Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY 17,2001 I I I ROLL CALL 1, 1a (J -Llo 1b, 2, 2a PROPOSED SRClIREFAC, (Sa1Ia AniIa Im- 130W. HIg, Dr,) OlOt? - =to 43:0146 CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING JULY 17, 2001 The City Council and Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, July 17, 2001 at 5:00 p,m, in the Council Chambers Conference Room. PRESENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal ABSENT: None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION No one spoke, CLOSED SESSION At 5:04 p,m, the City Council entered the Closed Session, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956,9 (a) to confer with legal counsel regarding the case of B & H Venture, Inc, v, City of Arcadia and the City of Arcadia Business Permit and License Review Board, et aI., U,S, District Court Case No, CV-01-04080 MRP (CWx), Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956,9 (a) to confer with legal counsel regarding the case of Kulaga v, City of Arcadia, et aI., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No, Gc024435, The City Council Closed Session concluded at 6:10 p,m. and the Regular Meeting RECONVENED. STUDY SESSION Consideration of the proposed development of a continuing care facility for 260 residents with 200 two bedroom units and 60 one bedroom units, all with full kitchens and laundry facilities, to be located at 130 West Huntington Drive, currently the site of the Santa Anita Inn, Bob Harbicht, 663 Gloria Road, former Mayor of Arcadia, spoke in favor of the proposed project. Mr, Harbicht stated in part, there is a need in Arcadia for senior housing, Arcadia senior residents living in large homes may want to sell such houses and retire to an alternative type of housing. This particular site on Huntington Drive has a problem with traffic and circulation. The proposed development, he believes, would be a beautiful enhancement to that corner and meet a significant need in the community, and, not have an impact on the school district. He noted there are six owners of the property at 130 West Huntington Drive who want to sell; there is also a leasee of the Santa Anita Inn, E,D,I.. who has a 99 year lease on the property with over 50 years left, who wishes to partner in the proposed facility. Mr. Edward Steinfeldt, presented an overview of the project, stating in part, he has been in the field of retirement housing and heaith care for approximately 20 years, He has worked with not- 1 7/17/01 43:0147 for-profit facilities in California as well as for-profit developers, The proposed project, Huntington Pointe, would be owned by Huntington Partnership and E,D,I., the owner and operator of the I Santa Anita Inn. Mr, Steinfeldt's firm, which is home based in Santa Barbara, would manage the facility, He noted, his staff has began an effort to introduce the community to the Huntington Pointe project and has met with the Senior Citizens' Commission and a senior group at the Community Center; the minimum age level for Huntington Pointe residents would be 60 years and older. They expect mature, retired, and vital individuals and anticipate the average age of residents would be over 70 years; 30%of the community would be couples; there will be professionally prepared meals; a full time program director, a calendar of events, weekly housekeeping and flat linen services, etcetera. Assisted living services will be offered for frail elderly and to those that are memory impaired, Mr, Steinfeldt highlighted the proposed state-of- the-art fitness and aquatic center for residents and other senior residents of the area 50 years of age and older. In reference to resident fees, Mr. Steinfeldt advised the company is considering a one time entrance fee of possibly $200-$250,000 and reduced monthly fees of about $2,500 versus a higher straight monthly fee, The entrance fee would be at least 50% refundable to individuals voluntarily leaving the facility or to their estate, He noted aiso the company anticipates having approximately 200 employees at the site seven days a week around the clock, and a professional staff as well, He commented aiso that the Arcadia facility will not provide skilled nursing care, In his presentation Mr, Steinfeldt noted the developers would like to purchase the 100 to 1 Club at the corner adjacent to the Santa Anita Inn if the owner would sell it... they believe $500,000 would be a fair price to pay for this property, The question of providing 20% low/moderate income senior housing at the proposed project arose. Mr. Harbicht commented that the applicant is currentiy working with the City on this I matter with City on this matter with respect to the Western Hotel site located on Colorado Place, which is a separate project than the one under discussion, Mr, Dan Hochhauser, architect, displayed a site map and renderings of the proposed project, which incorporated considerable landscaping, underground parking and an enclosed swimming pool. The architectural character of the buildings had a race track flavor, it was noted, The proposed buildings will be a maximum of four stories, two stories stepping up to four stories, operating under a conditional use permit with CoO zoning on the site, Mr, Harbicht noted the developers of the proposed site are requesting Council's approval of the cO[1cept this evening, then they will work with City staff on a specific plan and other requirements as necessary, By general consensus the City Council approved the concept of a continuing care facility at the site under discussion, 130 West Huntington Drive, At 7:03 p,m. the City Council RECESSED and RECONVENED at 7:10 p.m, in the Council Chambers, 1NV0CA1lON City Clerk, June Alford PLEDGE OF Chrissy Hickman ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL 3, PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal None SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS I None, 2 7/17101 I I I ORD, & RES. READ BY TITLE ONLY 4, OATH OF OFFICE (Garrett) 5, HUMAN RESOURCES COMSN, (Baderian) 6, CITIZEN OF THE MONTH (Higham) 7. LIFE SAVING AWARDS (Smith and Delgadillo) 43:0148 It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Kovacic and CARRIED that ordinances and resolutions be read by title only and that the reading in full be WANED. City Attomey Deitsch announced the subjects discussed at the Closed Session held earlier this evening, No reportable action was taken, City Clerk June Alford administered the Oath of Office to incoming Human Resources Commissioner Robert Garrett. Mayor Segal expressed congratulations and presented the new commissioner with a City pin and an identification card. PRESENTATIONS The outgoing Human Resources Commissioner, Robert Baderian was not present to receive his plaque, Mayor Segal presented the July, 2001 Citizen of the Month Award to Tom Higham, Water Quality/Backflow Inspector, Pubiic Works Services, Mayor Segal expressed appreciation to Tom Higham for his quick action in stopping a loose tire rolling down a hill, on the morning of June 12, at Oakhaven Road, Tom instinctively moved to keep the tire from causing damage to a person or property and decided on a course of action based on "public safety" first, without worrying about how he might be affected in the process, Tom used his truck door to deflect the tire. The truck door rebounded from the impact and struck him on the right temple creating a wound that required eight stitches. Mayor Segal and Police Chief Hinig presented, "Arcadia Police Department's Life Saving Awards" to Agent Bruce Smith and Officer Steve Delgadillo for their extraordinary action in duty and outstanding service in saving the life of two Arcadia residents, 8, SANTA ANITA Mayor Segal presented the Mayor's certificate to the Santa Anita Soccer Club "Striker", SOCCER CLUB members for their outstanding achievements in winning the National Championship. In 2000 (Striker) and 2001, the team was the winner of six tournaments, and finalist in four others, 9, PUBLIC HEARINGS 9a, ARCH, DESIGN Consideration of the report and recommendation to approve an Architectural Design Review REVIEW application, ADR 2001-001, for a 276,000+ sq, ft, retail expansion to the existing Westfield ADR 2001-001 Shoppingtown - Santa Anita and a parking structure to accommodate 1,220 vehicles; and, (Westfield approve a request to amend paragraph 9.d of Resolution No, 6199 to permit six (6) tenant Shoppingtown) identification panels on the multi-tenant monument signs in lieu of four (4) tenant identification panels, o,r~- '10 On October 3, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2136 reconfiguring the zoning boundaries for the Westfield Shoppingtown-Santa Anita to allow up to a 600,000 sq, ft, expansion to the existing mall, Under the previous zoning boundaries, Westfield could have expanded by approximately 300,000 square feet. In addition, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6199 establishing new design guidelines for the Westfield Shoppingtown, 3 7/17101 43:0149 The existing mall contains 922,451 sq, ft, of gross leasable area. Westfield proposed a 276,000+ sq. ft, leasable area, two-level expansion to the existing mall (the total gross floor area I is 314,150 sq, ft), The existing JC Penney TBA (tire battery and accessory) building will be removed as well as approximately 1,400 sq, ft, of existing retail building, The addition will include approximately 191,000 sq, ft, of big box (life-style type) tenants and 8~,300 sq, ft, of general retail. The total gross leasable area for the entire mall will be 1,179,700 sq, ft. The proposed expansion will occur in the northeast quadrant of the shopping center and extend from the existing mall entrance between Robinsons-May and JC Penney east towards the easterly property line, The new partially enclosed and partially open-air wing will connect to the existing mall, The open plaza area will be approximately 17,596 sq, ft, in area, Exterior access to the expansion will be from a new open plaza area and from the parking structure as well as from levels one and two of the mall. Currently there are 5,827 on-site parking spaces. The applicant proposed 6,183 spaces; 4,963 will be surface parking and 1,220 will be located in the parking structure. Retail tenants, including such uses as a bookstore, home furnishings, electronics, food market, apparel goods and entertainment, will anchor the expansion, The plans as submitted show the possible inclusion of theatres on the upper floor of the parking structure and retail buildings in the future, With regard to multi-tenant signs, staff stated in part, that the applicant requested Resolution No, 6199 be modified to provide for two (2) additional panels per sign, allowing a maximum of six (6) major tenants per sign. Two (2) multi-tenants signs are proposed; the first will be located at the easterly driveway on Huntington Drive and the second will be located on Baldwin Avenue at the second driveway north of Huntington Drive, The applicant also proposed a second identification sign at the second driveway along Huntington Drive south of Macy's, Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing on Design Review 2001-001, Westfield officials objected to conditions Nos. 10 and 11 in the staff recommendation pertaining to the I number of kiosks located in the open plaza and the requirement for a focal point such as a fountain or public art in the plaza area. Westfield officials have expressed concerns over the lack of definition regarding the condition that they incorporate some type of focal point and suggested that a formula be utilized to establish a dollar amount for this requirement. Westfield recommended that $.10 per square foot be the figure to determine the amount. Under Design Review 2001-001, Westfield is proposing an approximate 276,000 square foot expansion, which would result in a $27,600 contribution, Westfield has further suggested that at the City Council's discretion, this amount can be spent either on-site in the Mall expansion area, or contributed to the City for a public art project to be selected by the City Council somewhere else in the community. The Development Services Department recommended approval of the preliminary plans subject to the conditions set forth in the July 17, 2001 staff report, With regard to the number of kiosks and carts located at the open plaza area the staff recommended that no kiosks be allowed in the open plaza area and the number of carts be restricted to eight (8), Westfield objected to this condition and has submitted a language for consideration, set forth in the July 17, 2001 staff report. This language would allow a certain number of both kiosks and carts and provides for greater clarification and standards for the placement of kiosks and carts in the plaza area, Following discussions between City staff and Westfield officials it was recommended that the square footage of the carts or the kiosks not to exceed 10% of open plaza area. Westfield officials concurred, Further, staff referred to a letter from Magna Entertainment Corp" raising a question regarding a 2,36 acre parcel at the Gate 1 entrance to Santa Anita Park which Westfield claims is their property and Magna says this parcel belongs to Santa Anita Park. The area in question is not utilized by Westfield for parking and is not part of the project, therefore, it was not opened for discussion this date. I 4, 7/17101 43:0150 I Following the presentation staff responded to questions and concerns raised by the Council with regard to the parking structure and storage of shopping carts,stating, Westfield did not reveal who their tenants are but it is staffs understanding that it will be a high end specialty grocery store. Westfield will be responsible for collecting and maintaining the shopping carts and if they don't remove the carts from the parking lot it will have a negative impact on their project. Mayor Segal OPENED the Public Hearing. John Healv, Westfield Corporation Development Director, introduced Keith Ray, Executive Vice- President of Design, Ron Schafer, Project Architect and Dave Hokanson Vice-President of Development. In his presentation Mr. Healy noted that this Design Review is a continuation of what they started last fall when the City granted an entitlement to Westfield. They have been working with various retailers; department stores and City staff to further refine the expansion project and would like to bring in retailers that will complement the existing tenants in the mail. With regard to the parking structure, Mr. Healy stated, it is a well designed architectural structure which for the most part will not be visible from the street, but visible from race track. The only change to the existing on-site parking will take place in the area where the expansion is proposed; parking stall sizes and driveway aisles will remain the same. Keith Rav. Vice President of Design, explained in detail the design of the project which included: the bUilding, materials, parking, signs, kiosks and landscaping. In his presentation, Mr. Ray stated that, Westfield is trying to create a sense of community that will bring detail elements from the eXisting mall into the new area. There will be a food area in the center of the plaza. The proposed architecture is similar to a building that is located on the 3rd St. Promenade in Santa Monica with different materials and shopping experiences. The expanded area will have good access from the new parking structure which will be located adjacent to JC Penney. I In response to Council's question, John Healy, Development Director, Westfield Corporation, stated, as they refine the expansion portion it will become necessary to relocate the Arcadia Police Department facility that is located within the current shopping .mall to a more visible and easily accessible location, and enter into a more permanent arrangement with the City, at no cost to the City. It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Chang and CARRIED to CLOSE the public hearing. Staff noted that the mall voluntarily allocated space to the City to operate the PAC.E. office. Police Chief Hinig commented that the existing square footage seems to serve Police Department needs well. He feit having a full time police operation in the mall benefits the community and the mall in total. It was also noted that, by law the Police Department has to review the security plan before giving a certificate of occupancy to any building. Westfield representatives and City staff responded to the questions raised by Council, stating, the individual kiosks may vary in total area, however, no one (1) kiosk shall exceed 250 square feet of area. The maximum square feet of all kiosks and carts in the open piaza shall not be greater than 10% of the total square feet in the open plaza area (10-12 kiosks and carts). With regard to a focal point such as a fountain or some type of public art, Keith Ray, Vice President of Design, stated that Westfield Corp. is trying to leave all the options open at this point. They would like to enhance the space and create something with a minimum amount of maintenance and a maximum amount of impact. I 5 7/17/01 MOTION AMENDED MOTION 43:0151 Considerable discussion ensued concluded by the following motion: It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Council member Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote I as follows to APPROVE ADR 2001-001 subject to the conditions set forth in the July 17, 2001 staff report with changes to Condition Nos. 10 and 11; and, DIRECT staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for adoption at a later meeting. Mayor Segal suggested an amendment to Condition NO.9 to read as follows: "A security plan, space and location not greater than the existing office space, shall be submitted to and approved by the Arcadia Police Chief and the City Manager prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any new buildings on the property." In response to Mayor Pro tern Marshall's question, Police Chief Hinig, stated in part; the space in the mall will still have an allocation for community use. Further, it is the department's intend to have community meetings in the new police facility also. Mayor Pro tern Marshall expressed appreciation to Westfield representatives, City staff and Police Chief Hinig for their cooperation in solving this matter. . Councilmember Chandler, and Mayor Pro tern Marshall ACCEPTED the AMENDMENT as stated by Mayor Segal. In his comments, Council member Kovacic expressed concern with regard to the quality of sign age not only at the mall but also throughout the City. He felt that staffs review would' implement the high quality of sign age that Westfield indicates they are planning to install. City Manager Kelly noted that what the Council is approving tonight is a palette... materiais, architectural styles and signage styles, and the goal is to create a palette with some boundaries. The Development Services Director will decide future design issues, with any items in dispute I subject to appeal to the Planning Commission and City Council. With regard to an artwork, staff noted, an on-site public art proposal will still be part of the design review process, staff will look at the design, if it does not satisfy the requirements, Westfield will have the choice to revise the design or to suggest a contribution of the same dollar amount to the City, based on the $.10 per sq. ft. formula. Councilmember Chang commented that he is in favor of this project. He felt that the expansion project will enhance existing business and add more businesses, and will create a more attractive and competitive regional mall. In addition, the City will receive an increase in sales tax. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Council members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, MarshaWand Segal None None 9b. ZONE CHANGE Consideration of the report and recommendation to approve Zone Change Z-01-001 to rezone Z-01-001 the' properties located at 1012 through 1026 South First Avenue from R-2 (Medium Density (1012-1026 S. Residential) to R-1 (Single-Family Residential). First Avenue) (CONTINUED The Planning Commission at its June 12, 2001 meeting could not reach a unanimous decision to TO 10-16-01) either deny or approve the zone change by voting 2 to 2 with one member absent. As a result of TRANSCRIPT the tie vote, the zone change was forwarded to the City Council without a Planning Commission I PREPARED recommendation. . O~2.;' - 7,...'j .I ~~. .., At 8:52 p.m. the City Council RESSESSED and RECONVENED at 9:02 p.m. 6. 7/17/01 .,.,--,., ,'" ,or, .,',_' 43:0152 I The inconsistency between the General Plan and the Zoning came to light when a proposed 6- unit residential condominium project was submitted to the City for development of the two properties at 1020-1026 South 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 Pian 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 to the north of the subject properties. Currently there is an Urgency Ordinance which prohibits any construction on the properties other than a single family home on each lot. Mayor Segal OPENED the Public Hearing. Marlene Roth, The Roth Group, Planning Consultant, spoke on behalf of the owners of the four lots that are subject to the zone change. Ms. Roth provided a report to the City Council addressing appropriate designation of the property, the equity issues involved particularly with respect to the two lots where permits have been granted and work has started, and concerns of the neighbors. Ms. Roth stated in part, there is no discussion in the General Plan regarding the intent of the plan with respect to zone change designation. The initial staff recommendations and Planning Commission's recommendati,m on the General Plan Amendment was in essence that the General Plan is wrong and the zoning map is right, and that the General Plan should be changed to reflect the low density multi-family use. I Ms. Roth outlined the fees that have been paid to the City of Arcadia by the property owners in order to process an application for construction of the condominiums. The owners invested over one million dollars in these two lots. The property has been designed in a manner to try to balance a multi-family designation with the adjacent single-family. The units have been designed as individual units, as stand-alone units, ten foot minimum separation between lines and two car detached garages that feel and act like single family dwellings. Following her comments, Ms. Roth requested continuation of this matter and a three month extension in order to give the property owners enough time to work with the adjacent R-1 neighboring properties, address their concerns and maybe find some room for modifications. In response to a Council question Ms. Roth, stated in part, at this point losing units would be a very significant issue, considering the costs involved in the project, the marketing and the cost of development. But primarily, some modifications, such as slightly reducing the size of the units will be discussed. Katherine Ken, 805 West Duarte Road, Suite 104, Attorney representing the land owner and the development of the property located at 1020-1026 South First Avenue, expressed objections to the zone change from R-2 to R-1 for the subject properties and urged the City Council to not approve the zone change; to give the right back to her clients to build six detached condominiums that they are entitled to build. Roseanne Tvler, 939 Arcadia Avenue, objected to the proposed zone change from R-2 to R-1, stating, she is the real estate agent for the subject properties. She checked with the City and was told many times, that the zoning on the property was R-2 and condominiums were permitted and may be built. She approached the owner and the current owner accepted the higher R-2 price, based on the information she gathered from the City. She urged the City Council to be fair and make the right decision. I Sonia Williams, 130 Greenfield Place, the leader of the petition drive against an amendment to the General Plan, spoke in opposition of the zoning continuation, stating in part, that the residents want this matter immediately resolved, it has already taken long enough. The neighboring residents also felt strongly that as attractive as the design might be, condominiums' do not belong or fit in south of Duarte Road on a strip of land that presently has single-family homes on it. They want single family homes built on the two individual lots to replace those 7 7/17/01 43:0153 demolished. She hoped that the Planning Department will put considerable time and thought I into checking the inconsistencies between the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map, and will be authorized by the Council to make the zone change from R-2 to R-1. ,Erica Williams, property owner, Greenfield Place, a city planner and a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, stated in part, that a zone change in general can be done for a variety of reasons, but there must be justifiable and logical reasons to support such a request. Such a change must be supported by overwheiming evidence and in this instance, there is no logic or justifiable reason to support the rezoning of 1012 through 1026 South First Avenue to an R-2 category. Over 324 individuals signed a petition against rezoning property to be consistent with the zoning code. There are no other condominiums constructed south of Duarte Road, east of Santa Anita, why start an unwanted trend. A use that cannot be reasonably justified should not be build, because it is not good land use planning. Mike Marshall, 150 Greenfield Place, expressed concerns with regard to parking problems and cars blocking emergency vehicle access, stating in part that, adding up to twelve (12) additional cars would make a bad situation worse. The contractor could move in, buy up the properties, exploit the neighborhood, and six months later move on. It is the current residents who must live with the consequences for the next 10, 20 or 30 years. They all chose to live in Arcadia, because Arcadia has a fine tradition. They iook to the General Plan that they believe defines the agenda for maintaining that tradition. They look to the City Council to uphold the tradition of doing the right thing for the community; in this case, he believes the right thing is to rezone the properties in question from R-2 to R-1. It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Kovacic and CARRIED to CLOSE the public hearing. Council member Chandler felt that the contractor played by the rules and has not tried to exploit the City. So far, it looks like the contractor is going to get stung, as the contractors did on Third, Fourth, Greenfield and all those other places where the 1954 judgment call affected the City of Arcadia. Councilmember Chandler noted that he is going to vote to uphold the downzoning from R-2 to R~1, largely because there is no simple solution to this. I Councilmember Kovacic referred to the idea of a continuance which was requested by the applicant, stating in part, since there is a moratorium in effect there is no harm in granting continuance. Reasonable minds can sometimes come together and work things out. It does appear from the testimony that one side will accept no more than one unit per lot, and the other side will accept no less than six units per two lots. Council member Chang was in the favor of giving the applicant three months to talk to the neighbors and see whether they can come up with a solution satisfactory to both parties, In response to a Council question, staff'stated in part that, the moratorium will expire May 1, 2002. It was granted forty-five (45) days urgency and was then extended for eleven (11) months and fifteen (15) days. Considerable discussion ensued concluded by the following motion. It was MOVED by Councilmember Kovacic, seconded by Council member Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to CONTINUE the public hearing regarding Zone Change Z-01-001 from R-2 (Medium Density Multipie Family Residential) to R-1 (Single Family Residential) at 1012-1026 South First Avenue for 90 days and schedule a public hearing for October 16, 2001. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chang, Kovacic and Segal Councilmember Chandler, Marshall None I 8' 7/17101 I I I 9c. SIGN DESIGN REVIEW SADR 01-032 (160 E. Duarte) (DENIED) OSXf;- ~?l 43:0154 Consideration of the report and recommendation regarding an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Sign Design Review Application No. SADR 01-032 for three wall sign face-change inserts for "Tapioca Express" at 160 East Duarte Road, Unit#A. The SADR 01-032 application was submitted by Mr. Chia Ching Chen of Fargo Advertising, Inc. The proposal was to replace the sign faces in three existing, internally illuminated, wall sign cabinets. The Development Services Department denied the application because the proposed designs were not consistent with the City's Architectural Design Review Regulations. Staff requested that the proposed designs be altered so that the background would be similar in color (i.e. white) to the other signs on the subject building. The business owner, appealed the administrative denial to the Planning Commission. The applicant's appeal to the Planning Commission was to request that the proposed color scheme (i.e., white copy with orange logos on a blue background) be approved. The Commission upheld the denial. On behalf of the business owner, Mayor Pro tern Marshall app'ealed the Planning Commission's action to the City Council. The Development Services Department recommended that the Planning Commission's denial be upheld. Mayor Segal OPENED the Public Hearing. Jiulin Yuan, owner, Tapioca Express, 160 East Duarte Road, Unit #A, expressed her opposition to the Planning Commission denial, stating, Tapioca Express is a franchised operation. There are presently 15 stores in California with the same logo. The sign design cannot be changed and she does not have any control over the design of the sign. Ms. Yuan also noted that the landlord has approved the sign for his building. She requested that the City Council approve the proposed designs for the three face-changes, with the orange logo on a blue background. Christine YanQ, owner, Tapioca Express, responding to Council questions said that she did not know why there was a difference between the Tapioca Express delivery truck color and the store sign. It was MOVED by Council member Candler, seconded by Mayor Pro tern Marshall and CARRIED to CLOSE the public hearing. In response to Council questions, staff stated in part that, it is the goal of the Development Services Department to get uniformity within the shopping centers and maintain compatibility of the appearance of the signs. Considerable discussion ensued. Some Councilmembers felt that the lack of uniformity at another property should not be relied upon for approval of a sign that is not consistent with the City's Architectural Design Review Regulations; others felt that the Council should approve the SADR application No 01-023, because this is a franchise operation and the business owner has no control over the design of the sign. It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tern Marshall, seconded by Councilmember Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's DENIAL of Sign Design Review No. SADR 01-023. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chang and Marshall Council member Chandler, Kovacic and Segal None It was MOVED by Councilmember Kovacic, seconded by Councilmember Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to DENY the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Sign Design Review No. SADR 01-032 for three wall sign face-change inserts for "Tapioca Express" at 160 East Duarte Road, Unit #A. 9 7/17/01 10. 11. CHANDLER (Hazardous Waste Round-Up) MARSHALL (Bds. & Cmsn. Members) (Sierra Madre) (Side Walk Maint.) (Quote) KOVACIC (Labor Negotiation) SEGAL U' (Historical Commission) 12. ROLL CALL 13. 14. 43:0155 AYES;. NOES: ABSENT: Councilmember Chandler, Kovacic and Segal Council members Chang and Marshall None I I 14a. & b. RESOLUTION Consideration of the report and recommendation to approve RESOLUTION NO. 6239 entitled: NO. 6239 "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, (Use of ARA MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 33445, AND Funds for AUTHORIZING THE USE OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS FOR PUBLIC Public Imprvm't IMPROVEMENTS COMPRISING THE FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT I FY 2001-2002 PROGRAM"; and, ADOPT ARA RESOLUTION NO. 197 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CIP) ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, APPROVING A NOTICE OF EXEMPTION, MAKING \- ' ~ 10,}, .,1 [, AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS Council member Chandier reiterated that the Los Angeles County Household Hazardous Waste Collection will be held on Saturday August 18, 2001 at Santa Anita Race Track. Mayor Pro tern Marshall thanked the outgoing board and commission members and welcomed the new appointees. Mrs. Marshall thanked the City of Sierra Madre for including the Arcadia City Council in their Fourth of July celebration. Mrs. Marshall referred to a letter from a nine years old Highland Oaks Schooi student, Babette Homer, thanking the City for fixing a side walk. Mrs. Marshall shared a quote by Louis Brandeis, United States Supreme Court Justice, "The most important political office is that of private citizen". Councilmember Kovacic complimented City Manager Kelly and City employees for a job well done on the labor negotiation contracts. He felt that the two year contracts indicates that everybody is working together for the benefit of the City. Mayor Segal proposed to direct staff to create a seven member Historical Commission. The commissioner's duty would be the oversight of the historical museum and the processes that will take place there. He would like this item on a future agenda. Council concurred. JOINT MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL PRESENT: Council/Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal ABSENT: None AUDIENCE PARTICiPATION None. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING 10. 7/17/01 I I I RESOLUTION NO. ARA-197 (ADOPTED) /j(~" r 33) 43:0156 FINDINGS PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33445 TO AUTHORIZE THE USE OF REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS COMPRISING THE FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM." The Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33445) requires that, if redevelopment funds are to be used to pay for improvements which will be publicly owned, both within and outside of the project area, the City Council and the Agency Board must make three findings: a) The proposed improvements are of benefit to the Project Area or the immediate neighborhood in which the project is located. b) There are no other reasonable means of financing the proposed project available to the community. c) The project will assist in the elimination of blighting conditions in the Project Area and is consistent with the adopted Implementation Pian. The July 17, 2001 staff report included a report summarizing the proposed Agency Capital Improvement Projects for FY 2001-2002 such as; the Police Facility; Additional Street Lighting - Santa Anita Avenue and Santa Clara Street; Safety Lighting in the Redevelopment Agency Owned Public Parking Lot - 119 A1ta Street; New Traffic Signal at the Intersection of Santa Clara Street and First Avenue and City-wide Way-finding Signs and District Banners, it also included a Preliminary Exemption Assessment and a Notice of Exemption (NOE) for the proposed properties. Following the staff presentation, Mayor/Chairman Segal OPENED the Public Hearing. No one came forward to address the Council/Agency. It was MOVED by Council/Agency Member Chang, seconded by Council/Agency Member Marshall and CARRIED to CLOSE the public hearing. MOTION It was MOVED by Agency Member Kovacic, seconded by Agency Member Chandler and (Redevelopment CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 197, approving a Notice of Agency) Exemption, making findings pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 33445 to authorize the use of Redevelopment Agency funds for Public Improvements comprising the Fiscal Year 2001- 2002 Capital Improvement Program. MOTION (City Council) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal None None It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6239, making findings pursuant to health and Safety Code Section 33445 and authorizing the use of Redevelopment Agency funds for public Improvements comprising the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Program. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal None None 11 7/17/01 15. 15a. MINUTES (July 3 and July 10, 2001) 43:0157 THE CITY COUNCIL RECESSED TO ACT AS THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONSENT ITEM I It was MOVED by Agency Member Marshall, seconded by Agency Member Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE the Minutes of the July 3, 2001 Regular and July 10, 2001 Adjourned Regular Meetings. Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Marshall and Segal None None Agency Member Kovacic ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency ADJOURNED to August 7, 2001 at 6:00 p.m. . . vI' 17a. MINUTES (July 3 and July 10, 2001) 17b. ACCEPT WORK (Tennis Court Resurfacing - Various City Facilities) O-:t-l!)-IO AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: THE CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED CITY CLERK Report and recommendation to appoint a voting delegate and alternate to the League of California Cities Annual Conference at the Sacramento Convention Center, September 15, 2001, at which time cities will vote on important resolutions. It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Council member Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPOINT Mayor Segal as the voting delegate and Mayor Pro tem Marshall as alternate to be present at the Annual Business Meeting of the League to cast the City's vote on resolutions presented by the League on September 15, 2001. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: I Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal None None CONSENT ITEMS It was MOVED by Council member Chandler, seconded by Council member Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE the Minutes of the July 3, 2001 Regular and July 10, 2001 Adjourned Regular Meetings. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Council members Chandler, Chang, Marshall and Segal None None Council member Kovacic ACCEPTED all work performed by Zaino Tennis Courts, Inc., for the resurfacing of tennis courts at various City facilities; and, AUTHORIZED the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents subject to a retention of $3,279.19. I 12 7/17/01 16. 16a. LEAGUElCA CITIES CONF. (Segal and Marshall) I' .;,( 0 I I I 17c. ACCEPT WORK (Anoakia Lane Water Well Drilling) c." 43:0158 ACCEPTED all work performed by Beylik Drilling for drilling the Anoakia Lane Water Well as complete; and, AUTHORIZED the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract document, subject to a retention of $31,580.50. ~.- ';" ,) 17d. ORDINANCE INTRODUCED ORDINANCE NO. 2143 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NO. 2143 THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE VII, CHAPTER 5, PART 2, (Water Meter DIVISION 2 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING WATER METER SERVICE Service APPLICATIONS". Applications) () ~to _ ~,' 17e. . ACCEPT WORK (Int. Imprvm't Live Oak/EI Monte and Canyon Rd.) ,: 'r I) -- t: 17f. RESOLUTION NO. 6246 (Kardashian Ave. Vacation) oC:",', I,: ACCEPTED all work performed by Nobest Inc., for intersection improvements at Live Oak/EI Monte Avenues and the Canyon Road Sedimentation Basin; and, AUTHRIZED the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents subject to the retention of $22,685.96. ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 6246 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MAP AND DECLARING THE CITY'S .INTENTION TO VACATE KARDASHIAN AVENUE, NORTH OF DEARBORN STREET AND SOUTH OF THE NORTHERLY CITY BOUNDARY, DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE SAID MAP IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE SHOWING SAID STREET; SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING THEREON FOR AUGUST 21, 2001; AND DIRECTING NOTICE HEREOF TO BE POSTED AND PUBLISHED"; and, DIRECTED staff to collect a fee of $2,000 from the applicant/property owner to cover the City's administrative costs associated with the street vacation. 17g. ACCEPT WORK (City Hall ADA Compliance Mod. PrOj.) (, ';> :. _ < 17 h. RESOLUTION NO. 6231 (MOU- Teamsters Local 911 7-1-01 thru 6-30-03) :)1~1J- 1"; ACCEPTED the work performed by Torres Construction Company as complete; and, AUTHORIZED the final payment to be made in accordance with the contract documents subject to a retention of $14,632.40. ADOPTED RESOLUTON NO. 6231 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION AND RELATED BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 FOR JULY 1, 2001 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2003." 171. RESOLUTION ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 6248 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NO. 6248 THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 7(B), ARTICLE B OF THE CITY (Amending OF ARCADIA FRINGE BENEFIT RESOLUTION NO. 5608 (TUITION REIMBURSEMENT)." Res. No. 5608 - Tuition Reimb.) u> 13 7/17/01 43:0159 17j. RESOLUTION ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 6247 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NO. 6247 THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF (MOU - APOA UNDERSTANDING ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION AND. RELATED BENEFITS FOR 7-1-01 thru EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY THE ARCADIA POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (APOA) 6-30-03) _ FOR JULY 1, 2001 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2003." . O~" -,}, 17k. PROF. SVCS. AUTHORIZED the City Manager to enter into a professional services contract for emergency AGREEMENT medical services billing and collection services, subject to review and approval by the City (Emergency, Attorney, with WhiUman Enterprises in an amount not to exceed $40,000.00 each. Medical Svcs. - Billing and Collection) . J 1/ -' '. ~ .... 18a. ORDINANCE NO. 2147 (City Seal Design) (NOT . INTRODUCED) Since the design of the City Seal is set forth in the Arcadia Municipal Code, any change in it must be approved by the City Council by way of an ordinance.- The proposed Seal is very similar to the existing Seal; however, the words have changed position to make the Seal more easily readable and identifiable, and there are a few minor changes in the color of the peacock and Queen Anne's cottage. Staff commented that an additional change would add the word "California" to the Incorporation date. 18. f ~ / THE PRECEDING CONSENT ITEMS 17b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j and k APPROVED ON MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM MARSHALL, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CHANDLER AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal None None CITY MANAGER Consideration of the report and recommendation to INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 2147 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 2710 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH THE DESIGN OF THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA." A discussion ensued. Some Councilmembers felt that the, absence of the word "California" somewhere on the City Seal could lead to some confusion and they were in favor of inserting "California" on the City Seal. Others felt the City has been using the current logo for many years and they would like to keep this design. Following the discussion, if was MOVED by Council member Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to NOT CHANGE the design of the Seal of the City of Arcadia. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang and Segal Councilmember Kovacic and Marshall None 14 7/17/01 I I I 43:0160 19. CITY ATTORNEY I 19a. ORDINANCE City Attorney Deitsch presented for ADOPTION and read the title of ORDINANCE NO. 2146 NO. 2146 entitled: . "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, (5-1 Zone CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ARCAlDIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING NEW SECTIONS Design Review) 9273.2.11, ET SEa. ESTABLISHING DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES IN THE 5-1 (SPECIAL (ADOPTED). USE) ZONE." . (jC' , _r'r ,;; It was MOVED by Counciimember Chang, seconded by Councilmember Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that ORDINANCE NO. 2146 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Kovacic, Marshall and Segal None ' None 15b. ORDINANCE City Attorney Deitsch presented for ADOPTION and read the title of ORDINANCE NO. 2145 NO. 2145 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, (Central Redev. CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AND APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE CENTRAL Plan Amendment REDEVELOPMENT PLAN." No.5) (ADOPTED) 0i2~/J-31 The City Attorney recommended that Council member Kovacic abstain from casting a vote on Ordinance No. 2145, due to an excused absence on the date the public hearing was conducted. I Counciimember Kovacic, stated in part, that he has read the written materials with regard to the Central Redevelopment Plan Amendment NO.5. If he was able to vote, he would vote in favor of the Ordinance, however, based on the City Attorney's recommendation, he will abstain. It was MOVED by Council member Chandler, seconded by Mayor Pro tern Marshall and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that ORDINANCE NO. 2145 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Marshall and Segal None Councilmember Kovacic ADJOURNMENT (In Memory of Thomas Stanley Lucas) Mayor Pro tern Marshall adjourned the meeting in memory of Tom Lucas. "It is with great sadness this evening that I am announcing the passing of Thomas Stanley Lucas. He passed away on July 8. Tom Lucas was born on December 15, 1965 at Methodist Hospital in Arcadia. Tom was a life long resident of Arcadia. Tom was educated in the Arcadia Public School system and graduated from Arcadia High School in 1984. He was elected as a Boys State Representative by the American Legion. He graduated with a degree from the University of California, Santa Barbara. Tom played Little League Baseball, Pony and Colt in Arcadia. He played Varsity football at Arcadia High. He worked in the famiiy produce business with his brother after his father's death in 1996. Tom was active in activities at St. Anthony Greek Orthodox Church in Pasadena. and was a basketball coach for the youth there and took the team to three consecutive champIonship seasons. Tom met Mary A1becht while coaching basketball for st. Anthony's and they were married on July 8, 2000. Tom was one of the nicest young men I have ever known. Tom leaves his wife Mary, mother Kathy Lucas. brother John, sisters Mary Ann and Alicia and many nieces and nephews. His family and many friends will miss his mild manner and his beautiful smile. I respectfully adjourn tonight's meeting in loving memory of Tom Lucas." I 15 7/17/01 ) 43:0161 ADJOURNMENT Mayor Segal ADJOURNED the July 17, 2001 Regular Meeting of the Arcadia City Council at (August 7, 2001) 11 :45 p.m., to August 7, 2001 at 6:00 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Council Chambers I 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: ,Jl erk~ I I 16 7/17/01 I TRANSCRIPT (Insofar as decipherable) RELATING TO A PUBLIC HEARING I JULY 17, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Item 9h. Consideration of a Zone Change (Z-O 1-00 I) from R-2 (Medium Density Multiple Family Residential) to R-I (Single Family Residential) at 1012-1026 S. First Avenue. I Mayor Mark "Mickey" Segal: Item 9b. Mr. City Manager? City Manager WilliamR. Kelly: This is a public hearing to consider a zone change, for 1012-1026 South First Avenue. Donna Butler will have a staff presentation on this matter. Donna? Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator: Thank you very much. Mayor, Members of the City Council. You may recall this. This particular item, back in June, the City Council did adopt a resolution amending, excuse me, denying the General Plan change that was requested by the applicant of the proposed six unit condominium project at 1022-1026 South First A venue. Before you tonight is consideration of a zone change to rezone four properties at 1012-1026 South First Avenue from, excuse me, R-2, which is a Medium Density Residential, to R-I, Single Family. The Planning Commission, at its June 19th meeting, could not reach a unanimous decision to either deny or approve the zone change, and therefore, this item has been forwarded to the City Council without a Planning Connnission recommendation. As a brief background, you may remember that the inconsistency between the General Plan and the zoning came to light when the proposed six unit condominium project was submitted to the City for the development of two properties that were located at 1020 and 1026 South First Avenue, two lots under consideration. In May, the City Council voted 5-0 to deny the General Plan change and on June adopted the ordinance, excuse me, directed the Planning Commission and staff to proceed with the proposed zone change before you tonight. The proposed zone change would rezone the subject properties two of which are developed with single family dwellings, the other two are vacant, from R-2 to R-l. The dwellings at 1026 to 1026 were just removed recently, within was approximately, April, that they were removed. As mentioned the Planning Commission did vote, 2-2, with one ine;ru,er absent, to reconunend actually approval and the motion died for lack of a quorum Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, a negative declaration has been prepared for the zone change, and the Development Services Department is reconunending approval of the zone change from R-2 to R-I to provide for consistency between the General Plan and the zoning. If the City Council does intend to take action to approve this zone change, the Council should move to approve and file the negative declaration, and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance for adoption I I I I at a later meeting. Currently, just to let you know, there is an Urgency Ordinance that has been adopted that prohibits any construction on the properties other than for.a single family dwelling on each lot. This does conclude the staff report. Unless you have any questions? Mayor Segal: OK, seeing no questions, this is a public hearing. Anybody who would like to address the City Council is invited to come up and speak. 1 wonld like to stress, again, in the interest of everyone here tonight, that if the point of view has been voiced, that is going to be voiced again, I ask you to'consider not voicing the exact connnents two and three times. And with that, I encourage anybody to come up and present something to the City Council. Marlene Roth, The Roth Gronp, Inc.: Good evening, Mayor, City Council. My name is Marlene Roth. I am a planning consnltant, a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I am here to speak on behalf of the owners of the four lots that are subject to the zone change. If! could, I apologize for not getting these earlier, but we did ask for a longer time and the hearing was set today so we didn't have time to get these in ahead of time. But 1 do have copies of the report for you. If! could ask the City Clerk's to assist me. Thank you very much. I am providing a report to you that really addresses three issues that are of concern here. If I can summarize those issues. The fIrst one has to do with, what is the appropriate designation of this property? The second one has to do with, what are the equity issues involved, particularly with respect to the two lots where permits have been granted and work had started. And the third issue has to do with concerns of the neighbors, whom we have attempted to meet with, and which we think those issues are important, they would not necessarily be resolved by rezoning the property. With respect to the first issue, the appropriateness of retaining the R-2 zoning in light of the inconsistency that has been found with the General Plan. I have reviewed your General Plan. I think it's probably an excellent document one of the best I have seen. And it was adopted by the City and State on September 3, 1996. On page 2, and the top two-thirds of3, I have outlined the excerpts of the General Plan which I feel support the contention that this property is appropriate for Low Density Multifamily, and appropriate for your R-2 zoning designation. The only thing that refutes that in the General Plan is, in fact, the map itself. The fIgure, the color figure that does not reflect that designation. Without reading to you what's already in there, it's been quoted in my letter, I'd like to say that there is, there's absolutely no discussion in the I I 2 General Plan document regarding the intent of the plan with respect to changing zoning designations. Therefore, in order to adequately address that, you need to almost take a very exhaustive review of the legislative history of the adoption of the document, in order to determine the intent of the City Council at that time in regard to this particular property, as opposed to the possibility that the Map, which is Figure 2- 3 in your General Plan, does in fact contain a drafting error. And this is also been known to happen, in time. In fact, the initial staff recommendations on the proj ect and on the General Plan Amendment that was fOlwarded to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation on the General Plan Amendment, was in essence that the General Plan was wrong and the zoning map was right, and that the General Plan map should be changed to reflect the Low Density Multifamily use, and that also supports that contention. There's an implementation section in your General Plan, section 6. That section does not cont.ain any recommendations whatsoever to change the zoning on the subject property. It refers only to project by project review to insure that individual projects are consistent with the General Plan. Zoning, as is pointed out in the staff report, in this parcel, was adopted in 1954. This preceded the plan adoption in 1996. Therefore, if a change in zoning was required to obtain consistency with the General Plan, that shonld have been noted in Section 6 of your report. I believe, however, that the intent and the thought, without exhaustive research, is that in fact, that the, it was felt to be that no zone change was required, that the General Plan was to be consistent with the zoning at that point, in 1996, when it was adopted. In looking at the zoning pattern throughout the City, and we have included appendix or exhibit I, which really addresses the zoning pattern, property surrounding service stations, and there are 13 of them in the City of Arcadia. In each case, none of those service stations are currently abutted by single family residential. There is one that does have single family zoning, but it also has a parking overlay, and this parking overlay fonns the buffer function between the commercial service station and the adjacent residential. Otherwise, if you look at that, if you look at your zoning map, you will see a consistent pattern of medium and low density multifamily uses, separating intense commercial uses from single family residential. And we believe that we have shown that, that is in fact the case. The second issue really has to do with the equity issue of the owners, particnlarly of the property at 1020- 1026 South First Avenue. I know you've seen the project plans before, but I wanted them up here this I I I 3 I evening to remind you of the single family nature of the project that they have proposed for the site. Even though it technically is a condominium. they are detached, otherwise would feel and act like single family houses if, in fact, they were on separate lots. These individuals paid fees to the City and processed an application on the basis that the property was represented to them as allowing a condominium. That means both the zoning and the General Plan are consistent to allow low density multifamily use. We have attached a table, exhibit 2, that gives you a complete chronology of their activities, from the first contact, the interest in the property, the first contacts with the City, the acquisition of the property, the filing of the documents, the City's representations of the property being in both the appropriate General Plan category and the appropriate zoning category for their project.. In fact, we have also attached some sections of the staff report for the very first architectural review and exception, discussion that went to the Planning Commission, and if you note on that, I've attached just the first few pages as exhibit 3, and exhibit 4, sorry about that. And the second page does point out that the General Plan designation is Multi-family Residential, not Single-family Residential. So not only was it verbally represented, but in fact, initially it was represented in writing by staff that this was the appropriate designation of the property. There's also been a considerable amount of money spent on the project. I would say that we've documented there the bills that were paid as of July 9. There were expenses incurred before that time, that have not yet been paid, and there are continuing expenses with respect to the property. I would say that it's well over a million dollars that these people have invested in the two lots. This is on the equity issue, not on the issue of the two lots that still have their single family homes on them Experises continue to accrue. We've outlined specifically the fees paid to the City of Arcadia, a couple of those fees have been refunded, but half of the money that has been paid to the City on this basis is an expense that still stands with the property. Again, the property has been designed in a manner to try to balance multi-family designation with the adjacent single family. The units have been designed as individual units, as stand-alone units, ten foot minimum separation between dwellings, and close two-car detached garages that feel and act like single family dwellings. While its impossible, under the California State Department of Real Estate Regulations, to indicate what the value is of a condominium before it does the processing in Sacramento, these units I I 4 were targeted in the $400-$600,000 range, as they are called 3-bedroom, 2-1/2 bath units. And I think you probably remember that from the prior discussions. With respect to the neighborhood issues. The neighbors do have some significant issues, and I think there are some options for dealing with those. But we did invite the neighbors to a meeting on July 9th ar the Arcadia Women's Club. There's a copy of the invitation material we sent to, well, we sent it to over 189 households that signed protest petitions against the project, and approximately 170 of those were delivered, the rest were returned either not in the area, or no forwarding address. Out of that 170 households, 3 people did come to the meeting. And we did discuss the project with them. They are here tonight and they can represent their views, perhaps, much more eloquently than I can. But in discussion with those people, I identified that there were at least five major concerns that they have with respect to this issue. They felt that the design of the project, for the specific two lots, was in itself a good design and wasn't opposed. They felt that allowing the zoning to remain R-2 left unresolved the issues with respect to the two lots between the project and the service station, and the inability to know what will happen with those lots in the future. While this is a good development for these two lots, who's to know what will happen on the other two lots? They indicate a preference for the development such as on the Crystal Court side, which is immediately south of the project area. And overall, they felt that the potential density of 12 units on all four lots might be too great. And finally they had a belief that it would be possible to construct four separate million-dollar homes, one-million-dollar home on each of the four lots that are being discussed. There are number of problems concerning these issues that I think also need to be articulated to you. And we've attached an exhibit 6 to show you that the property involved all four of the lots together are substantially smaller than the Crystal Court project, and that project would not be feasible with a public street on this site. You just can't get that side house, that many houses on this project. This project emulates the Crystal Court project, because on several public streets, it has an auto court, and it has detached houses, and they are a little smaller and they are a little less expensive. But yeah, you could not put Crystal Court on this site, even if all four lots were combined. There's also the improbability of being able to construct such high-end houses on these lots as they currently stand. They are 50-foot-wide lots. A million dollar house, you're talking in the range of probably I I I 5 I 4,000 square feet or a larger or 3-car garage. Probably a two story house. If you look at your standards on a 50-foot lot, you wocld only be able to have a three-car garage facing the street, because a two-story house, you take your 10-foot yard, you're left with 30 feet. A 3-car garage is probably 32 feet if its design. And you would not have any entree or anything facing the street to do that kind of development at that price target on these lots. The adjacency of the connnercial property would also be' a problem, because of the service station. The one or two lots adjacent to the service station would still have to be a buffer between the others, and you would not be able to achieve that kind of a price point with the location of those lots. And finally, related to the first point, the City's parking and setback standards really create the environment that can't be developed on these lots as single family in the R-I category, and it just really can't be done. They're very deep lots but they ~on't have the frontage. And that's why Crystal Court actually created the frontage. As you drive down your streets, and they're lovely, and you look at the homes, what you get is you have wide lots with homes facing streets, not narrow lots with homes facing streets. So you don't just get the garage, you get the front porch, you get the door, you get the window on the street. You can't do that with 50-foot lots. You can if you create Crystal Court, you can if you create an auto court like we've done with this project. And that's important. There's also a perception, I think, that the R-I zoning would provide greater protection to the adjacent property. Well, I looked at the standards in the R-I and R-2 zoning approval table in this flyer. It really talks about, they're very much the same, with the exception of the rear setback. The R-I requires a 25-foot rear setback, the R-2 only a IO-foot rear setback. In this particular location, because of the City's special setback regulations, there is a 35-foot front setback that is required of this property, instead of the traditional 25-foot setback. If that could be modified, we would be able to put 20 feet in the back, which would be very compatible with the rear yard requirements of the adjacent R-I zone. So, we think that there are a number of methods, or opporhmities, to try to address the issue with respect to this property. There have been some preliminary discussions with the owners of the two lots north of what I call the project, where the owners tried to get together to see if there would be some way to come up with a unified concept, if you will, that would address the future development of those two lots in a way that would resolve some of the concerns of the neighbors. The second thing is that we could work with staff to I I 6 see if there is some modification to the front setback to see if we can pusb more of the open space to the rear of the property where it abuts the R-I zone, and we would be happy to do that. But one of the things that we ended the meeting with, or at least in my mind, is that the neighbors are willing to talk, and willing to work together to try to find an equitable solution. I mean, I think, ultimately they would prefer to be R-I, but they also, I think, understand that there is some history here, and they expressed at leasi their willingness to continue the dialogue. You have a moratorium in place that really prevents any development on the site. I think it runs for about another 6 months So what I'm asking you to consider tonight are two things. First of all, I'm asking you to review your General Plan document, review the history of what's happened, review the City docwnents themselves, and agree that in fact, the original assumption that it's the General Plan map that is incorrect is the right assumption, and that the zoning should remain R-2, and it should be up to the applicants again to reprocess the General Plan Amendment to correct the figure. There's nothing in the text of the General Plan that needs to be changed. It's just that map and figure that I believe contains a drafting error in this case. So that would be the first, and to do that, you would have to deny the zone change that you have initiated that is before you touight. The second issue that I'd like to consider. If you feel it might be premature to make that decision, is that you do continue this for approximately three months, in order to give ample time for the property owners to see if they can work together, the property owners of all the lots that are subject in this action to work together, and that if collectively or individually we could work together with the adjacent R-I neighboring properties mostly to the rear, to the East and to the South in Crystal Court, to see if we can address wbat their concerns are. Because somewhere there is going to be that issue of who's next to commercial, and how do you design what goes next to commercial to protect the integrity of your neighborhoods. And what we were talking about, now, it's not resolving how it gets done, but you're talking about where to move that line. There's even some other things you might want to consider. Because I think this is a problem that addresses other areas of the City, where you have single family and multi-family abutting eacb other. And that would be in the cases, for example, wbere R-2 abuts R-l. Maybe you want to increase the setback requirement, or increase the open space requirement, to not only address the particular areas of these four I I I 7 , I lots, but addresses Citywide issues. And unfortunately, acting on this tonight, in our opinion in a negative way by moving it forward for eventual adoption, I think precludes some of that discussion, which I think would be healthy, not only for the project, not only for the neighbors, but for ~e community as whole. I'll be happy to answer questions on anything that I have presented to you. I know it's a lot, and I know there is a lot more speakers to corne afterwards. But in the amount of time that we have, I've at least tried to give it some pretty careful thought about what might be an appropriate avenue to take with respect to this project. And I personally, after doing my research, I do not believe that the zone cbange is the best solution. I think the zoning should stay the same, and if necessary, there should be more time for dialogue, discussion and alternatives presented before it's enacted. Mayor Segal: Thank you, Ms. Roth. Questions? Councilmember Gary A. Kovacic: Yeab, Ms. Roth. A couple of questions. You mentioned that the latest reiteration of the General Plan, in 1996, and you're suggesting that there was some kind of error in the land use designation map. What do you mean by that? The color was just extended further than it should have been? Ms. Roth: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Council Members. I read the document. I was looking, in a limited amount of time. Recognize, please that we did ask for some more time before we came before you this evening. I read the document, and I couldn't fmd anything in the document that would support the fact that the map was colored differently than the zoning map. There is no text in the discussion of application of the residential densities. There is no text in your section 6, which is your implementation strategy, which tells you what you need to do to implement the General Plan In other words, it should say that, you know, the General Plan recommends that certain properties be downzoned. An implementation action is to hold the hearings and downzone the properties so they're consistent with the General Plan. That's what usually happens wben the General Plan in an affIrmative way says that we need to change the zoning, the designation on the use of properties. And that isn't in there. Barring research on all the minutes and, you know, everything else, it seems to me that the only thing that is the discrepancy is the map itself, this figure. And that it's possible, and I wasn't there when it happened, but it's possible that it was a drafting error. I I 8 Councilmember Kovacic: Well, I was there when it happened in 96, and as I recall, that General Plan amendment only dealt with three or four specific areas in town, and this wasn't one of them. So. Did you go back and check past reiterations of the General Plan to see if the error keeps repeating itself, or? Ms. Roth: I baven't had an opportunity to do so. Councilmember Kovacic: Maybe staff can respond to that at some poin~ about whether this has always been designated as single family or something else. Second, your point about possibly mitigating the impact by increasing the rear yard setback. I just want to make sure I understand your suggestion. Instead of a 10-foot rear yard setback, you'd have a 20-foot yard setback by reducing the front yard setback from 35 to 25 feet. Is that what you are suggesting? Ms. Roth: Yes, that's one way to accomplish that. The normal setback, front setback, in the R-2 zone is 25 feet. On First Avenue, in this location, it's 35 feet. Again, I've been told that. I haven't researched, I'm just assuming that that is what's correct. It would seem to me that there would be some flexibility to either adjust the site plan or reduce the front yard setback to provide greater setback in the rear. Okay, we're no there yet because we don't have the rights. Councilmember Kovacic: And do you know what the adjoining side yard setback is for the Crystal Court subdivision? That one property that would be the Northwest portion? Ms. Roth: I looked, I tried to eyeball it today. I don't have the actual plans, Mayor and Members of Council. But I don't, my guess is it was around 15 feet. It might be 20. But I don't think that those rear yards, the rear yard side up to this, and I don't think they're 25 feet. Councilmember Kovacic: And without a doubt, you did request, or the applicant did request, a continuance at the Planning Commission, and you're requesting one again tonight. Realistically, and I guess we'll hear from opponents about whether a continuance would be profitable or no~ but realistically, what do you hope to achieve if a continuance is granted? What kind of modifications do you see in either your position or the neighbors' position that would occur during such a continuance? Ms. Roth: There are really two issues, Mayor and Members of Council, that I think are open for discussion. One of the things has to do with the ability to address how all four of the lots wonld ultimately be developed and how that could be controlled. And how cooperatively that can occur, whether the four owners can speak with one voice or one owner can acquire all four properties, I don't know. But there I I I 9 I needs to be time for that to occur. Because I think one of the concerns of the neighbors was, whether this project could be modified to address their concerns or not, they would still have the issue of what happens with the other two lots, if it's not folded in here somehow. And they didn't want the uncertainty of what would happen with those other two lots. So the time would create an opportunity to see if there's some way to resolve that issue. The second issue has to do specifically with the development proposal that have been presented with respect to 1020 and 1026. And that would be to see if there is some way to provide some of the open space . on the property in a way that would not detract from the project but might be beneficial to the adjacent property owners. And we haven't had a chance to have that dialog. We had our first meeting, if you will, and it was only three people, on Monday night, oflast week. Councilmember Kovacic: And finally, you provided a chronology, and if you could just tell us when was the first time your client was advised that there was a discrepancy between the zoning and the General Plan land use designation. Ms. Roth: Urn, I don't know the exact date, Mr. Mayor and Members of Co unci!. But it would have been probably in March or May, maybe somebody from, can speak to it. Because it was, I'm sorry, it was in December ofiastyear, it's on there, December 12. Councilmemher Kovacic: OK. Thank you very much. Mayor Segal: AIe there any other questions? Councilmemher Dr. Sheng Chang: Yes. Ms. Roth. In your information you mentioned about neighborhood issues. Could you summarize again, what did you come out of the neighborhood issues? The neighborhood meetings? Ms. Roth: There's a copy of a letter that we sent to the people who signed the petitions opposing the project, not the ones that were in favor of the project, but the ones that had signed the petitions opposing the project. And we invited them to an open house, a week ago Monday, at the AIcadia Women's Club. And three of them came. I had, I think, a very good discussion with two of them, in depth, and with the third person a little bit. And those, what I'm saying in the letter is those points are my feeling about the issues that they raised that were important. ,And I think basically, the issues were, there is an inconsistency and it needs to be dealt with, which is what we're doing, so that's not really an issue. But the other issues I I 10 really had to do with, you know, this project may be fme, maybe it's too much, and it's too dense, maybe it's they'll put spaces in the wrong place, but even if this project was OK, and they didn't say it was OK, but they said that even if it was OK, these are my words, we still have the issue of what's going to happen on these other two lots? To resolve, you can't tell us now what's going to happen there, so that creates some concern on our part, and therefore, we feel better protected by the R -I zoning against an encroachment or a use they wouldn't prefer to see there. That's why I think that there may be some avenues for discussion. Then, while we would prefer the R-2. I know they will say that they would prefer the R-l. But what I have heard, I think, is some opportunity, maybe it will fail, maybe it will be successful, but I think there is an opportunity for a dialogue. And I think that causes no harm, because you have the moratorium, the Urgency Ordinance, in place right now, so nothing can happen until you take an action one way or the other with respect to this property. CounciImember Chang: So is that the reason you want to have a three months extension? Ms. Roth: Well, part of that is I'm going to be gone for three weeks, to be honest with you. But I don't want to come in here again with a report here at the last minute. And I think that we do need time to have a couple or three meetings. The property owners, need time, to talk to each other. This can't be decided, you know, quickly. This is a dialogue that needs to occur. And that, I picked three months, because I felt that if we couldn't come back in three months with something, we probably couldn't come back with anything in five months. But if it's only a month, it won't be enough time to accomplish anything. We'll be right just about where we are today, with the exception of maybe some more research on some of these other issues that we could, you know, raise. CounciImember Kovacic: Ms. Roth, I just want to get maybe a gut feeling about potential modifications. Would it be assuming too much that the applicant would consider reducing the number of units, or is that kind of a major change that you are not contemplating? You are more talking about maybe adjusting setbacks and those types of things? Ms. Roth: At this point, I think losing units would be a very significant issue for them. So, I'm not saying that would be impossible, I'm just saying it is a very significant issue given the costs involved in the project, the marketing, cost of development. Maybe there is some other tradeoffs? I don't know. But primarily, I think we would be talking about looking a spatial relationships, and seeing if there is some I I I II I room for modification. Maybe some of the units, footprint of the units, the unit sizes themselves. could be reduced slightly. Councilmember Kovacie: Because tonight we are being asked to decide between one unit, actually two units, and six units, correct? Ms. Roth: You're being asked to decide between four units and twelve units. Councilmember Kovacic: Right, if you consider all four. Ms. Roth: Because that's really what's (indecipherable). A maximum. Let me just, if I can Mr. Mayor, just between four units and a maximum of 12 units. Mayor Segal: Thank you Ms. Roth. Anybody else who wishes to address the City Council? Katherine Ken, Attorney: My name is Katherine Ken, at 805 W. Duarte Road, Suite 104. I am an attorney representing the landowner and the developer of the subject property at 1020 and 1026 South First Avenue. You just approved a great project, a big project of the shopping mall. And there will be many decent business persons, who running business in the shopping mall whom might be willing to settle down in Arcadia. And here are six beautiful condos we can build to help the City. We strongly object to the zone change from R-2 to R-lfor the subject property. There has been an inconsistency between the General Plan and zoning of the subject property for the past 30 years. And the City did not bother to change the zoning until my client legally obtained the building permits to build six detached condos and got evel)'lhing ready. Did the property owner do anything wrong? No. They did not do anything wrong. They followed every step. They did not do anything wrong in getting the entitlements to build the six condos. The neighbors who object to this project say that they had sympathy on us, but they just don't want condos. What I think we want, what we really want, is the justice. In reliance of the City:s zoning map, my client paid R-2 price for the two lots of the subject property. In reliance of the City's approval on the development plan and of the building permits, my client has spent more than $150,000 in architectural and engineering fees, plan review permits, school fees, demolition, and grading, construction, preparation, insurance, interest of the bank loan. Altogether they already spent about a million dollars, and they are deeply in debt. If the houses were not torn down, they might be able to mitigate damage and rent out the properties somehow to relieve their financial difficulty. The houses were torn down after they obtained the building permits. After the building permits were I I 12 issues. You revoked their rights, and they are now in the position at YOW' mercy. Your sympath?, and apologies will not help. You are the government. You can correct the wrongs and get the things right. I respectfully urge you to look into the matter of the zoning issue and do not approve the zone change, so that we can give the rights back to my client to build the six detached condos that they were entitled to. Thank you very much for your time. Mayor Segal: Thank you very much. Does anybody else wish to address the City Council? Ms. Roseanne Tyler: Good evening. My name is Roseanne Tyler, and I'm at, I live at 939 Arcadia Avenue in the City of Arcadia. I am the real estate agent that did all of this. I object to the proposed change from R-2 to R-1. I would like to testifY that two years ago, about a couple of months before I approached the landowner who bought the subject property, I checked with the City and was told, many times, that the zoning on the property was R-2 and condos may be built. Many times I discussed with the City how many condos could be built, the modifications that would be necessary, etc. etc. I represented, based on the information from the City, I represented to the current landowner, who then bought the subject property, and accepted the higher R-2 price. Who else can give us correct information other than you? I did my homework. I believe I did. But I was given the wrong information. I've attended every hearing about the development of this property. It has been a long way to the justice. The City staff and Planning COnmllssioners all supported the building of six detached condos. But the City Council went so far to deny the General Plan amendment, adopted a moratorium, and now a zone change. I believe there's a lot of frustration, like the owner is frustrated, because the City Council wouldn't listen. The City Council has the power to make the decision. I was told prior to this meeting that the decision has already been made. But I believe that every Arcadia citizen deserves a fair hearing without bias. I urge you to be fair and neutral and make the right decision. Thank you very much. CounciImember Kovacic: I have one question. You said you went into the City Hall and they told you it was R-2 and were given the wrong information. Well, R-2 wasn't the wrong information. It was zoned R- 2. Correct? Ms. Tyler: Oh, I'm so sorry, yes. Councilmember Kovacic: What was the wrong information the City gave you? Ms. Tyler: Well, the City said it was R-2, but now you're saying that it is R-I. I I I 13 I Councilmember Kovacic: No, we're being asked to change the zone. It's still R-2, what I'm asking you is what was the wrong information that the City gave you? Ms. Tyler: Well, the City said it was R-2. And now, they're asking for R-I. Councilmember Kovacic: Well it is R-2, isn't it, until we change it, so that's not wrong information. What is the wrong information? Ms. Tyler: That's it. Councilmember Kovacic: OK, thank you. Ms. Tyler: Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mayor Segal: Thank you, Ms. Tyler. Anybody else wish to address the City Council? Sonya Williams: Good evening Mayor and Council Members. My name is Sonya Williams. I live at 130 Greenfield Place, Arcadia. As the leader of the petition drive against the amendment to the General Plan of March 27, I attended the Planning Commission meeting on June 12. Also present were approximately 20 residents who are defendants of Arcadia's General Plan and are in opposition of the proposed condominium project at 1012-1026 South First Avenue. As residents we felt the staff report for the June 12 meeting was good. It set out the goals and objectives very defInitively of what the residents and the Arcadia City Council had agreed upon at the May 1 meeting. However, the staff report was not fully discussed by the Commissioners. There is no mention of the General Plan Amendment conflicting with the General Plan's land use designation of many surrounding and nearby properties. The causal effect of negative impacts on the value and use of these properties, such as traffic, density and visual impact was not addressed. The summary of the issues after the open hearing was closed was less than ten minutes. The condo development is an important issue and has very significant ramifications over the long term. . We believed, and it was obvious at times, the Commissioners were not given enough background material and had not made a study of the case to make an informed, enlightened recommendation. They again stated they are only advisors to the City Council, the City makes the fInal decision. I'd like to comment on one Commissioner's repeated statement at both bearings on the belief that this space was a good transition for a buffer zone of condos. He also, incidentally, believed an amendment was an ideal mechanism to change the General Plan. I do not agree with him in both these instances. The General I I 14 Plan is considered a very important document and should not be nsed in a case like this as a spot training device to correct an error compounded by other errors. At times these Commissioners showed ignorance of the facts. There is a Union 76 gas station on Duarte Road which was built in the 1960s. 1bis came after the two honses, namely 1012 and 1016 Sonth First Avenne, now standing next to it, were built in 1948 and 1937 respectively. There were also three other houses, including one absorbed into Crystal Court, and the other two now demolished by the developer. When the General Plan was put together in 1970-71, the City Fathers made a judgment call. Becanse the area surrounding these five lots was improved by the building in 1963 of eight single family dwellings on Greenfield Place, the decision was made to designate these lots on 1012 to 1026 First Avenue as R-l. On Greenfield Place, the five properties on the north side back directly only C-2 commercial, i.e. TacoLitos, the 99 Cents Store, and a shopping complex. There is no consideration given to a buffer zone back in the early 60s when these homes were built. In fact, I was told there was a proposal to build a bowling alley along this strip. The residents even then, like now, evidently got together and fought for single family dwellings. History has a habit of repeating itself. These honses have, in the past, sold quickly and at above average prices, even taking into account they are behind a commercial zone. I've had the opportunity to discnss this issue with a Planning Consultant, and have been told that the transition idea was a concept of the 50s and 60s and is antiquated. It was something of a discriminatory mind-set with the commercial zone, then the smaller homes for the lower socioeconomic people, followed by larger homes. However, with the growing shortage of available land and honsing, planning's in cities are becoming realistic and allowing homes to be built right next to commercial and indnstrial zones. There was a question pointed by another Commissioner.that an R-t lot approximately 50 feet by 220 feet containing a single family dwelling would be more building mass and intrusive than a condo project. 1bis lot is roughly 11,000 square feet. Where's the logic to this reasoning? He said the lots had been zoned R-2 for over 50 years. Yes, they have. They have also come under the General Plan designation as R-Ifor 30 years. With a single family home we get a setback of 25 feet for the owners of the honses on Greenfield Place, backing onto the proposed site. And we have no traffic congestion reduced parking problems and no over I I I 15 I I I flow of condominiums spilling over from nortb of Duarte Road. We want single-family dwellings that will fit attractively on these lots. (end of side 3) (beginning of side 4) It would be most appropriate if the architect and developer could meet this challenge for the needs and desires of this neighborhood. There is also a newish home at 1227 First Avenue on a 50 foot frontage. There are many more homes in Temple City, all homes on Greenfield A venue and Greenfield Place with one or two exceptions, are on or around 8,OOO-plus square foot lots. Over the past month our area have received numerous letters, flyers and personal visits by representatives of the Roth Group IncoIporated, representing the owners of the land, claiming that the residents in the immediate area were misinformed. The purpose behind a General Plan Amendment or a zone change can be often confusing, and appear to be misguided because there are many different facets involved. Such a request is never black and white, and I feel in this case, this is what has happened. If units look like single family dwellings, then people who see them will think they are just that, single family dwellings. Only the developer, the realtors and the City know what the development really is. Unfortunately, the gist of this application has gradually become lost as the cace has progressed. The point to be made is an inconsistency between the General Map and the zoning. And the solution is a zone change to a category that is most indicative of the surrounding area, and that is R-l, Single Family Residential. As I understand it, the City of Arcadia's law, because they are a charter city, to at first give approval for a condominium proposal to be called an apartment/condominium project is confusing. The developer submits his application, starts the project, all the time knowing he will be building condominiums, but until he records his fmal subdivision map, he's actually building apartments. The developer thought maybe my petition siguers believed he was building apartments, but this was not true. They all knew from the outset, that his proposal was for condominiums. I talked to the residents often, and they are all aware that the proposed condominium project comprises six individual or detached homes, set ten feet apart, with a common driveway, fire lane, with guest parking space for three cars. They are also fully aware that condos can be purchased, opposed to apartments for rental, that the owner has to belong to a homeowners association, pay fees, and never, in essence, owns the land. They also feel strongly that as attractive as the 16 design might be, condos do not belong or fit in south of Duarte Road on a strip of land that presently bas single family homes already on it. They want single family homes built on the two individual lots to replace those demolished. Concerning a continuation, we are not in favor of this. It's already taken long enough. The residents want this matter immediately resolved. We ask that the Council again take these thoughts and factors into account. We hope that the Planning Department or the consultant hired and brought in to check the inconsistencies between the General Plan Land Use element and the zoning map will be authorized by the Council, following tonight's meeting, to make the zoning change from R-2 to R-1. What we bave all been through, together with the other eleven (11) inconsistencies on Live Oak and Second, Third, Fourth, Lee and Greenfield Avenues in November 2000 should not be duplicated in the future. Thank you for your time and attention with this matter before you tonight. I just want to add one more thing: A comment for a correction on the staff report. In the summary, second paragraph, first line, June 19th should be cbanged to June 12th. Thank you. Mayor Segal: Mr. Kovacic. Councilmember Kovacic: Ms. Williams, just one question, about the continuance. I guess I suffer from the, abiding faith that reasonable people can sometimes sit down and work things out. Other than being forced to sit through another City Council meeting, which I guess some people would figure is penalty enough, with the moratorium in effect, the applicant is saying, neighbors really aren't at risk of suffering any harm and why not give them a chance to try to work something out? Why not adopt that position? Ms. Williams: He has shown no indication of even thinking about a single family dwelling for us. There's been no mention of that fact at all. And that is what we are seeking. CounciImember Kovacic: OK. Ms. Williams: He is completely for condominiwns and there is no sort of middle ground. Councilmember Kovacic: Right, I guess, and he'd probably say the same thing about yon, there's no middle ground as well. So, that's why you're saying, there's no way the two groups could come together. Ms. Williams: I'm not sure they could, because I looked at the General Plan, and I just see it's all R-l that area going through Greenfield Place and going all the way back south of Duarte Road. It's all R-I and condominium don't belong south of Duarte. We already have an overflow and an abundance of I I I 17 I condominiums north of Duarte Road. And we are losing too many single family dwellings. That's another one of our concerns. The small bomes are just being swallowed up. Councilmember Kovacic: OK, thank you. Ms. Williams: Thank you. Mayor Segal: Thank you, Ms. Williams. Anyone else want to address the City Council? Erica Williams: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council. My name is Erica Williams. I'm a property owner on Greenfield Place. I'm also a City Planner and a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. Zone changes in general plan amendments, can be done for a variety of reasons, but there must be justifiable and logical reasons to support such a request. Such a change must be supported by overwhelming evidence and in this instance, there is no logic or justifiable reasons, in my opinion, to support the rezoning of 1012 through 1026 South First Avenue to an R-2 category. Additionally, I was disappointed to hear the Planning Corrunission as the land use advisory body for the City, could not provide a better, more solid reason to rezone the subject site. I am here tonight to state that the reasons given to support a rezoning from R-I on the General Plan to R-2 are not substantiated to an overwhehning degree of evidence. There are more reasons, and you've heard some of them tonight so far, to support the opposite, rezoning the area to bring about consistency with the General Plan, ofR-!. Over 324 individuals signed a petition against rezoning the property to be consistent with the zoning code. And more importantly, signed in favor of rezoning the property to be consistent with the General Plail, an R-l classification. There are no other condominiums constructed south of Duarte Road and east of Santa Anita, why start an unwanted trend? A use that cannot be reasonably justified should 110t be built. That is not good land use planning. The zoning was adopted in 1954 and the subject site was classified as R-2, and was probably determined for a valid reason at that time. This has obviously changed since then. The requirement for a General Plan came in about the 70s. The City of Arcadia adopted theirs at a later date, probably without realizing that some areas were not consistent with the original zoning. That's not uncommon. I I 18 Fast forward to last November of 2000, when the Planning Commission and the City Council approved the rezoning of 11 properties in southern Arcadia along Live Oak and the surrounding areas t 0 R-l to be consistent with the General Plan, and then to April of 2001, with this application, the Council is again in the same position of making a determination as to what an area, such as South First Avenue, should be zoned. From my understanding the City is currently in the process of updating their General Plan, and I commend them for undertaking such a task. In rezoning the properties located in south Arcadia along Live Oak, I feel that the area is not dissimilar to the application before you tonight, at Duarte Road and First Avenue. Both Duarte and Live Oak are secondary arterials that are heavily trafficked and developed with commercial uses, that abut residentially zoned properties. Both areas contain several legal nonconforming uses that could not be built today, that are allowed to exist and can be maintained. Duarte Road is again not dissimilar to Live Oak in havinK a gas station on a comer that is situated next to residential, especially R-l, is not unusual or considered necessarily adverse. Live Oak Avenue has several large medical complexes, a bank, two dental offices, restaurants, and other commercial uses, that all abut a residentially zoned area. In the City I work for, residential areas that abut to commercial, even manufacturing, the residentially zoned lots do sell, and they sell well, as they are being continuously developed with a renewed housing stock. As ceded previously, transitional zoning is not considered really a valid reason to support a zone change that would be consistent with the zoning rather than the General Plan. The General Plan is really the foundation and blueprint in development for the City and needs to be upheld in this instance. It was designed as R-l for a reason and it was probably because, from a land use perspective of the surrounding areas, along Magna Vista, Greenfield Avenue, Greenfield Place, Louise Avenue, Pamela an~ La Sierra, are all zoned R-1. One could argne that the residents at 1024 and 1026 South First Avenue were legal, nonconforming residences that upon demolition, would make the area conforming with the other surrounding single family residences in the area. I think it's important to also note that a downzoning from R-3 to R-2 or from R-2 to R-l as in this instance is not considered a taking. Property owner developer still has rights to use the property, development rights are not being taken away if an area is downzoned. A developer still has the right to build something. The subject site is in an extremely good area. And the existing single family residential neighborhood is I I I 19 I comprised of a great collection of homes that are representative of Arcadia. Those same homes all have inherent land and dwelling values that can collect a substantial price. Those built at the subject site would be no different. The City reserves the right to downzone and can do so at any time. Additionally, no fmding of equitable (undecipherable) was made at the Ma~ 1, 2001, City Council meeting, in other words it was de!ermined that the developer had no vested interest in the property, of the improvements, rough grading, demolition made so far could have been made for any project, condominiums or single family residential. At the City Council meeting of June S, 2001, the City Council denied the General Plan Amendment, subsequently adopted an initial moratorium that eventually extended it. The next and hopefully final step would be to bring the zoning inconsistent with the General Plan, if this inconsistency is left unresolved, it not only leaves the inconsistency intact, but also creates additional confusion for the future. I Therefore I'm asking the City Council to uphold the fmdings made in the City Council Resolution No. 6223 and uphold Arcadia's General Plan, and support the rezoning of all four lots at 1012 through 1026 South First Avenue fromR-2 to R-l. I would also like to, I was one of those that attended the meeting with the Roth Group on July 9th, and I felt that the meeting did go somewhat well. There were only three of us that were in attendance. I did feel that initially that the letter that the Roth Group sent out was somewhat misleading. It mentioned in the letter that they were, you know, single-family homes with an auto court, and it would be somewhat similar to Crystal Court, which in essence, in my opinion it is not. Crystal Court is really a single-family residential development, and these are condominiums, and that letter did not really, I felt, adequately disclose that fact. I also feel from a planning perspective that each of those lots conld be adequately developed, SO feet wide that they are. I helped design those in the city I work for, and you could adequately build a nice, beautiful home, with a 90 degree turning radius, three-car garage, four-car garage, guest house, etc., on that location. So those were my comments. I Mayor Segal: Thank you, Ms. Williams. Anyone else to address the City Council tonight on this matter? Mike Marshall: My name is Mike Marshall. I reside at ISO Greenfield Place. Mr. Mayor, and City Council. Almost three months ago, I became aware of this issue. Since then, I have attended City Council 20 meetings, the Planning Commission meeting, attended the Roth Group meeting, and discussed the matter with other members of the neighborhood. Tonight I would like share my observations with you. I am not a professional in this area, just a resident. During these meetings, I have learned that the contractor applied for and received permits to build on the property. Permits were granted in error because of conflict between the General Plan and the zoning laws. The contractor has invested resources and time. In my opinion, a routine business investment to consummate the project. We have heard from one other owner of the four properties in question that she favors the R-2 designation. We have also heard the group attempt to purchase these properties, but they were not successful. The Roth Group has suggested that this option could again be explored. Also, we have been bombarded with themes, including morality, entitlement, the right to do the job, the right thing to do, job creation, low income housing and others. On the flip side, we heard that initially, there was one minor objection to the project. The contractor made an adjustment and there were no further objections. Subsequently, they now bave a petition of local residents, with over 300 signatures, signifYing objections to the project. You were advised by legal counsel that the contractor is not legal, entitled, to affirmation of the permits. In his opinion, not entitled to recovery, his meaning City Council. During the Planning Commission meeting, we listened to extensive discussion about the need for conformity, in this case conformity of signs and were then told the transition zone between commercial and residential properties in this instance was important. I submit there is no transition zone between any of the properties on Greenfield Place, between First and Second. What about conformity with R-Iproperties on Crystal Court and Greenfield Place? Finally, wben we analyze the layout of the project we can see six, I'll call them high-density structures. The project ouly addtesses two of the four properties in question, therefore in and of itself the project is not a complete solution. We see inadequate space between the back two dwellings and the homes on Greenfield Place. First A venue on-street parking will be reduced. Guest parking for three or four cars between dwellings is contingent upon, wbether it's three or four, contingent upon propositioned trasb containers. There is a common egress to all six buildings. I I I 21 I Also this project is about money. Based upon the number provided to me by multiple sources, the contractor can build six dwelling that sell for $500 apiece, or two dwellings that must sell for $900,000 apiece, very speculative. That's $1.2 million in additional sales. My neighbors on Crystal Court and on Greenfield Place believe that the value of their homes will be harmed. Current residents on the two properties outside the scope of this project, I suspect, feel that their values will be reduced by a zoning change to R-1. And I believe the City Council should attempt to maximize tax revenue. This is as it should be. However, with so many competing interests, the decision falls upon your shoulders. What is the right thing to do? Contrary to studies, parking is a problem Adding up to 12 additional cars would make a bad situation worse. Where will off road vehicles, boats, motor homes, other recreational vehicles be parked? That's obvious, in the guest parking. What about the nighnnare of common ingress, egress, cars blocking access, emergency vehicle access, failure to maintain? That's a situation ripe for both safety and neighborhood conflicts. And isn't that the ultimate point? The contractor moves in, buys up some properties, exploits the neighborhood, and six months later moves on. It's the current residents who must live with the cousequences of your decision tonight for the next 10, 20 or 30 years. So where do we, the residents, look for protection of our interests? We all chose to live in Arcadia. It has a fine tradition. We look to the General Plan that we support and that we believe defines the agenda for maintaining that tradition. And we look to the City Council to uphold the tradition of doing the right thing for the community, in this case, the right thing is to rezone the properties in question from R-2 to R-I. Mayor Segal: Thank you Mr. Marshall. Coun.Hmember Roger Chandler: Mr. Mayor, if there is no other public input, I move to close the public hearing. . Councilmember Kovacic: Second. Mayor Segal: Motion by Mr. Chandler, second by Mr. Kovacic. Seeing no objection, we will close the public hearing. Discussion? Coun.ilmember Chandler: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Segal: Mr. Chandler. I I 22 Councilmember Chandler: I guess, this is the third time we've dealt with this, I think. Anybow, what complicates this problem is clearly the other two lots north of the subject property. If this were to remain R-2 and six condominium units were put up, there's no question that another six would be put up on the other two lots, because once it's allowed, it's allowed. And so, in my mind , at least, there's no question what's going to happen with the other two remaining lots. I don't like to dwell on it, but I would like to go back to the 1954 event, which essentially impacted a lot of people economically and has put us in this position. That was prior to 1954, all of these lots on First Street, Sandra, Fourth, Greenfield, Third, Second, were all R-l. And in '54, it was in vogue to perpetuate this notion that there should be a buffer. And clearly, I do agree that this notion, and this concept, of a buffer is somewhat discriminatory because it said, we'll put, in those days there were no condos, so we'll just put renters next to connoercial and surely, not R-I folks. And that was, in my way of thinking, at least, the concept of the change that occurred in 1954, which brought us to all of these problems in all of these areas today. And in fact, that action, where people did build up to R-2 standards, all it did was put folks who were investing $750 a month to $1,000 a month in rent, next to people who have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in R-I real estate. So clearly that whole concept in '54 stinks, and got us in a lot of trouble. And I'm sorry, I do not for a minute think that the contractor exploited the City. The contractor might, known you since Little League, the contractor played by the rules. And so far, it looks like the contractor is going to get stung a liule, as the contractor did on Third, Fourth, Greenfield and all those other places where the 1954 judgment call affected the City of Arcadia. So, I personally have no animosity to the contractor, at all. The fellow followed the rules. But I'm gonna vote to uphold the downzoning from R-2 to R-I, largely because there's no simple solution to this and I think that holding this in abeyance is really hoping that another two pieces of property can be acquired and so what? Then the real money lies in remaining R-2. And as much as I don't like the 50-foot lots, they can build very handsome homes on 50- foot wide lot. And there's no requirement that the homes be valued at a million dollars. I'm convinced they'll be valued close to that, if they go through. Anyhow, I've said some of these things before, but.... That 1954 notion, that thing that took over the City, really had long term significant impacts, and we're just starting to find out the significance of that today. Mayor Segal: Any other connoents? Mr. Kovacic? I I I 23 I Councilmember Kovacic: Yeah, Mr. Mayor. I just want to at least float the idea of a continuance to make sure that no one else is harboring the same perception I have, that reasonable minds can sometimes come together and work things out. It does appear from the testimony that one side will accept no more than one unit per lot, and the other side will accept no less than six units per two lots. But sometimes when cooler heads prevail, there may be something there that can be acceptable to both parties, and since we do have a moratorium in effect, there's really no harm, except as I mentioned, having to sit through our exciting meetings again. But if I'm the only one laboring under that misconception, I certainly don't want to delay our decision. I'm just suggesting that, that is a possibility, and at least it's been requested by the applicant. Conncilmember Chang: Mr. Mayor, I kind of like the idea that we give the applicant three months to let them talk to the neighbors again and see whether they can come up with a solution satisfactory to both parties, both sides of the issue. Mayor Segal: Any other comments? OK. We need a motion. Councilmember Kovacic: Let me ask a question before either Roger or I make a motion. Councilmember Chandler: Somebody's gonna balance to decide that, isn't it? Councilmember Kovacic: That is why we have a Mayor, I guess. Councilmember Chandler: He votes last. Councilmember Kovacic: What is the current length of the moratorium? When does it expire? Ms. Butler: The moratorium should expire May 1 of next year. It was granted a 45 day urgency, and then we extended it for nine, no, excuse me, 11 months 15 days. So basically a year from May 1. Councilmember Kovacic: And during that period, assuming we don't take an action tonight, the owner can do nothing but build single family residences? Ms. Butler: That is correct. Councilmember Kovacic: Then I will make a motion that we continue this matter for 90 days to permit the parties to at least make one last attempt to try to work things out. Again, it may not be successful, but I don't see any harm in doing that, and should those negotiations be unsuccessful, then we will return and make our final decision. Councilmember Chang: Second. I I 24 Mayor Segal: OK, Motion by Mr. Kovacic and second by Dr. Chang. I'd like to ask a question of the City Attorney. What is the procedure, if a period of time was granted, and it comes back to us, what is the .procedure for it coming back to us? Another public hearing, correct? City Attorney Stephen Deitsch: You have a choice, you have opened and closed the public hearing tonight. However, if you want to hear from the parties in a public hearing context, then it would be appropriate to continue this matter to another public hearing roughly three months from tonight, if that's the motion, and at that time staff would notice a public hearing and you would conduct one, and then you could take action after that. Now, it's not to say you have to do it that way. You've already closed the public hearing, If you wish to do so, in my opinion, you can continue your action based on all of the testimony you've heard, but not hear any further testimony in a public hearing, if that's what you choose to do. Now, having heard the motion and the reason for it, it sounds to me as if what you intend is to hear back from the parties? Councilmember Kovacic: Well, I think it would be unfair to grant an extension for the parties to get together and then not allow them to at least report back to the Council. I understand everybody's desire to kind of get this behind them and not have to go through this again, but again, I do think that a certain cooling off period and at least an attempt to work things out is not a bad idea. So yeah, the intent of my motion was to allow the parties to testifY again in 90 days. Mayor Segal: Let me ask, why would that be necessary, why couldn't staff take that testimony themselves? There's two sides to the issue, each side can submit that issue, their position, and we'd be at the same place? Conncilmember Kovacic: That's probably true. I guess I'm more concerned about perception than nothing else. I'm always nervous about not giving the public an opportunity to address the Council and it's a minor problem with us, I mean, we're only talking about holding a public hearing... Mayor Segal: The fourth public hearing. Conncilmember Kovacic: Yes, well a public hearing. Mayor Segal: No, the fourth. Councilmember Kovacic: The fourth public hearing. I I I 25 I Mayor Segal: I just want make sure we be fair about the time we have connnitted to the issues. It would be the fourth public heaing. Councilmember Kovacic: No one can argue that we haven't spent a lot of time considering it okay. Councilmember Chandler: Mr. Mayor, I would like to continue the discussion before we vote. He has a somewhat persuasive way about him. Let's look at it realistically. The time that, if we were to go into a waiting period, to extend the decision, basicaIly involves purchasing two more pieces of land from what has been an unwilling property owner in the past. And that purchase would be hedged upon some kind of notion that, 10gicaIly, in my mind, I wouldn't go out and purchase those two pieces of property if I knew I could only put a single-family residence, another two 50-foot wide lots. So now I owil four 50-foot wide lots, and I'd be deeper in debt than I am now. So the only way [ would want time to negotiate to perhaps acquire those other two pieces of property would be if! thought [ could convince three of us that weIl, let's put some condominiums, six or eight, up against that gas station, and they maybe put some R-l down here close to Crystal Court. I mean, what other logic could there be? I'm asking you, and persuade me, that there's another logic other than just being kind of, why should we rush to judgment when we have time? 'And my point is even though we have time, the conclusion out there isn't promising. It's the same. Councilmember Kovacic: There's a certain art to the deal, [ guess, when ever you are negotiating something. And one of those parties, if we vote tonight, is going to lose and one of them is going to win. [f we continue this, they both have to consider that possibility in sitting down and tailing to each other about working something out. Now tonight they say, no, we wiIl accept no more than one unit per lot on one side, and on the other side, we wiIl accept no less than six units per two lots. Maybe there's something between there that would'be compatible with the neighbors, the property owner, and staff. Maybe there isn't. And, you know, if we vote tonight it's not going to end it, because we've already, I think, with the attorneys showing up and all the documents they've filed, they're obviously making a record for some reason, and I'm sure this isn't the last we've heard from them if the vote goes one way, and quite possibly it's not the last we've heard of the other folks if the vote goes the other way. So all I'm suggesting is that a period of time may come up with a compromise. Now if three folks here don't think that a compromise involving maybe less than six units and more than two units is ever going to be acceptable to us as a City, then it's kind of a waste of time. Because I agree I I 26 with Mr. Chandler that if we're just talking about somehow securing that other lot and shifting around where the units are going to be, that's not going to happen in 90 days, , agree with that. 'was looking at more of a, some kind of a collective effort to try come up with a development that would satisfy everybody. That may be a pipe dream, but you never know. CounciImember Chandler: What's your motion? 'don't want to have one of these motions where you're voting for something and you don't get what you thought you were voting for. Councilmember Kovacic: Well,' don't think I'm that persuasive that' would pass something by the very selective eyes of our Councilmembers. My motion was simply to continue the hearing for 90 days to give the parties an opportunity to sit down and try to work something out. Now, 'I'm not sure if' misread Mr. Kelly's body language or not, but maybe staff really doesn't want to deal with anything that is kind of between the one unit and the six units, and if that's the case, then maybe it's a waste of time, but my feeling is that there's no hann if you continne the hearing for 90 days. Mayor Segal: Now, Mr. City Attorney, can we have two motions on the floor at the same time or do we have to deal with his motion fIrst? 'want to provide options so that, you know, discerning people have choices. Mr. Deitsch: You can't have two motions of the type that you' think have in mind on the table the same time. The only other type of motion you can have is one of procedure. Mayor Segal: Well we really do have two motions. You can either vote yes, or you vote no. Mr. Kelly, do you want to make a comment? Mr. Kelly: Mayor, Council, my body language was , couldn't fIgure out what the noise was going on a few minutes ago. So, was tensing up to what that was. But' think to the question should staff in the middle of it. We can provide infonnation on the alternative zoning standards and impacts. ,think the direction is, is there going to be any compromise. ,think the Council's question is, are you going to have me compromise? Councilmember Kovacic: That's what I'm suggesting. 'fthe majority of this Council would not accept a compromise, assuming it was acceptable to the major parties in this controversy, then a continuance probably is meaningless. I I I 27 I Mr. Kelly: Right, you mean the compromise is between what, four and sixteen? If the Council is not going to go above four, four and twelve as a consideration. We're wasting more time. Councilmember Chandler: Well, in addition., Mr. Kelly, it requires some kind of one-an-one discussion with property owners, and basic commitments on things that are not pinned down. And that's still cramming a lot into a 30-day period of time. Because this has got to involve, in my mind. .. Mayor Segal: 90 days. Councilmember Chandler: 90 days. So what? All right, 90 more days. It's got to involve the acquisition of two more lots in order to even... Mr. Kelly: Not necessarily. I'm just being Devil's advocate. CounciImember Chandler: Well just play that out in your head. You're going to convince these homeowners that well, I'll tell you what. Put four units there instead of six, and that'll be okey-doke. It's come across to me, clearly, that R-2 in the R-I areas is creating a lot of consternation with folks. Mr. Kelly: Well, I guess we're back to the question. Is the Council going to say, it's four only and leave it, or could it be R-2, with 8 units, 6 units. Councilmember Chandler: My motion will follow even though it won't make the motion to make it R-l. Mr. Kelly: OK. Mayor Segal: We have a motion. Does everyone know what they're voting on? CounciImember Chandler: That was my concern. Mayor Segal: Do you now have an understanding. Councitmember Chandler: I do, I know exactly where I'm at. Councilmember Kovacic: Well, and to help everybody out. If you can never see a situation where you would want more than two units on the two subject lots, then you ought to vote no for the continuance. Because the ouly reason., I see that as really the only area of potential compromise is somehow coming up with some kind ofa development that's going to satisfY the owner, but also mitigate all the concerns of the neighbors. And, as I said, it may be a pipe dream, but I think it's worth a try. Mr. Kelly: Just for a clarification. I think you'd probably like to set it for the October 16 City Council meeting, for the record. Councilmember Kovacic: Okay. I I 28 Mayor Segal: Ms. Marshall. Mayor Pro Tempore Gail A. Marshall: ,think City Attorney had something. I'll wait, I'll let him go first. Mr. Deitsch: What I heard by way of a motion was to continue the hearing. By that, in my opinion, the maker of the motion indicates he wishes to reschedule a public hearing, or continue the public hearing, whichever, until October 16. So it would be a public hearing item. Councilmemher Kovacic: And for the record, that would be the fourth hearing. Mayor Segal: Mrs. Marshall, do you have a comment? Mayor Pro Tempore Gail A. Marshall: 'sat here and listened to everything and this is really, really a tough one. It truly is. No matter what we do, we kind of, excuse the pun, end up with our behind in hot water, here, no matter what you do. 'would like to think that there could be a meeting of minds, but' think at this point we're rather wasting our time with that, personally. 'fthis were the property that was directly behind the service station, , would have different consideration on this and possibly say, OK, well maybe we could take less density but still have multiple. But this is not the property right next to the service station, this causes a problem for me. I have to agree with Mr. Chandler on this one as far as, because of that other piece of property sitting there. Mr. Mayor, it's up to you. Mayor Segal: Any more questions? OK, take the roll. City Clerk June D. Alford: Councilmember Chandler? Counci1member Chandler: No. Ms. Alford: Chang? Councilmember Chang:' Yes. Ms. Alford: Kovacic? Councilmember Kovacic: Y cs. Ms. Alford: Marshall? Mayor Pro Tempore Marshall: No. Ms. Alford: And Segal. Mayor Segal: Yes. I I I 29