HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 1,2001
I
I
I
()!lfJ, \ <J
t}.s-i.? I 0 I
43:0081 C ('
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CITY CLERK
ROLL CALL
1.
1a
o rtr:), 'It)
2.
ONl '10
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGULAR MEETING
May 1, 2001
The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a Regular Meeting on
Tuesday, May 1, 2001 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers Conference Room.
PRESENT: Council/Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal
ABSENT: None
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
None.
CLOSED SESSION - CITY COUNCIL
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 to confer with City labor negotiators
Sonny Markus, Dan Cassidy and William Kelly regarding Teamsters Local 911, APOA,
APWEA, AFFA, Management and non-represented employees.
CLOSED SESSION - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54956.8)
55 W. Huntington Drive
21 Morlan Place
28 W. Santa Clara
41 W. Huntington Drive
35 W. Huntington Drive
27 W. Huntington Drive
11-19 W. Huntington Drive
121,145,155 N. Santa Anita Avenue
101 N. Santa Anita Avenue
25 N. Santa Anita Avenue
5 W. Huntington Drive
Paul Rusnak
Hann Ling Shaw (Church in Arcadia)
Ellsworth Dahlgren
Robert Johannsen
Gary and Dan Braun (35 W. Htg. Partners)
Richard Gretebeck (Tempelkadian)
Gary Barringer
Ohannes Berberian
Walter Griffin
Ralph Wolveck (Professional Medical Investors)
Anthony Fanlicola (Wortmann Oil)
100 W. Huntington Drive
130 W. Huntington Drive
Brian Carney
Geraldine Baird, et al
Negotiating Parties - Agency Deputy Executive Director
Under Negotiation - Price and terms of payment
At 5:03 p.m. the Arcadia City Council and Redevelopment Agency RECESSED to Closed
Session to 6:51 p.m. RECESSED and RECONVENED in the Council Chambers at 7:00
p.m.
1
5/1/01
43:0082
1NV000llON Reverend Terry Keenan, The Santa Anita Church
PLEDGE OF Bob Hoherd
ALLEGIANCE
I
ROLL CALL
3.
ORD. & RES.
READ BY
TITLE ONLY
4.
PRESENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal
ABSENT: None
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
None.
It was MOVED by Council member Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Chang and
CARRIED that ordinances and resolutions be read by title only and that the reading in full
be WAIVED. .
City Attorney Deitsch announced the subjects discussed at the Closed Session. No
reportable action was taken.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4a.
GENERAL PLAN. Consideration of a proposed General Plan Amendment (G.P. 01-001) from Single-Family
AMENDMENT - Residential (0-6 DUlAC) to Multiple Family Residential (12 DUlAC' Maximum) at 1012-
(G.P. 01-001 - 1026 South First Avenue.
1012-1026 S.
First Avenue)
(DENIED)
URGENCY
ORD.2140
(ADOPTED)
(J ~- ::j 0
,) J
T
R
A
N
S t
C
R
I
P
T
P
-R
E
P
A
.R
.E
D
The application for a General Plan Amendment was filed by Hank Jong for four lots
located at 1012-1026 South First Avenue, currently zoned R-2 Two-family. Mr. Jong
'proposes to develop condominiums on two of.the lots. An. inconsistency between the
General Pian and the zoning became apparent when the proposed 6-unit residential
condominium project was submitted to the City for development of-lhe two properties on
First Avenue. The proposed project was designed in accordance with the City's R-2
regulations.
I
Although the subject properties are zoned R-2, the General Plan designation for the
properties is Single-Family Residential. The properties were zoned R-2 in 1954, which is
consistent with the R-2 zoning of the properties north of the subject site. In order to
subdivide a property into condominium units, State law requires that the zoning and the
General Plan 'be consistent. The applicant was informed of the inconsistency and was
.- advised by staff that if he wished to proceed with the six (6) unit condominium project on
these properties a General Plan Amendment would be required. to change the General
Plan designa,lion from Single-Family Residential to Multiple-Family Residential (12
DUlAC Maximum). The Arcadia Municipal code, however, does not prevent the
applicant from proceeding to develop the property with apartments because an
apartment complex does not require a subdivision.
. The houses on the two lots, 1020-1026 South First Avenue, proposed to be developed by
Mr. Jong have recently been demolished by the applicant. The lots are each 50 feet in
width and 220 feet in depth. Based upon the R-2 zoning designation which allows one
(1) dwelling unit p.er 3.750 square feet of lot area, approximately.12 units could be
constructed on the four lots either as apartments of condominiums. The applicant is
proposing to develop two of the lots with six (6) units.
If the properties were to be rezoned R-1 (Single-Family)" consistent with the General Plan
designation, the four (4) lots could each be built with new single-family dwellings.
"
I
. ....
2,
5/1/01
43:0083
I
Although, the Development Services Department does not generally encourage or
support General Plan amendments increasing the density of properties, the Department
is recommending approval of the requested amendment.
The Planning Commission at its May 27, 2001 meeting voted 4-0 with one member
absent to adopt Resolution 1637 recommending approval of G.P. 01-001 to the City
Council, to change the General Plan designation to Multiple-Family Residential (12
DUlAC). The Commission commented that they felt this change is consistent with the
surrounding area and also that a six-unit condominium would be apprcpriate on the two
properties.
Mayor Segal OPENED the public hearing.
Soeakers IN FAVOR of the General Plan Amendment (G.P. 01-0011.
Robert Harbicht, 663 Gloria Road, spoke on behalf of the applicant.
David Freeman, Attorney, spoke on behalf of the applicant.
Hank Jong, Project Civil engineer.
Michael Sun, Architect, with JWDA.
Alan Hsieh, Polyland Construction, representing owners of 1020 through 1030 South
First Avenue. .
Speakers QPPOSED to the orooosed General Plan Amendment (G.r. 01-001 ).
I
Sonia Williams, representing signers of petition against G.P. 01-001.
Robert Tobin, resident of Greenfield Avenue
Erica Williams, 130 Greenfield Place
Olivia Wu, 121 Greenfield Place
Connie Wu, 121 Greenfield Piace
Frank Chang, 108 Crystal Court
Mike Marshall, 150 Greenfield Place
REBUTTAL soeaker in FAVOR of G.P. 01-001.
Robert Harbicht, 663 Gloria Road
FC'lIowing the rebuttal argument it was MOVED by Councilme:nb:3r Chandler. seccnded
by Councilmember Kovacic and CARRIED to CLOSE the public hearing.
In the discussi':.1 following close of the public hearing, City ManagEr Kelly s:ated in part
that state law c:'ows cities to amend '3eneral Plans, to make changes based upon
changing configurations and then make subsequent zoning changes. With respect to tile
silo in question, Mr. Kelly noted staff has recommended that the propertie3 located at
1012-1026 South First Avenue be Multi-faonily Residential use in the General Plan, which
is appropriate land use for these properties. '
I
Mr. Kelly further commented that Council has three alternatives regarding the First
Avenue properties: 1) Change the Genemi Plan to multi-family residential, which would
ailow apartments or condominiums to be: built; 2) leave the General Plan as single-family,
which allows single-family units to be built and apartments; or, 3) leave the General Plan
as it is and enact an urgency ordinance implementing a moratorium c.nd remove the site
for a land use study as to whether Qr Ihot the appropriate zoning should be R-1 for the
four properties under consideration.
Considerable discussion ensued, -3 majority of the Citi' Council expressed opinion3 that
the sub;ecl properties should be zoned R-t. single-family r<3sidential. It was MOVED by
3
5/1/0'1
-.
43:0084
Council member Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Chang and CARRIED on roll
call vote a'-follows to DENY the Amendment to the General Plan, G.P. 01-001, relative I
to four . properties located at 1012-1026 South First Avenue; and, DIRECT staff to
prepare the appropriate Resolution of Denial for adoption at a future City Council
meeting.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal
None
None
It was then MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by CounCllmember Chang
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that there is a need to take immediate action
this date to consider an urgency ordinance due to an outstanding building permit, and
that the need to take action came to the attention of the City after the May 1 , 2001 City
Council Agenda was posted.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Council members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal
Nooe ' .
. None
..
.,
"
City Attomey Deitsch presented for ADOPTION and explained URGENCY ORDINANCE
NO. 2140 entitled: ,'AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING THE APPROVAL OF ALL LAND
USE ENTITLEMENTS AND PERMITS, AS WELL AS COM'MENCEMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, ON CERTAIN PROPERTY GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 1012-1026 FIRST AVENUE FOR A PERIOD OF FORTY-FIVE (45)
DAYS, PENDING THE COMPLETION OF A LAND USED STUDY AND THE ADOPTION
OF ANY AND ALL AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S LAND USE REGULATIONS".
I
It was MOVED by Council member Chandler, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Marshall and,-
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 2140.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal
None
None
..t . ;.. ,....... ~. .
4b. -, . ". 0 . .. . _' .
.'S-lO f. " TA20of-001 . Consideration ''of the report and recommendation to approve TA '2001-001-; a 'iext .
(Crematories) amendment_amending Section 9275.1.51 by deleting crematories from the list of
ORDINANCE permitted uses subject to the conditional use permit process..' '. ,
NO. 2132 '. ..
(INTRODUCED) The Planning Commission at its March 27, 2001 meeting voted 4-0 'with one member
~. . _ absent to recommend approval of Text Amendment No. 2Q01-001. .' . . '. .'
Mayor Segal OPENED the Public Hearing.
"
'~-'
It Y-'as MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Co[!ncilmember, Chandler .a~(!r..
CARRIED to CLOSE the public hearing. ...' .
. .....-
It was MOYED by Council member Chang, seconded by Councilmember Chandler and ,
CARR.lED on roll call vote as follov,:s. to ADOPT the Negative peclaration; ,and,' '.
APPROVE Text f.mendment TA 2001-001 as set forth in the May 1, 2001 staff report;~:.:
arid, INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 2132 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE .OF THE CIJ.Y '.
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA,' APPROVING TEXT'.'
AMENDMENT TA 2001-01 AMENDING SECTION 9275.1.51 OF THE ARCADIA
MUNICIPAL CODE BY DELETING "CREMATORIES" FROM THE LIST OF PERMITTED
I
,
4.
5/1/01
I
I
I
5.
6.
CHANG
(Ccm'l Signs)
CHANDLER
(Recycling)
MARSHALL
(Recycling)
(Arcadia File
Department)
(Arcadia
Chinesl~ Lion's
Gille))
(Quote)
KOVACIC
(Law Day-
Ci~ of Arcadia
& Arcadia
C~inese Asa'n.)
~~i'!'.!"!,/r.,;;.." J .
'i.,j ,
I :'!) " :i;'f . ,"I ~ ~
43:00E5
USES SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONAl. USE PERMIT PROCESS."
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Council members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal
None
None
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Charles Chila, referred to the intersection at 'Elaldwin and Arcadia Avenues and noted the
need of a traffic light or a stop sign in that location.
City Manager Kelly asked Mr. Chila to submit detailed information to Don Penman,
Traffic Advisory Committee Chairman, for the committee's consideration.
.
,
MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
Council member Chang expressed concerns with regard to the commercial signage
throughout the City. He suggested formation of a signage committee comprised of two
COllncilmembers, two community members and two City staff.
Councilmember Kovacic stated he is in favor of Dr. Chang's proposal. He felt it is
important to involve both residents and the business community and have a system
where ugly and non-conforming signs are not promoted.
In response to Council's proposal City Manager Kelly stated in part, that staff packaged a
series of programs and projects for Council consideration during the budget presentation,
and review of the sign code is one of those issues. Staff will present a concept using a
consultant to facilitate community input.
Council member Chandler encouraged residents to carefully read and follow the
directions of the literature and handout that was mailed to residents with regard to the
recycling. He attended the Sanitation District Meeting. Waste in Arcadia is a big issue
and Arcadians are not doing all that they can do to recycle. Mr. Chandler urged everyone
to participate in recycling programs.
Mayor Pro tern Marshall mentioned the importance of recycling. She felt. with prop",r
education, people would be willing to do what needs to be done with regard to recycling.
Mrs. Marshall referred to a notification stating that the Arcadia Fire Departl1)ent is still
rated Class-One by insurance companies. She hoped Arcadia would remain class one
for a long time.
Mrs. Marshall announced the addition of a new Arcadia Chinese Lion'B Club to the
community.
Mayo' Pro tern Marshall shared a saying by Ben Franklin, "well cone is better than well
s2id".
Council member Kovacic announced that the City of Arcadia and the Arcadia Chinese
Association wilrcelebrate "Law Day" en May 5, 2001 at the Arcadia Public Library, from
10:00 a.m. to 1 :00 p.m.. a group of local attorneys have volunteered to provide free legal
advice to the citizens.' .
.'
0"
5/1101
(D-Day, Arm
Forces Day &
Memorial Day)
SEGAL
(Commission
Liaison and
Committee
Appointments)
. .
43 :0086
Mr. Kovacic read a statement by Sg!. Ed Bacon, Retired, United States Army with regard
to observance of D-Day on May 8, Arm Forces Day, May 19, and Memorial Day on May
28, 2001. . . . u .
I
- ....
Mayor Segal announced the appointments of Councilmembers as liaisons to CitY Boards --
and Commissions, and delegates to other committees for the next year as follows:. :
Arcadia Beautiful Commission --- Councilmember Chandler
Centennial Celebration Commission --- Council member Kovacic
Human Resources Commission --- Councilmember Chandler
Library Board --- Councilmember Kovacic
Parking District Commission --- Councilmember Chang
Planning Commission --- Mayor Pro tem Marshall
Recreation Commission --- Mayor Segal
Senior Citizens' Commission --- Councilmember Chang
Sister City Commiss.ion --- Mayor Pro tem Mars~all
Youth Services Coordinating Council
Chamber of Commerce
Foothill Private Industry Council
Foothill Transit
LA County Division of the League
League City Seiection Committee
Sanitation District
SGV Council of Governments
Independent Cities Association .
Independent Cities Risk Management Assoc.
So. California Association of Governments
'DELEGATE
Marshall
Segal
Chandler
Chang
Segal
Segal
Segal
Segal
Segal
Segal
Segal
.-
'.
,
,
ALTERNATE
Kovacic
. Marshall.
Marshall
.: Marshall
Marshall
Marshall
Chandler
Marshall
Marshall
Bell
Marshall
I
(Lucky Baldwin Mayor Segal announced that "the Lucky Baldwin Day Picnic" will be held on October 14,
Day Picnic) 2001 at Arcadia County Park.
(Baldwin
Bonanza)
- .
(Law Enforce.
Service)
CHANDLER
(Recycling)
7.
7a.
MINUTES
(April 17, 2001) .'
7b.
J 731) .q('J AWARD 2-YR.
CONTRA(;:T
EXTENSION
(Main. Svcs.
Heating.
Ventilation &
Air Cond.)
Mr. Segal encouraged everyone to attend the Baldwin Bonanza at the Los Angeles
County Arboretum on May 5 and 6, 2001 .
Mr. Segal announced the Law Enforcement Appreciation Service, sponsored by Arcadia
Police Department Chaplains, wili be held on May 5, 2001 at the Church of the Nazarene
located at 9953 Las Tunas Drive, Tempie City. .
Councilmember Chandier noted that questions regarding recycling could be addressed to
Arcadia Public Works Services, Chris Ludlum.
CONSENT ITEMS
'.
APPROVED AS AMENDED, the Minutes of the April 17. 2001 Regular Me.eting.
.'
WAIVED formal bidding procedures based upon the special facts presented; and,
AWARDED a two-year contract extension in the amount of $40.024 per. year to Sheldon
Mechanical Corporation for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning maintenance
services; and. AUTHORIZED the City Manager and City Clerk to EXECUTE a contract
amendment on behalf of the City.
6.
I
5/1/01
I
I
I
43:0087
tJ 7,,',.' I
7c. (),;)~.I. f/
PROF. AWARDED a Professional Services Agreement in the amount of $39,500 to Bucknam &
SERVICES Associates to continue Program Management Support of the Water System Seismic
AGREEMENT Reliability Program and the Water Master Plan; and, AUTHORIZEQ the City Manager
(prog. Mgt. and City Clerk to EXECUTE a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney
Support -
Water System
Seismic Reliab.
Prog. & Master
Plan)
7c1. (I-I..'.'
AWARD
CONTRACT
(Rehab. Baldwin,
Foothill & Las
Tunas/Live Oak)
AWARDED a contract in the amount of $215,152.50 to E. C. Construction Company for
the street rehabilitation of Baldwin Avenue, Foothill Boulevard. and Las Tunas Drive/Live
Oak Avenue; and, APPROPRIATED an additional $59.600 from Proposition C funds to
cover the contract cost, engineering and contingencies; and, AUTHORIZED the City
Manager and City Cierk to EXECUTE a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney.
7e.01':;(1 "r,
AWARD AWARDED a contract to Olivas Valdez Inc. in the amount of $99,801.75 for the 2000-
CON TRACT 2001 concrete repair program; and, Y.','[lIVEQ. all informalities in the bid process; and,
(2000-2001 AUTHOHIZED. the City Manager and City Clerk to EXEQUTE a contract in a forr.1
Concrete <:pproved by the City Attorney.
Repair Prug.).
-n. () ~6t; .~(J
AWARD AWARDED a contract in the amount of $95,753 to Dynalectrlo:: for the construction of
CONTRACT pedestrian traffic signal on Campus Drive at Arcadia High School; and. WAIVED any
(i?edestrian informaiilies in the bid or bidding process; and, AUTHORIZED the City Manager and City
Trf. Sig. - Clerk to EXECUTE a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney.
Gampus
Dr. AHS)
7g. ()? J,:J -'I \,1
PROF. SVCS.
AGREEMSNT
(Design
Heating, A/C
& Ventilaticn -
Council
Char.1bers &
City Hall)
7h. ()3' /, I
IMAGING/
OPTICAL DISK
UPGRADE
(Ci;y Clerk's
Office)
'IV AIVED formal request for proposal procedures oased upon Ih" special facts
presented; and, AWARDED a Professicnal Servicos Agreement to rloriuchi and
Associates in the amount of $21,500 to design the I-IVAC sY5tem for the City Council
Chamber and City Hall Complex; and, AUTHORIZED the City ~~al1ager find City Clerk to
];)(E;CUT~ a contract in a form approv'ld by the City Alicrney.
"
[lJJTHQRiZEQ the acquisition of all ima(Jing/optica: disk computer syste:'n, annual
maintenance and source code in escrcw, to upgrade the system in the OffiCI; of the City
Clerk, from Electronic Imaging Systems o~ JI.merica, Inc. (EIS."-) :n th<l <llnount of
543,'794.20; and, APPROPRIATED $43,:'94.20 frclr. rile Fisc,,1 Yn:lr ~0()O-2001
Equipment Replacement Fund.
THE PRECEDING CONSENT ITEMS 7a, 0, G, d, e, f, 9 and h APPR'.)VcD ON MOTION
BY COUNCILMEMBER CHANDLER, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM MARSHALL
AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLL.OWS:
7'
5/1/01
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
8.
43:0088
Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal
None
None
CITY ATTORNEY
8a.
G r 3 0 _ 3 CORDINANCE City Attorney Deitsch presented for INTRODUCTION and read the titie of ORDINANCE
NO. 2139 NO. 2139. "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
(Signatory CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER
Authority - City 10 TO ARTICLE 1, PART 2 REGARDING DELEGATION OF CERTAIN SIGNATORY
Manager) AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER CONCERNING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS.
(INTRODUCED)
It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Council member Kovacic and
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that ORDINANCE NO. 2139 be and it is hereby
INTRODUCED.
AYES:'
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers Chandier, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal
None
None
ADJOURNMENT Mayor Segal ADJOURNED the May 1, 2001 Regular Meeting of the Arcadia City Council
(May 15, 2001) at 10:13 p.m., to May 15, 2001 at 6:00 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Council
Chambers for a Regular Meeting to conduct the business of the City Council and
Redevelopment Agency and any Closed Session necessary to discuss personnel,
litigation matters or evaluation of properties.
ATTEST:
8
5/1/01
I
I
I
I
I
I
TRANS CRIP T
(Insofar as decipherable)
RELATING TO
A PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 1,2001 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Consideration of a proposed General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Designation
from Single-Family Residential (0-6 du/ac) to Multiple Family Residential (12 du/ac) at 1012-
1026 S. First Avenue.
Mayor Mark Segal: At this time we're going to move to a public hearing. If you will notice on
the agenda there are two items on the public hearing. What 1'd like to ask to do since there is a
substantial amount of people here is, 1'd like to deal with one item at a time and ask that the
people speaking speak to Item a. fIrst, after the staff report, and then we'll deal with Item b.
City Manager William Kelly: Mayor and City Council. The public hearing as fIrst is a
consideration for a proposed General Plan Amendment from Single-Family Residential to
Multiple Family Residential for the properties at 1012-1026 S. First Avenue. Donna Butler will
do the staff presentation. Donna?
Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of
the City Council. This comes to you by an application fIled by Hank Jong in February who is the
project engineer for the property owner. He fIled this application for a General Plan Amendment
to change the General Plan from Single Family Residential to allow 0-6 dwelling units per acre
to Multiple Family Residential which would allow a maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre.
This was for the properties at 10 12-1026 S. First A venue. The four lots that are included in the
General Plan Amendment are all zoned R-2 and have been zoned that way since 1954. Proposed
General Plan Amendment would provide for consistency between the General Plan and the
zomng.
The Planning Commission at its March 27th meeting voted 4-0 with one member absent to adopt
Resolution 1637 which recommended approval of the General Plan Amendment. The
inconsistency between the General Plan and the zoning came to light when a proposed 6-unit
residential condominium subdivision was submitted to the City for the two properties.located at
I
I
1020-1026 S. First Avenue. The proposed project was designed in accordance with the City's R-
2 regulations. Although the subject properties are zoned R-2, the General Plan designation is I
2
I
I
I
Single-Family Residential. In order to sub-divide a property into condominium units, State law
does require that the zoning and the general plan be consistent. The applicant was informed of
the inconsistency and was advised by staff that if he wished to proceed with a six unit
condominium project that the General Plan Amendment would be required. The Arcadia
Municipal Code however, does not prevent the applicant from proceeding to develop the
property with multiple family units because the R-2 zoning regulations do not distinguish
between real units and condominium projects. Because the two lots at 1012 and 1016 N. First
Avenue are also zoned R-2, they have been included in the General Plan Amendment, because
the General Plan designation for these two properties is also Single Family. Two of the four
properties are developed with single-family dwelling units and were built between 1939 and
1959. The dwellings at 1020 and 1026 South First Avenue were recently demolished. As I
mentioned, under the current zoning designation the site can be built with rental units. The
applicant has been advised that unless a General Plan Amendment is approved the units may not
be sold as condominium. Building permits for a six unit multiple family project were issued on
March 29, 2001 ofthis year.
The four lots contain a total square footage of 44,000 plus square feet. The lots are all 50 feet
wide and 220 feet in depth. Based upon the R-2 zoning designation, which allows one dwelling
unit per 3,750 square feet oflot area, approximately 12 units could be constructed on all four lots
either as rental units or condominiums. Again, condominiums are only allowed if the General
Plan is changed: The applicant for this General Plan Amendment is proposing to develop the
two southerly lots. If the properties were to be rezoned R-l consistent with the General Plan
designation, the four (4) lots could each be built with a single-family dwelling.
3
Properties to the north of this subject area are zoned C-2 and R-2 and developed with a service
station, office and four multiple-family residences. To the east are single-family residences on
Greenfield Place, which is zoned R-l and designated on the General Plan as single-family. To
the south is a new single-family subdivision which is also zoned R-I and actually the rear portion
of the most northerly lots are zoned R-2. This is Crystal Court that was recently developed. To
the west across First Avenue the properties are zoned C-2, PR-I and R-2 and developed with the
Arcadia All-Pro Athletic Club, a parking lot and a church. Properties on the north side of
Christina Street, west of First Avenue are zoned R-3 and developed with multiple-family
residences. Recently a similar situation existed in South Arcadia and there has been a lot of
comparisons made between these two areas where the zoning was R-2 and the General Plan
designation was single-family residential.
The City Council did rezone eleven lots located north of Live Oak between Greenfield and
Fourth Avenue from R-2 to R-l. All of these lots were located adjacent to R-I zoned properties
to the north and commercial and multiple-family to the south. Most of these properties were
separated by an alley and parking lot from the commercial and multiple-family properties along
Live Oak Avenue. The difference between this situation and the General Plan Amendment being
considered tonight is that the property subject to the zone change were also fronting on to
residential lots and the R-I designation was more compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. In other words, you had single-family facing single-family. The properties
subject to this General Plan Amendment are located directly across the street from commercially
zoned and developed property and R-2 zoned property developed with the Church.
Although the Development Services Department generally does not encourage or support
General Plan Amendments to increase the density of properties, in this particular case the I.
4
I
I
I
I
I
Development Services Department is recommending approval. And these are the reasons that
we are looking at this for approval. The surrounding' properties in this area are much more
diversified than what we had in South Arcadia. There is not homogenous in zoning or types of
development. There is a mixture of uses ranging from commercial to multiple and single family
residential.
A change in the General Plan would bring the zoning, which was adopted again in 1954, and the
General Plan into consistency. The General Plan Amendment would also create a transition zone
between the commercial development to the north and the single-family residential development
to the south. An R-2 zone is a more desirable transition between the service station, the health
club and the parking area in the church than we feel an R-l zoning designation would be.
The Planning Commission at its March 27th meeting did vote 4-0 with one member absent, to
recommend to the City Council approval of this General Plan Amendment. The Commission
commented that they felt this change is consistent with the surrounding area and also felt that a
six-unit condominium would be appropriate on the two properties. Pursuant to the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act, we have prepared a Negative Declaration. The
Development Services Department along with the Planning Commission are recommending
approval of the General Plan Amendment 2001-001 to change the General Plan designation for
the properties at 1012-1026 South First Avenue from Single-Family. Residential to Multiple-
Family Residential, 12 dwelling units per acre maximum.
If the City Council determines that this General Plan Amendment is appropriate and it is deemed
to be in the public interest, the Council should adopt the Negative Declaration and direct the
Development Services Department to prepare the appropriate Resolution for adoptjon at a later
meeting.
5
However, if the City Council determines that this General Plan Amendment is not appropriate
and is not in the public interest to approve the amendment it is not necessary to adopt the
Negative Declaration. However, the City Council should direct staff to prepare the appropriate
Resolution denying the requested General Plan Amendment for adoption at a later meeting.
This does conclude the staff report.
Mayor Segal: Do we have any questions from Councilmembers?
Councilmember Gary A. Kovacic: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Segal: Mr. Kovacic.
Councilmember Kovacic: Donna, in reading over the transcript from the Planning Commission
it seems like they felt their only choice was either to have an apartment building built there or a
condominium project built there. I just want to go into that a bit. Under our existing code if the
zoning is R-2 it doesn't matter what the General Plan designation is for that lot. Somebody
could build an apartment building on the property?
Ms. Butler: They could build multiple- family units, yes.
Councilmember Kovacic: Now, is that something that you need to R code or is that something
that is required by State Planning law? Because I assume it's the desire, at least the goal, of all
land use planning to have the General Plan and zoning be consistent.
Ms. Butler: That is definitely a goal. The Charter Cities are exempt from State law that require
consistency between the General Plan and the zoning. And that doesn't make it right. It's just
that the City is exempt. We had gone through, some years ago, and we're starting to change
some areas where there were inconsistencies and because of timing it just stopped.
I
I
Councilmember Kovacic: Okay. And do we know the date when the General Plan Land Use
designation was placed on this property? I
6
I
Ms. Butler: I haven't verified this, but I would suspect because we haven't changed many of
the designations, probably with the adoption of the first General Plan which was in 1970 early
1970s.
Councilmember Kovacic: And the zoning designation was placed in 1954. And you indicated
that it is your belief that the reason that the zoning designation was placed on this property was
because it was a transitional area. It would be an appropriate transitional use.
Ms. Butler: I am not sure, I stated that that was the reason why they changed it. I honestly
don't know, in looking back at the record. But it is our feeling that this actually, because of the
location, the fact that it is across from other commercial uses, south of commercial, that it is an
appropriate zoning for this property.
Councilmember Kovacic: Do you have any idea what the thought was behind putting the
General Plan Land Use Designation of Single-Family residential on this property?
Ms. Butler: I don't. No.
Councilmember Kovacic: That's all I have. Thank you.
Councilmember Roger Chandler: How many residential homes are built on 50-foot wide lots?
Small percentage? How narrow can they go?
Ms. Butler: Well, if they're existing legal lots, someone can build on any lot that's existing
legal. So, in other words, you could have a 45-foot wide lot and someone could build a single-
family dwelling ifit was in the R-l zone. We do have a number of 50;foot wide lots, both in the
R-l zone and the multiple-family zone. In the multiple-family zone you see a lot of that along
Fano, Alice, Alta, Bonita.. Many of the streets in our downtown area. We also. have very narrow
lots in the northerly portion along Forest - I'm trying to think of the other - Floral, that area has
I a lot of 50-foot wide lots. Not as deep as this lot. This is not real typical. A lot of areas in the
I
7
City still have very narrow lots. They had very narrow, deep lots. Many of them were used
years ago for chicken ranches, especially in South Arcadia. So you have a number of these lots
that exist throughout the City.
Councihnember Chandler: It may not be a planner's first choice, but it's not uncommon?
Ms. Butler: It's not uncommon. Today, we would not allow them. Our current zoning
regulations require a minimum of 75-foot wide lot when you subdivide property.
Councilmember Chandler: Now, on the property that was down on Sandra and Third and
Greenfield, the other time that this conflict occurred between the General Plan and the zoning,
initially that property - I think all of it - had initially started as R-I and then in the 50's it was
changed to R-2. And then, of course, the issue came up. Was this the same with this property?
Or would you know?
Ms. Butler: Prior to Fifty-Four (54) it was zoned R-I. Yes.
Councihnember Chandler: This is the same situation as the other properties in South Arcadia.
Started as R-I, somehow in the 50's they got this notion that these transitional zones were
somehow desired or important in the planning of a community?
Ms. Butler: As best as we can read the record, which is pretty limited, it appears that is correct.
That there are a lot of areas where they had strip commercial along a major arterial and then what
they would do is transition that into a multiple-family zone and then from there into single-
family neighborhoods.
Councilmember Chandler: So it was some kind of a trend that affected our City of Arcadia in
about 1954.
Ms. Butler: Right.
Councihnember Chandler: It actually went so far as to change R-I to R-2.
8
I
I
I
I
Ms. Butler: That's correct.
Councihnember Chandler: And this is the second time in a half a year that this problem has
surfaced.
Ms. Butler: That's right.
Councilmember Chandler: And it's my understanding that we're taking steps now to see to it
that this cannot happen again, because we're going to spend money, to see to it that there are no
inconsistencies for the future.
Ms. Butler: We've actually hired a consultant that will be coming in and looking at the zoning
map and the General Plan map and determine where the inconsistencies are throughout the City.
And then take that one step further, and looking at the properties, noting how they are developed
and then making some recommendations to us.
I
Councilmember Chandler: Okay. So anyhow, same kind of a situation, even though you
described that maybe some of the neighboring properties are a little more. compatible to
Multiple-Family units than down there in the Greenfield, Sandra and Third.
Ms. Butler: Right. And the unusual thing about this, rather than all of those were just one lot
,
deep. This happened to be four lots deep. I'm not sure why they went four lots to create this
buffer -if we want to call it a buffer, this transition zoning - the lots along Greenfield, Lee were
all one lot deep where you had the zoning and the rest was Single-Family.
Councilmember Chandler: Well, thank you.
Mayor Segal: Ms. Marshall?
Mayor Pro tern Gail Marshall: Ms. Butler, I was just wondering if somebody had all those
properties and they wanted to adjust the lot lines, could the lot lines be adjusted so that there
I would be 75 feet and build Single-Family structures there? Is that a possibility?
9
Ms. Butler: Well, they could currently build Single-Family. Even under the R-2 zone they can
build Single-Family if they wish to. But they could build Single-Families on the existing lots
that are there right now, the 50 by 220.
Mayor Pro tern Marshall: But they choose not to want a 45-foot wide lot, maybe they wanted
a 75-foot or I DO-foot.
Ms. Butler: They could. They could consolidate the lots. They would lose a lot somewhere
along the way because you've got 200-feet of frontage which would allow you three lots
basically, if you were to sub-divide to meet the 75-feet of frontage on the street. There's not
enough room to do what they did south on Crystal Court. Initially when we looked at it we
thought someone could perhaps, but it would take a real imaginative design to come in and put a
cul-de-sac in that area.
Mayor Pro tern Marshall: How many houses are being taken out?
Ms. Butler: There were four houses. Actually, three legal, one illegal that were removed from
the two lots.
Mayor Pro tern Marshall: What do you mean "three legal and one illegal"?
Ms. Butler: One of them was - there was a dwelling there but it was not legally permitted. We
noted that when we were going through the demolition process. They had converted a back
accessory building into a living unit. So on the two lots you had, prior to the demolition, you had
two legal lots on 1026, one legal lot on 1020 and one illegal dwelling in the back.
Mayor Pro tern Marshall: Okay, I believe it was - I can't remember. Days go so fast. If it
was yesterday or the day before that I went by there and looked. And right the service station
there is two old houses that sit. Those are included. Right?
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ms. Butler: They're included in the General Plan change but they were not part of the
development that has been proposed by the applicant of this application.
Mayor Pro tem Marshall: So, those were not going to be purchased. That was not going to be
part of the plan. And those little houses are going to sit between a gas station and a
condominium.
Ms. Butler: Currently, that's the situation. Yes.
Mayor Pro tem Marshall: Thank you.
Mayor Segal: Dr. Chang?
Councilmember Dr. Sheng Chang: Okay, Ms. Butler, these two properties that we are going
to talk about tonight were zoned R-l. That means there can be only two houses total. Right?
Ms. Butler: One house on each lot. Yes.
Councilmember Chang: However, the frontage of each lot is so small only fifty feet, can they
build two houses, one in the front and one in the back?
Ms. Butler: No, the Code does not permit that.
Councilmember Chang. They both have to face the street.
Ms. Butler: They're permitted only one house on each of the lots and the lots are not large
enough to even have a guest house. You are required a minimum 15,000 sq. ft. for a guest
house. \
Councilmember Chang: What I'm saying is put these two lots together and build a house with
100 feet frontage, one house in the front and one house in the back.
Ms. Butler: You couldn't because ypu need a minimum 60-foot wide right of way for a public
street. We don't allow what we call flag-lots or back lots. - The City does not permit that. At one
11
time they were permitted, years ago. Probably 40-plus years ago. But that has not been
pennitted.
Councilmember Chang: Thank you.
Councilmember Chandler: 1954.
Ms. Butler: 1954? Right.
Mayor Segal: Mr. Kovacic?
Councilmember Kovacic: Donna, one other question. Our zoning maps are parcel specific.
When you look at a zoning map you see a specific parcel and you know exactly what their zone
is. When we look at the General Plan Land Use Designation Map it's general. Is staff convinced
that all four of these lots fall within the Single-Family residential designation on the General
Plan or is there some question about where the northerly two lots fall?
Ms. Butler: No, it's pretty clear when you look at it based upon comparing it to the property
across the street that the commercial is meant for that property which is currently developed as
commercial.
COllncilmember Kovacic: Okay, so it's staffs position that the four lots are clearly zoned R-2
and the four lots are clearly designated in the General Plan as Single-Family residential?
Ms. Butler: That is correct.
COllncilmember Kovacic: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Segal: Dr. Chang?
Councilmember Chang: When did the applicant submit the application?
Ms. Butler: For the General Plan change or for the original application?
Councilmember Chang: The original. -'.
12
I
I
I
Ms. Butler: This was submitted back in June. They started with an architectural design review
back in June 2000, and unfortunately our Department made a very bad mistake. However, it has
been our stand all along whether this would have happened before if they had submitted it. We
strongly feel that the appropriate designation for this property is Multiple-Family.
Councihnember Chang: And when was the applicant told that they would have to change the
General Plan in order to build the six unit condominiums.
Ms. Butler: When they filed the track map it was then discovered that the zoning and General
Plan were inconsistent. And it wasn't until the time that they did file the track map which was
actually in November. There was a lag time between when they got their approval for their
design review and when they submitted for their subdivision. And that's when the planner that
worked on this noticed the inconsistency.
Councilmember Chang: Thank you.
Mayor Segal: Thank you, Ms. Butler.
Before we start the public hearing and have some people have their opportunity to speak let me
just give some information to everybody here. As we know there are a lot of people here. We
certainly want to give all those that want the right to speak, the right to speak. We'd like you to
limit your statements to five minutes or less. And what we would truly hope you would do, is,
let's try to not repeat some of the facts or statements that were clearly made by somebody before
you. That would be an aid to us. In addition, I want everybody to know that all. of the City
Councilrnembers have seen the property, physically been there, have read the Planning
Committee minutes, have seen the .petitions that were delivered to the City, and have read the
letters that were delivered to the City. So, all City Councilmembers have seen any materials that
I were delivered to the City, including seeing the lots.
I
I
13
Councilmember Chang: Mr. Mayor, can I make an announcement before the public hearing? I
did meet with the neighbors surrounding this property last Tuesday. I also met the applicant last
Thursday. Ijust want to make this announcement. There was no decision made.
Mayor Segal: Thank you, Dr. Chang. With that information and with my lead in statement,
those who have or desire to speak are welcome to come up. Please state your name and your
address location in the City. We want the applicant to go first.
Robert Harbicht: Good evening Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is
Bob Harbicht. I reside at 663 Gloria Road in Arcadia. I'm here to speak on behalf of the
applicant for the matter that is before you this evening. I'd like to start out by pointing out that
zoning is both a protection and a guarantee. First, it is a protection in that it restricts what can be
done in a particular zone. For example, if you're in a residential zone no one's going to build a
manufacturing facility next door. Zoning is also a guarantee of what you can do with your
property. If you own property in a certain zone you can look to the zoning ordinance and that
tells you what you can do with the property that you own in that zone. The property before you
has been zoned to R-2 since 1954. Nearly half a century. It has also been developed as R-2
property for at least that long. So the applicant is not asking for anything new here. He is aSking
to use his property just as it has been used since before most of the property in this area was built
on. Looking at the testimony before the Planning Commission and some of the correspondence
you have received, there is an inference that the applicant is somehow sneaking something by the
City or the citizens. This applicant has followed all the rules. He made application to the City of
Arcadia some nine months ago. He worked closely with the City of Arcadia on the design of the
homes that are going to be built. And he went through numerous re-designs of the proposed
bUildings in response to suggestions from the Planning Department. After all of this, he was
14
I
I
I
given a building permit. Interestingly, the Arcadia Fire Department approached the applicant
I and said since he was going to be tearing down some homes could they use them as a training
exercise. He agreed to that. That was done. Finally, acting on the permits issued by the City the
existing houses were tom down. And now all of a sudden, the City is saying "Wait just a
minute".
Ladies and Gentlemen, there is a matter of fairness here. This applicant crossed all the "I's" and
I
dotted all the "I's" and cooperated with the City in every way possible over a nine month period.
Certainly nothing that was "snuck" through here. And what is before you is a planning matter, a
land use matter. And in planning matters it's appropriate to look to the professionals for
guidance. The City of Arcadia Planning Department has recommended that this application be
approved. That this is an appropriate use of this property from a planning stand point. The
Arcadia Planning Commission is appointed by the City Council to advise you in planning and
land use matters. I might point out that two members of the Planning Commission are
professional planners in other cities. The Planning Commission has recommended that you
approve this application. And that recommendation was a unanimous vote of that body with one
member absent. The planning professionals have spoken and their recommendations are clear
and consistent.
Let's talk about the homes that are proposed there. First, while. these are technically
condominiiuns because they share some common area.they are actu~lly single-family. homes.
They have no common walls.. Each is a. free standing house. One of the most common
complaints that you all. hear is about monster homes, mansionization. How are young people
suppose to move into Arcadia? Well, at 2,200 square feet of living area these are certainly not
I
15
monster homes. They are very nice homes but actually modest by recent Arcadia standards.
And they are beautiful homes.
There is a bulletin board in the Building Department that has a banner on it that says "Home of
the Month". Did any of you happen to see that board? A month or so ago? Well, in case you
didn't, I'll tell you what was on it. These homes.
At the Planning Commission and in some of the correspondence there were charges of spot
zoning. The four lots that we are discussing are an island. Immediately north is a gas station,
immediately west is a church on R-2 zone property, immediately south are backyards of a new
home development, and immediately to the east are backyards of some homes. It is not like the
next door neighbor of a single-family home is going to have to be a condominium unless you
count what's over the back fence. TIlls is not spot zoning. In fact, this zone goes from here all
the way to Santa Anita Avenue. The north side of Christina Street is zoned R-2 as a continuation
of this zoning. Correction, half way down Christina Street it becomes R-3 which is an even
more intense zone. Have you looked at the north side of Christina Street? I drove down it. Not
one lot, not two lots, but every single lot on the north side of Christina Street between these
properties and Santa Anita with the exception of the church is developed with an apartment
building or a condominium. And this is a beautiful neighborhood which has remained very nice
for the forty to fifty years that these apartments have been here. The charge of spot zoning just
does not hold up to even the most cursory analysis.
Let's talk about traffic. It has been claimed that this is going to have a devastating effect on
traffic in the area. They've tom down four houses. They're planning to build six. Common
sense tells us what effect that's going to have on the traffic in the area. We don't have to rely on
someone's opinion of that. The California Environmental Quality Act requires an environmental
16
I
I
I
review for projects of this type, this review was done and the Planning Commission adopted a
I twenty page Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration says with regard to trafficJhat it
will have "less than significant impact". It goes on to say, "will not substantially increase the
existing traffic load and capacity". And as to the project affecting the service standards for these
roadways, the Negative Declaration says, "It will have no effect". These are objective
I
I
assessments, not emotional claims.
When my children turned sixteen and bought their first cars they had as much impact on the
traffic in my neighborhood as this development will have in this neighborhood.
If not this project, what? As has been pointed out, it is only the fact that this is technically a
condominium project that it is before you. The property owner could develop this property with
apartments right now with no further ruling needed. I think we will all agree that six single-
family homes is preferable for up to twelve apartments. It will certainly have less impact on the
neighborhood.
Would R-l zoning be good planning? No. These lots were configured in the distant past for R-2
development. What kind of single-family homes would be built on lots that have a 50-foot
frontage but are 220 feet deep? And, would you zone a lot R-l right next to a gas station?
That's what's being asked of you this evening by those who are against this.
To sum up, first there is a matter of fairness here. The applicant bought the property in good
faith trusting the zoning that has been in place for nearly half a century. .He worked with C,ity.
staff to create pleasing homes. Even let the Fire Department practi~e on his buildings. Second,
the professionals, .your own planning staff, the Council appointed' Planning Commission have
recommended ruling in favor of the application. Third, these will be the types of homes that
17
many people in Arcadia have been demanding. Fourth, the current zoning is consistent with the
zoning and development of the adjoining property all the way to Santa Anita.
This application is based on facts not emotions. I think the facts are clear and the proper course
of action is clear. And I ask that you give a favorable ruling to this application.
I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Councilmember Kovacic: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Segal: Mr. Kovacic.
Councilmember Kovacic: Mr. Harbicht, obviously you've been,in our position a number of
times. What role, if any, does the General Plan play in our considerations? What role should it
play?
Mr. Harbicht: I think the title of it gives you a clue. It's a General Plan. Zoning is specific to
specific lots. And it's unfortunate that we have an inconsistency with the General Plan and what
is being asked for here is to make them consistent by changing the General Plan to be consistent
with the current zoning. Because the current zoning is what's right for this piece of property.
While you're at it you probably should change the General Plan to make it consistent with the
zoning all the way down Christina, because otherwise you're going to have a bunch of non-
conforming uses there which is going to make problems for the owners when they go to finance
their properties and that sort of thing.
Councilmember Kovacic: And I have one question about your suggestion that a R-2 zone
would make sense because of the width of the lots. Wouldn't that argument also apply to the R-
2 zone. Why would you zone such narrow lots R-2?
Mr. Harbicht: We.!l, I think that the zoning. contemplated combining lots for the R-2. A R-l
zone would not make sense with such narrow lots.
18
I
I
I
I
I
I
CouriciImember Kovacic: Thank you.
David Freeman: Mr. Mayor. City Council. My name is David Freeman. I'm an attorney here
in Arcadia and although that's a pretty tough act to follow I would like to speak on behalf of the
applicant as well. The points I'd like to make and I will be brief since Mr. Harbicht made them
well. I'm going to try to avoid the points that he spoke on but I'm going to mention detrimental
reliance or vesting, the complaints of the people which I'm sure you've heard plenty of from
both sides, the fairness issue here, the benefit to the City, and precedent. I'm going to try to be
brief on each of those. As far as detrimental reliance in this case or vesting, whatever you want'
to call it, in this case a developer has performed substantial work, expended substantial funds,
and taken substantial liabilities and done all of these in reliance on a grant and reliance on the
issuance of permits. . These permits were issued by your City. And the developer therefore went
ahead and started their work. They actually tore down the buildings. They actually got grading
permits. They did the grading and have been signed off on that. Again, in detrimental reliance.
They did this in good faith. They attempted to do what the City told them to do. They did this
after many revisions of their plans taking them some nine months before they satisfied the City
and came up with a plan for the City. They have relied to great expense, now they're pretty
much at the point of no return. What do they do? They go back and build one house as you
mentioned? In earlier questions before we started seemed to imply there are four lots here that
could be consolidated into 200 feet. There are only two lots that are owned by the applicant.
There are four lots but only two owned by the applicant. So, the' applicant only has two'fifty foot
wide lots and that's all that they can work with as far as doing their project. If you turned them
down I suppose they could build apartments from what you said. I'don't think you want that
there. I suppose they could build, perhaps, one large house. Maybe two small houses. But there
19
were four houses there. The traffic isn't going to be increased. The volume of people isn't going
to be increased.
I
The complaints of the people, my second point, these people, many of them are complaining in
that "I've got mine. You stay away." Much of it is a situation where we don't want "those"
people here. We don't want those monsters. But these are not monsters. These are not
mansions. As you can see, these are single-family looking houses, French in style. 2,200 square
feet. There is one flyer going around that mistakenly says 2,700 square feet but that includes the
garage. So they're really only 2,200 square feet houses, and they are not going to be large
monsters, what they're planning, and they are separate, single-family. Many of the people that
signed the petition against this project were misled into believing these were apartments, and
when finding out that they weren't, were surprised. And signed our petition. As Ms. Butler
stated, the only part of the properties that face this are the back of other houses not the front of
other houses, or other commercial properties. The traffic situation, obviously as Mr. Harbicht
said, two more houses is not going to change it greatly. The people who are there now, who are
complaining, they built or bought there knowing that this was an R-2 zone, if they cared to
check. They knew that here were four houses there then. Those were dilapidated, run-down
houses. Now, we're talking about cleaning up the environment, making it beautiful. Having
beautiful six houses next to them" preventing, having giant monsters next to them.
Fairness, the applicant relied on your promise he could build. . He submitted his plans to you,
repeatedly, changed them, repeatedly, came up with a workable plan, you said go ahead, and
now, people want you to pull the rug out from .under him. Your Planning Commission
recommended it, your Planning Department told him he could do it, now some people want you
to pull out the rug underneath him. I
20
I
I
Highest and best use, one of the things we look to in Development situations. The highest .and
best use here is making the land look better. It's dirt right now. It's flat dirt right now. You
approved that. You signed it off. That's what you got. You stop him and that's what you've
got. You tell him to build apartments, well, apartments are not going to please your neighbors
there either. What else can they do? You can take the time you want. You can change the
General Plan but you're still going to have a problem there. This is the highest and best use;
2,200 square foot houses, small homes, not monsters and avoiding the great density. The
developer here is willing to put in heavy landscaping as a buffer between him and these other
homes. He's willing to put in large trees or other landscaping that .would buffer him from the
backs of these other homes. That's all that he fronts on.
I
Precedence, my last major point. Is there any precedence for giving a permit and then yanking it
after he's already started? Do you want to set precedent that, "Okay, go ahead and take your best
shot in our City. Eh, it's kind of a Wyatt Earp type town. We might take it away from you after
you start"? Forgive me, I don't mean to be -I'm getting carried away- I don't mean to impugn
any of you. That certainly is not - I'm afraid I'm starting to sound that way and I sure don't
mean it. Forgive my appearance of jocularity there but it's a very serious matter to the applicant.
He's spent a lot of money. He's relied heavily on the City's promises. And I don't think we
want to be establishing a precedent that we can tell you "you can go ahead with a project" and
then pull it out.
In-answer to a couple of the points that Mr. Chandler and I think Donna Butler brought up, Live
Oak was different from this. Those other projects were different than this. As. she said, they
fronted on other single-family homes. This, there are a couple of homes that back up to this from
I another cul-de-sac. This faces a church and other commercial areas. Well, you've already seen
21
it. I won't waste your time with that. The major thing that differs in this and all the other
projects is those projects didn't have permits when they were turned down. They weren't okayed
and they didn't tear down substantial structures that cost them lots of money and they can no
longer rent or sell. Relying on it. That's the biggest thing. Sure, as Mr. Chandler said, I
suppose you could build something on a fifty foot lot. That's what you've got and that's all
you've got. Maybe you could put them together and build one one-hundred foot lot but that's
not fair after somebody already committed themselves to do and tore down four homes based on
what you promised him.
In summary, and thank you for your time, in summary, as Mr. Harbicht said, they're not trying to
sneak anything by you here. They did it up front. They went to you. There was a mistake made
not by them. They tried in every way they could to satisfy you. They came with plans that you
liked, eventually. And they re-did their plans repeatedly until they got what you liked. And they
sort of have to be able to rely upon the City. And if you can't trust your City to abide by the
rules that they expect you to abide by it makes it tough for builders and developers or other
people to rely on the rules. Thank you, and forgive me if I sounded like I was attacking. I sure
don't mean to be. But it means a lot to them. And they're half way between now. Thanks for
your time and can I answer any questions.
CounciImember Chang: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Segal: Dr. Chang.
Councilmember Chang: Mr. Freeman, how big would be each house?
Mr. Freeman: Doctor, each house is approximately 2,200 square feet. There is, what I would
consider a mis-statement in the flyer in that the garage is included where it says '2,700 square
feet. It is actually 2,200 square feet of living space.
22
I
I
I
I
I
CounciImember Chang: Including the garage?
Mr. Freeman: No, 2,200 without the garage.
CounciImember Chang: Oh, without the garage. I see.
Mr. Freeman: 27 includes the garage I believe.
Councilmember Chang: All detached?
Mr. Freeman: All separate, single-family detached homes. That's correct.
Councilmember Chang: So, in a sense, it's a small house.
Mr. Freeman: It is definitely a small house except that they have common home owners
association. There's actually renderings for people that would wish to see them but they are
definitely separate houses.
Councilmember Chang: One of the neighbor's complaint is the loss of privacy because this
would be all two stories and they would look down on their neighbors. How do you mitigate this
effect?
Mr. Freeman: Two things, one, I appreciate your word "mitigate" because the applicant
certainly is willing to place large landscaping in any view areas that a current resident feels that
they would lose privacy. As you know there is no easement for light and air. Legally, as your
counsel will tell you, or as Mr. Kovacic will tell you, there is no right to light and air by law,
there is no right to a view, no matter how long you have had it. But this applicant is willing to
maintain it. This applicant is willing to make their view better than it was. They were looking
on a dilapidated house before and he's willing to put up nice, heavy landscaping that will prevent
the view of the two story down into. their home.
Besides that, going back to'Mr. Chandler's point, these homes are going.to be smaller than what
I would have to be there if you limited'it to R -1 type zoning. Then you'd have to build a big home
23
with lots of stuff looking down onto them. So actually the separate, smaller - 2,200 is pretty
small. That's not much bigger than some condominiums.
(End o/Tape 1, Side A)
(Beginning o/Tape 1, Side B)
Councilmember Chang: ...the new project. How do you explain that? Do you have any
argument?
Mr. Freeman: Sure, I appreciate that thought too. I think that it definitely increases the
property values. You take down an old, dilapidated house and put in a brand new beautiful
house it can't do anything but bring up property values. I'd sure rather live next to these than an
older home that nobody wants to buy other than maybe to rent. Remember one of the property
owners who signed the petition to complain of this project actually is a landlord there. Not a
tenant there. Upon seeing these homes and realizing they're not apartments or condominiums,
I'm told he changed his opinion and signed our petition. A great deal of people did. Somebody
shortly after me has a better handle on the numbers. Actually, over 70% of the people in the 300
foot radius are in favor ofthese homes.
Councilmember Chang: 70% of this area are in favor?
Mr. Freeman: Somebody will mention that shortly after me. Yeah, the numbers will show it.
Councilmember Chang: Okay, it maybe arguable. How about the safety issues?
Mr. Freeman: There is no question that a newer home has greater safety in any type of seismic
situation than the older homes when we didn't have seismic quality. Plus the double pane
windows and all the electric calcs and the roof cales that you now have and can impose on Ii
home makes a home much more safe if it is built today.
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
Traffic, of course, you have off-street parking you are going to require in these type of homes
eliminating much of the on-street parking that sometimes can be a problem. It's illegal in
Arcadia but people do it. But if you have new homes you have adequate parking allowed for in
your plan and in your zoning. And you wouldn't give permits if there wasn't safety parking that
. way. This will be separate from the previously- existing homes and therefore I think it is a safer
environment rather than a more risky environment.
Councilmember Chang: I'm relating to the safety issue associated with the traffic.
Mr. Freeman: Traffic. Two new homes, I don't think changes the situation much from four
homes. I don't think it changes it nearly as much as the apartments that were built right down
the street. I don't think it changes it nearly as much as the R-3 zone right down the street. I
don't think it changes it much since you're right off of Duarte Road anyway. This is not really a
major change. In fact many of the people who are complaining here don't live in the 300 foot
radius. Many of the people you'll find who signed the petition against this project live quite
outside the 300 foot area and down in R-3 zones. And in R-2 zones. Safety? I don't think it is
going to change the safety. There was a Negative hnpact Report that was filed on that and it did
not find any safety changes. Two more homes.
Councilmember Chang: Thank you.
Mr. Freeman: Thank you, Doctor. Those are good questions. Tough ones.
Mayor Segal: Thank you,.Mr. Freeman.
Mr. Freeman: Your honor, thank you...Council.
Mayor Segal: Can we please - Before the next person speaks, can we please hold this applause.
It is really not a part of the decision process and it really is disruptive to us continuing.
25
Hank Jong: My name is Hank Jong. I am the Project Civil Engineer. I do not want to repeat
what has been said before. We have prepared petition and we had gathered 410 signatures of
Arcadia residents. Myself is also an Arcadia resident. The amount: 410. We have specifically
talked to those people who live within the 300 feet radius. And among the 52 residents who live
within the 300-foot radius 35 of them signed our petition. I have five packages here for each of
the City Council people. And we highlighted the people who live within the 300-foot radius. It
is for your reference. As you can see, we also have a lot of supporters here and I understand that
'you don't have time for them to come up here to listen everyone talk about this project. I would
just like to have them stand up and show their face. Can the supporters stand up please? Thank
you. Other than that can I answer any questions here?
Councilmember Chang: Yes, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Segal: Dr. Chang.
Councilmember Chang: All your supporters live within 300 feet?
Mr. Jong: No, but they-
Councilmember Chang: I'm just curious.
Mr. Jong: I think some of them do but I don't recognize everyone of them.
Councilmember Chang: I guess my questions are that if you have people who live outside of
this 300-foot area who come to support this project, why?
Mr. Jong: Basically, I can say that when we worked on this project, basically this project
provides revenue to the City, provides a lot of jobs, and I think people are willing to provide
support to this project.
Mayor Segal: Any other questions? Ms. Marshall?
26
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mayor Pro tern Marshall: Sir, I was wondering if you had considered oLwhy you didn't put
together the parcel between the service station and the project you're putting in, where there's
two houses sitting there. Was there any reason why you didn't include that? Being that the lots
are so narrow?
Mr. Jong: That is not our project site. Our project site is further down south.
Mayor Pro tern Marshall: I guess what I'm asking is, you bought four lots?
Mr. Jong: No, we only have two lots. The southerly two lots.
Mayor Pro tern Marshall: Two lots with four houses on it.
Mr. Jong: Yes.
Mayor Pro tern Marshall: Okay. I would have thought that maybe with those lots being so
narrow at 45 on the front that maybe, you would have incorporated the two lots that were north
of your site. You're leaving two little houses between the gas station and the property site. Is
there a reason?
Mr. Jong: Yes. Actually, we wrote a letter to the owner, the registered owner of the property to
our north. We waited 30 days and there was no response. Basically, they never responded to our
request for the General Plan change or I believe the owner, or my customer, has contacted them
trying to procure the property but we have never received any response from them.
Mayor Pro tern Marshall: Are they for or against this project? Do you know?
Mr. Jong: Nobody can talk to them.
Mayor Pro tern Marshall: I see. Thank you.
Mayor Segal: Mr. Kovacic.
27
Councilmember Kovacic: Yes, a couple of technical questions. If you were going to design
apartment units that complied with the existing zoning how many units could you build on the
subj ect property?
Mr. Jong: I believe Donna has mentioned that a total of twelve units can be built on the
property.
Councilmember Kovacic: Do you know what the difference is in the required rear yard set
back between a single-family residence and the condominiums that you are proposing?
Mr. Jong: I cannot answer that question. That is an architectural question. I'm just a civil
engineer. I believe the architect is going to speak to this matter.
Councilmember Kovacic: If somebody could provide me with that information. I'd like to
compare the rear yard set back requirements for a single-family residential unit and the
condominium unit.
And how are you going to handle - of course, you said you are the engineer, I'm sorry. I'll save
my next question for the architect. Thank you.
Mayor Segal: Thank you, Mr. Jong.
Michael Sun: Ladies and gentlemen, Councilmen, my name is Michael Sun from JWDA. We
are the architects for' this six unit planned development project. We draw up these plans
according to City zoning rules and regulations and submit them to the City for review and
approval. The City reviewed them and according to the City's comments and suggestions we
revised and re draw several times to reach the City's expressed goals and desires.' After a period
of possibly nine months the City approved the project as drawn and within the designated zoning
rules and regulations for this particular location. We have brought the renderings to show you
the project and we believe this project is much better than the previously four old houses and this
28
I
I
I
is also. definitely better than the grade. The dirt has peen graded. I will be able to answer any
I questions you may have and I hope you approve this project. Thank you for your attention.
Mayor Segal: Mr. Kovacic.
Councilmember Kovacic: Mr. Sun, since you are the architect maybe you can help me out on
some of these. Do you know what the difference is between the rear yard set back requirement
for a single-family residential unit and the condominium unit you're proposing?
Mr. Sun: My understanding is the front set back is the same. But the side set back of the
single-family will be 10% of the total width.
Councilmember Kovacic: Which would be five feet.
Mr. Sun: 10% would be 10 feet. 10% of the total width. If it is a 50 foot lot. That's right.
Five feet.
Councilmember Kovacic: I'm talking about the rear yard set back.
I
Mr. Sun: Rear yard would be 25 feet.
Councilmember Kovacic: For?
Mr. Sun: For a single-family.
Councilmember Kovacic: And what are you proposing?
Mr. Sun: Our proposal here the front yard is the same as a single-family, but the side yard is
actually 10 foot. And the rear yard, because this is a planned unit development, would be a 10
foot yard.
Councilmember Kovacic: And Mr. Freeman mentioned "mitigation" to I guess mitigate the
folks who live on Greenfield Place and Greenfield Avenue. What is actually proposed as a
mitigation feature?
I
29
Mr. Sun: When we submit a project that we've been working with the City's Planning staff.
We carefully locate the trees, the large trees that would be used as screening tools to located
them close to our windows. So that would prevent the privacy issues of the neighbors lot.
Councilmember Kovacic: So you are contemplating some trees to screen out the visibility or
the view from the houses to the east. Is that what you were proposing?
Mr. Snn: Yes, we do.
Councilmember Kovacic: Okay, and then tell me the size of the garages and how many cars
each one will accommodate?
Mr. Sun: This houses ise a three-bedroom house. And it has two attached garage with one
guest parking. With a half-guest parking actually.
Councilmember Kovacic: Okay. So two car garages for each unit.
Mr. Sun: So actually they're two and a half for each unit.
Councilmember Kovacic: Okay, so you have two car garages for each unit then you have some
guest parking spaces on site.
Mr. Sun: That's right.
Councilmember Kovacic: Okay so you have three guests parking spaces on site. Do you know
whether there is street parking on First Avenue in front of the project area?
Mr. Sun: That one I don't know. But we are not intending to use the off-street parking.
Council member Kovacic: Okay, so you have no objection to there being a no parking zone on
the street?
Mr. Sun: I think this is a City Staff-
Councilmember Kovacic: I'm just asking you. That is not part of your proposal.
Mr. Sun: No.
I
I
I
30
Councilmeinber Kovacic: Okay. Thank you.
I Mr. Sun: Thank you.
Mayor Segal: Let me just clarify one point. That if it was apartments or condos the number is
six not twelve. It's six no matter what was built.
I
I
Allan Hsieh: Good evening, Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is
Allan Hsieh. My address is 805 West Duarte Road, Suite 111 in Arcadia. I represent the owners
of 1020 through 1030 First Avenue.
As a hardworking local business owner and proud resident of Arcadia we've been doing all we
can to help make Arcadia a better, more desirable, and a safer place for everyone. We contact
Arcadia Fire Department before we demolished the old buildings so the Fire Department can use
it as a training facility which may save lives in the future. We keep our construction sites and the
streets clean, create job opportunities, generate income for city and schools, all these little things
we do, we do it from our heart because we are a part of the City. We raise our children here and
this is the city we call home. We want to see our city becoming better and better just like
everyone else does. Tonight we do not intend to make our neighbors miserable or to create
conflict between us. All we ask for is that the City Councilmembers and neighbors understand
where we are coming from. The property on this portion of First Avenue is zoned R-2 as shown
in the Title Report and Zoning Map. We bought the land as R-2. We went through all necessary
hearings and got a building permit. But during grading we were told there is a possibility we
won't be able to continue this work. If that is really going to be the case it is a very unfair
decision for any business owners who have already invested time and money to get to this part. .
But so far we are relieved to see the Planning staff and Commissioners once again; approving the
proposed six unit detached condos on this location. These units are totally detached in beautifi!l
31
French style. The design was awarded Project of the Month by the Planning Department. And
everyone here tonight can see the color rendering in front of you with pictures of similar proj ects I
we have completed in the past, so everyone here tonight can learn more about this project and
hopefully agree that this is a proper use of the land.
And .also there is a huge demand on the market today. We have tonight a list of over 446
signatures of potential buyers, residents, and local business owners that show their strong support
on this project. So in terms of fairness and to revitalize this portion of First Avenue we would
like to respectfully ask the City Councilmembers to approve our project tonight. Thank you.
Mayor Segal: Any questions? Thank you, Mr. Hsieh. Thank you. Are there any other people
that would like to address the City Council? For or against.
Sonia Williams: Good evening Mayor and all Councilmembers. My name is Sonia Williams
and I represent the people who signed my petition in opposition to this proposal. I've already
written to the Arcadia City Councilmembers on April 23, 2001 with concerns of the residents
regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment GPA 01-001, 1012 to 1026 South First
I
Avenue. As the leader of a petition drive I now represent 326 primarily neighborhood residents
who signed a petition in opposition to the proposed General Plan amendment to change the
General Plan designation from Single-Family Residential (0-6 dulac) to Multiple-Family
Residential ( 12 dulac) for the above site. 1 sent in pages 9 to 20 of this petition to the City
Council Officers on April 30th. Pages I to 8 were handed in on Wednesday, April 25th for the
City Manager, City Clerk, and Councilmembers to read. I would like to add here that many of
the people who signed the petition were unable to attend the meeting this evening. However,
they all stand behind the petition and strongly voice their concerns of support and the seriousness
I
32
I
I
I
of this case in making what they consider to be an adverse, detrimental change to the General
Plan.
One person I spoke to this week was Pastor Reverend Gerald Chow of the church across from
the proposed site. He personally does not desire condominiums to be built due to the already
difficult parking situation. Currently, the church is limited to only on-street parking. Guest
parking from the condominiums with only three spaces allowed in the plan would be a problem.
I attended the mid-September 2000 initial public hearing relative to the same proposal. At this
hearing the developer was granted approval for a modification to upgrade his plan from five to
six condominiums, leaving a space of only 10 feet between each unit. He also agreed on some
changes in landscaping at the back of the units to help with the privacy issue requested by
residents on Greenfield Place.
I would like to report on the Planning Commission meeting of27 March 2001 which I attended
with 20 or more residents who signed the petition. We all left that meeting feeling we were not
listened to and that the Planning Commission had already decided before the meeting to make
their advisory recommendation to the City Council for 'approval for the proposed amendment.
There are at least four reasons for our neighborhood's disappointment and disapproval of the
Planning Commission's proceedings on 27 March 2001. One, our petition was disregarded.
Two, public input was not acknowledged. Three, the Planning Commission made an Advisory
Recommendation not based on any of the evidence submitted on the hearing. . Four, no City
Attorney was present. You should have before you copies of the minutes transcribed verbatim at
my expense for your review. I would also like to bring to your attention two important matters
that were discussed and unfortunately not recorded in the official minutes. A. I read a two page
statement in opposition of the proposed amendment on behalf of a hundred plus residents who
33
had signed the petition. I handed in the statement and the petition at the end of my speech. I
asked that it be given to the Commissioners. It was left sitting on the table. No mention of any I
of this was recorded in the minutes. B. After a staff member read their report the Chairman
asked a question to the effect: "Why are we reviewing this, again?" Staff member Kenneth
Phung replied, "I can check my file for the exact date, but it went through modification. It was
an oversight. I looked at the General Plan and 'blank' was confused by the street I was looking
at originally and it was oversight by me." See page 2, middle of the page, in the verbatim
minutes enclosed in the package. Assistant Planner Kenneth Phung made an error and this is
why this item is before us, tonight. The Planning Department obviously found out about this
oversight some five or six months after the developer had been given approval in late September
2000 to go ahead with the project. And only managed to correct this error the developer was
advised to apply for a GP amendment to make the maps consistent. Hence, the Planning
Commission meeting of March 27th.
I
Everyone can make a mistake or an oversight but this should not be compounded by curiously
omitting statements of opposition in the minutes and then issuing permits be they for apartments,
condominiums, for the developer to go ahead with the project on the March 29th immediately
after the Planning Commission meeting of March 27th. The applicant did not have final approval
from the City Council for the General Plan amendment. I do not believe these permits should
have been issued. This makes us feel our attendance at the Planning Commission meeting was
ineffective. What is at stake here is our wonderful, very important, General Plan, which our
)
forefathers had the foresight to put together in the seventies. This is the blueprint. The
foundation and master plan for this great City of Arcadia. We must not allow spot zoning
changes at the whim of any developer. People are moving in because of the fine city layout, the
I
34
I
I
I
mostly single-family residential homes, exceUerit schools, and aU the other amenities. We also
must never forget the involvement and input of the community in making this such a great place
in which to reside. Let's uphold our General Plan. This is pivotal to the continued, well-thought
out development, maintenance, and success, not only of Arcadia, but any city.
A spot zoning change of the General Plan can jeopardize our entire City. What happens here can
happen city-wide. It sets a very bad, poor precedent. We have to be honest. There is integrity
involved here. The City should tell the applicant "We made a mistake. We are sorry. We
cannot aUow you to go ahead with the apartment/condominium project. It is suggested you go
back to your architect and have plans drawn up for two attractive, two story, single-family
homes. One on each of your lots." The lots 1012-1026 South First Avenue are R-I on the
General Plan and was zoned that way by our City fathers for a very good reason. They were
consistent with the rest of the single family dwellings in the area. They should remain that way.
If the City is saying we need a transitional buffer zone between the gas station and the adjacent
single-family zone property we the residents of the area say we do not desire a buffer or
transitional zone between commercial and residential. There are no transitional buffer zones in
any of the surrounding areas that would be similarly situated to Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth
Avenues. They should remain that way. This would definitely represent a band aid approach to
planning. A large area in the General Plan is already allocated for condominiums. This area
extends between Duarte Road and Huntington Drive. Many lots including open land still remain
available in this section of Arcadia.
The City Council needs to listen to the residents who live in the area and play an active, daily
part in the community. We strongly recommend the zoning map of 1954 be changed to R-l to
be consistent with the General Plan Designation ofR-1 for this area. We also suggest it is time
35
for the General Plan to be revised in its entirety so similar mix -ups like this one and the one on
3rd Avenue last November 2000 will not keep cropping up. Let us uphold our General Plan.
Now, is a perfect opportunity for the Councilmembers to demonstrate the dedication to the needs
of their constituents. I'm handing in a copy of this statement to be recorded in the minutes.
Thank: you for your time and consideration.
Mayor Segal: Are there any questions? Mr. Kovacic.
Councilmember Kovacic: Ms. Williams, thank you. I think we'll all agree somebody screwed
up and the City Council isn't real excited about that. But we've been advised that legally this
person could build apartment units on the property. Wouldn't have to get any kind of relief from
the Planning Commission or the City Council. Tell me why it would be undesirable to have
condominium units on the property but not undesirable to apartment units on the property.
Ms. Williams: We certainly don't want apartments and we certainly do not want
condominiums. We just want single homes.
Councilmember Kovacic: I understand that. But we have been advised that may not be our
option. Our option is that we do not grant the General Plan Amendment which would preserve
their right to build an apartment unit or we grant their General Plan Amendment which would
give them a right to build condominiums. So, let's assume for the sake of discussion, that that's
our choice.
Ms. Williams: Alright.
Councilmember Kovacic: Tell me why a condominium project is less desirable than an
apartment project.
Ms. Williams: We certainly do not want apartments. We might have to accept condominiums.
We'd rather not have them six on a lot. That is the very maximum high density. They cannot be
36
I
I
I
I
I
I
considered to look like single-family dwellings. They are condominiums. They are not single-
homes. And we object to that. We would like them not to be as close to the homeowners on
Greenfield Place. We'd like more ofa set back, if possible. And more ofa set back on the sides
towards the owners of the mansions, million dollar mansions on Crystal Court. There's not
enough parking space. Three guest parking spaces is totally inadequate. Because you know
people have probably more than two cars. They have SUVs that might not fit into the garages.
They have parties. And we're going to have parking on First Avenue and it will look like
Fairview Avenue in Arcadia where cars are parked on the street all the time and that brings in
high crime. And we don't want that. So there will need to be some modifications to the
condominium proposal to suit the residents. We need to do some sort of negotiating.
Councilmember Kovacic: And the suggestion was made by the applicant that the planting of
large trees would mitigate the view. Do you have an opinion about that?
Ms. Williams: Yes, I do have something here. Jack Munson who owns the property on
Greenfield Place called me tonight from Oxnard. He couldn't make it down here. He said he
had spoken to the Realtor from ReMax called Roseanne Tyler and she said the owner would
agree to tall Italian junipers four to five feet apart at $70 each in five gallon size containers. The
owner would put a whole row of these across the whole back of the property. So the two
properties would have some privacy. These trees would grow to 15 feet in five years and he was
agreeable to that idea. I don't think he was agreeable to signing the petition in favor of the
condominiums because he also signed our petition. So I don't know what that means.
Councilmember Kovacic: I'm a little lost with the characters here. This was a neighbor who
thought that this would be an adequate mitigation measure?
37
Ms. Williams: This is Jack Munson. He lives right behind one of the properties. He is the
owner of that property and that property has been in his family for almost forty plus years. He I
would like trees put across the back. And he did speak to this realtor who visited, I guess, the
neighborhood on Sunday. And the realtor said the owner would be quite agreeable to doing a
sort of tree screen.
Councilmember Kovacic: Thank you.
Mayor Segal: Dr. Chang.
Councilmember Chang: Ms. Williams? I guess. you just heard some comments about the
traffic issues and also the property values. The statement was that according to the EIR there
was no significant impact from the project upon the traffic in this area.
Ms. Williams: The traffic along First Avenue as I mentioned at the last hearing is very, very
bad now. We have the school down the road. We have traffic coming from the alley which is
right across from this proposal. All those people who go into their apartments in the R-3 area
use that alley. We have the traffic that goes to Dana School backs all the way up to Duarte Road
and when the light changes, people can't turn. And we, the residents, who live within the
vicinity of this area cannot make turns into our street.
Councilmember Chang: I guess what they're saying is they're going to build six new units.
Compared to four old units there are only two net increase in the living units so there would be
any significant addition or increase to the traffic.
Ms. Williams: You are still going to have six condominiums. I guess you're going to have 12
cars versus maybe two or three cars that we use to have. That's probably not significant. But if
this developer goes ahead and buys the other two properties that's going to make much more of
an impact. Especially with parking on the street.
38
I
I
I
I
Councihnember Chang: That is only an "if' condition.
Ms. Williams: "If' Right.
Cbang: We are talking about these two properties only.
The applicant claims that the property value will go up, will actually increase rather than
decrease.
Ms. Williams: Our feeling is that once condominiums move into an area your property is
immediately devalued and the people who have just bought these $850,000 to a million dollar
homes in Crystal Court are very unhappy because their property will b!=, devalued hundreds of
thousands of dollars immediately.
Councihnember Cbang: How about compared to the apartment?
Ms. Williams: We don't want apartments. We'd have to settle for condominiums becaused we
don't want apartments. Bet, we really want R-l single-family dwellings. That's our first choice.
Councilmember Chang: Thank you.
Ms. Williams: Thank you.
Mayor Segal: Thank you, Ms. Williams.
Robert'tobin: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Bob "Robert" Tobin. I reside
on Greenfield A venue. I've submitted two communiques to the Council. One that I think you
should have received last week. And a follow-up on that. I'll try to be brief and just stick to the
points of these two measures.
The first measure that you received previously is addressed to all the Council and ~. just one
moment here, until I get all my papers together. The first communique was addressed April 23rd.
The first paragraph, "As a resident of Arcadia for 47 years and still occupying the same home on
I Greenfield Avenue I am transmitting this letter for your careful consideration of the Council
39
meeting on May 1. It is my understanding that the property described above will be or has been
designated as zone R-2. It is further understood that this change of zoning would permit the
construction of multiple-family dwellings which are reportedly planned as condominium
apartments. Since we live on Greenfield Avenue which is south and to the rear of the proposed
development we respectfully request that the above described property remain in zone R-l as it
was originally designated." The last paragraph in the interest of time 1 don't think is pertinent
tonight, so I'll go on to the second letter.
. The second letter, the subject is corrections and additions to my letter of April 23rd concerning
property on the east side of First Avenue and south of Duarte Road. This letter is dated - It
should have been May 1st. It shows May 12th. That's apparently a typographical mistake. It
starts out "Dear Councilmembers, the second paragraph of the referenced letter indicates that I
have been improperly informed by the realtor of our present home. The property described
above was designated as R-2 in 1954 according to the Arcadia Planning Department. This
property was subsequently divided into four lots. Each 50 feet wide and 220.54 feet deep
fronting on First Avenue. The two southern most lots in this parcel measuring 100 ft. x 220.54
ft. are specifically the property involved in this discussion. It is further agreed that this change to
R-2 designation was legally made by Council action several years ago. Therefore, this property
development should conform to the code requirements and ordinances of the City of Arcadia for
property located in an R-2 zone. As a licensed civil and structural engineer, a review of the plans
and pertinent documents on file at the Arcadia Planning Department was recently made. . Time
does not permit an exhaustive review but certain items were, in my view, were in non-
I
I
conformance with the ordinances and provisions of this city. The numbers shown below on your
manuscript in bold letters refer to the ordinance designations that apply to property located in I
40
I
this R-2 zone." I would like to intersperse at that poin~ that a building permit was issued for this
construction in violation of some of these 'ordinances and it's common practice not only in
Arcadia, the State of California, the Nation, that you cannot receive a building permit if you are
not in compliance with the building code. But let's read some of these non-compliancefeatures.
The first is number 9253.2.2 with respect to dwelling unit density. And I'll quote just a short
two sentences here, "the density shall not exceed more than one dwelling unit per 3,750 square
feet oflot area."
My comment: The gross area of this land parcel is 22,054 square feet. If this is divided between
six homes the land area per home is 3,676 which is clearly deficient. If the 35 feet required set
back on First A venue is deducted from the building area, the land area per home is further
reduced to 3,092 square feet or 18% less than the minimum requirements.
Comment number two: This has to do with 9253.2.5 on side yards. It reads as follows: On
interior lots there shall be a side yard on each side of every building of not less than five feet in
width or in the case of a two story building, the width shall not be less that ten feet.
My comment: The plot plan shows a distance of only 10 foot six inches between adjacent
houses, instead of 20 feet which would be required for two houses.
I might point to the chart over here to the right. The two upper houses, if that is drawn to scale,
shows that the separation between those two homes is as wide as the houses are themselves. It's
fictitious drawing ofthis particular project. ~t may reflect another project but not this one.
Third item here: Ordinance number 9253.2.9 with regard to parking, and Item C - Structures
used principally for parking shall not be higher than one story.
My comment there. Does this apply to t)1e second story above the garage. . It's not too clear in
I that ordinance. If you take it in one way, there should not be any space used above the garage.
I
41
Another comment on parking under Paragraph J. A five foot wide planting area shall be
landscaped and so maintained between any open parking spaces and adjoining property lines of
buildings. The plot plan shown has a space between the two buildings of 10 feet 6 inches. If you
were to landscape a portion of that five feet away from the adjacent buildings it would not
provide sufficient space for a visitor parking area which is shown on the plan. And there are
only three of those so that the parking for visitors is a bare minimum for the six houses involved.
The other Item L under Parking. The required guest parking spaces shall be located together. I
think if you look at the plot plan you'll find that they're very widely separated. This is in
contradiction to the basic requirements.
Item 9253.10 Drive Way requirements. Each drive way to a garage or parking space shall be at
least 12 Y:z feet wide and shall be totally unobstructed from the pavement upward.
My comment: Portions ofthis pavement are shown as only 20 feet wide for two way traffic. For
emphasis these, CalTrans uses 12 foot minimum lane widths which is considerably more than
what is shown on their plan. And this narrow width would probably be difficult for the fire
fighting equipment.
Drive way requirement F. Community drive way shall be permitted provided that a covenant in
a recordable form by its terms to be of benefit of all enforced by and to be released only by the
City, is executed by the owners of all property affected thereby. Recordation of this instrument
shall be complete prior to the issuance of a building permit.
My comment: What is the exact occupancy of this six unit development and has such an
instrument been submitted prior to the building permit? It was reported that this building permit
'was issued despite many of the above nonccompliance items that apparently have not been
resolved,
42
I
I
I
The distance between buildings - and this is one of my real crowning problems - this is
I Ordinance Number 9253.2.14. The distance between bui.ldings on the same property shall be
assumed to have a property line between them and shall have a minimum separation of 20 feet.
My comment this extremely important ordinance has been totally overlooked on the plans. This
lack of open space in my opinion could lead to overcrowding and perhaps to the development of
slum areas that other found in other cities.
My final comment: It is customary, although not compulsory, that the architect and engineer of
record, sign and affix their stamps on the plans. This information does not appear.
Thank you for your time. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Segal: Thank you, Mr. Tobin.
Mr. Tobin: I didn't knock you all dead, did I?
I
Mayor Segal: No, we're still here.
Erica Williams: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Erica
Williams and I reside at 130 Greenfield Place.
Since the 1970s every city has been required to have a legally adequate General Plan. With-
(End of Tape 1, Side B)
(Beginning of Tape 2, Side A)
.. .tory Statutory criteria or it's General Plan is internally inconsistent. If these defects are related
to a proposed land use action such as a re-zoning the city could not find that the new zoning is
. .
consistent with the General Plan. . Therefore the re-zoning could be declared ~vali~ .when p~sed
01: void if successfully challenged in court. Where the General Plan is inadequate a land use
approval is vulnerable whenever the illegal aspect of the General Plan is relevant to the
I
challenged approval.
43
The City of Arcadia is a charter city and is exempt from the requirement that zoning be
consistent with the General Plan. However, this exemption applies only to zoning and not to
consistency requirements for subdivision map approval. If one of the mandatory elements is
missing or if a relevant element is inadequate, the City cannot legally find the subdivision to be
consistent with the General Plan thus no valid subdivision approval will occur.
With this case there is a lack of substantial strong evidence to support the General Plan
amendment. A majority of the properties to the east and south of the subject site are comparable
in size to the subject site and all contain similar R-l zoning classification within the surrounding
neighborhood. Although the area defined by staff as being diversified and not homogeneous in
zoning or types of development it could also be argued that there is not one type of development
that dominates the area. There is no high density development like condominiums or apartments
along First A venue. There is a mixture but the fact remains that the dominate land use is single-
family residential. And the General Plan supports this designation.
The idea behind a buffer or transitional zone is a rather old fashioned or antiquated planning term
or idea. The people of this neighborhood and surrounding area want this area to remain single-
family. They don't want high density or multiple-family residential. The City is concerned with.
the impacts of the gas station or the commercial area along Duarte Road. They may negatively
impact the residential area to the south then what would the condominiums serve as this buffer
need? What would buffer those in having the condominiums? It could be argued that the
negative impacts, if any, would be less on four single family residences versus 12
condominiums. In this instance staff made an error, read a map incorrectly, and the staff
member attested to this fact at the Planning Commission meeting of March 27'h. Perhaps the
City felt that a request for a General Plan amendment to re-zone or down zone these properties
44
I
I
I
I
I
I
would be relatively easy and no one would contest the matter. Perhaps the City thought that it
could cover its tracks and error by having the applicant submit for a General Plan amendment
after they advised him or her to do so. It could be argued that the approval by the Planning
Commission for the parcel map last year is really invalid because there is and was no consistency
at that time between the General Plan and the zoning and there continues to be no consistency
between the General Plan and the zoning.
To further complicate matters the City issued building permits for construction two days after the
Planning Commission meeting but more than a month before the City Council meeting in which
the General Plan item would be decided upon. Pertinent information was also omitted from the
Planning Commission meeting minutes of March 27th. In hindsight these permits probably
should not have been issued till the General Plan Amendment was decided upon and reached
final resolution. That perhaps would have been a wiser decision for the City and on behalf of the
developer.
I'm not here to slam the City and I'm not certainly not here to blame staff. But I am here to
state, in my opinion, that the City has made a mistake and an approval for a General Plan
amendment would only sweep it under the rug. . A General Plan' Amendment should be
considered on its own merits. It should not be done as a .quick fix way to resolve an
administrative error. This case has brought to light a greater concern for the City of Arcadia, a
General Plan that is inconsistent with the zoning. The predominate land use designation for this
area is R-I Single-Family Residential. The' General Plan states this and the surrounding
residential area supports it.
45
In short, there is no merit to this pending General Plan Amendment. The existing low density
residential designation should be retained and this General Plan Amendment should be denied.
Thank you.
Mayor Segal: Any questions?
COIIDcilmember Kovacic: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Segal: Mr. Kovacic.
COIIDcilmember Kovacic: Ms. Williams, I'd like to follow up on a line of questioning I asked
to the other Ms. Williams. I read your letter and you're a planner by profession it appears.
Ms, Erica Williams: Yes, I am.
COIIDcilmember Kovacic: Do you agree with my impression that absent the General Plan .
Amendment the applicant could still build an apartment building on the subject property
notwithstanding the inconsistency between the zoning and the General Plan Land Use
Designation.
Ms, Erica Williams: Yes, that's true.
COIIDcilmember Kovacic: Now, if that's true and, again, the Council is as upset as anyone
about the screw up but we have to get down to what the issue at hand is. If that it's true that
should this applicant decide to build an apartment building we don't even have this hearing. Is
there anything about a condominium that is more detrimental than an apartment building or are
we really just talking about the general concept that you wish there would be single-family
residential units on this property as opposed to mu)ti~family residential units.
Ms. Erica Williams: I think, in my opinion, if the property were zoned R-2 and the developer
by right can put condominiums in there then I don't think anybody would have a problem with it.
But the fact that this came to light through an error and that we're all here in. opposition to it is
46
I
I
I
I
I
I
another matter. But to answer your question, I think people in general prefer condominiums
simply because they are usually owner occupied versus rentals which is what you get with
apartments. Usually you don't get people that are concerned too much with their landscaping,
the aesthetics of it, is somewhat less favorable than a condominium, certainly.
Councilmember Kovacic: From a planning stand point what do you see our option to be?
Let's assume for the sake of discussion we deny the land use designation change in the General
Plan and we deny the application. This person can still go and build an apartment building. So,
what is it that you would like to see the City Council do?
Ms. Erica Williams: I think, in this instance, the General Plan carries much more weight, I
think, regardless of the timeline of when the zoning was put in place and when the General Plan
came into play. That is your instrument that you use for development. Your zoning is just a tool
in which to implement that. It carries much more weight and I would think that would be
something from a planning perspective, you would want to uphold. You can amendment it, it is
not to say it can never be changed, but I think there has to be strong, certifiable evidence that
supports that. In this instance, I don't feel that, personally, that there is.
Councilmember Kovacic: I understand that. But let us assunie for the sake of argument we
agree with you that we shouldn't amend the General Plan.
Ms. Erica Williams: Right.
Councilmember Kovacic: Wouldn't we have to take an additional step that is not even before'
us which is change the zoning to R-I to prevent an apartment building on this property? Ifwe
just deny the General Plan 'Amendment which is ali that is before us, this applicant ca:n stilI build
an apartment building.
Ms. Erica Williams: That's true. Right.
47
Councilmember Kovacic: So what you're suggesting is that we take the additional step and
somehow change the zoning as well.
Ms. Erica Williams: Similar to what was done on Live Oak, yes.
Council member Kovacic: Thank you.
Mayor Segal: Any other questions? Thank you, Ms. Williams. Let me take just a moment to
have our City Manager inject some clarification.
City Manager Kelly: Mayor, Council, and Public. This is a very confusing case with General
Planning and zoning and a project being talked about. And there has been a lot of discussion
about "the project". And that isn't what the Council is reviewing - a project. They are
reviewing a General Plan Land Use Issue and contrasting that to the zoning issue. So part of the
comments on the project are somewhat irrelevant to what could be done. And I think, as
Councilman Kovacic talked about, depending upon the Council action if they don't make the
General Plan Amendment they can still build an apartment there. And that needs to be
understood. They are not talking about a project per se. This applicant may never build this
project. That's a different issue. He may never finish with the building permit. But the issue for
the Council is not "the project" it is the appropriate land use for these four properties. Not two
properties. Four properties.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Chairman, just a short word to answer part of Mr. Kovacic's question. Whether
you could build an apartment on there or not is difficult to answer at this point due to the
geometry that's involved. And I think, to get a lnle answer to that, it would be necessary to draw
up a proposed plan that, in fact does abide by the laws ofR-2 as it now stands. Anything further
that you'd like to ask?
Councilmember Kovacic: I think I played little league with your son.
48
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Tobin: I didn't quite hear that. I do have a hearing difficulty.
Mayor Segal: Thank you for the information.
Mr. Tobin: You're welcome.
Mayor Segal: Let me also take one second to let the City Attorney clarify another point in this
Issue. .
City Attorney Deitsch: Thank you, Mayor, Council Members. I'd like to actually clarify two
points: First of all, the question has been raised from time-to-time regarding density and what
density would be allowed if apartments were built on the property. Or what density would be
allowed if condominiums units, townhouses, or whatever were allowed on the property. The
density requirement is the same for both so that the maximum number of units that could be built
on these two lots which are the application that the applicant has submitted to the City for prior
approval, the maximum number of units, either apartment units or condominiums would be six
either way.
Also, I heard a possible I heard a possible misstatement of fact by one of the recent speakers. A
parcel map has not been approved by the City. A subdivision has not been approved with respect
to this project. Indeed, it is true that if a subdivision were to be approved one of the findings
would be that it would have to be consistent with the General Plan. And that is why we're here
tonight. To consider whether or not there should be an Amendment to the General Plan. If
amendment then a subdivision could be considered and could be approved possibly based on at
least that one finding that there is consistency between the subdivision proposal and the General
Plan. Thallk you.
Councilmember Kovacic: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for the City Attorney.rMayor Segal: Yes, Mr. Kovacic.
49
Councilmember Kovacic: Do we have the authority tonight, Mr. City Attorney, to change the
zoning of this property? I
City Attorney Deitsch: The application before you is for a General Plan Amendment. Thus, in
order to change the zoning you could at best tonight direct staff to bring back for your
consideration, after the Planning Commission passes on it, a proposed change in zoning.
Councilmember Kovacic: So that would be an entirely new process. New application.
City Attorney Deitsch: That's correct. It would require a public hearing before the Planning
Commission first and then a public hearing before this City Council and adoption of an
ordinance.
City Manager Kelly: If! could add to that though. A parallel case to this was the zoning in the
south side of the City. Because of the ability to allow property owners to develop while a study
was occurring the Council enacted an urgency ordinance and moratorium to prevent
development from occurring while the study was being conducted and the Planning Commission
and the Council held public hearings. So the Council could consider tonight if you choose to
adopt an urgency ordinance by four-fifths vote to stop development from occurring of any type
on these four parcels until such a study was completed. So the Council could by urgency
ordinance enact an ordinance to stop development while the study goes on and that could
preclude the developments from occurring for any development be it single-family or multi-
family.
Councilmember Kovacic: And that's available. to us even though it wasn't set forth on the
agenda.
City Manager Kelly: I'll defer to the City Attorney for the legal process for consideration.
50
I
I
I
I
I
Councilmember Kovacic:' Mayor and Council: In my opinion in order to consider an urgency"
ordinance you would have to place it on the agenda. And to do so would require that the City
Council by a four-fifths vote makes two findings: One is that there is a need to take immediate-
action tonight and the second finding would be that the need to take such action occurred came
to the attention of the City after the Agenda was posted. And there are facts that could be
presented to you that might enable you to make those findings but those findings are within your
prerogative to make.
Mayor Segal: Thank you.
Councilmember Chang: Mr. Mayor? I have a question for the City Attorney.
Mayor Segal: Yes, Dr. Chang.
Councilmember Chang: During all this process the question of whether the General Plan or
zoning, which one is big? It seems to me that people think the General Plan is similar to a
constitution and zoning should be in conformance with the General Plan. But in this particular
case, in this particular situation the zoning came first and then the General Plan. So in that
situation, first I want your comment about which one is bigger, so to speak, which one is heavier.
The second is that, when things like this come what would be your consideration in terms of the
legal point of view. Is there a grandfather clause or something like that? - Of course, I know that
all of this, the State law requires that before you subdivide the lot you have to have the General
Plan and the zoning in consistency. Could you comment on those questions?
City-Attorney Deitsch: Yes, Councilmember, there are a lot of issues and' several thoughts
involved in what you've presented. First of all, as a general rule the General Plan governs:
That's a rule of general applicability regarding land use in the State of California. - However, that
really begs the question regarding what's before the City Council tonight. After all, you're here
51
to consider a General Plan Amendment which would bring consistency between the General Plan
and the zoning ordinance. Now, it doesn't mean to say you have to approve the General Plan. I
You could also consider amending the Zoning Code to make it consistent with the General Plan.
But as a general rule, to answer your question, the General Plan is deemed to be the bible ofland
use within the municipality. Any municipality. Now, keep in mind though, that with respect to a
chartered city like the City of Arcadia there's no lawful requirement, no requirement under law
that the General Plan.and zoning be consistent. For practical reasons it might be very wise to
make them consistent. Now you ask, well, what governs the General Plan which was adopted
maybe in the 1970s or the zoning which was adopted in 1954? Well, there is a rule of Statutory
Construction, there are many rules of Statutory Construction, some of which step on one another.
But the more recent legislative enactment, one could argue, governs, arguably the more recent
General Plan Amendment adopted years after the 1954 zoning ordinance that applies here. On
the other hand there's a rule of thumb that the more specific law governs over the more general.
So, one could argue that the zoning ordinance is a little bit more specific than the General Plan.
So then, that again, doesn't really seem to get us very far, here. Ultimately, your choice tonight
is whether-or-not to inake the General Plan. and Zoning Code consistent by amending the
General Plan as is before you tonight or maybe consider amending the zoning ordinance in the
near future instead.
Councilmember Chandler: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Segal: Yes, Mr, Chandler.
Councilmember Chandler: Point of order. We're going to get pretty confused if we don't
finish this public hearing so I'd just, point of order, I'd like to get back to the public hearing.
Mayor Segal: Okay. Are there any other people who want to address the City Council?
52
I
I
Olivia Wu: . My name is Olivia Wu. I live at 121 G~eenfield Place. We all know that there is
traffic problems on that area. Whoever says that there is no traffic I welcome you to come to that
area. Observe yourself. Because of this traffic problem, that is why the school encourages our
kids to walk to the school. Try to reduce that traffic problem. So, if they build the condominium
there they're going to bring more population there. It's is going to increase the traffics jam, as a
parent, we hope that our kids can grow up in the most safty area, in the most safty community.
So, I object to that condominium built on that area to increase more problems there. And put our
kids in a more dangerous situation. And here is my daughter. Everyday she walk to the school,
to Dana School. And she has her opinion here. She wants to talk to you.
Connie Wu: My name is Connie Wu. And I live at 121 Greenfield Place. I'm a seventh grader
at Dana Middle School and I walk to school every day. Traffic has always been a problem to me
because I have to cross First Avenue to get to school. Traffic is worse right before school starts.
And sometimes the cars are in a line all the way down to Duarte and I can't cross the street. So, I
have to leave earlier at 7:40 a.m. and school starts at 8:15 a.m. when normally the walk should
take ten minutes at the max. I feel that, if the construction is to be completed the population in
this area will rise and so will the traffic problems. Did you know that no one cared to build a
sidewalk on the side from Magna Vista to Dmirte. The side that I walk on? Everyday I have to
watch as more and more cars get parked along the side. I almost have to walk in the middle of
the street to avoid the parked cars. I think it is quite amusing that our school district encourages
walking to school yet disregards the students safety in doing that. Also; my school is having
problems with overcrowding. New students are being enrolled all the time. The ratio ofteachers
to students is becoming ridiculously unbalanced. Actually, teachers must travel to different
I classrooms during the day to accommodate the vast student body. With increased population
I
I
53
from the multiple-family residential will come a decrease in the quality education and the safety
of kids.
Mayor Segal: Thank you, Ms. Wu.
Frank Chang: Mayor, members of the City Council. Ma'am. Gentlemen. Good evening. My
name is Frank Chang, resident of 108 Crystal Court. I would like to bring to your attention to
the strong opposition to the amendment to the General Plan designation of 1012 - 1026 South
First Avenue from Single-Family Residential R-l zone to Multiple-Family Residential R-2 zone.
The proposal of increasing nwnber of family units that can reside in the said parcel will cause
several immediate impacts to the general surrounding neighborhood as well as the City of
Arcadia in general. Our utmost concerns are many-fold. First, from public traffic. Second,
school system. Third, city utility planning. Fourth, privacy. Fifth, housing value of the
surtounding single-family properties. And the last one is the pedestrian safety of the impacted
neighborhood. Now, many of us have brought up to your attention tonight or in writing of all the
concerns that I just mentioned. I would like to stress on some of them that I think most concern
me. First of all is the public sewer system. By allowing such zoning change to increase the
nwnber of families per parcel will certainly increase the nwnber of school age population in the
area which will cause an already crowded Camino Grove Elementary School, Dana Middle
School, and Arcadia High School to burst from its currently over-populated capacity. That-in
turn will dramatically decrease the quality of education that Arcadia is the most proud of.
Otherwise new schools must be planned with sufficient land and funding to accommodate such
increase which will be very difficult to accomplish to an already scarce Arcadia land resource.
And second point will be property value. I.do not have the exact nwnber, as a matter offacUt's
hard to say, but I can guarantee you that if the builder is willing to put up the signs before they
54
:1
I
I
1
start this project, letting everybody know what's going on in there, I guarantee you I will not
purchase the property in 108 Crystal Court.
What we are asking you tonight is to represent us and listen to us. What we are asking tonight is,
maybe someday we can tell our youngsters how democracy really works. It runs by the people's
will. Not the money. And I thank you for your time.
Mayor Segal: Thank you, Mr. Chang.
Mike Marshall: Good evening, my name is Mike Marshall. I reside at ISO Greenfield Place.
I've resided there since the early 70's. I live in a community that is going through transition.
You just spoke to a prospective new resident of this community. They move to Arcadia for
many reasons. For my reason, I moved from Temple City to Arcadia, a grand total of three
miles. I didn't like flag lots. I didn't like the kind of density. I like the community. People are
I' moving into Arcadia today for the same reason.. They are knowledgeable of the General Plan.
They have an R-I designation. They expect that to be upheld by you. And to be enforced. We
are committing our lives, our family, and our future, and our friends, and our neighbors, to the
fact that you're going to uphold the very reasons why moved to this community. Why we
consider it sacred. And I implore you do not disregard people that have lived in this community
and put their trust in you.
Mayor Segal: Thank you, Mr. Marshall. Ms. Marshall?
Mayor Pro Tempore Marshall: I have to ask Mr. Marshall, have you ever been asked if you're
rdated to nie cause I've"been asked if rve been related to you many times and I never knew who'
you were, and now, I do. "
Mr. Marshall: Over the years, through Little League and soccer, of course. Many times
I (inaudible).
55
Mayor Pro Tempore Marshall: Glad to meet you.
I
Mayor Segal: Is there anyone else who would like to speak out against the amendment? Okay,
seeing none, I would like to give the applicant an opportunity for rebuttal.
Robert Harbicht: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would like to speak to some of the issues that were
raised here this evening. Some of them, just a word is sufficient. The claim was made that the
church doesn't have enough parking so therefore they shouldn't be allowed to build these
condominiums. They will provide their own parking. That makes no sense. You don't penalize
a property owner because another property owner doesn't have sufficient parking.. One of the
speakers said that this is why we are all here in opposition. Well, as you saw, there are an awful
lot of people here who are in support of this amendment.
Mr. Tobin brought up a number of points. Some of them were not valid but, for example, he
talked about the fact that each unit would have allocated 3,676 square feet instead of 3,750
square feet. A shortage of 74 square feet. A zone variance was granted for that. We had
someone here from Crystal Court who was concerned about the impact of these two additional
I
units on the schools. Apparently, building Crystal Court didn't have an impact on the schools
even though it's the same number of units. "I've got mine now nobody else gets there's." Let's
be fair here.
With regard to traffic. It keeps coming up. I don't know anybody that doesn't think their
neighborhood has too much traffic. I'm not going to argue how much traffic there is on First
Avenue. What's before us is what impact would this have. And I already went through that the
logical examination of this and the Negative Declaration for the Environment Impact Report
said, no impact. When we're talking about these things all of a sudden people become sticklers
for the rules on both sides of the issue of course. But I think that it's important to note that for I
56
r
example, on the two lots on Greenfield Place that back up to the proposed development are both
I substandard lots. They both had to get zone variances to build the dwellings that are there. They
weren't sticklers for the rules at that time. And that's why we have that kind of a process. And
finally, the whole question of the mistake that was made - and clearly we've talked about the
fact that relying on the City - this property owner has gone ahead. I think it is interesting
because Mr. Kovacic asked the questions and there have been some others here about' General
Plan or the zoning. And when they came in and made their application what did the staff look
at? It looked at the zoning. And I daresay if you went in and wanted to add a bedroom to your
house they would look at the zoning. That's where they turn. We just happen to have a case
here, one of the very few cases in the City, where the General Plan and the zoning are not in
agreement. And so what's really before you is not who made a mistake or why the mistake was
I
m'!-'le: It's a land use decision. It's a question of: Do we bring the zoning in agreement with the
General Plan or do we bring the General Plan in agreement with the zoning. That's what's
before you. And it's a land use decision. The question before you is what is the best use of this
land? This is an R-2 zone right now. And if you look at the aerial in your packet it shows that
R-2 zone runs from this property all the way to Santa Anita. The multiple-family zone becomes
R-3 as I pointed out earlier. Our own staff says that the best land use of this particular piece of
property is R-2. They made that recommendation to the Planning Commission. They make that
recommendation to you. The Planning Commission agreed with them:
There was a question about how many apartments, how many condos. The fact is they could
build this exact san:e thing and rent them and they wouldn't be here before you. It's a question
of whether the people are going to own them or rent them.
I
57
So, I think that you need to think about the land use decision and what is the best land use - what
are the alternative land uses there. And I think if you really think about it R-l zone property of
50 foot by 220 foot lots abutting a commercial zone is not the proper land use. These four pieces
of property abut only the back fences ofR-1 zones but are cheek-by-jowl with the commercial.
Multiple residential is the best use of this property. And the best protection for the properties to
the south. Thank you very much.
Mayor Segal: Thank you, Mr. Harbicht. We're going to close the public hearing now.
Mr. Tobin: May I make a quick statement. I wonder if the previous speaker questioned my
honesty or my calculator.
Councilman Chandler: I'm sure he'll talk to you outside.
Mr. lIarbicht: The previous speaker simply pointed out that this had already be adjudicated by
the Planning Commission. The variance had been granted.
Mr. Tobin: I would like to add to that. That it is not common practice to issue a building
permit in contradiction to the laws of the City Council. And those laws are pretty well spelled
out. Thank you.
Mayor Segal: Thank you, Mr. Tobin.
Councilmember Chandler: Mr. Mayor. If there are no other representatives of the applicant
which is appropriate at this time to speak. And only appropriate. I would move to close the
public hearing.
Mayor Segal: Is there a second?
Councilmember Kovacic: Second.
Mayor Segal: Okay. So moved and approved. The public hearing is now closed.
58
I
I
I
City Manager Kelly: Mayor and Council. If I could make some statements before the Council
I begins discussion for the record. Number one, good planning principles suggest that the General
Plan and zoning be consistent. That makes sense to prevent this kind of confusion. Despite the
fact we aren't mandated to do that I would speculate that the rest of this town perhaps some other
I
I
exceptions being checked out are consistent. So there's misrepresentation so far that there's a lot
of this happening in town and that' not true. That will be verified by a consultant we've hired
and bring this matter back to City Council. But the State law does allow cities to do General
Plan Amendments. You are allowed by State law to make changes based upon changing
configurations and then make subsequent zoning changes. One way or the other, just because
the General Plan is adopted doesn't mean it's cast in concrete forever. So, State law allows you
to make amendments to your General Plan. Number two, if you took this project, this site, these
properties in the abstract of the errors made by staff what would staff recommend the land use to
be in the General Plan? Staff is very clear. Multi-family residential. We are not covering the
tracks based upon some mistakes. I want that clear for the record. If mistakes are made we'll
admit the mistakes but in the absence of those mistakes staff is still recommending multi-family.
The Council really has three alternatives: One, to change the General Plane to multi-family
which would allow apartments or condominiums to be built. Number two, change the General
Plan to single-family which wouid only allow single family units to be built-
Councilmember Kovacic: General Plan is single-family
City Manager Kelly: I'm sorry. Leave the General Plan as single-family. You could still build
single-family and apartments but not condominiums. Number three, leave the General Plan as it
is and enact an UJ:gency ordinance as was suggested to remove it back for a study to whether or
not the appropriate zoning should be R-l. I think those are the three alternatives that Council has
59
concerning this situation tonight for the four .properties. Not just the two of the applicant-
submitted project. Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Segal: Okay, let's open for discussion.
Councilmember Kovacic: Mr. Mayor, I have a couple of questions for staff. Ms. Butler, Mr.
Tobin listed several alleged inconsistencies between the proposed project and our zoning code.
And Mr. Harbicht stated that certain variances were granted. Can you walk us through what
modifications or variances were in fact granted for this project?
Ms. Butler: There were actually three modifications. The one was to round-up which our code
permits, anything over if you have like 5 Y2, 6 Y2 you can round up to the next number. They
requested six units in lieu of 5.8 units permitted by code. The second one was to set apart the
guest parking spaces in lieu of having spaces together. We say that they should be grouped if
possible. And the third was for an eight foot to ten foot building separation in lieu of 20 feet
required. Those were the three modifications that were granted by the Planning Commission on
September 26th. As a condition of approval they were required to plant minimum 36 inch' box
trees along the easterly property line to mitigate the impact to the adjoining single-family
residential properties. Ms. Williams and I believe there was another woman, that back up to this
property and to - Let me back up here. To mitigate that concern they did require that a minimum
36 inch boxes, trees be planted along (hat easterly property line.
Council member Kovacic: So, Mr. Tobin and Mr. Harbicht were correct. There were certain
deviations but they applied and received some modifications.
Ms. Butler: That is correct.
Councilmember Kovacic: And, modifications are handled by our Modification Committee?
60
I
I
I
Ms. Butler: The Planning Commission. For multiple-family they are all handled by the
I Planning Commission.
Councilmember Kovacic: And who received notice of that hearing?
Ms. Butler: Everybody within a hundred foot radius on modifications.
Councilmember Kovacic: And was that a different hearing than the hearing we had on the zone
change before the Planning Commission - I mean the General Plan Amendment.
Ms. Butler: Yes, that was held on September 26th.
Councilmember Kovacic. Okay, thank you. And then I have a question for Mr. Deitsch. Mr.
Harbicht and Mr. Freeman alluded to vested rights. And I guess, as a city we should always be
cognizant of our potential liability. Let us assume for the sake of argument that we think that
this property should be re-zoned, ultimately to R-l, but let's also assume for the sake of
I
discussion that the City improperly issued the permit or didn't spot this issue soon enough. To
the extent that you can discuss this stuff in open session what do you see as the potential liability
concerning vested rights.
City Attorney Deitsch: Well, I anticipated that that would be an issue that's raised. It typically
is in an instance like this. I think there is a sound argument to the contrary that there is no vested
right to proceed because there has been no investment of money that I'm aware of. Nothing was
certainly presented in the record tonight indicating that the applicant has relied on the Building
. .
Permit and taken action on the Building Permit and done any constniction work. For example,
staff has informed me, I have heard nothing ~o .~e contrary from the applicant, .that any
foundations have been laid or any structural improvements made to the property as a result of
issuance of the building permit. Instead we've heard only one thing and that is that there was.a
I
grading permit issued earlier. And the property has at least been rough graded if not otherwise
61
graded. One could argue that contrary to an assertion that there is a vested right to proceed with
the entire development due to some investment and activity regarding grading that the property
would have to be graded in any event for any type of future development and therefore that
mitigates against a vested right theory. As a result of that I think that a sound argument can be
made that there is no vested right to proceed with construction here at all.
By the way, a separate argument was raised by Mr. Freeman, if I heard him correctly, regarding
equitable estoppel. Forgetting about vested rights, if a property owner relies to his detriment on
a mistake made by a municipality does that mean the municipality is precluded by law from
enforcing its rescission of a building permit or any other permit. The answer is no. In this case
the applicant factually was told that the applicant could not proceed with the condominium
project without an amendment to the General Plan. And was told earlier of that fact. The staff
report on page 2 reflects that. The applicant was told that the building permit was not
exercisable until two things happened: If it was a building permit for a condo project the
General Plan would have to be amended. And in addition to that, pursuant to municipal code
requirements, a lot tie covenant would have to be recorded against these two lots where the
property owner agrees to hold them as one'in order to allow for a common driveway. A common
access to all of the units that would be built on the property. So, for all those reasons I think at
least sound argument could be raised that there is no doctrine of equitable estoppel against the
City preventing development here of a condominium complex and secondly no vested right of
the applicant to proceed with the condo complex. '.
Councilmember Kovacic: Thank you. I'd like to hear from my fellow Councilmembers but it
seems to me that of the three options Mr. Kelly has provided us, simply denying the application
and keeping the property zoned R-2 and General Plan Designated Single-Family Residential
62
I
I
I
doesn't make any sense. I agree with Mr. Harbicht that this is a land use decision. We _either
I think that the property should be zoned and designated single-family residential or it should be
zoned and designated multi-family residential. So it seems to me that our two choices are \ye
either grant the request to change the General Plan or we adopt an emergency ordinance to put in
motion an effort to re-zone the property. And I guess that comes with assuming whatever
liability we must assume because of whatever mistakes were made by us, the City.
Mayor Segal: Any other comments?
Councilmember Chandler: Mr. Mayor?
I
I
Mayor Segal: Mr. Chandler.
Councilmember Chandler: Couple of things I'd like to clarify here. First of all, I don't think
we should hold any malice to the builder. The builder did follow the rules and I think a good
case was made that, quite frankly, that if he's dealt a blow there might be a modicum of
unfairness in that type of a judgement. Also, I noted however, there's a letter of endorsement
submitted by the applicant and basically they submitted 446 signatures. And it says, "To
members of the Arcadia City Planning Commission and Arcadia City Council. Many of us and
our friends and family want to move to this beautiful city and become an Ar~adi~ because of
the excellent schools, safety, quiet, and multi-culture community. Fortunately, homes in Arcadia
are generally not over-priced due to the supply of newly. built condos with R-2 zoning. We do
not want the City to stop growth of affordable detached condo homes because. middle clas~.
families like us should be given opportunity to own. affordable homes in Arcadia." It goes on..
Well, I don't know who wouldn't sign that. As a matter of fact, peoplefrom. as far as way as
Baldwin and Sunset and Mayflower and clearly, not in the immediate area, did sign-it, and, quite
frankly, I could be talked into signing that as. well. But this hearing is not about providing
63
affordable R-2 zoned condos for middle-class families. It's not. That's not what this hearing is
about. The hearing that the Planning Commission did hold was about this project. And in that I
respect I think the Planning Commission actually took the better of two choices. It decided on
six condominiums as opposed to apartments. So, I would not like anybody to - there was some
discussion about the Planning Commission's procedure. Quite frankly, they did a good and fair
job based on what they had to do. I might add to the applicant, some of these people wearing
painter's caps and painter's coveralls filled up the middle of the room and I don't know what
contracting firm they work for but they did leave. Maybe our government is getting down to the
60s and 70s where one faction duels the other faction. I think really what's at stake here is that
the 1954 transitional zone idea, in my mind, was a bad idea. It started offR-I. They changed it
in 1954 to R-2. And I think as evidence shows it's not panning out too well. The majority of
people that have made significant investments in this town are here for R-I. And primarily if
you were to drive in this area you would think of it as R-l. And, I think that we do need, Mr.
I
Kovacic, I think we need to protect the integrity ofR-I. There are quite a few of these PUDs or
separate condos being built in town on different areas that are
(End a/Tape 2, Side A)
(Beginning a/Tape 2, Side B)
.. . area, Mr. Kovacic. I'm inclined to go for the emergency ordinance because I don't want to see
this' developer try to protect his rights and maybe try to go with apartments quickly because the
law says he can. There is no question in my mind that you were given bad information and that
we, in fact as a city, as a staff; made an error, but our Planning Commission I believe don't made
an error. They did the best they could at the time. Unfortunately,.you've spent a lot of time and
money to get here and I'm of the opinion that those lots need to be R-l. It's not a matter of just
I
64
looking at this project because it's basically waiting for the other shoe to fall. Because those
I other two lots right next to you at 1012 and 1016 would then follow or could easily follow in the
same pattern which would mean a total of 12 units as opposed to six which is what the Planning
Commission focused on and they did that correctly and accurately. But as a City Council I think
we have to think in a broader scope. And I apologize that you've come this far. And I don't
know how the vote's going to come out but I for one am ready to stop your construction and see
about what study may show that this should perhaps be reverted to R-1, if that can be shown. I
don't know. It delays your plans. That's my comments. I would be prone to vote to deny the
amendment to the General Plan and move to an urgency ordinance to stop construction to give
I
time to study whether or not this should be re-zoned back to original R-1.
Mayor Segal: Thank you, Mr. Chandler. Any other comments? Ms. Marshall?
Mayor Pro Tempore Marshall: This is truly a tough one. It really, really is. I have a lot of
feelings going on on this. I'm not really totally convinced that there would be an impact on the
traffic or the schools or the infra-structure of the city just with two additional houses being built.
The traffic is already a problem and two extra, additional houses isn't going to make that great of
a difference, I don't believe. I would not like to see apartments built there. I have to admit that
the architectural design of these proposed condos, and I like the idea they are detached from each
other, I do like_the looks of the French - the French look to them. And it's not looking like the
mansionization that a lot of people are opposed to. There were some very. run down, old,.ugly
houses on that site. So it is much more pleasing to,look at and the houses. are only 2,200 square
feet. However, I agree with Mr. Chandler that there are two houses .existing on .the other side of
this particular proposal. And I also believe that eventually_ they would do the same there. I am
I
disturbed at times of the amount of condos and apartments that are being built in Arcadia
65
constantly with single-family houses being tom down and condos and apartments built. We've
always been noted as a community of homes. However, I do believe some day we're going to be
noted as a community of condos and apartments. And you see it a lot. And it's happening
between Second and First Avenue on the small side streets over there. The older homes are
being tom down and large apartments are being built. I also believe that we need to preserve our
single-family dwellings. I'm very happy that the City is going to straighten this mess out. I feel
very regretful for the developer that there was a mistake made and he's gotten to this point but I
still wonder if possibly he couldn't do something where the lots were reconfigured if the single-
family units could be built where he could sell the single-family units. I am concerned about the
proposal for a lack of parking. . I do believe the parking would be not good with just three extra
guest sites for that many units. Most families themselves have 3 or 4 cars if they have
youngsters or teenagers. It's not unusual for them to have 3 or 4 cars and I think it would be -
let alone guests or visitors that came or what ever. I do think there would be a problem with
parking. That concerns me. So this is very, very tough decision and no matter what we do
there's going to be people unhappy but with all do respect to the Planning Commission and the
staff, I do believe at this point that we really should protect some of our single-family dwellings.
So, I'm inclined to concur with Mr. Chandler on a moratorium on this.
Mayor Segal: Dr. Chang?
Councilmember Chang: I think this is a tough one, too. I'm not really convinced of the
adverse environmental impact by this project. However, I think, we just make a change of the
zoning in the southern part of Arcadia to make it in conformance with the General Plan and I
think we should keep the consistency in our policy. We cannot in one situation do"this way. In
another situation do the other way. It's difficult for me but I tend to agree with my colleagues to
66
I
I
I
.. ,
put the emergency ordinance here to change the zoning to R-l. To start the process of changing
I the zoning to R ~ 1.
Mayor Segal: Thank you Dr. Chang. Mr. Kovacic?
Councilmember Kovacic: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I want to thank you everybody
for showing up and voicing their opinion. It makes our jobs a lot more worthwhile to know that
somebody out there cares enough to show up and discuss what they believe in passionately. So,
I congratulate both the applicant and the opponents for what I think wee very well presented
points of view. To those of you who suggested that this was an ill-planned condominium
I
project. I would disagree with that fact. The City favors detached condominium units as
opposed to just monolithic structures. And so what was proposed is the type of development,
assuming that it's the proper location, that the City favors. We are trying to. get our.
condominiums to look more like single-family residences as opposed to large apartment
buildings. This developer has done that in other areas of the City quite well. And in fact, from a
design point of view, this one was designed very well. While we as a City did make some
mistakes along the way, we certainly didn't make a.mistake by designating this as a well
designed project. On the other hand, I do think that this comes down to a land use decision. Is
this the right location for an R-2 zone or is this the right location for an R-l zone? And after
hearing the rules of interpretation that were presented to us by our City Attorney, and as we all
know in the law you can probably fmd anything.to support your position if you look long and
hard. enough. I am impressed with the fact that in general, the General Plan prevails and also the
designation that was last adopted prevails as well. And both of those favor an R-l use, And so I
would favor an R-l use. The problem I am having is that,wl; have to make two findings in order
I
to satisfY an urgency ordinance. . The findings, as. were related to us, were we need to take
67
immediate action. I agree with that. If it is in fact, the Council's position that we should take
immediate action then that we satisfy that finding" The need came to the attention of the City
after the agenda was posted. It seems to me that this option s~lOuld have been presented to us in
the staff report. It seems to me that the staff report probably should have contemplated that that
was an available remedy and I think it would have been fair to give the applicant notice that that
is something that we would be contemplating. We all heard about it tonight for the first time.
So, I guess, from the City Council's point of view it came to our attention, tonight. But I think
fairness would have dictated that maybe it would have been part of the staff report. So, I'm a bit
disappointed in the fact that it wasn't brought up as an available option to the Council. But
balancing what I think is the need to have this R-2 property or R-I property, I favor the R-l zone
designation. And the only way to reach that would be to impose the moratorium.
Mayor Segal: Thank you, Mr. Kovacic. I want to take a moment, too, to thank those who came
on both sides of this issue. For those of you who don't know, this is my first meeting as Mayor,
and I guess if this is an indication of what to look forward to over the next twelve months it's
going to be a wild twelve months. But I do agree with the fact that it is extremely important for
people to come and express their opinions. This is as good a turnout as I have seen in an
expression of opinion on two sides since I have been on the Council the last twelve months. And
I do appreciate that. I don't want to spend a great deal oftime echoing comments made by other
Councilmembers. I'm not a great mathematician but I can listen to what the numbers say and I
think that it seems pretty clear that the votes are here for this to - to which way the vote's going
to go. And so, I guess what I'll going to do to move it along is to ask for a motion'to be made,
please. Mr. Chandler?
68
I
I
I
Councilmember Chandler: Mayor Segal. I would reiterate that. I would move to deny the
I amendment to the General Plan and in doing so it would not be necessary to adopt the Negative
Declaration. The second portion of that is as the City Attorney, I believe will guide me in make
a mistake, would be to move then to request that we have an urgency ordinance.
Mayor Segal: We'll do that second.
Councilmember Chandler: One at a time? Okay, the first motion stands.
Mayor Segal: One at a time. .
City Attorney Deitsch: Part of that motion should be to direct' staff to bring back the
appropriate Resolution of Denial.
Councilmember Chandler: And direct staff to bring back the appropriate Resolution of Denial.
Mayor Segal: Is there a second?
I
Councilmember Chang: Second.
Mayor Segal: Motion by Mr. Chandler. Second by Dr. Change. Roll call.
City Clerk June D. Alford: Councilmember Chandler?
Councilmember Chandler: Yes.
City Clerk Alford: Chang?
Councilmember Chang: Yes.
City Clerk Alford: Marshall?
Mayor Pro Tempore Marshall: Yes.
City Clerk Alford: Kovacic?
Councilmember Kovacic: Yes.
City Clerk Alford: And Segal.
I
Mayor Segal: Yes. - Mr. Attorney?
69
City Attorney Oeitsch: Mayor and Council, at this point if the Council wishes to add an agenda
item based on your ability, if you can do so, to make two findings, and approve the addition to I
the agenda by a 4/5's vote the two findings necessary to add an agenda item to consider an
urgency ordinance would be as follows: One is that, there is a need to take immediate action
tonight. The facts that could support that finding are that there is a building permit outstanding.
It hasn't been yet acted upon by the applicant. One reason is the applicant is not yet satisfied a
condition of our municipal code that the two lots owned by the applicant be the subject of a
recorded declaration to hold both lots as one, but there is an outstanding building permit so
arguably there is a need to take action tonight regarding a moratorium because of that. The other
finding is that the need to take action came to the attention of the City after the agenda was
posted. I have taken the liberty of preparing a draft urgency ordinance this afternoon only
considering the possibility that there might be a decision to deny approval of the General Plan
Amendment. And staff certainly did not know that this Council would vote according to the way
it did tonight. So arguably there are sufficient facts to support the second fmding. Because the
need came to the attention of staff only after the agenda was posted last Friday. It would take a
I
4/5's vote after a motion by a Councilmember and a second by a Councilmember to add an
urgency ordinance to tonight's agenda.
Mayor Segal: Mr. Chandler.
Councilmember Chandler: Mr. Mayor, actually, I would just like to make a motion to
implement the statement for an emergency ordinance as stated by our City Attorney which calls
for the need to take immediate action. Primarily, because there is an outstanding building permit
and that basically this notice to us as a City Council came after the posting of the agenda.
Mayor Segal: Okay, is there a second?
I
70
Councilmember Chang: Second.,
I Mayor Segal: Motion by Mr. Chandler. Second by Dr. Chang. Any discussion? Roll Call?
City Clerk Alford: Councilmember Chandler?
Council member Chandler: Yes.
City Clerk Alford: Chang?
Council member Chang: Yes.
City Clerk Alford: Marshall?
Mayor Pro Tempore Marshall: Yes.
City Clerk Alford: Kovacic?
Councilmember Kovacic: Yes.
City, Clerk Alford: And Segal.
I
Mayor Segal: Yes.
City Attorney Deitsch: Mayor and, Council, I'll pass out copies of a draft proposed urgency.
ordinance. It is Proposed Urgency Ordinance Number 2140. In order to adopt this urgency
ordinance there would have to be a vote of approval of at least 4/5's of the Councilmembers to
adopt. By law.the urgency ordinance contains findings regarding the urgent nature of the action
before you. Those findings are set forth in Section 3 on page 2 and on the top of page 3 of the
proposed urgency ordinance. And as you can see, pursuant to Section 2 of the proposed
ordinance, if you approve the ordinance the ,City would not issue or approve any design review,
building permit, conditional use permit, variance subdivision map, or other land use entitlemept
I
for any development or .land ,use on any properties described in Exhibit f.., attached. Exhibit A
consists of the properties located between 1012 and 1026 First Avenue. Section 2 of the
ordinance further states no construction or other development of property, shall commence
71
pursuant to any permanent or land use approval heretofore issued by the City on real property
within the study area. And that is the essence of the proposed urgency ordinance. Finally, I can I
tell you that if it's adopted tonight the law requires that there be a public hearing within 45 days
in the event that the City Council should consider continuing the moratorium. The moratorium
could be continued for up to 22 months and 15 days thereafter. In other words, for a grand total
of 2 years however keep in mind that the purpose of the moratorium is only to allow the City
sufficient time to study whether or not to amend the zoning ordinance in any way. For example,
to bring it in conformity with the General Plan which now calls for R-l development. One
family development. It would likely take far less than two years for staff to study that matter and
bring back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and then the City Council for a
public hearing any proposed amendment to the Zoning Code, And unless you have any further,
questions you may consider the possible adoption of Urgency Ordinance Number 2140. It would
become effective upon first reading if you adopt it by a 4/5's vote. Thank you.
I
Mayor Segal: Mr. Kovacic.
Councilmember Kovacic: Mr. Kelly? I know staff is extremely busy. How long do you think
it would take to get this matter back to the Planning Commission and then the City Council?
City Manager Kelly: We would probably do it within 90 plus days. It will take us that long to
get the notices for Planning Commission. Get that hearing. Then on to City Council. So, I'd
say it would take us a minimum ofthree months to try and get it back before this body.
Councilmember Kovacic: I would suggest that as we did with the properties on Live Oak that
we kind of put this on first priority because it is letting a property owner hang out for a long
period of time. And I think it is important to get this thing expedited and get it clarified as soon
as possible.
I
72
City Manager Kelly: We will do that.
I Councilmember Chandler: Mr. Mayor, move to adopt Urgency Ordinance Number 2140.
Mayor Pro Tempore Marshall: Second.
Mayor Segal: We have a motion by Mr. Chandler, second by Ms. Marshall to adopt Urgency
Ordinance Number 2140. Roll call please.
City Clerk Alford: 'Councilmember Chandler?
Councilmember Chandler: Yes.
City Clerk Alford: Chang?
Councilmember Chang: Yes.
City Clerk Alford: Kovacic?
Council member Kovacic: Yes.
I
City Clerk Alford: Marshall?
Mayor Pro Tempore Marshall: Yes.
City Clerk Alford: And Segal.
Mayor Segal: Yes.'
Okay. That brings us to the second item of our public hearing. Item b.
-.
I
73