you trade it in -- but that building will be here for a long time and I just think multiple family........... That's the building up on Alta? Yes, it's on Alta. With the Chinese architect. Well, I didn't say I don't like the building -- I liked the building. You said, quote, unquote, Charlie. You said, "I don't have very good tasie and I'personally don't like this building". But what I said, was, "I am not an architect and I don't think I can sit here and decide what is architecturally correct" ... anymore than you can or anyone else ... it is very difficult for someone who is not in that business to know... just because I don't happen to like a blue roof, that doesn't mean it is not nice. What I am saying is ... we are trying to make this building look nice. He came out with a very good presentation ... but that building will be there for 25 years or more and what I am saying is that perhaps you should not have judged that building at all (indecipherable). Oh, I see what you mean ... another group should have judged the building. Possibly, or perhaps conditions should have been placed by staff to say to the developer, "you are goi ng to have to " It is a high tech building and it is going to look out of place. (Some discussion on how they voted on that item.) I think we have a two part question here. The first part is we have to determine whether the City Council is philosophically in favor of having an architectural review board for multi-family, commercial or industrial... if that is the case then the second part we would begin drafting is some sort of criteria and talking about forming an architectural review board with members of staff, the Commission or whomever. Would anyone care to make a motion on that? I don't believe it requires a motion ... we aren't taking any action. I definitely think we should have such a board. Asked for an indication of each member as to whether or not they were in favor or against such a board. It was 3 to 2 -- Chandler and Harbicht were not in favor of such a boa rd . Sa id he was bureacratic with it. It doesn't have to be that. If we build up a criteria I would think a lot would be handled at the Commission or Council level. - opposed buildup did not like It goes hand in hand the to any ARB ". because he that goes along with it. -23- 9/30/86 \::,. . HEDLUND CHANDLER HEDLUND CHANDLER LOJESKI CHANDLER MAYOR YOUNG GILB HARBICHT GILB CHANDLER GILB LOJESKI CHANDLER LOJESKI KOVACIC r~A YO R YOUNG KOVACIC Would you like to see lath and plaster buildings with video stores, pizza parlors, and... washing machines... Not all of those things are getting in, are they? I haven't seen many that aren't. Do you really think you are going to stop LaMancho from building mini- malls in Arcadia because you don't happen .to like them? No, but they will look better. We are going to take the far Eastern look out of our buildings... is that what we are going to do? Well, I guess the general consensus is to have an ARB for multiple- family, commercial and industrial I How else can you do it? Harbicht is against it...1 would like to know why.. how else can you do it? I am just a free enterprise guy.. I see us putting in something that would have required, last year if we excluded single-family... 132 design reviews, and I haven't see 132 terrible looking buildings. I think that we're going to put in here an atom bomb to kill an ant colony. And, so that's..... if it's the Council.. if 3 members of the Council think we ought to do it then let's go. I'm just expressing my feeling on this. I'm trying to figure out how we get these projects.. like the one on Baldwin that they got the fence around and we're not going to see what it is until they take the fence down.. and then they'll say, 'Here's the building'.. and here it is. It seems to me we should be able to see that ahead of time and then have something to say about how it looks. How about requiring knotholes? They have them downtown. I think you can set the thing up that it doesn't have to deal with the bureaucratic mess and it doesn't have to be an extra big cost.... it just goes along with, I mean, it's the same thing as something in the Redevelopment Area, a commercial development or a multi-family development. If it's in the area of the Redevelopment Agency.. they I know they have various steps to go through and that's just it.. there's no extra cost for that. Ok, but we're already setup, Dennis... and that's right, there is no extra cost. I'm reading in here, "a delay of 3 weeks". I'm reading I in here, "an added cost.. or a total cost", this was for.. we're officing the fam il i es, now. Again, I think you found it, Roger, about.. if the whole thing were put under the guise commission and group but that's not really intended. A separate commission, too, Roger. Alright.. Gary. Let's ask the professionals.. I have limited experience, but if some- body said he had a 3 week delay and had to pay $500.. that sounds like a bargain for most of these around town. Ask Dave or Harold, it seems to'me that delays and high fees are the rage.. everyone else..,.. -24- 9-30-86 ":- . ;7 ~ - ,,~ ~ I , SZANY HEDLUND MAYOR YOUNG HEDLUtlD MAYOR YOUNG AMATO M,1\ YOR YOU NG GALINSKI CHANDLER GALINSKI MAYOR YOUNG GILB HARBICHT MAYOR YOUNG GILB :,'A YOR YOUNG GILB LOJESKI GILB MAYOR YOUNG GILB HARBICHT CHANDLER MAYOR YOUNG GILB f1AYOR YOUNG AMATO GILB Actually it's one building.. that one right there. I'm really upset about that... (Several speaking simultaneously) This is building which is right next door.. they went and remodeled it. It's a ver~ clean little building and this is what's qoinq to be two dnnr~ down Trom them ., /for at least j5 years. Now that was done Just recently.. lt went through you.wheri 1 did it. You' didn't know that.. this is what I mean....... I don't think it... they just put in one at Duarte and Rosemead and Longden and Rosemead... and they're pure garbage. And I don't think it's any big imposition to make them jazz them up a l.ittle bit.... No, and I think.... ... to make it look like it belongs in Arcadia. Arcadia deserves to hav~ the right to do that. Why worry about what the other cities have.. let's worry about Arcadia. A freeway's delight doesn't disturb me one little bit. But you have two basic problems.. what do you do with an architect who has poor taste .and how can you tell when an architect has poor taste. Yes, some of these architects need architects, that's right. You go right around in a circle. I don't think you can control it.... some builders have buildings and some build us a building. That's right. You said the same thing twice. Could we get a quick show of hands from the Council.... Alright.. from the Council people.. how many want to proceed with having some control over this? Over commercial/industrial and multiple-family? Yes. I'm for commercial/industrial but I'm not too hot about this multiple- family business. You're looking at some already..,... Yes, ok.. I agree because I don't want him critizing me. I'd like hands.. who's in favbr of proceeding with this? Who' sopposed.. two of them are opposed. Ok, so we will proceed in planning a committee to set some guidelines. If everybody is reticent about it, I'd like to be on that committee. Well, I think Szany should be on the committee, too, I mean he knows all about the business, and Harbicht because he was against...... Let Mary do it.. put Gary on, he's got some ideas on this subject. If we're going to go for it.. go for it with people who have a positive attitude about it. You don't want some griper like me in there. I'm not going to stand in the way of...... We're not asking you to be on........ Then all we really need is Mary, Szany and somebody from the staff. We can start with that. If we get stuck we'll call for help. Mary, I'm sure there's a lot of people in the City that...,. .. and Boci an. -25- 9-30-86 "'~-.-- ) AMATO GILB AllATO ? MARY YOUNG AMATO MAYOR YOUNG HARBICHT 11A YOR YOUNG LOJESKI MA YOR YOUNG GILB MAYOR YOUNG ? MAYOR YOUNG ? MAYOR YOUNG SZANY ...the architect, the other day, that would -be more than willing to donate of his time. Who's that? Other architects.. other than Szany, would be more than willing to donate their time. Do you want them on this review board.. is what you want? Yes, I think we can work that out. .. at no cost. Let's discuss it with the Ok;~,we can get together with Dave and find an agreeable time.... (Many ~alking simultaneously) Did we adjourn? No. Do it that way... formulate the committee and then have the committee come back... We'll bring our suggestions back to you. Do you need more than three, do you think? No.. we were just discussing that. We will start out and then see where we go, and send back a rough draft to you and you can make your comments. Mike Hiller will also be involved in that By all means. Alright now.. anything else on the Architectural Design and Review? I encourage your R-I people that form their own homeowners group. And I think that some areas are just kind of on the verge of it if they had some encouragement. Most people around here. Yes, sure... alright are there any other items you care to bring up tonight? Dave. I have one item that just came about at the last minute when I came up here tonight. When I first came on the Planning Commission one of my first tasks was to review the Willdan Report, the second part of it.. if my own understanding is correct and I know the Willdan Associates and I'm to work for I I said.. Wow, I have a guideline I can go with so that I know, pretty much, the format that was set a year before that, that Willdan kind of followed,which was pretty much Redevelopment which.. they had gotten aut of the I revitalization planning going through now, somewhat.. gat same walkways there.. the bricks. And I've hear.d a lot of negatives an that but over all in all I think that's normal . I'm looking far that guideline that things go on. We're going to be.seeing a lot more downtown revitalization.. QoinQ to try to help people..'zip UP your store front, came up with a little bit of something so you can help out downtown.. crosswalks, planting areas, trees, benches.-.-- other little things'. Hopefully they'll do something to the buidings. Same of my concerns were... WiTldan had '~ddressed a couple of items personally... directly in his report and 'one was a seven.story building that .was going up an the carner of First and Huntington Drive, and he suggested -26- 9-30-86 " _. '. I , ) SZANY (Cont'd) LOJESKI SZANY NAYOR YOUNG SZANY LOJESKI SZANY LOJESKI SZANY LOJESKI " , negatively, that it did not blend in with concerns and the format that he had set up for them to ~o the report. There was a very good revenue "bri~ger-inner" type of thing that was, possibly, a very good' tax base.,. a very good sized building related to the property so that. the price..and I think that the result he was looking for.... That project couldn't be made..... Yes, I know.. what I'm looking for is.. I mean I listened to a couple of others - Bruce Low, possibly.. when we were asking, for some landscaping.. some signs ,and the Southland Bank across the street is a very attractive building with the car dealership across the street. To impose a few conditions on them and possibly follow the Willdan Report.. something " a little pressure here as a Planning Commissioner but then they'll just see Council......, The Redevelopment Agency would like to have that, it represents a very good tax base,And I know a lot of cities right now.. we're doing,some in Alhambra... dealership for Acura.,. .... a very good tax base. But, personally, I'd like to have some more landscaping than what he's got now. He's already complained landscaping he put on. The feelings that I have had a basis to go from whith was the'Willdan Report and I felt the Redevelopment had kind of approved having a hand in this and we get in.. can we use that as the basis to review projects? we'll be getting, probably, a lot more. We are trying to encourage.. and probably help him pay for certain fees to make zip up the project..... they're the authority. We'd use that as a basis? That is the basis. So if we follow that Willdan Report Are you talking of existing business.... Existing businesses. Well you see.. back up a little bit, I mean, the intent of tne Agency of going ahead with things like.. the crosswalks; the trees; the planters around the trees; putting in new sidewalks; undergrounding utilities.. things of that sort, the intent was - that it not imposition Dial~a- Ride on anyone of those things. No, I understand that. That's the intent of the will of the Council to say, 'Hey, we're willing to shake our deck of cards out and pullout of our deck those things that.. is the intent on our part to say.. hey, we're concerned about the area", Now the ball comes over to the property owners.& the business owners and how serious are you business people? You people that have sat back all these years and just complained; complained, complained and complained.. now it's up to you to come in. Are you willing to put up a new sign on your building? Are you willing to put a new coat of paint on there? Are you willing to put a new plaster coat on the building' to improve it? Put shutters on or.whatever the case may be? And, yes, I think that report is a guideline and it spells things out like that that, could be done. And I think the existing businesses that are there have -27- 9-30-86 . f-.~.~ --. ... '-, LOJESKI (Cont'd) SZANY MA YOR YOUNG 'WOOLARD LOJESKI A,"1ATO WOOLARD MAYOR YOUNG, WOOLARD MAYOR YOUNG WOOLARD MAYOR YOUNG GILB LOJESKI ? GICB HARBICHT GILB _ , f to look at it. that way. Now jf they come in for modification for.. they want to add two more seats to the Moon Palace.. or whatever.. we say, ah ha.. now we've got them. They want to come in for modification and pulling out a building permit, now, how about cutting in that entryway? How about putting in a little landscaping in the front? What do we do? Do we just say, 'Ok we'll just let you go for a modification and not do anything else. Be- cause that's really not in your bL'dget'. I am asking for guidE'lines. Isn't there money available for some of that revitalization? There is. There will be. I what the intent is? We're planning to give it away. It's a grant.... We just want to give it away 50 to 80% of the cost of the project If that revitalization of the building just east of the old Bank of America building on Huntington Drive goes through.. and I guess, I don't know.. has it come back to the Planning Department yet? No. No. But if that goes through I think the fact that in that block east of First Avenue.. here is a fair size building being revitalized will give a lot of emphasis to that area. Because I think people think that, you know, nothings being done in that line. Where is the Bank of America building on Huntington? The old Bank of America building on Huntington, you know, next to that empty lot. Between.. just east of Oh, ok. I think what Dave is asking is, what do they do when faced with this situation.. somebody wants a modification in that area.. should they then use that as the opportuni ty to say, 'Ok, now you have to do all of these things in order to get it'. I think the answer is, yes, but you have to use kind of a test of reasonableness when somebody comes in and wants two more seats.. I don't know if that's.. but, you know, I don't think there's a hard and fast yes or no. It depends, somewhat, on what it is they want to do. Well Bob,wou1dn't it have something to do with our staff.. by that time our staff would know this is going on and they would be up in the Redevelopment Area trying to help these people develop.. tell them some different ways they can change their - I mean that's just part of the staff activity. Like Bill said.. we have this money available. That means before they ever got to you if it comes in that they want to put two more seats in you're going to say let's... but somebody from the staff should have been up there or somebody from the City saying, 'Hey, 100kit this money is available can you do this.. could I -28- 9-30-86 ',' ~-".... .. ~. ' ~ GILB (Cont'd) AMATO LOJESKI I AMATO HARBICHT PAPP.Y WOOLARD MAYOR YOUNG CHANDLER PAPAY CHANDLER MAYOR YOUNG CHANDLER I GILB ' LOJESKI CHANDLER GILB LOJESKI CHANDLER LOJ ES KI MAYOR YOUNG LOJESKI CHANDLER GILB CHANDLER ,. f ( l you do that', before they come and ask you and you have to tell them they've got to do these things.. it would seem to me because we've got people running up.. we've got an Economic Developer running up and down the street up there.. he must talk to these people about what's available in funds, you know, to help them jazz their buildings up. I've been asked by a couple of people.. businesses on Huntington Drive.. "Is this money available? When is it going to come available? Is it going to be a low interest rate type of thing?" I think maybe you ought to g~t some publicity on it and let them know. They've already seen full copies of the Willdan Report.. and that ~es about, you know.,.... Let them know that this money is available..... Well except that.. as a consequence of that you adopted.. the Council adopted exactly what they were going to be doing. A design overlay on the downtown. Coming up at the next Council meeting, some suggested changes in the money for downtown and the.. then if you want to up the amount or something like that so that..then once get the direction of the Council then we will prepare some publicity eligible area. Will that be on the October 7th agenda? It will be? (Several talking simultaneoulsy) They're just licking their wounds off and putting in the bricks and They lost money. So money's in that deal for businesses. And I think they're also getting their heads together.. they're ta~king with one another and they're looking for direction about how serious is the City about redevelopment. They know we're serious now. (Others speaking at the same time) Wait a minute, I'm talking about some of the other businessmen there on Huntington. Chi vetta? You must be talking to the Low family, you know..... No, not on that site.. Of course not, you've got to talk to somebody besides the Low's.... You're talking about tenants. I'm talking about, like around Tommy T's, ok, you've got a new tenant in there.. new owner, right? Tenants.. not new owners. The owner is somE guy who doesn't care what the property looks like.. he doesn't live in the town and he isn't going to comply with.. no matter what you say. Most of the south side of Huntington is absentee owners. It's absentee owners. from hav i ng everything, their'streets blocked you know....... . Except Tommy T's, ok, that's... Have you been in the Shiatsu Center? Shiatsu Center.. no, I haven't. Forget I said that. -29- 9-30-86 !r;O" t-- MAYOR YOUNG PAPAY LOJfSKI PAPAY LOJESKI GILB HARBICHT GILB HARBICHT GILB LOJESKI MA YOR YOUNG LOJESKI GILB WOOLARD LOJESKI GILB LOJESKI PAPAY SZANY LOJESKI AMA re, GILB A."IA TO GILB Larry. I was just going to make the point." when downtown came up in front of the Planning was the only person who showed up. He showed up at the Council meeting, too. He's not an absentee landlord, I mean, he has his business there and he has a feeling there. Nobody else showed up. Chivetta is president of the association and he wrote a bulletin.. too little, too late. Well he's not president anyw.cre. Oh yes, he got reelected,... I though that "White Eyes" guy was. No. (Several speaking) No, that's the only point I wanted to make.. is, you've got a bunch of tenants down there an~ they scream and they yell, but when push comes to shove and we had hearing after hearing after hearing on that. They didn't show up. The people don't show up, c~? The ARB, they write out a newsletter and one guy, you know, tells us how lousy a City Council we are.. and we're not serious.. and we haven't done this. I've got to tell you something.. this Council has done more in the last 4 years;. 5 years than any other City Council as far' as redevelopment and concern for the downtown area. So, the next guy down there that tells me that we're not serious and that we haven't done anything.. I'll show him where the door is and rry foot's going to be right behind him. Besides that, Bill took the staff down one night at a meeting of the Downtown eusiness Association.. didn't you Bill.. to explain this whole thing.. and how many people showed up, four? ? We had a number of meetings and we never got more than a dozen. They were so concerned over the election.. they had three members show up. Yes. the design overlay Commission, Gordon for the Penharlow I And two of them don't even live in the City and can't vote We're not responding to Dave's question.... (Others talking) Remember the horse property new'subdivision. When it happens to your street, your curb, or,your lawn.. you're going to be there. The rest of the time you don't care, ok? Actually I was approached by two people in the area that were just renters and they want to do something with their places and they want to know whEY! the money is going to become av.ailable? They're renters and they ~ant to put... and they're on Huntington Drive? Would you mind giving us the names and we'll go down and see them tonight. Yes, Rene & Company, the hair dresser.. hair stylists. He wants to do a little something with the And who else? I -30- 9-30-86 . . GILB Ar~ATO CHANDLER GILB CHANDLER LOJESKI I MAYDR YOUNG AMATO GILB CHANDLER GILE MAYOR YOUNG CHANDLER HP.RB I CHT PAPAY HARBICHT , ? MAYOR YOUNG (Several speaking simultaneously) Who's the other one? The one next door to them... a ceramics place. Let the money loose and then you'll find out. Is Stewart's moving in there, too? They're trying to set up shop. They're trying to do something. Well, why aren't they doing something on that building on the north side where we asked the guy.... You just rained allover me, buddy, and I want facts. We asked them to put in more trees.. we asked them to do, you know, to do something aesthetically as far as taking'away just the stark look cf a plastered front. And the guy went back a~d he said, "I understand", and he's offered to put up, what ~as it.. shutters or window treatments or awnings or something.. and it's going to be a nicer looking project.. totally aesthetically better looking. Well, after the Council meeti~g next week we'll get some publicity out on that. I think if you get the pub1.icity out I think you're going to get some... Put it in the Arcadia Tribune.. they don't even know ~here Coco's is. Joanna Bruno came up to me and said, "Is that set in concrete?" I had two people call me about that.. they said, "How are they put an addition on that building, Mr. Gilb?" I said, 'They're to put an addition on,that building' ... they went to Mimi's. Were they talking about that Ccco's or the one down on Live Oak, (Several speaking) Yes, I figured that cut myself. He got it all twisted at the Council meeting. I was just going to say on this, you know, businesses do tenant improve- ment~ all the time. Dennis, I'm sure, puts tenant improvements into his office but it's not his building. And then when his lease is up he's going to walk away and leave them there.. it's not unreasonable to expect that some of these retailers along Huntington Drive are going to spend their money on a rented building. Good for business. Yes., We're going to have money for them and we're going to have some help for them and hopefully it'll happen and I guess the consensus of Council is that if you get the chance to use something as leverage support then to do it when you can do it. Or even not force them - help them? Does anybody have anything else to say? because I think maybe we will make some adjourned. going to not going I thank you giant steps. all for coming The meeting is -31- 9-30-B6