Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPTEMBER 5,2000 I I I vllO . ,)'0 f1 'i;) , ,J' 42:0186 l ( CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE AUDIO AND VIDEO TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ROLL CALL 1, 2 Ollv '/0 3. Off\!- <10 4, 4a O/I(D I'~ HIGHlANDS & OAKS HOA'S MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING September 5, 2000 The City Council and Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, September 5,2000 at 5:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of the City Council Chamber. PRESENT: Council/Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic ABSENT: None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None, At 5:04 p,m, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency RECESSED to Closed Session. CLOSED SESSION - CITY COUNCIL Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956,9(c) to discuss potential litigation - one (1) case, CLOSED SESSION - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code Section 54965,8) Property: 55 W. Huntington Drive 21 Morlan Place 28 W. Santa Clara Street 121,145,155 N. Santa Anita Avenue 101 N, Santa Anita Avenue 41 W, Huntington Drive 35 W, Huntington Drive 27 W, Huntington Drive 25 N, Santa Anita Avenue 11, 15, 19 W. Huntington Drive 5 W, Huntington Drive Negotiating Parties - Agency Under Negotiation: Property Owner: William Adkins Hann Ling Shaw Ellsworth Dahlgren Ohannes Berberian Walter Griffin Robert Johannsen Gary & Dan Braun Richard Gretebeck Ralph Wolveck Gary Barringer Anthony Fanticoia Deputy Executive Director Price and terms of payment At 5:50 p.m. the Regular Meeting RECONVENED, STUDY SESSION - CITY COUNCIL Consideration of the request from the Board of Directors of the Highlands Home Owners Association and the Oaks Homeowners Association to install a Welcome Sign in the median 1 9/5/00 waCOMESIGN (APPROVED) 42:0187 on Santa Anita Avenue north of Sycamore Avenue, Staff researched the request and presented the information in the September 5, 2000 staff report. The report indicated that there does not appear to be any precedent for this type of request in Arcadia, nor is it currentiy permitted by Code, The signage request states that the proposed sign would be approximately 14' wide and 5' high. Staff noted the actual height of the sign would reach 7' since there is about 2' of clear space from the ground up to the bottom of the sign: The sign would be conslFucte,d of sandblasted redwood, with the names of the two-homeowner associations and a Welcome salutation. The Associations are requesting approval for installation of the sign in the median on Santa Anita Avenue above Foothill, as well as City cooperation in funding the installation, construction of a brick planter, and payment of ongoing watering and lighting costs. The proposal does not address whether or not they would want the City to maintain the sign, Currently the Arcadia Municipal Code does not allow for permanent signs to be placed in the right-of-way. The September 5th staff report noted that there have been exceptions to the Code although staff is not aware of the circumstances of how those signs were approved, It was noted the Arcadia Chamber of Commerce has a sign in the Santa Anita Avenue median south of Colorado Bouievard and there are other locations in Arcadia where directionai signs have been placed for churches. The staff report noted the City Council may wish to amend the Code if approval is given to the Associations for the requested sign. The City currently has five (5) home owner associations, all north of Huntington Drive, At this date none of them have identification signs. I Jeff Bowen, President, and Jack Lamp, Vice-President of the Highlands Home Owners Association were present to respond to Council's questions, Considerable discussion ensued, Councilmember Chandler felt that the phrase on the proposed sign "The Home Owners Associations" was inappropriate, Mr. Bowen and Mr, Lamp agreed to remove this I phrase. Further, Council did not believe the City should pay for the installation of the sign, Mr. Bowen stated that it would not be a problem for the Highlands HOA to pay this cost. Mayor Kovacic was in favor of the signage designating these two areas in the City and, stated, in part, that he would like to see other areas in the City have names also, Further, the Mayor noted the proposed sign is consistent with the overall City signage program soon to be initiated, City Manager Kelly commented that staff would coordinate the design of the sign, the location, and perform inspections of the installation. In response to a Council question, City Attorney Deitsch noted the sign would belong to the City since it would be in the City right-of-way, The City Attorney noted also that an amendment to the Code wouid be required to permit this type of signage, The City Manager commented that an agreement would be crafted with the Home Owner Associations on the liability and indemnification", those kinds of legal issues, so that both sides understand who is responsible for what, a change in the Code would be presented, and at the same time an agreement prepared between the City and the two HOA's, The Mayor noted that this would be a prototype with regulations that would apply to all of the other areas in the City. It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Segal and CARRIED to APPROVE the request of the Highlands Home Owners Association and The Oaks Homeowners Association to place a sign in the Santa Anita Avenue median with the conditions noted in an agreement to be prepared by staff. 2 9/5/00 I I I I 42:0188 4b. Hl'BfTATFOR Consideration of a low/moderate income housing development coordinated with an Habitat HUMANITY HSNGFor Humanity Housing Program, The former Mounted Police site located at Live Oak Avenue PROG.-(UveOak and Sixth Avenue is currently partially used by the City Public Works Services as a & 6th Ave,- warehouse and a water storage facility. The Mounted Police building, which fronted on Live FeasbiilyStudy Oak, was demolished some four years ago. The site is long and narrow, it abuts the Santa dueil 00 day3) Anita Wash to the east and an access road to the Par-3 Golf Course on the west. The site is approximately 102' wide by 530' in length and approximately 53,890 square feet. The August d S- ~v -,;,; I 30, 2000 staff report noted also, the site may have some uncompacted fiil due to its proximity to the Santa Anita Wash. In the discussion of a possible Habitat for Humanity Housing Program (Habitat), several issues were consideted: location, understanding Habitat's program, ramifications of a project and alternatives, City Manager Kelly introduced Wayne Cruse from the Habitat organization, and noted the attendance of Ruth and Charles Gilb, who have expressed interest in working with Habitat and the City on a project. The City Manager noted the City/Agency has a responsibility to provide low/moderate housing... the City by the Housing Element and the Agency by a Housing Assistance Program. He noted that, coordination with a Habitat project would not be the same as a normal Agency housing project. Mr. Cruse presented an overview of the Habitat organization, which is an international organization founded in 1976 in the State of Georgia, Habitat is composed of a series of chapters and affiliates. Mr. Cruse represents the San Gabriel Valley Habitat for Humanity. Habitat builds housing for underpriviledged or low income people", families in particular, Cities finance land and provide some help with developing the land, Cities do not finance construction of the houses, The families in need of housing work with Habitat volunteers and put in $500 toward a split equity as part of their down payment... then Habitat gives them a' typical 20 year no interest loan for the balance of the cost of the home. The homes are soid to these applicants for approximately $75;$85,000, The market price of such a home might be $130-$150,000, depending on the location and the structure itself, Mr. Cruse added. Families are seiected based on need, ability to pay and income. Habitat looks for people with an income of approximately $35,000 maximum for a family of six, ond around $25,000 for a family of four. The funds the City puts in for the land are covered by a "sUent second", If the new home owner sells the home before occupying it for 20 hears, they must pay back these funds to the City. Considerable discussion ensued centered on the Live Oak site and the possibility of other sites in the City; City zoning; City development standards; a product that will meet the income goals of Habitat For Humanity and also meet the City's zoning and development standards, school district concerns, possible disruption of the Par-3 Golf operation, senior housing and uncompacted soil at the Live Oak site. Donald Penman, Assistant City Manager/Director of Development Services, presented an overview of the former Mounted Police site on Live Oak." although narrow, it could work for a low/moderate housing project. He noted also the Redevelopment Agency is required by law to build housing,.. the Agency's tax increment fund is growing by $600,000 a year and the Agency must soon act on this housing requirement. Mayor Kovacic stated, in part, his vision relative to the requirement to provide low/moderate income housing in the City, The City contributes the property and that is the end of the City's participation. The Live Oak property is a good location for a Habitat project. Further, the Gilbs have indicated that they are willing to put up a significant amount of money for a Habitat project. He envisions a pocket-park on Live Oak at the subject site and three or four units behind the park.., and an access driveway at the east side of the site, The Mayor commented that Habitat is a specialist in problem properties and they can make the project fit. 3 9/5/00 4c. BANNERS IN CITY RIW (SI1..dy Sess, to be schErlJed) Q I~ ,) . 30 42:0189 Mayor Pro tem Segal noted the question that Council should address first would be whether or not the City should work with Habitat, and then address the site question. He is not I convinced the Live Oak site is the best site for low/moderate income housing, however, he is not prepared to wait another year to find a site. If it is decided that Live Oak is not the site for a program Council should instruct staff to get a broker and return to Council in 90 days with three sites or one site if three cannot be found, to compare with the Live Oak site. City Manager Kelly commented staff will return to the City Council/Agency in 90 days with a feasibility study of how it all comes together. Mayor Pro tem Segal concurred, The City Manager stated in part, that $10,000 be authorized to fund the real estate broker and possibiy an economic consultant. He noted also if the study indicates that a plan does not work, other types of housing, such as a senior housing project or first time home buyers could be considered, It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tem Segal, seconded by Councilmember Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to INSTRUCT staff to find property that would be feasible for the City to construct some kind of a project with Habitat For Humanity; if this is not feasible the City Council will consider the property for other housing projects, AYES: NOr::S: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic None None For many years the City has had a banner program that allows the display of banners in the public right-of-way. This includes both over the street banners and banners hung from individual utility poles, Regarding the banners hung from individual utility poles, some are owned by the City and others owned by the Southern California Edison Company (SCE), Recently staff has experienced an increase in the number of requests for use of locations where banners can be hung. This has resulted in conflicts over scheduling and raised other issues disclosed in the September 5th staff report. Additionally, the City Council, as part of the FY 2000-2001 budget process, appropriated $60,000 for a citywide "wayfinding" and banner program. Implementation of this plan and the increas'ing interest for placing banners in the right-of-way necessitates a review of the issues and possibly a policy direction from the City Council regarding this matter. Banners spanning the entire street can be displayed at seven locations in the City. The poles from which they are hung are about 25-feet high and the banners themselves are about four (4) feet vertical. These banners have been used for many years and can only advertise a community event for a non-profit organization, whose purpose is pubiic, community oriented, charitable or otherwise consistent with the purpose. In addition, there are 99 double-sided decorative light poles in the downtown area on Huntington Drive and 37 single-sided decorative poles on First Avenue, These 136 poles can display 240 banners. Other banner sites are discussed in the September 5th staff report. In a brief discussion the City Manager noted that Santa Anita Race Track has a pending application for a banner permit for the entire racing season between December and April, 2001. The staff report noted while Santa Anita Race Track is certainly a unique venue, use of the banner program by this for-profit organization may set a precedent for other business organizations, At this time staff recommended that Santa Anita be granted permission to post their banners for this coming season whiie the Citywide banner program is in preparation, Council concurred. The entire banner program will then be returned to the Citj Council for consideration. Staff noted, at some point the Council will need to consider the five issues set forth in the I September 5th staff report: 1) Advertising/business sponsors; 2) Non-profit versus for-profit I 4 9/5/00 1 'I 1- ;: '- I 42:0190 use of the banners; 3) Promotion of a singular event; 4) Limits on duration of display, and,S) Limits on number of banners installed, By consensus the City Council determined to set a study session as soon as possible to deal with the issue of banners in the public right-of-way. At 5:55 p.m. the Council/Agency RECESSED and RECONVENED in the Council Chambers at 7:08 p,m. 'J INVOCATION Pastor Dan Earp, Calvary Chapel of Arcadia PLEDGE OF JoAnn Scott, Executive Director, Arcadia Red Cross ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL 5. ORD, & RES. READ BY TITLE ONLY 6. PLANNING COMSN. , (Sleeter) ," 7, MAYOR'S COMMUNITY SVC. AWARD (Tseng) 8. MAYOR'S SENIOR SVC, AWARD (Mr, & Mrs, Hubbard) PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic None City Attorney Deitsch announced the subject discussed at the Closed Session held earlier this evening, No reportable action was taken. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None. It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Chang and CARRIED that ordinances and resolutions be read by title only and that the reading in full be WAIVED, PRESENTATIONS Mayor Kovacic and Councilmember Chang presented a plaque of appreciation to outgoing Planning Commissioner, John Sieeter in recognition of his service to the community, Mayor Kovacic presented the September, 2000 Mayor's Community Service Award to Kay Tseng for dedicated service to the local community for the past sixteen years. Mrs, Tseng's community participation includes the Chinese Parents' Booster Club, Foothills Middle School PTA Council, Hospitality and Membership Committee, Music Club and Intercuitural Committee, She is currently the president of the Arcadia Chinese Association, Mayor Kovacic presented the September, 2000 Mayor's Senior Service Award to Vern and Eileen Hubbard for their contribution and participation in many organizations that serve the local community. Vern is a former president of the Arcadia Lions Club and an active member of the Board of Directors, Eiieen is a former President of the Assistance League of Arcadia, also a former President of the Arboretum Los Voluntarios, Vern and Eileen bring a genuine sense of caring to their local activities by willing and enthusiastic contributing to make a better Arcadia. 9. G,R.E,A.T. Mayor Kovacic, Police Chief Hinig and Officer Ken Harper, presented Mayor's Certificates of (Gunderson Appreciation to Mr. Ray Hutton, Gunderscn Chevrolet, new car Manager, for donating a 2000 Chevrolet, Chevrolet Extreme Pick Up valued at over $25,000 on a three-year cost free lease to the Arcadia Svc. Ctr" Arcadia Police Department. The truck will be used to promote the G.R.EAT, program at Sno-Valley community events. Camper Shells & Cralgar Designs) 5' 9/5/00 10. lOa, FINAL EIR GP 99-001. Z 99-003 AND T A 99-006 (Westfield Shopping Town) (APPROVED W/MODIFICA- TIONS) 42:0191 Mayor Kovacic also presented Certificates of Appreciation to Mr. Samy Siriani and Mr. Simon Siriani, owners of Arcadia Service Center, Mr. Antonio Villasenor, owner of Sno-Vailey I Camper Sheils, Ei Monte, and Mr. Craig Nuss, owner of Craigar Designs, for outfitting the G.R.E.A.T. Truck with a custom exhaust system; custom graphics and a custom fiberglass bed cover at no cost to the City. PUBLIC HEARINGS Consideration of the report and recommendation to approve the Final Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Amendment GP 99-001, Zone Change Z 99-003 and Text Amendment TA 99-006 to ailow the construction of a 600,000 square foot expansion to the existing Westfield Shoppingtown - Santa Anita. Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator, presented the staff report stating, in part, that tonight's presentation has been divided into three parts: 1) Environmental Impact Analysis; 2) Discussion of the applications; and, 3) the City Council Public Hearing process. On the basis of the initial study prepared by staff, it was determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was necessary and was prepared in accordance with the California (TRANSCRIPT Environmentai Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Commission at a public hearing on July 25, HAS BEEN 2000 reviewed the Final EiR as weil as the specific applications. On August 8, the Planning PREPARED) Commission voted 4-0 with one member absent to adopt Resolutions 1613, 1614, 1615, 1616 and 1617 relating to the Final EIR, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Text 0<,1 \ -: _I () Amendment. The City Council is the final decision making body for purposes of certifying the < Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and approving the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Text Amendment. Westfield Corporation purchased the mail In, September, 1998. Currently, there is a total of I 1,197,000 gross sq, ft, with 922,450 sq, ft. of gross leasable area. The General Plan designation for this property is commercial with the floor area ratio (FAR) ailowing .40% of the site to be developed, which will ailow up to an additional 300,000 sq. ft. of gross leasable area to the existing mail. As part of the proposed applications, Westfield requested to allow an expansion of up to 600,000 sq. ft, of gross leasable area to the existing mall. The proposal also includes two 10,000 sq, ft. pads to be located at the northwest corner of the site, adjacent to Baldwin Avenue, Westfield also proposed a major open-air expansion of the mall building to the east. The expansion will include the addition of new tenants, and use categories not currently located in the mall. Use categories may include a multiplex theater, various restaurants, lifestyle tenants such as home furnishing stores, department stores, food market and entertainment and specialty retailers, Also, the envelope as proposed could allow for potential future expansion to the west. Possible multilevel parking structures on the east side of the existing mall could be built, and additional parking spaces will be added. Access to and from the site will continue to be along Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive. The City Council must certify the adequacy of the Final EIR prior to approving the project. The EIR discussed three aiternatives, One, the no-project alternative, would allow an additional 300,000 sq. ft, to be constructed within the current envelope in accordance with the existing Council Resolution No, 4185; Alternate two - Reduced Intensity would slightly reduce the bulk and mass of the total expansion (600,000 sq, ft. to 450,000 sq. ft.); and, Alternative three, shift the mall expansion to the west. In their review of the Final EIR, the Planning Commission noted that the shared parking issue needs to be further reviewed, also, the traffic study should specifically discuss the racetrack impacts, Upon certification of the Final EIR, the City Council took action on the General Plan Amendment, the Zone Change and the Text Amendment. The text amendment request was broken down into three separate I requests. The first request was to amend the regional shopping center parking space requirements from 4,75 spaces per 1,000 sq, It, to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 feet of gross 6 9/5/00 I ,. ~ ; p",,' , ~') I'j .~\ ~'~'I" ~" ,," 42:0192 I leasable area; second, was to add a definition to the AMC, which states, "The gross leasable area shall be the total floor area designated for the tenants' occupancy and exclusive use"; the third was that the floor area within the mall common area for kiosks and carts not be subject to the parking requirements, The detailed overview of the applicant requests and Planning Commission recommendations are included in the September 5, 2000 staff report. Following the staff report, Ms. ,Butler, Community Development Administrator, responded to Council's questions: Westfield requested that the parking requirement ratio be changed to 4,75 of gross leasable area (GLA), which"would result in fewer parking spaces than the current 4.75 of modified gross floor area; the H8 height overlay is already in existence. Ms. Butler noted the current structure is over 70 feet in height; no specific plans have been filed by Westfield for the' proposed expansion; staff and the Planning Commission recommend that a parking study be deferred, which is based on Westfield's proposal of 4,5; the building pads for two proposed restaurants, A & B, do not encroach into the perimeter berm areas; Westfield needs an adjustment to the FAR to achieve the 600,000 square foot maximum expansion of the mall; staff recommended that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) not be required for eating establishments within the mall; staff recommended a 38,000 sq. ft. maximum for a mall food store; and, the' applicant has requested five additional signs along the perimeter of the mall. On the advice of City Attorney Deitsch, Councilmembers disclosed various contacts with persons for or against the proposed expansion of Westfield Shoppingtown, Mayor Kovacic OPENED the Public Hearing, ..1 John Healv, Development Director, Westfield Corporation, introduced the Westfield team: David Hokanson, Vice-President of Development; Terry Walton, General Manager of Westfield - Santa Anita; Wendy Albert, Marketing Director of Westfield - Santa Anita; Frank Sherco, Traffic Engineer with Parsons Company; Ms. Patel, Traffic Engineer also with Parsons Company; and, Jeff Pate, General Manager of JC Penney. Mr. Healy outlined in detail the changes to the General Plan & Municipal Code that Westfield has requested of the City. David Hokanson, Vice President of Development for the Westfield Corporation, 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, Mr, Hokanson presented Westfield's entitlement package to the Council which he described as the first step in giving Westfield the tools necessary to refine an expansion plan for Westfield at Santa Anita. Mr. Hokanson explained what gross leasable area (GLA) means in the regional shopping center industry, where enclosed common areas do not specifically generate traffic, Referencing the expansion zones, Mr. Hokanson noted it is important to keep in mind in the absence of a specific entitlement, Westfield needs to maintain the greatest amount of flexibility In planning the site for current and future phases of deveiopment. Referring to a Council question regarding the proposed restaurant pads, A and B, he noted there are practical components such as exposure for restaurants which determine where they are located within the project area.., and other practical concerns such as parking. It was noted by Council and verified by Mr. Hokanson that Westfield will offer Nordstrom's an opportunity to expand to the west if Nordstrom chooses to do so. I Lewis Pollard. 405 South Baldwin Avenue, expressed his concerns about noise and traffic and the lack of an overall coordinated plan for future development of the Baldwin Avenue corridor. Parking on Baldwin Avenue, Hugo Reid and Ranch Road is also of concern with the expansion of the mall, and offsite parking will be a problem. Mr. Pollard noted the close proximity of the proposed restaurants to his home on Baldwin Avenue. 7 9/5/00 42:0193 Scott Savre, 444 West Huntington Drive, stated that he approves the proposed mall expansion, but is concerned about the proposed parking ratio reduction. He felt that reducing I the ratio to 4,5 stalls per thousand sq. ft. instead of 4.7 stalls would make matters worse. Mr, Sayre also expressed his objection to the proposed extension of the D and H-8 overlay zone to the southeast corner of the property, Jeff Paoe, J C Penney, store manager for 30 years, spoke in support of the proposed expansion project, he felt that with Internet shopping being so easy, people need a reason to come to the mall and it requires some changes. Ben Garrett, 512 Vaquero Road, spoke in favor of his neighbor (Westfield Shoppingtown), stating, that the proposed expansion project will generate revenue which would allow the City to benefit economically. He felt that reasonable commerce is vital to any community. Audra Minet, a merchant inside the Westfield Shoppingtown, noted the amount of jobs that this project will create and urged Council to look favorably upon the proposed project and approve the expansion. Lee Shimmin, President, Arcadia Chamber ,of Commerce is in favor of the project and fell that Westfield shopping center is the mechanism that will bring the City the type of mall it needs. Tonv Henrich, President, Lower Rancho and the College areas Homeowners Association, expressed his concerns with regard to the increased traffic, parking and commercialization of Baldwin Avenue. John MacDonnell, resident for 35 years, expressed concerns with regard to the parking structures on the south side of the mall, the two pads for the restaurants and the signs. He I felt that one sign on Huntington Drive would not hurt but a billboard type sign would be detrimental to the City, Audra Minet, noted that the reputation of Westfield and the way they buiid their malls, their consideration for nature, their design and signage would add to the environment of Arcadia. Vincent Folev. 320 Cambridge Drive. Noted that he was led to believe that all the mall expansion was going to be to the east, which he was in favor of, but tonight one thing that surprised virtually everybody was to learn about putting two pads at the edge of Baldwin. He felt if the Council eliminated those pads, they would not have any opposition to the project at all. David Hokanson, responded to the concerns expressed by residents stating, in part, that he heard four key issues this evening; one - is the pads along Baldwin Avenue and their proximity to residential areas; two -is increased parking along Baldwin Avenue, which may serve as a detriment to residential area; the third element is existing noise and the potential for increased noise along Baldwin Avenue and the adjacent residential and the last element is the reduction of the proposed parking ration from the 4,75 to 4,5, With regard to the parking issue Mr. Hokanson referred to a letter that was submitted to staff earlier this afternoon, and stated that Westfield is willing to accept or remain with the existing code provision that requires 4,75 stalls per 1,000 of gross leasable area. By approval of the EIR and in conjunction with the expansion, the traffic along Baldwin Avenue will improve to a level that is satisfactory to the community as a whole. In response to Councilmember Marshall with regard to the Santa Anita Race Track offering I parking to the mall between November and January and the'possibility of the expansion of the race track, Mr. Terry Walton, General Manager, Westfield Shoppingtown, Santa Anita 8 9/5/00 I ~I I o <{/s-- "10 Os"I' - r/O ch 3~-- ~O .i;L,.,',T 'I" i , 'If"'" I ' " '. 42:0194 stated, in part, due to a cooperation agreement between the mall and the race track the mall uses 225 parking spaces in the race track parking lot during the holiday season. David Doll, Executive Vice President, Westfield Shoppingtown, said that there are many more factors that go into the adequacy of parking than simply just the count. One of Westfield's traffic studies was to go through a theoretical study, and show that a 4.5 ratio was going to be sufficient. Considerable discussion ensued. Staff noted that gross floor area is the easiest way of determining parking ratio. That is the way of calculation for office buildings, individuai commercial buildings, retail buildings and so forth. In a mall, because of the enclosed common areas that are not devoted to retail space, the current code based it upon modified gross floor area, which takes out the public corridors, lobby areas, the closets, mechanical and custodial. The gross leasable area is proposed to be the actual leasable space within the mall itself. It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tem Segal, seconded by Councilmember Marshall and CARRIED to CLOSE the public hearing, Final Environmentallmoact ReDort Following a brief discussion, it was MOVED by Council member Chandler, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Segal and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 6197, entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN EXPANSION PROJECT, ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM," AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic None None General Plan Amendment - GP 99-001 Mayor Kovacic noted that adoption of Resolution No, 6198 allows Westfield mall an expansion of 600,000 sq, ft, as opposed to the 300,000 sq. ft, which is currently allowed, It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Councilmember Chandler' and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT. RESOUTION NO, 6198 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TABLE 2-1 - CITY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SECTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO FROM .40 TO ,50 FOR THE WESTFIELD SHOPPINGTOWN - SANTA ANITA (THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BALDWIN AVENUE AND HUNTINGTON DRIVE)," AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic None None Zone Chance. Z 99-003 Considerable discussion ensued centered on the proposed building Pads, A and B, for two restaurants and the requested placement of each in proximity tc the mall and to each other. 9, 9/5/00 ()~ f... "I,J O} 80. It) ;:) /, I', -qt;J 6,>~ "d . t1~ 42:0195 The proposed pads would be situated behind the berm", Pad A, basically at Baldwin Avenue to the west of JC Penney, and Pad B at Baldwin Avenue across from the Los Angeles County I Public Works District Office, Both pads would be situated at major entrances to mall parking. In the discussion Mayor Kovacic commented that his preference would be to eliminate both pads or at least building Pad A from the development, because in an urban sense these two pads are anathema to what was originally contemplated by this mall. Councilmember Marshall suggested that both pads be relocated to a more acceptable area. Councilmember Chandler did not think there was anything to gain by advising Westfield that they could only develop one of the restaurant pads. Councilmember Chang put forth a MOTioN, which was seconded by Councilmember Chandler to APPROVE Zone Change Z 99-003, which included building Pads A and B situated as proposed by the developer. Councilmember Chang felt that the placement of Pads A and B would give good visibility to the restaurants, Mayor Pro tem Segal felt the motion should be to approve the location of building Pad Band relocate Pad A, Mr. Hokanson commented that Westfield would be willing to relocate building Pad A further north to building Pad B to create a separate zone... a combined area A and B into one block across the street from the County Public Works Department. Mayor Kovacic REOPENED the public hearing. Mr. Doll, commented that the proposal to move the two restaurant pads together accomplishes some of the things the residents have desired, and gives Westfield the I opportunity to bring in those types of signature restaurants that they are trying to attract. Lewis Polard, commented that Mr, Hokanson's proposal to move building Pad A is acceptable to him, It was then MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Segal and CARRIED to RECLOSE the Public Hearing. Councilmember Chang MODIFIED his earlier MOTION to APPROVE Zone Change Z 00-003 modified to create a zone for building Pads A and B that is north of the extension of Hugo Reid and east of Baldwin Avenue, the dimensions in which Westfield could place two 10,000 sq, ft, pads for restaurant use; and, DIRECT staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance for introduction at the September 19, 2000 regular City Council meeting, seconded by Councilmember Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic None None City Attorney Deitsch noted a legal description of the proposed building Pads A and B will be part of the ordinance, Text Amendment TA 99-006 - Reauests 1 and 2 - Parkin a Amendment and Gross Leasable Area Mr. Penman announced that Westfield has modified their request for a parking amendment I to use the new definition for fioor area and keep the ratio of 4.75 sq, ft, per thousand of gross leasable area (GLA). 10 9/5/00 1 ;1 I 0.,/)' 9< 1 O\~()-/7- cJ)/~-, t/(i '. ';' '~'> "j ',t,. '1f," 1- .' . , 1 ,- )' "."" -, ~ 42:0196 It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Mayor Pro tern Segal and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to DIRECT staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance for introduction at the September 19 Council meeting incorporating the modified request for 4,75 parking spaces per one-thousand sq. ft. of gross leasable area. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic None None I' Text Amendment - Recuest 3 - Kiosks It was MOVED by Mayor Kovacic, seconded by Councilmember Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to 01 RECT staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance for introduction at the September 19 Council meeting incorporating staff's recommendation to calculate the required parking spaces to include kiosks, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic None None Chances to Resolution No, 4185 - Desicn Overlav and Performance Standards Considerable discussion occurred regarding the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirement for restaurants with incidental uses within the mall. Staff recommended that a CUP not be required as long as the restaurant was located in Building C of the mall. Staff noted that over the 20-plus years that the mall has been in existence, there has never been a Conditional Use Permit denied for a use inside the mall area when it relates to, and the primary use has been restaurant, which requires a CUP. Uses outside, such as the proposed restaurants, would still require a Conditional Use permit. In consideration of the inclusion of a food store in the mall expansion, staff recommended this facility be limited to 38,000 sq. ft. Westfield requested that there be no such restriction required, Mr, Penman noted staff's concern was to ensure that a specialty grocery store go in rather than a supermarket which would take up square footage beller devoted to retail or entertainment uses. Staff agreed that they would try and define "specialty store" for the Council. Councilmembers Chandler and Chang felt that Westfield could beller decide square footage for a food store. Mayor Kovacic and Mayor Pro tern Segal felt the 38,000 sq, ft. allowance for a food store should remain, If this does not work out the numbers can be adjusted and the resolution modified, In a brief discussion on signage, Westfield agreed to two free-standing signs, and two tenant Identification signs not exceeding 500 sq, ft, each, which will allow up to four tenants per monument. Referencing design review factors related to building Pads A and B in terms of setback and building height, it was MOVED by Mayor Pro tern Segal, seconded by Councilmember Marshall and CARRI ED on roll call vote as follows that the developer has accepted one-story structures of approximately 25 feet in height, with a building setback of 20 feet and if the building height exceeds 25 feet, then a 35 foot setback is required; and no portion of an existing berm shall be removed, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segai and Kovacic None None 11 9/5/00 10b. ORDINANCE NO. 2128 (Crematories - Com'I/lndus!. Zone) (ADOPTED) o 5"Eo -f.t:., 42:0197 Consideration of the report and recommendation to approve Text Amendment 00-002, and adopt Ordinance 2128 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA AMENDING SECTION 9275.1.51 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT CREMATORIES IN CoO OR ANY LESS RESTRICTIVE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONE WITH AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT." I Mayor Kovacic OPENED the Public Hearing. No one came forward to address the City Council. It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Segal and CARRIED to CLOSE the public hearing, It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that ORDINANCE NO. 2128 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic None None 10c. ORDINANCE Consideration of the report and recommendation to adopt an Industrial Waste Ordinance to NO.2129 provide legal authority for an Industrial Waste program to review, permit and inspect (Indus!. Waste dischargers of potentially damaging industrial wastewater within the City, Staff recommended Regulations) that a corresponding fee schedule be adopted by resolution to provide for recovery of plan (INTRODUCED) checking, permitting, inspection and enforcement costs incurred by the City. The fees being RESOLUTION considered are the same fees as adopted by the County of Los Angeles and are not NO. 6194 expected to be in excess of the City's costs for performing the necessary services. The (Indus!. Waste majority of this work will be completed by John Hunter and Associates with contract oversight Permit & Fees) and some assistance by City staff. (ADOPTED) 0C510~/f1 I This program is an effort to protect City-owned sewer lines form obstruction, damage, explosion or illegal disposal of hazardous wastes, The program will help prevent sewer blockages and overflows that may damage property and pollute storm drains and receiving waters, It will assist the City to comply with the conditions of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permi!. Mayor Kovacic OPENED the Public Hearing. No one came forward to address the Council. It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tem Segal, seconded by Councilmember Chang and CARRIED to CLOSE the public hearing, In response to Council's question staff explained in detail the proposed industrial waste regulations, permit fees and wastewater discharge problems, stating in part, that the City has experienced problems with industrial wastes (oil and grease) clogging sewers and causing backups. Some industrial users are causing extraordinary blockages, which require special cleaning by City crews, On May 2, 2000, City Council awarded a professional services agreement to John Hunter and Associates for implementation and monitoring of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Industrial Waste Program. John Hunter and Associates will complete the majority of the work authorized under the proposed ordinance with contract oversight and some assistance by City staff. Councilmember Marshall expressed concern with regard to the industrial waste program. I She felt that this program is too extensive and it is a hardship on the small and medium size businesses. In her opinion this program will discourage businesses from coming to Arcadia. 12 9/5/00 I ~I I .:,"'r ,;~r..., ] .,.r ,'t " I ":11~' " : ,.". "i 42:0198 It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Councilmember .Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT RESOLUTION NO, 6194 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING INDUSTRIAL WASTE PERMIT AND OTHER RELATED SERVICE FEES," Resolution 6194 shall not become effective until thirty (30) days after the second reading of Ordinance No, 2129; and, INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO, 2129 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 10 TO ARTICLE VII OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING INDUSTRIAL WASTE REGULATIONS AND ASSOCIATED SERVICE FEES." AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Segal and Kovacic Councilmember Marshall None 10d. ORDINANCE Consideration of the report and recommendation to conduct a public hearing and adopt NO. 2130 Resolution No. 6195 establishing storm water and urban runoff controls for new construction (Storm Water- and service fees related thereto and introduce Ordinance No. 2130 adding sections 7823(k) New Const. and 7824 to, and amending section 8130,11 of the Arcadia Municipal Code pertaining to the Fees) implementation of storm water and urban runoff controls for new construction, and imposing (INTRODUCED) related service fees, RESOLUTION NO, 6195 (ADOPTED) en 10 fjt] ( I In July 1996, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Regional Board), issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to the County of Los Angeles and eighty-five incorporated cities, including the City of Arcadia, as permittees. The permit is intended to control and minimize the discharge of pollutants associated with storm water and urban runoff, The NPDES permit requires each permittee to develop and implement a program to control polluted runoff that may occur during and after construction of new development and redevelopment projects. Two required elements of the control program are; Best Management Practices (BMPs) and a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), The Arcadia Municipal Code lacks some of the specific language necessary to provide complete legal authority to implement BMPs as required by the Regional Board, The proposed ordinance will strengthen the City's authority to require 8MPs. Council member Marshall disagreed with the state action by not responding to the appeals which were made by Arcadia and several other cities, and requested that she be excused from consideration of the introduction of Ordinance No. 2130 and Resolution No. 6195. City Attorney Deitsch stated, in part, that to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, cities must amend their ordinances and codes to provide the necessary legal authority to implement the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) program. The Regional Board established a deadline of September 8, 2000 to adopt ordinances to provide the necessary legal authority. The provisions of the proposed ordinance are consistent with the August 1999 SUSMP program submitted by the permittees to the Regional Boacd. Mayor Kovacic OPENED the Public Hearing, No one came forward to address the City Council. It was MOVED by Council member Chang, seconded by Councilmember Chandler and CARRIED to CLOSE the public hearing, It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Councilmember Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to ADOPT RESOLUTiON NO. 6195 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING STORM WATER AND URBAN RUNOFF CONTROLS FOR NEW 13 9/5/00 42:0199 CONSTRUCTION AND SERVICE FEES RELATED THERETO", Resolution No, 6195 will not become effective until thirty (30) days after the adoption of Ordinance No, 2130; and, INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO, 2130 entitled: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTIONS 7823(k) AND 7824 TO, AND AMENDING SECTION 8130.11 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF STORM WATER AND URBAN RUNOFF CONTROLS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPOSING RELATED SERVICE FEES," I~' _.t. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Segal and Kovacic None None Councilmember Marshall 10e. APPEAL PC'S Consideration of the report and recommendation to deny an appeal of the Planning CONDITIONS Commission's conditions of approval for two, internally illuminated, channei letter wall signs OF APPROVAL for TCM Healing Institute, (Case No, SADR 2000-014) on a two-story office building located at RE 2 SIGNS 801 West Huntington Drive. (801 W. Htg, Dr,) (APPROVED APPEAL & SIGNS) o S,,~(';).i,o ~ The design of the building was approved by the Pianning Commission on October 14, 1997 by Architectural Design Review No. ADR 97-021 and Modification No. MP 97-005. Included in the approval was a Modification of the sign regulations to allow the total area of wall signs not to exceed a maximum of one square foot of sign per one linear foot of building frontage (78 square feet of wall signs for the front wall for all tenants). In the CoO zone the Code allows a maximum sign area of one square foot per two linear feet of building frontage (39 square feet), Therefore, the applicant received a modification to double the square footage of allowed sign area, In addition, the Planning Commission required that signs be located on the horizonial spandrel band between the first and second floor windows. The buiiding is occupied by two tenants, Merrill Lynch on the first floor and TCM Healing Institute on the second floor. Merrill lynch has complied with their condition of approval and a permit for their sign was issued on August 17, 2000, I The sign proposals submitted by applicant, Dr, Francis Yu for the TCM Healing Institute was approved by the Planning Commission subject to the following condition: The signs for the TCM Healing institute are to be located on the spandrel band between the first and second floor windows as stipulated by the Planning Commission in its approval of ADR 97-021. The front wall sign is to be centered beneath the two center windows on the westerly portion of the front of the building, and the street-side sign is to be centered beneath the large window on the east wall of the building, The applicant contends that the proposed locations are consistent with the tenants' occupancies. The TCM Healing Institute is located entirely on the upper floor, and Merrill Lynch will occupy the entire ground floor, The Development Services Department recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and sustain the Planning Commission's conditional approval cif Architectural Design Review Application No. SADR 2000-014. Following the staff presentation, Mayor Kovacic OPENED the Public Hearing, Kai Chan, project architect, felt since the TCM Healing Institute occupies the entire second floor, having a sign on the second floor would avoid confusion to the patrons. He also stated that from the design point of view the sign on the second floor would not have a negative visual effect to the neighbors or the environment. Francis Yu, owner, 801 W, Huntington Drive, responded to a Council's questions and stated I' in part that the two trees at the east elevation would not block the signs, 14 9/5/00 I' :1 I " 11. 12. MJlHSHALL (Sleeter) p~1i.,;....l'{ p '\~ I ".'''' ,i~' ~" ," , ". 42:0200 Terry To, Sign Express, EI Monte, was present to answer any questions and suggested the identical design for the TCM and the Merrill Lynch signs. Dominic Chuno, Professor and Chairman of the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures at the University of Southern California, spoke on the issue of the signage, In his opinion having all the signs on the lower portion of the building will not result in a more professional office appearance. Dr. Francis Yu, 316 W. Norman Avenue, since 1982, owner, 801 W. Huntington Drive, stated in part, that he spent the last three years working on this project and urged Council approval to have a wall sign above the second floor windows to identify the TCM Healing Institute. Thomas Yono, Attorney for Dr. Yu, stated in part, that it is stipulated in the building lease documents that Merrill Lynch prefers the TCM Healing Institute sign to be placed above their sign on the second level. The proposed sign for TCM is 41 square-feet while the Merrill Lynch sign is 36 square-feet, putting these two signs on one level will occupy a larger space that does not appear to be aesthetically pleasing. He also mentioned that there is no City ordinance that forbids the proposed sign, and he seeks Council approval. He felt that Dr. Yu's business is professional and the sign is architecturally and tastefully done, It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Segal and CARRIED to CLOSE the public hearing, With regard to the statements made by the applicant at the public hearing this date, staff stated that the October 14, 1997 Planning Commission Minutes specifically stated as Condition No, 3, that the cumulative total of all wall signs shall not exceed a maximum of one sq. ft. of sign per one linear foot of building frontage, and placement shall be limited to the horizontal spandrel band between the first and second windows. Considerable discussion ensued. Some Councilmembers felt the location of the signs should correspond with the locations of the tenants; others felt that the Council should support the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal. It was MOVED by Council member Chandler, seconded by Council member Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and over-rule the Planning Commission's condition of approval of Architectural Design Review Application No. SADR 2000-014; and, allow the signage for TCM Healing Institute to be located above the second floor windows, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Marshall and Segal Mayor Kovacic None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Jotm MacDonnell, spoke on behalf of his grandfather who requested having merging traffic signs on south bond lanes of Baldwin and the entrance to the Los Angeles County Arboretum, MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS Councilmember Marshall thanked John Sleeter for his dedicated service on the Planning Commission, (Mayor's Award Ms. Marshall congratulated the recipients of the Mayor's Awards this evening, Recipients) 15 9/5/00 (Quote) 13. ROLL CALL 13a, MINUTES (August 1 and 15, 2000) (APPROVED) 42:0201 Ms. Marshall shared a quote by Adlai Stevenson, "Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that sometimes he has to eat them." THE CITY COUNCIL RECESSED TO ACT AS THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PRESENT: Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic ABSENT: None, AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None. The Minutes of the August 1, 2000 and August 15, 2000 Regular Meetings APPROVED on MOTION by Agency Member Marshall, seconded by Agency Member Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Agency Members Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic None None ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency ADJOURNED to September 19, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. 14. 14a, PLANNING COMSN, APPT'MT (Olson - 6-30-2003) 01 B 0- ..:., () THE CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED CITY CLERK City Clerk June Alford presented the report and recommendation to appoint one member to the Planning Commission to fill out the unexpired term of John Sleeter ending July 30, 2003. Mayor Kovacic pointed out that he was not adverse to conducting interviews with selected applicants and make an appointment at the conclusion of the interviews, Councilmember Chandler felt an appointment could be made this evening... Council does not conduct interviews for other commissions, Mayor Pro tem Segal nominated David Olson. Councilmember Marshall nominated James Kelly, Councilmembers Chandler and Chang stated support of David Olson, Mayor Kovacic noted his support of James Kelly. It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tem Segal, seconded by Councilmember Chang to APPOINT David Olson to the Planning Commission. ROLL CALL VOTE: Olson Chandler Chang Segal Kellv Marshall Kovacic Bya majority vote of the Council, David Olson was APPOINTED to the Planning Commission to fill the unexpired term of John Sleeter ending July 30, 2003, 16 9/5/00 -I I I I I .; I 42:0202 15, CONSENT ITEMS 15a. MINUTES APPROVED the Minutes of the August 1, 2000 and August 15, 2000 Regular Meetings. (August 1 and 15, 2000) 15b. 03 S-c -Ie? RESOLUTION ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 6185 entitled: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF NO. 6185 THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, FIXING THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE REQUIRED (City's Lighting TO BE RAISED FROM PROPERTY TAXES NECESSARY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2000- & Parking Dist. 2001 TO PAY THE AUTHORIZED MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION COSTS OF THE Maint. Costs) CITY LIGHTING & PARKING DISTRICTS." 15c. ()S ~() (:.I FINAL TR, MAP APPROVED the Final Map of Tract No. 53071 for an 8-unit residential condominium project NO, 53071 at18 East Fano Street, (18 E. Fano St.) 15d, 073a-60 APPROP, APPROPRIATED $50,000,00 from the Capital Outlay Fund balance to add a utility room to FUNDS Fire Station 107 for the storage of firefighting apparel and equipment. (Capital Outlay Fund - Fire St. 107 Utility Room) 15e, iJ!;fI<:.: ", AWARD 1-YR. AWARDED a one (1) year contract extension in the amount of $60,000 to National Plant CONTRACT Services, Inc, for closed-circuit television inspection services of the sanitary sewer system for - EXTENSiON fiscal year 2000-2001; and AUTHORIZED the Mayor and City Clerk to EXECUTE a contract ,_ (Sanitary Sewer amendment on behalf of the City. System :" FY 2000-2001) 15f. O~sc).I" APPROP. APPROPRIATED $17,000 of Proposition A Local Return Funds fer Recreational Transit FUND Excursions in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. (Prop, A Local Return Funds) 15g. 08/r.' . ,(() PROF, AUTHORIZED the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement for SERVICES management information services provided by Knight Communications at $10,000 as per AGREEMENT month, (Information Systems Management) 15h, ()I .(,' ,,('11 PROF. AUTHORIZED the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with SERVICES Cooperative Personnel Services for an operations evaluation, service assessment and AGREEMENT resource utilization study for the Arcadia Public Library; and, APPROPRIATED $3,085 from (Arcadia Public General Fund Reserves to fund the project addendum for the technology review and report, Library -Oper. Total cost for the project to be $33,085, Evaluation, Svc, 17 9/5/00 Assessment & Resource Utilization) 15i. 03/!,)...3CVEHICLES PURCHASE (FD - Rescue Ambulances) 42:0203 AWARDED a contract for the purchase of two (2) 2000 Type III E-450 Super Duty Rescue Ambulances to Road Rescue for $216,067; and, AUTHORIZED the City Manager to EXECUTE a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. 15j. 0'1.;1 Cl_t- (,'AWARD A AWARDED a contract in the amount of $78,135.38 to RVC Roadway Construction, Inc. for CONTRACT the rehabilitation of Second Avenue from Longden Avenue to south City limit; and, WAIVED (2"" Ave. Rehab. any informalities in the bid or bidding process; and, AUTHORIZED the City Manager and City Longden to Clerk to EXECUTE a contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. S. City Limit) I()', [I 15k. ::;:1 PROF. SVCS. AGREEMENT RENEWAL (Legislative Advocacy Svc,) 16. O 7', ,16a. ~ (1, f\"ARCADIA PUBLIC LIB. FOUNDATION FUNDS AND CONCEPT PLAN - (Library South Patio) AUTHORIZED the City Manager to renew the Professional Services Agreement with Joe A. Gonsalves & Son for iegislative advocacy services in the amount of $36,000. THE PRECEDING CONSENT ITEMS 8a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j and k APPROVED ON MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CHANDLER, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM SEGAL AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic None None Fire Chief, Bonano responded to Council's question with regard to the purchase of two rescue ambulances for the Fire Department stating in part, that the original plan was to reuse the old boxes, but because there was a change in the vehicle models this plan did not work out. In response to Council's question with regard to the utility room in Fire Station 107, staff stated in part, now that construction is underway, it has become apparent that it would be in the City's best interest, financially and operationally, to construct the utility room that was scheduled for a future phase, now. CITY MANAGER Consideration of the report and recommendation to approve the receipt of $20,000 from the Arcadia Public Library Foundation for the enhancement and refurbishment of the south patio of the Library; and, to approve the concept plan as submitted by the Arcadia Public Library Foundation for the said project. When completed the patio would be dedicated to the memory of Jesse Vanlandingham with a plaque being installed in the area near the windows to the patio. It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Segal and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE receipt of up to $20,000 from the Arcadia Public Library Foundation for the enhancement and refurbishment of the south patio of the Library; and, APPROVE the concept plan for the enhancement and refurbishment of the 18 9/5/00 I',", '. I I I ,I 1 42:0204 south patio of the Library'as submitted by the Arcadia Public Library Foundation., AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Counciimembers Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic None None 16b, RECREATION &Consideration of the report and recommend~tion to authorize the Recreation and Community COMMUNITY Services Department to implement new youth programs using $75,000.00 of the (new) SVCS. DEPT. $125,000,00 budget allocation for FY 2000-2001. (Youth Prog.) Ol."l<) ~ S' 17. In the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 City budget, the City Councii included an allocation of $125,000 to enhance recreation and leisure programs for Arcadia youth. The Recreation Commission, along with City staff, reviewed alternatives for putting this money, to good use and they recommend that the City Council direct staff to implement the programs referenced in' September 5, 2000 staff report, all of which are directed to middle school aged youngsters. The estimated cost for these programs, based on maximum attendance and participation in San Gabriel Valley Municipal Athletic Association and Southern California Municipal Athletic Association events, is $75,000.00. The remaining money will be retained for use on programs arising out of the Youth Master Plan Update, ' It was MOVED by Counciimember Chang, seconded by Counciimember Marshall and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to AUTHORUZE the Recreation and Community Services Department to implement the new youth programs referenced in this report using $75,000 of the (new) $125,000,00 budget allocation for Fiscal Year 2000-2001, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Counciimembers Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic None None CITY ATTORNEY , 17a. ';', ORDINANCE City Attorney Deitsch presented for iNTRODUCTION and read the title of ORDINANCE NO. NO, 2131 2131: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, (Sweepir,g Side- CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 7231 OF ARTICLE VII, CHAPTER 2, PART 3 OF THE walk Refuse ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SWEEPING SIDEWALK REFUSE INTO into Streets) STREETS." (INTRODUCED) o {:;~ 0 p" It was MOVED by Counciimember Chang, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Segal and CARRIED - on roll call vote as follows that ORDINANCE NO, 2131 be and it is hereby INTRODUCED. AYES: t~OES: ABSENT: Counciimembers Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic None None 17b, ORDINANCE NO,2121 (Property Main!. & Nuisance Abatement) (INTRODUCED) It was MOVED by Councilmember Chandler, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Segal and 0S-1(1. \ (J CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that ORDINANCE NO, 2121 be and it is hereby INTRODUCED. City Attorney Deitsch presented for INTRODUCTION and read the title of ORDINANCE NO. 2121: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ARTICLE IX, CHAPTER 4 OF THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND NUISANCE ABATEMENT." 19 9/5/00 ADJOURNMENT (In Memory of Teresa Rager) 42:0205 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Chandler, Chang, Marshall, Segal and Kovacic None None Mayor Kovacic adjourned the meeting in memory of Teresa Rager, "I would like to adjourn this evening's City Council meeting in memory of Teresa Rager, who passed away on August 31, 2000. Teresa, known as Terri to her many friends, is the mother of Jim Romo, a current member of Arcadia's School Board, Terri was born on June 11, 1923 in Clifton Arizona, When she was young her family moved to California. She later married Charles Romo and they had 2 sons (Jim and David) and 2 daughters (Cynthia and Charlene). After Charles passed away, Terri married Guy Rager, who also predeceased her. Terri was one of 10 siblings, and family values, tradition and heritage were very important to her, She stressed the importance of education to her children and grandchildren. She wanted her family to benefit from a good education and take advantage of all educational opportunities available to them, Terri loved life and enjoyed spending as much time as possible with her family, She was also a sports enthusiast like her sons. She loved the Dodgers and was very disappointed with their current season, Terri's grandchildren brought much love, joy and laughter into her life. She shared her appreciation of music and dance with them and also delighted in traveling, She was full of energy; so much so that her family could barely keep up with her. Terri's surviving children and 11 grandchildren will miss her warm smile and loving embrace. She was a terrific mother and grandmother, and she fought a gallant fight until the end, We hope that her family's loving memories will offer some consolation in their loss.' ADJOURNMENT At 1:28 a,m" September 6th, the City Council Regular Meeting ADJOURNED to September (Sept. 19, 2000) 19, 2000 at 6:00 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Council Chambers for a Regular Meeting to conduct the business of the City Councii and Redevelopment Agency and any Closed Session necessary to discuss personnel, litigation matters or evaluation of properties. ATTEST: ~'o: ;;'~d, C~ 20 9/5/00 I I I I I I ,'~ " - . ~ TRANSCRIPT (Insofar as decipherable) RELATING TO PUBLIC HEARING Item lOa. Recommendation to approve the Final Environmental Impact Report and application GP99-001, Z99-003 and TA-99-066 to allow the expansion ofthe Westfield Shoppingtown. September 5, 2000 MAYOR KaY AC1C WILLIAM KELLY City Manager DONNA BUTLER Communty Development Administrator We now move to the public hearing section of the agenda, Mr, Kelly, Mayor and City Council. This is a public hearing to approve the fmal Environmental Impact Report and application for General Plan Change, a Zone Change and Text Amendments concerning the possible expansion of the Westfield Shoppingtown, Donna Butler from City staff will provide the Council and public an overview of this application, Ms, Butler. I Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of City Council. As Mr. Kelly has indicated the public hearing before you tonight is to consider a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Text Amendment filed by Westfield Corporation to allow an expansion of up to 600,000 square feet to the existing Wesfield Shoppingtown at Santa Anita, Notice of tonight's City Council hearing were published in the paper and mailed to all properly owners within a 1,000 foot radius, as well as interested persons, on August. 3"'. In order to make this process a little less cumbersome, the presentation tonight will be divided into three parts. The first is the Environmentallmpact Analysis, The second will be a discussion of the applications, and the third will be the City Council public hearing process and motions. The site consists of 80.63 acres and is developed with the enclosed shopping center and related parking, The mall was opened in 1974, and there are four major anchors: Robinsons-May, Macy's, J,C. Penneys and Nocdstroms, The addition of the Nocdstroms department store and the expansion of the Robinsons-May were approved by the City Council in 1992 and completed in 1994. There are approximately 140 mall shops, and in addition, there are two what we call tire, battery and accessory buildmgs located in the parking aceas on the east side of the mall, I Westfield Corporation purchased the mall in September, 1998, Currently, there is a total of 1,197,000 gross square feet with 922,450 square feet of gross leasable area, The properly is currently zoned C-2 and D, with a C-2, D and H-8 overlay. The General Plan foc this properly is commercial. The D is a design overlay specifically addressing desigu, setback and arclutecluml issues, which are set forth in Resolution 4180-85 adopted by the City Council in February of 1971. This resolution requires that all pceliminary plans be submitted to the City Council foc approval. The H-8 is a high rise overlay that allows structures up to 85 feet in height. The high rise overlay is restricted to the mall building envelope, including the department stores. The underlying C-2 general commercial zoning allows a maximum of three stories, 40 feet in height. As noted, the current I Page I I General Plan designation for the site is conunercial, with the floor area ratio allowing .40% of the site to be developed, The existing 40, .40 FAR would allow up to an additional 300,000 square feet of gross leasable area to the existing mall, Properties to the north and east are developed with the Santa Anita Racetrack and zoned S-I and R-l. Properties to the west across Baldwin Avenue are zoned R-I.and developed with single- family, multiple-family units. Single-story, multiple-family units. Properties to the south across Huntington Drive are zoned R-3, C-O and D, which is professional office, and C- 2, general conunercial, and developed with condominiwn apartments and office buildings, respectively, As part of the proposed applications, Wes!field is requesting to allow an expansion of up to 600,000 square feet of gross leasable area to the existing mall, and revisions of the existing performance standards and design guidelines, The total gross leasable area after expansion could be up to SOO,OOO-plus square feet, Neither architectural elevations nor site plan have been submitted for consideration. These will be submitted at a future date for the Planning Conunission and City Council review and approval. At this time, the applicant is applying strictly for entitlements. I The applicant's proposal also includes two 10,OOO-square-foot pads up to 10,000 square foot each, to be located at the northwest comer of the site, adjacent to Baldwin Avenue. They are also going to be proposing a major open-air expansion of the mall buildings to the east. The expansion will include the addition of new tenants, and use categories not currently located in the mall, Use categories may include a multiplex theater, various restaurants, lifestyle tenants such as home furnishing stores, department stores, food market and entertainment and specialty retailers, Also, the envelope as proposed could allow for potential future expansion to the west. Possible multilevel parking structures on the east side of the existing malls could be built, and additional parking spaces will be added as necessary by a combination of re-striping existing parking areas, and/or the addition of parking structures, Access to and from the site will continue to be from the existing points of ingress and egress, which are along Baldwin A venue and Huntington Drive, I The Environmental Review Process began with the filing of the specific applications, Based on an initial study, it was determined that an Environmental Impact Report was necessary, The EIR has been prepared to examine potentially significant environmental impacts that could result from the development of the proposed project, based on the Page 2 maximum allowable density that they are requesting, and further, to identify mitigation measures that would either avoid or substantially reduce those impacts. Templeton Planning Group, under contract with the City, and under the City's direction, prepared the Environmental Impact Report. The City did conduct its own independent evaluation and analysis of the Draft EIR prior to releasing the document for public review. Prior to taking any action on the project, the City Council must certifY the adequacy of the Final EIR, and certifY that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project. It is important to note that the EIR is an infonnation document that informs the decision-makers and the public of significant adverse environmental effects of a project, possible ways to minimize these significant effects, reasonable alternatives to the project, and the maIUler in which these significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. The government code states that if economic, social or other conditions make it infeasable to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discretion of a public agency if the project is otherwise permissible under applicable laws and regulations. The draft EIR identified potentially significant impacts that can be mitigated to less than the significant of aesthetics, geology and soils, land use and planning, noise, public services, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. The ErR does identify air quality as the one unavoidable adverse impact that would result if the project is approved. If the City determines that an unavoidable significant adverse impact will result from the project, the City must prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations before it can approve the project. The Statement of Overriding Considerations states that the decision- making body has balanced the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable significant environmental effects, and has considered the adverse effects to be acceptable. I I The CEQA guidelines requires that the Environmentallmpact Report address a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Not every considerable, conceivable alternative needs to be addressed, nor do infeasable alternatives need to be considered. The discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives capable of either ehminating any significant environmental effects I of the project, or reducing them to less than a significant level. Page 3 I The EIR discussed three alternatives. One, which is mandatory by state law, which is the no-project alternative. This would allow, actually, under the current General Plan, up to 300,000 square feet of additional area to be added to the site. The second was the reduced intensity alternative of 450,000 square feet. And the third alternative was an alternative design, moving the major portion of the expansion to the western side of the existing mall. CEQA does require that the lead agency, which is the City Council, identifY the environmentally superior alternative. Based on the analysis, the environmentally superior alternatives are the no-project alternative and the reduced intensity alternative. The no- project alternative does not achieve all the project objectives. The reduced intensity alternative may achieve most of the project objectives, although the related environmental impacts are similar to the proposed project. Significant air quality impacts would still occur with the no-project and reduced intensity alternatives, and as a result, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be required for either alternative project. I The California Environmental Quality Act also requires that for each significant impact identified, the Environmental Impact Report must discuss feasible measures to avoid or substantially reduce the project's significant environmental effect. A mitigation monitoring program must be approved for mitigation measures that are adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects. The objectives of environmental monitoring are to insure implementation of mitigation measures during the project implementation, to provide feedback to agency staff and decision-makers about the effectiveness of their actions, and to identifY the need for enforcement action before irreversible environmental damage occurs. The mitigation monitoring program, which is included in the staff report, identifies who will be responsible for monitoring the progress of mitigation measures adopted by the City, when and how often the monitoring shall be done, and a discussion of monitoring and reporting procedures. The City Council must fmd that the mitigation monitoring program complies with the requirements of CEQA and adopt the mitigation program if it approves the project. I On August 8, the Planning Commission voted 4-0, with one mernber absent, to adopt Resolution 1613, forwarding the Planning Commission's comments to the City Council on the Final Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission, in their review of the Final EIR, noted that most comments had been clarified in the Final ErR, and further noted the following. The shared parking issue needs to be further reviewed in the Final Page 4 EIR. The traffic' study should specifically discuss the Racetrack impacts. In regards to air quality, the Final EIR should take specific notice that it is an unmitigated environmental impact. The Development Services Department has reviewed these comments and is recommending that the shared parking issue should be discussed further, that on Page 4-3 in the Final ErR, under Responses to Commissioners, notes that existing traffic generated by the Santa Anita Racetrack operations during the peak hours are included as part of the background traffic, so that does make note of this. And the Final EIR does also include responses to comments on the Draft EIR and notes that specifically identifies the air quality as an unmitigated enviromnental imp~ct. Prior to taking any action on the project, the City Council must certifY that the Final ErR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, has been reviewed and considered by the City Council, and represents the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. After considering the Final EIR in conjunction with making fmdings, the City must not approve the project if the project will have a significant effect on the environment after imposition of feasible mitigation or alternatives, unless the City fmds that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. If the City Council determines that the project should be approved, the City is required by CEQA to prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations explaining why the City is willing to accept each significant effect. This allows the decision-maker to balance, again, the benefits of a proposed project against the unavoidable environmental risk, in determining whether to approve the project. The siatement setting forth the overriding considerations supporting the City's decision must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the record. If the City Council wishes to proceed with this project, the City Council should adopt Resolution 6197, which is in your report, which is a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, certifYing the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Westfield Shoppingtown Expansion Project, adopting environmental fmdings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a mitigation monitoring reporting program. I I If the City Council does certifY the Final EIR, the City Council may take action on the I General Plan Amendment, the Zone Change, and the Text Amendment. As mentioned Page 5 I earlier, specific development plans have not been submitted for the proposed expansion at this time. Future plans for the specific development will require public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the City Council. In regards to the General Plan Amendment, the applicant is requesting that the Community Development section of the General Plan be amended to modifY the maximum intensity floor area ratio from .40 to .50 allowing up to an additional 300,000 square of gross leasable area, over and above the 300,000 square feet that would be allowed in addition to the current project. The maximum floor area ratio for all commercial properties within the City is .50, which is consistent with Westfield's request. The Planning Commission, at its August 8 meeting, adopted Resolution 1614, recommending to the City Council approval of this General Plan Amendment. I The second request is the Zone Change. The application is for a Zone Change designation to C-2 D H-8, which is the design and high rise overlay to be reconfigured to incorporate the new building envelope, which includes the enclosed and open-air mall area, which is shown on the site plan attached in your staff report. The H-8 designation is a high rise overlay that allows up to 8 stories with a maximum height of 85 feet. The H-8 overlay would not include the two proposed building envelopes adjacent to Baldwin Avenue. These are shown as two separate building envelopes on the applicant's plan. It has been recommended by the staff and the Planning Commission that these sites be limited to a maximum two stories, 30 feet in height. The design, or D designation, is a design overlay specifically addressing design, setback, uses, and architectural issues. These design guidelines are currently set forth in Resolution 4185. Staff is recommending approval of the Zone Change to reconfigure the C-2 D H-8 design overlay for building area C, which the larger area which will encompass the mall, the existing mall and the open air mall. The D overlay will be adopted by separate resolution of the City Council. The Planning Commission, again at its August 8 meeting, adopted Resolution 1615, recommending to the City Council approval of the Zone Change to reconfigure the C-2, D H-8 zone to incorporate the new building envelope for the enclosed and proposed open air mall. One of the Commissioners did express concern regarding the H-8 overlay in building area C to the southeast corner of the site, and felt that the applicant should mo~e the H overlay further to the north along Huntington Drive. It was his opinion, it was the opinion of the other Commissioners that the design review process allows both the Planning Commission and the City Council the opportunity to review and approve or conditionally approve or deny the location, height, and design of all structures proposed on this site. I Page 6 The Text Amendment. Because of the complexity of this Text Amendment, it has been broken down into three separate requests. The first request relates to parking. The first request is to amend the regional shopping center parking space requirements from 4.75 spaces per 1,000 square feet of modified floor area, to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 feet of gross leasable area. In 1997, the International Council of Shoppmg Centers and the Urban Land Institute commenced a study to review the parking standards for shopping centers. In 1982, the study showed industry-wide standard for shopping centers was 5.0 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. However, during the past 20 years, shopping centers have changed. And therefore, they conducted a new study. Some of the changes that they noted in shopping centers were that shopping centers have become larger, new center formats have emerged including power centers, fashion specialty centers and centers with a significant entertainment component, including multi-screen cinemas. The dernographic and labor force changes have changed significantly, including the rise in labor force participation of women, and growing traffic congestion that has made it even more difficult to accomplish daily errands. The fmal report, which was published in October 1999, notes that parking requirements for larger centers are now lower than they were in 1982. With an appropriate adjustment for centers containing more than a 10% retail component, excuse me, non-retail component in the tenant mix, in other words, restaurants, theaters, and other similar types of uses, the new study recommends 4.5 spaces per 1,000 feet of gross leasable area. The request of the applicant is consistent with this parking ratio. The Planning Commission at its August 8 meeting adopted Resolution 1616, which recommended to the City Council that an independent traffic consultant review the applicant's request in tenus of the proposed parking ratio, and also the distribution of parking on the site, as it relates to future development. The Commission noted that because the applicant is proposing to substantially increase the size of the mall and add uses that generally require more parking than the typical relall-type use, that there should be an additional study to determine if the request for 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000, in lieu of the current requirement, is significant. Further, the Commission expressed concern regarding the location and proximity of parking areas to the restaurant and multiplex cinema. Based on the request of this 4.5 parking spaces, staff did concur with the Commission's recommendation. However, staff does feel that it would be premature to conduct a study at this time, and recommends that if the Council considered this, that the study be done when the applicant submits specific plans for architectural and site design review. Page 7 I I I I The second request, in conjunction with reducing the parking requirements, was setting forth a definition for gross leasable area. Currently our municipal code does not have this. The Development Services Department is recommending that a defmition be added to the code, which states, "The gross leasable area shall be the total floor area designated for the tenants' occupancy and exclusive use, including basements, mezzanines, or upper floors, expressed in square feet and measured from the center line of joint partitions and from outside wall faces. Gross leasable area shaH also include kiosks within the common areas. It is the space for which tenants pay rent, including sales area. The exception to this is, gross leasable area shall not include (a) service areas within mall tenant stores and (b) service areas that occupy less than 25% of the gross square footage of stores, in excess of 50,000 square feet. Service areas in excess of this percentage shaH be counted toward the gross leasable area." And service areas are defmed as those areas that are specifically dedicated to employee use, storage, and mechanical areas, and employee restroonls. The Planning Commission concurred with staff's recommendation. I The third request is that the floor area within the mall for kiosks and carts within the mall common area not be subject to the parking requirements. The Development Services Department and the Planning Commission did not concur with this request. Rather than an incidental use within the mall common area, the kiosks have become permanent fixtures. Landscaped planter areas as well as seating have been removed to accommodate additional kiosks. Currently, when we did this count, there were 35 kiosks and carts in the mall common areas, including the Center Court. The kiosks are leased typically on a yearly basis, and several of the kiosks have more than one salesperson. Because the kiosks are leased, non-portable space, staff and the Planning Commission recommended that the kiosks be counted toward the parking requirement. The applicant's fmal request is modification of City Council resolution 4185, that was adopted in 1971, establishing specific regulations for design criteria, uses and landscape standards for the shopping mall. Staff is recommending that the resolution be rescinded, rather than modified, and that a new resolution be adopted, setting forth new design guidelines. The new resolution will delete obsolete wording and requirements no longer applicable for the shopping mall. It will amend certain sections and add additional wording recommended by staff. I On page 60 of the staff report, the table includes a summary of the major changes by the applicant, which include: the applicant has requested that condition 7 be amended, which basically states, any use of the property which is subject to the conditional use permit Page 8 provisions of the Zoning Ordinance shall require a conditional use permit. They are requesting that additional wording be added, "provided, however, a conditional use permit shall not be required for uses within building area C, which is the mall area, as shown on the proposed zoning design overlay site plan." The Planning Commission concurred with the exception, with the exception that entertainment uses, including such activities as high-tech interactive simulation games, like music, dancing, billiards, bowling, ping-pong, etc., which are the primary activity of an establishment, that these uses should still require a conditional use permit. The applicant secondly requested that condition 12 relating to parking be amended by allowing a multilevel parking structure in lieu of two levels which are identified in resolution 4125, and further, than any floor area within the enclosed and open air mall common areas devoted to kiosks or carts shall not be subject to the Zotting Ordinance. Both the Development Services Department and the Planning Commission concurred with this request, subject to the change that kiosks shall be subject to the zoning requirements for off-street parking. The applicant further requested that the following uses be included in the hst of permitted uses. And these new changes would be: electronic equipment stores, fmancial institutions including free-standing A TM machines. Financial institutions are currently allowed, but the ATM machines are not mentioned. Food stores, health clubs, and spas. The Planning Commission concurred, with the following exceptions: that food stores be limited to a maximum of 38,000 square feet in gross floor area. In addition, they requested that restaurants and other eating establishments offering food and beverage service, including the sale of on-site liquor and entertainment, be allowed. The Planning Commission recommended that restaurants, eating establishments offering food and beverage services, including outdoor dining, the sale of on-site liquor and entertainment, which is an incidental use, would only be allowed, entertainment would only be allowed in conjunction with a restaurant, rather than incidental to, and that again, eating establislunents, excuse me, entertainment facilities require a conditional use permit if it was to go into the mall or on building pads. They also requested that theaters and cinemas be added to the list of permitted uses if it is, again, located within the mall property. Body art studios, the following, they did eliminate some uses that were listed as not permitted, which includes food supermarkets. The Development Services Department is recommending that a few other uses be added to the list of not permitted uses, such as body art studios, check cashing or cash advance for instant cash businesses, Page 9 I I I I and vending machines on the exterior of the closed mall and open air mall area, as well as other buildings. The Development Services Department further recommended the following additional conditions to be included in the revised design overlay resolutions: that the preliminary site plan, floor plan, exterior elevations, exterior lighting, conceptual landscape plans, and the signing program be submitted to the Development Services Department and be presented to the Planning Commission at a public hearing for design review and recommendation to the City Council and shall be subject to approval by the City Council after a public"hearing. Secondly, that the parking structures or structure shall be designed to create an open environment maximizing vertical space, lighting and ingress and egress to the structure. The parking structure shall be architecturally compatible with the mall's architecture and shall be subject to the review and approval of both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Planning Commission did concur with these recommendations. I Further, Resolution 4 I 85 states that all signs shall be subject to the Zoning Ordinance, except that one additional free-standing sign shall be permitted, which shall not exceed the maximum size pennitted by code. The Zoning Ordinance currently allows a maximum square footage for all signs on the site of 350 square feet total. The Development Services Department is recommending the following: that all signs shall be subject to the Zotting Ordinance except that two free-standing mall identification signs shall be allowed on the perimeter of the site, one along Baldwin A venue and one on Huntington Drive, and the total area of said signs shall not exceed 350 square feet per sign. That includes both faces. No more than four tenant monument identification signs, not exceeding a total sign area of 500 square feet, wall signs on the exterior of the shopping mall structure shall be restricted to anchor stores containing 25,000 square feet or more, major restaurants, eating establishments containing 5,000 square feet or more, theaters and cinemas and food market. Said signs shall comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance in regards to allowable square footage. Single-sided monument signs shall be allowed for a food market, theater, cinemas, and eating establishments containing 5,000 square feet or more, and that have public entrances from the exterior of the mall shopping area. These signs would be allowed on the perimeter of the mall, which there are currently some existing restaurants that have signs on the perimeter of the actual buildings, not on the exterior of the mall site. The Planning Commission concurred with recommendations 3A, C.and.D,.whichare.the_two.free-standing mall identification signs,_ the wall signs on the exterior of the mall, and the single-sided monument signs. I Page 10 KOVACIC ROGER CHANDLER BUTLER CHANDLER BUTLER However, the majority of the Commissioners were not in favor of allowing four additional free-standing monument signs on the perimeter of the site, in addition to the two free-standing mall identification signs. The Commissioners felt that the additional monument signs were mIDecessary and degraded the quality of the mall. I The fourth was that, the fourth additional condition that there should be a minimum unobstructed distance between kiosks and carts of 15 feet. (END OF SIDE ONE, CASSETTE ONE) Tonight before you, we have a public hearing, and this allows the public an opportunity to comment on the Final EIR, and the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Text A mendment. Staff recommends that the City Council hear the report from City staff and the consultant, open the public hearing, take public testimony from all interested parties, including the applicant, on the Final EIR and the related applications, close the public hearing, allow for City Council discussion, and if the City Council is prepared to proceed with recommendations and motions, they are outlined starting on page 66 of the staff report. This does conclude the staff's report. I would just like to mention that Bill Halligan from Templeton Planning Group is available to answer questions regarding the I Environmental Impact Report. Thank you, Ms. Butler. That's all? I thought this was going to be a complex issue. (Laughter) OK, anybody on the Council have any questions at this time? This late piece of paper that we've received from Westfield regarding the developer withdraws his request to reduce parking ordinance standard to 4.5 per hundred, does that have anything to do with? I mean I heard you mention that. Does this have any bearing on that particular item that you brought up? In regards to the discussion regarding continuing the hearing? That's it, yes. It's up to the City Council. This does relate to that request, yes. I Page I I I I I CHANDLER BUTLER CHANDLER DON PENMAN So, in other words, based on their withdrawal of their request, why would we need to continue discussion of it? Well, actually, what they're requesting, which right now, the parking requirement is 4.75 per 1,000 square feet of modified gross floor area. They are requesting that the ratio be changed to 4.75 of gross leasable area, which requires, we haven't been able to determine exactly with this late information, but which would require less parking than the current 4.75 of modified gross floor area. So this doesn't resolve anything for us. Development Services Director Well, it's actually sort of a middle point. If they originally requested 4.5, with a new defmition, and now they've modified that to go back to the 4.75 with a new defmition, so it's more parking than what they originally had requested in terms of the amendment, but not quite as much as what is currently required under the defmition that was arrived at when the parking standards were developed for the mall over 20 years ago. And it's more than what the staff recommendation originally was, which was consistent with the Urban Land Institute and the ICSC standard, as based on their research. So whether that addresses everyone's concern, I don't know, but it's, they've modified their proposal and are now proposing to provide more than they originally... CHANDLER KOVACIC BUTLER KOVACIC BUTLER Well, perhaps they'll have something to say about it further, I don't know. Thank you. Any other questions? Donna, I have a few questions, and the order is dictated by the order of the staff report. The H-8 height overlay is already in existence, is that correct? That's correct. What was the theory behind having an eight-story height limitation in that area? I say limitation, but I guess giving people an opportunity to build as high as eight stories, do you know what the planning theory was? Well, in looking back, the original proposal did actually include two office towers, large office towers, but the H-8 allows, the main criteria there is tile 85 feet. The structure Page 12 itself is over 70 feet in height at its midpoint, and so this allows them the ability to build a larger, higher structure. KOVACIC The current structure is over 70 feet? BUTLER The current structure is over 70 feet. KOVACIC I See. OK. We have no plans for a specific proposed development, correct? BUTLER That's correct. KOVACIC And we also have the Planning Commission's recommendation and staff's recommendation that we defer a parking study, is that correct? BUTLER Based upon their proposal of 4.5, yes. KOVACIC What is the purpose of doing this, at this point? Why are we going through this exercise at this point? This entire exercise, as far as increasing the envelope of development, and going through all the various text amendments, and General Plan amendments. What is the reason why we would do this before any specific plans come before us? PENMAN May I respond to that, Mr. Mayor? I thiok what the proposal does is to establish some maximum limits for future development of the mall. As Donna indicated, under current standards, they can expand by about 300,000. They are proposing to actually expand that by potentially up to 600,000, so what their proposal actually requests is a maximum amount of expansion area. Once that process is addressed, once their requests are addressed tonight or some other evening, then the developer will know what parameters they have to work with, rather than going and preparing rather expensive site plans, elevations, talking to tenants, without actually knowing whether or not they will be able to attract those tenants. For example, supermarkets as an example. It would be difficult for them to go out and negotiate with, especially, a grocery store, without even knowing if it is going to be permitted with the City, and there is a lot of time invested in that process. So this would establish the limits for what could be, could go in there, and then, once that's approved, they would know what parameters they would have to operate under. Page 13 I I I I I I KOVACIC BUTLER KOVACIC BUTLER KOVACIC BUTLER KOVACIC BUTLER KOVACIC BUTLER KOVACIC BUTLER OK. We're talking about three building areas, A, B, and C. C is what is known as the mall, or the envelope for the mall. A and B are pads that, at least in the staff report, are indicated to be potential restaurant sites, is that correct? That is what the applicant had indicated in their request, yes. And they had initially indicated that they want a two-story height limitation, and I guess in this letter we received today, there is some effort to compromise that, correct, as far as one story except for some storage and service-type mezzanines? That's right. The two-story was a, that was the Development Services Department recommendation. They didn't actually establish a height limit. That was our recommendation, a maximtuTI two stories. Now, would a two-story restaurant be conunon? It's not common. The only one that I'm really actually aware of is The Olive Garden in the City. It's not common. It doesn't, generally speaking, payoff because you have to provide elevators and typically it's not done. OK. There's also, of course, a berm that extends around the perimeter. Does this plan in any way affect the existence of that berm? No. The building pad that was shown on the application actually is outside the 20-foot berm area. There is a 20-foot berm along Baldwin Avenue. And in looking at the exhibit in the staff report, it does not encroach within the berm area, that pad area. OK. The current setback is what, from Baldwin and Huntington? The current setback is designated on the map as yellow, correct? Yes. And can you tell me what the current setback is from Baldwin and Huntington, are you able to do that? The actual setback, no. I could not tell you. Perhaps the applicant can. It runs a little, it's obviously closer to Nordstroms, but I don't know. Page 14 KOVACIC And then the red is what's being proposed. So to a certain extent, it's the same as the yellow, but in other areas, it expands beyond the yellow, correct? BUTLER Right. KOVACIC OK. The adjustment of the FAR from .4 to .5, has that been dealt with in the letter, or not? BUTLER No. KOVACIC OK. What's the reason for that request? BUTLER It was to allow up to 600,000 square feet, and again, that's gross leasable area. KOVACIC So even with the expanded envelope, they still need an adjustment on the FAR to get up to 600,000 square feet? BUTLER Correct. Right now, under the current floor area ratio, they would be allowed approximately 300,000 square feet of gross leasable area. KOVACIC OK. And that gets to the definition of gross leasable area. I guess under the existing code, we have one definition. They're proposing another defmition, and you're suggesting a hybrid of the two definitions, is that correct? BUTLER That's correct. The definition that we've worked with is a hybrid of the ULl, Urban Land Institute's definition, and the modified gross floor area is difficult at best to determine, because it takes out elevator shafts and a lot of things which everyone during the past, it's been difficult to determine the exact measurements on that. Gross leasable area is easier to defme. We do feel, and it's the most common use of parking ratios, either gross leasable or gross floor. So gross leasable area is a standard that's usually, like the Urban Land Institute and places will use as a measurement. KOVACIC OK, and what's the real impact of that? As we adjust the defmition of gross leasable, we then permit fewer parking spaces? Is that the ultimate result? BUTLER It probably would be fewer than the modified gross floor area, yes. Page 15 I I I I I I KOVACIC Uh-uh. And if we're deferring the parking plan, why aren't we also deferring the defInition that we're going to be working with in establishing how many parking spaces there should be? BUTLER Because the defmition is a standard defmition, and it really doesn't affect the overall, I mean, whether it's modified, gross floor, or gross leasable, it doesn't affect, what's the best way of saying this, it has less of an impact on the parking than the numbers, the 4.75, the 4.5 and location. KOVACIC And the theory behind all these defmitions is that, there's something at the mall or any development that attracts a car to come there. Right? And we're trying to decide what that area is, and how many spaces should be permitted to accommodate whatever traffic that area produces. Is that kind of simply stating what the theory is? BUTLER That's a good statement. KOVACIC And what they're arguing is, that we're really now counting areas that don't produce any additional traffic because nobody uses them, right? BUTLER Because they're storage area, employee areas that don't generate the actual retail sales. KOVACIC OK. Two more questions. Currently we require a conditional use permit for all uses in the mall? BUTLER In the mall, correct. If a restaurant wants to come in, we require a conditional use permit. That's the most common use that's come in. KOVACIC And the applicant doesn't want us to do that. BUTLER Correct. And we agree with that. Every conditional use permit that has ever come in, inside the mall, even if it's a little small fast food that has seating, requires a conditional use permit. We feel that people, in most cases, do not typically come to a mall to eat. It's part of the overall experience, and to require a conditional use permit really does not make a lot of sense within the mall proper. Page 16 KOVACIC OK. And you're recommending a square foot maximum of 38,000 square feet for the food store. Is that a way of trying to insure that it's a specialty food store, without saying so? I BUTLER Yes. KOVACIC OK. And there's no other way to do that. We can't name. PENMAN You cannot name them. The only other option is to try to defme what percent of the store can be used for non-food product items. Because really the line that defmes a full service grocery store versus specialty, typically is the non-edible items, if you will, you know, paper goods and things that if you go into a specialty grocery store you fmd less of those and you fmd of the other. So, the only other way I've ever heard of defming that would be to limit the percentage of the floor area to non-food items. But as a practical matter, we felt that the defutition by using a space square footage would do the same thing, from the types of stores, the prototype specialty stores, versus a full service. I think a full service grocery store, probably today, and the developer would notice more than probably 45,000 square feet. KOVACIC And one other question, I'm sorry. We all know what the signage is there, right now. Under the proposed Zoning Ordinance concerning signage, what additional signs would be allowed, on the site? I BUTLER Currently they would be allowed two signs, and they only have one, along Baldwin Avenue. What was being requested was to have two signs, identification signs, plus some monument signs for major tenants. And the Planning Commission did recommend that that be deleted. We had recommended a maximum of four, hoping that through the design review process we would be able to incorporate a good signage program that would pull everything together. The way it is written right now, based upon the Planning Commission's recommendations, they would be allowed two signs along, well, exterior, along the perimeter of the properly. They would be allowed signing on the building for anchor stores that are in excess of 25,000 square feet, and/or major restaurants in excess of 5,000 square feet, and they would also be allowed what we call small monument signs adjacent to the exterior of the actual building, such as the California Pizza Kitchen has a small little monument sign out in front of their entrance. And this would be for uses of stores that have a separate entrance to those sites, after the closing hours. I Page 17 KOVACIC I BUTLER KOVACIC BUTLER KOVACIC PENMAN I KOVACIC GAIL MARSHALL Councilmember KOVACIC I OK. But along the perimeter, Baldwin and Huntington, how many additional signs would be allowed under the applicant's proposal? Under the applicant's proposal, basically, six. Six additional. Well, five additional. Five additional, five plus the one that exists. It's a little unclear, though, in terms of the request, because they don't specifY whether those four tenant identification would be separate or together. I think, we've seen examples in other centers where two, three or four tenants can be placed on a monument sign. From a design review standpoint, it's a little premature, but we probably wouldn't support separate monument signs for four tenants, but a single monument sign that nught incorporate two, three or four, and that was never really clarified as part of the proposal, in terms of how they would be designed. That would be subject to design review. OK. Thank you. Any other questions? Ms. Marshall? Talking about the signs, r think signs are, in my opinion, extremely vital. They can be profitable and they're good for business, and I, myself, have gone by malls that aren't, don't have proper signage, and I'm not sure exactly what's in there. And that could get people to pull in there, knowing that certain things are there. [don't think you go crazy with signs, but I think they have to be very upscale, well-designed signs, and with Westfield, they have a reputation of doing very beautiful facilities. And I would expect that they would turn in signs that could get approved by the City and our staff, I'm sure, is going to be very critical of what is put up there and that will enhance the development. They wouldn't want it to take away from it, I'm sure, either, after putting that much money in. But I think signs are important. Let me just caution you. We're getting a little beyond the questiotting period. May I ask you just to limit it to questions. We'll have plenty of time to add our comments after the public hearing. Page 18 MARSHALL OK. You thiok, how am I going to put it, do you thiok that limiting the grocery store could be a disadvantage for us, because I know the reasoning behind it. '1 don't think that Westfield would probably want a regular, I'll say a regular so I won't have to say any names, an ordinary grocery store in there, because I don't think it would draw the people. If we limit the size, maybe we could have the biggest specialty store, which would make it better than somebody else's? In looking at specialty stores, about the largest that is being built, that's why we picked the number 38,000 square feet, that was a comfort level on specialty stores. Most of them are smaller than that. Most of them range about 20 to 25,000. So the 38,000 would allow for a specialty store that may be a little larger than the typical, but it's less than what a normal supermarket might:' BUTLER MARSHALL But you thiok that will uphold, also, for what the needs would be in the next, possibly, 20 years, because you're going on the larger size? BUTLER I thiok so. MARSHALL Thank you. KOVACIC Any other questions? Mr. Segal? MARK "MICKEY" SEGAL Councilmember I just have a couple of questions. One, if you look at the old zoning and design overlay map that they included, was included, the orange line around the existing mall, which is basically being defmed as the new parcel, I guess rny ouly question is, if we know, or if the developers know what they're going to build, why are we increasing this new parcel so substantially beyond what they're going to build? BUTLER The request, because we did not have a site plan, and this was what was submitted by the applicant, they were looking to allow options because this building envelope would include parking structures, allows for the TBA and some other uses there. The applicant, on their submittal, has looked at taking these southerly portions out of the H-8 overlay along Huntington Drive. But they would still like to include it as part of their building envelope to allow for parkIng structures or other potential uses that may go in that area. SEGAL Basically this orange line that extends eastward on the properly, is basically where the development is going to take place, including parking structures, etc. Page 19 I I I I I I BUTLER That is our understanding, yes. SEGAL Let's see. As far as the design criteria, etc., obviously that's going to come back to us at some later date to be sure we're in alignment with what they put in front of us? BUTLER Absolutely. Whatever the City Council adopts will come back to you through the public hearing process. It will fIrst go to the Planning Commission for their recommendation, and then back to the City Council and it will be a public hearing. The same people who were notified of tonight's public hearing, and anybody else requesting to be added to the list will be notified. SEGAL The only other question I have is that, the letter we received tonight does refer to this one story structure at 25 feet, with the right to go up to 30 feet. Would that be considered a normal height for a one-story structure? BUTLER It depends upon the architectural design. You could have a single story up to 25 feet. We do have some homes in Arcadia that are single story that come close to that. It's not probably the typical building, but for any sort of architectural elements, it does allow flexibility. SEGAL OK, thank you. KOVACIC Ms. Marshall, you had one more question? MARSHALL Yes I do. Do you know if Westfield is flexible with where the free-standing buildings, the one-story ones that Mickey was just speaking of, where they will be situated? Is that something that is flexible in the future, or do they have a defInite idea and site where they want them? I'm concerned about them being too close to the west side over there, where the residences are and such. I was just wondering if they're flexible on that. I think that would be a good question to ask Westfield. KOVACIC OK, any other questions? Before we start the public hearing, we've been asked by the City Attorney to disclose any extracurricular contacts that have been made by folks either for or against the proposal. So I will make my disclosures now. Mr. John Healy, Development Director for Westfield, requested a meeting with me. And I did meet with him to discuss the project. I also had telephone conversations with Tony Heinrich, who Page 20 MARSHALL KOVACIC MARHSALL SEGAL KOVACIC DR. SHENG CHANG Councihnemher KOVACIC CHANDLER KOVACIC CHANDLER KOVACIC is President of the Lower Rancho Homeowners Association, and Lew Pollard, a property owner in the area, and received a phone message from a Mr. Steve Allen, who also is a property owner in the area. And we received, or r received, letters from a Robert GiInrartin of Federated Department Stores and John Tsao, a local resident, which I will make part of the record. I also have to disclose. OK, Ms. Marshall? I also met with John Healy and basically went over the same thing that you did, the overall broad spectrum of it. And I too will disclose that I met with Mr. Healy and the nature of the conversation was strictly informational and a preview of the documentation that would be given tonight, and that was the total discussion that we had. OK, any other disclosures? Yes, I got a call from a local resident, Mr. Jones Hall. OK. Since when do we talk about phone calls? Since now. OK, I received a call from Tony Heinrich, and Lew Pollard, and Steve Allen, and I didn't meet with anybody. Since we got the memo from the City Attorney, we have to make these disclosures. OK, we're going to move on to the public hearing now. And what we'd like to do is start with a representative of the applicant to provide whatever input you want to as far as the staff report is concerned. And then we will open it to other members of the community, either for or against, or on the fence, as far as the project is concerned. We'd ask you to limit your presentations to five minutes each. Please avoid repetition of any points made by a Page 2 I I I I I I I JOHN HEALY Westfield Shoppingtown previous speaker. And if you are part of a group and it looks like there are a bunch of people in red, this reminds me of the UCLA - Alabama game on Saturday with all these red shirts, but if you're part ofa group, and you would like to appoint a representative or two to represent you at the podium, we'd really appreciate it. And then we, fmally, will give the applicant a chance to sum up after everyone else had had a chance to speak. So we will now open this matter to public hearing and ask a representative of the applicant. And when you speak, please give us your name and address for the record. Good evening. I'm John Healy, with Westfield, a corporation, Development Director. I'd like to introduce part of our staff that's here tonight, part of our team. First, I'd like to introduce Dave Hokanson, he's the Vice President of Development. Terry Walton, our General Manager of Westfield Santa Anita. Wendy Albert, Marketing Director of Westfield Shoppingtown Santa Anita. Frank Sherco, Traffic Engineer with Parsons. And Shashawn PateIl, Traffic Engineer with Parsons. Also I would like to introduce Jeff Page, who is General Manager of JC Penneys. We're here tonight requesting your approval of, and certification of, the Environmental Impact Report, approval of the General Plan amendment which changes the floor area ratio from .4 to .5, and will allow us to increase the buildable area by approximately 300,000 square feet, over the 300,000 square feet that we can build today. We're asking for the zone change, which expands the envelope in which we can build and provides for two building pads along Baldwin. The expanded building area will allow growth for the department stores, should they need that in the future to expand, and it gives the developer flexibility in designing the expansion of the mall and the placement of the parking structure to support the expansion. As you heard, we're asking for a change in the text in several areas, including a change in the parking standard, from a 4.75 per thousand of modified floor area, to 4.5 per thousand of gross floor area, gross leasable area. We're asking for changes in the permitted uses so that we can introduce and diversifY the tenant mix, and be able to grow the area in which we draw from. Weare asking that theater, multi-screen theater be allowed, that a food market be allowed so that we can bring in such tenants as Bristol Farms or Gelson's, that we include the restaurants and the entertainment that we could add such uses as lillian's or Dave and Buster's. Page 22 DAVID HOKANSON Westfield Shoppingtown Talked about signage. I do have a change from what was, I guess, an earlier request, and maybe a clarification on the signage that we're asking for on the perimeter. What we would seek there is one sign on both Baldwin and Huntington that would be a multi- tenant sign, that would allow our many anchor tenants, that, as the expansion will most likely occur on the east side of the properly, away from the major streets, that they will need signage. What we are seeking there, again, is one sign on each Baldwin and Huntington that would be a multi-tenant sign with a maximum square footage of 750 square feet. I The consequences of not staying at the cutting edge of a retail development. What are the consequences? Well, there are several examples in Southern California that you may be familiar with. Such as Sherman Oaks Galleria, which is now being converted from a shopping center to office space, primarily office space. MalI of Orange, Puente Hills Mall, Huntington Beach Shopping Center, where the department stores were replaced with discount stores such as Wal-Mart and Burlington Coat. Plaza Pasadena is being converted to a mixed-use project with residential, retail and entertainment. There's many other examples, that I could go on. Will this happen in Santa Anita? We don't think it will happen, certainly not overnight. But if we do not do something now, there is a chance that it can happen. So we ask for your support tonight, and with that I will turn it over to Dave Hokanson to make some remarks. I Good evening. For the record, my name is David Hokanson. I'm the Vice President of Development for Westfield Corponition, 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California. Mr. Mayor and respected members of this City Council, we are pleased to be here tonight and presenting this entitlement package to you. I think I use entitlement with a capital E and also the qualification that this is not the last that you will see of us in terms of processing for your approval, the expansion of Westfield Shoppingtown Santa Anita. Tonight is really the fIrst step in giving us the tools necessary to refme an expansion plan for the center. Our second go-round with you will be upon the submittal of a specific plan, which you will actually get a chance to look at specific details as to how we will take the tools that you provide us by way of these entitlement approvals tonight and put those to use in the site itself. There are a couple of issues that I do want to clarifY, and it realIy goes to the comment I period that City Council and staff experienced at the beginning of the hearing. And a Page 23 I number of comments would relate to the distinction of gross leasable area from a gross floor area. If you were to look at a Wal-Mart store or perhaps a free-standing retail facility that doesn't have an enclosed common area, that is usually calculated on gross floor area, or GF A. In the regional shopping center industry, where we do have enclosed common areas that don't specifically generate traffic, that is where you use the term GLA or gross leasable area, which more or less looks at the sales-related area of a much larger building. I Also, with respect to the expansion of the zones for the particular site. It's one thing to keep in mind that as we were going through our preplanning process and as we continue on with that, in the absence of these specific entitlements, it's important that we maintain the greatest amount of flexibility in planning the site, both for a current phase and for future phases, and factoring into that are the individual property ownerships that perhaps may be held by JC Penney or Federated Department Stores or Robinsons-May and so forth. With the particular expansion plan that we're going forward on a Phase One, it does involve utilization of another property owner's property, specifically JC Penney as well as Robinsons-May, and there's a lot of factors that go into working those particular issues out. So for your benefit, for the benefit of the community that we serve from a retailing standpoint and for our own, ~e need to create the maximum flexibility in terms of how the development plan is put together. Councihnember Marshall had suggested or questioned as to whether there was any flexibility in the placement of building pads along Baldwin Avenue. And I think a simple response would be yes, there is. However, considering my comment earlier regarding property ownership and so forth, we do want to show flexibility. We also need to underscore the need for preserving that particular component or those particular components to the expansion plan, but are willing to work on a criteria in conjunction with the specific plan that addresses the majority of concerns. And Councilmember Chandler had referred to a letter that was presented to staff this afternoon, suggesting some alternative positions and those are up for discussion. And I think once we've had a chance to, we've had a chance to hear public testimony, as you will have the chance, I think we'll hopefully come back to this dais and be able to perfect those concepts a little rnore clearly for you. I With respect to signage, and I thank the Councilwoman for her comments, we really view signage as an extension of our architecture, getting that message out to a street front, as Page 24 well as providing a very important component, or key to the success of the individual retailer that's located some 250 or 350 feet away from the street. Oftentimes, those signs or the ordinances that dictate the sizes of signs are restrictive that the building signs aren't the same, or the effect isn't the same, on a regional shopping center as it may otherwise be in a community center where the distances are substantially less, of 100 or 150 feet. So getting the signage, or getting a tenant monument, an identifier, out on perhaps Baldwin A venue or Huntington Drive, and that the same tune, trying to introduce a little bit of architecture there, it's really kind of a multifaceted purpose to that particular venue. As it relates to the limitation of supermarket, it's very difficult to sit here today, well, I think it's very easy to sit here today and say that it's a supermarket that should only be a 25 or 38,000 square feet. However, as we go through this development process in some 39 regional shopping centers across the country, we come in contact with a large number and wide variety of tenants. And in this particular venue, with supermarket tenants that today are looking at stores that are upwards of 80 or 85,000 square feet. Now it's not that typical supermarket that we're after. But I think what we are after is an entitlement that provides us the greatest flexibility to fmd the best and most suitable tenant for the Westfield Shoppingtown in Santa Anita, and hence, Arcadia. So I would hope that we would. recognize that and in that, give us the flexibility in the interpretation of the entitlements and hammer us home on the specific plan. So with that, I'll close, and our team is available to you for any questions you might have, and we'd like to talk to you after the public session. KOVACIC Thank you Mr. Hokanson. Any questions? CHANDLER I have one question. KOVACIC Mr. Chandler. CHANDLER In my disclosure period, the three phone calls r received, the concerns were about the commercial pads, building area B and building area A, up there off of Baldwin Avenue. . The pads ostensibly for restaurants? HOKANSON Yes sir. Page 25 I I I I I I CHANDLER OK. That seemed to be the focal point of their concern. I'm sure they'll speak with the public hearing open. And that concern was that during peak parking, during holidays and whatever, the employees may in fact park their vehicles on the residential streets and then, you know, walk down, or on Baldwin and walk to these pads. So earlier you indicated to Mrs. Marshall that you were flexible on these pads. But, I mean, obviously you have them there for a reason. One's across from the Arboretum, almost, where a lot of people go, and they're clearly visible. If they're a restaurant, people are going to notice and drive in. So were you sincere about the flexibility of the pads or not? Where would you really put them that people would be attracted? HOKANSON Councilmember Chandler, I am sincere in terms of our flexibility in terms of where they're placed. There are a couple of practical components that we are going to want to factor into where we would really locate them. One is certainly who owns the property that they're sitting on, or adjacent to, and whether it's Nordstrom or ourselves or JC Penney. The other factor is, to move them in 100 or 150 feet off the street front, where there is an existing 10 and sometimes 12 foot high berm, doesn't make a lot of sense, because it really tends to sour that particular piece of the site in terms of providing the optimum condition, or the optimum design conditions for efficient parking, traffic circulation and so forth. If you look at the pads are they are proposed today, they are really silent as it relates to setback. And the intention is there, that we will certainly meet the intent of existing code, under the 25-foot scenario, and under a little higher foot scenario, in terms of the height of the building, we'll drop them back a little bit further. But whether, if they're on the property, let's say they're 20 foot off of the sidewalk, the existence of that berm is a natural barrier to where.those customers are not going to park on the street and walk up and over the berm, or come around, perhaps. They're going to want to utilize the best possible parking they can, which is typically out board of the department store's reach of-150 to 175 feet, yet in board of the sphere of influence of that individual pad. One of the things that we have done since we have taken over the shopping center, or purchased the shopping center, is to institute a very aggressive employee parking program, where we actually manage in conjunction with our merchants, where the tenants, in peak holiday periods, park their cars. Do we get 100% compliance? No,. but our customers, who are the tenants, have the same concerns that we do, and that is to provide the best possible shopping experience for their customers or the community of Arcadia. And so with that, when you start to bring all of those elements together, I think that there is a solution in there-that isn't necessarily defmed clearly and precisely by Page 26 words, but it's a fimction of getting into the plan, and modifYing it, through the specific plan process, so that we're coming out on a collective basis with the best possible product. I CHANDLER OK, well you obviously picked those two pad locations because they're probably the most ideal off of Baldwin. I mean, you could have picked right next to the fIre station, right? On Huntington Drive? HOKANSON Conceivably. CHANDLER Conceivably. That had a bitter taste. HOKANSON Well, one must remember that next to Nordstroms there's a very deep set section of the parking lot in that area. And we didn't necessarily feel that it was the best thing for those particular merchants, or those restauranteurs to drop them into a hole. One of the advantages, clearly, off Baldwin A venue is to have some form of visibility to Baldwin Avenue. CHANDLER So they're really ideal if you're going to put a restaurant in. And you haven't, you're not required to commit, but I'm kind of assuming you're going to do restaurants there. I HOKANSON As long as the clarification is that I don't have to commit, then you can assume that they're re~taurants. (Laughter) CHANDLER Well, please be advised that the neighboring community is concerned about overflow and people parking on the residential streets and I'm sure they'll make that clear for themselves. We need to be aware of that as the discussion goes on, and concerned about that. I'm not even so sure, the closest residential street, maybe one of the residents will clear that up for me, is, seems to me, quite a little way away, other than Baldwin A venue. HOKANSON Other than Baldwin A venue. And all kidding aside, Councihnember Chandler, those residents are not only neighbors to us, but they are also, from our perspective, customers. And our intent is to get along in this community, to build a strong relationship with our community, both business as well as residential, and we will endeavor to work those issues out. CHANDLER Thank you very much. I Page 27 I I I HOKANSON Thank you. KOVACIC Any other questions? I have a couple, Mr. Hokanson. HOKANSON Mr. Mayor. KOVACIC It seems to be that along Baldwin, your proposed envelope, which is designated on the Illap in red, is almost the same as the existing envelope, which is designated in yellow, except for a little bit that's west of Nordstroms and I assume that that's to allow Nordstroms to expand to the west in an orderly fashion, and not be forced to expand to the south, is that correct? HOKANSON I think it is. I really cheated myself of the opportunity to say that, you know, as we look at properties, we are looking at them on a long term, expansive, expansion-oriented basis. 1'his adjustment is really to develop some long-term expansion needs for us, as well as to Serve the immediate. And then as a part of that, I have every reason to believe that we will see some department store expansion, especially considering, you know, the upswing of our department store sales at this particular center over its competitors. KOVACIC I'm trying to get a handle on why the line is drawn where it is. It seems to me it's drawn where it is, because you'd want Nordstroms, if they were going to expand, you'd want to give them the opportunity to expand to the west. Is that a fair assumption? HOKANSON That is a very fair assumption, yes. KOVACIC And then why don't you give me a brief lesson, Mall 101 so to speak on mall advertising. Y QU made, in your presentation, the distinction between a community center and a regional center, and r assume this is a regional center, is that correct? HOKANSON This is a regional center, yes. KOVACIC Now would a typical customer to a regional center be going to that center as a destination point, as opposed to, they just happened to see it off the side of the road somewhere? HOKANSON Well, I think that an impulse occurs, not only from shop to shop within the mall, but also with customers that are passerbys. And whether they're new to the area, or happen to be Page 28 a part of that community driving by and saying, "Ah! I remember, Sally Sue needs shoes, or maybe I can just dash in there and get a quick coffee." So we have a variety of types of trips. I KOVACIC And thus you have some interest in some signage to attract those folks who weren't going there as a destination point in the first place. HOKANSON I think that's an excellent point, yes. KOVACIC OK. Now I appreciate your current signage. I think it's well done and it's architecturally pleasing. I'm not real wild about two monument signs with a bunch of tenants being listed as you suggested. How many tenants are you proposing being listed on these signs? And let me just give you my perspective. I think we all appreciate the fact that, and I could be wrong, I'm not an expert in malls, but to me the mall seems to be somewhat uniquely designed with the berm around it and the minimal signage and all that. And that may be an attribute to the community but a detriment to the folks trying to make a buck. But I did notice down in La Jolla (END OF SIDE TWO OF TAPE ONE) (BEGINNING OF SIDE ONE OF TAPE TWO) I UTC, which you folks own, you have minimal signage there, as well, and a lot of landscaping, so I'm just kind of wondering what kind of signage you really are contemplating here in Arcadia. HOKANSON [ think what we're contemplating here in Arcadia is not so dissimilar from what the industry as a whole is contemplating. You bring up University Town Center in La Jolla, that is a property that we own and operate and is currently going through a similar entitlement process to Santa Anita, and there is a center where we will look to add 750 to 850,000 square feet to, and really bring into this new millennium. These are centers that haven't had a lot done to them for the past ten years, and a lot has changed in that period of time. And we expect a large amount of additional change to occur in our industry. Some of it good, some of it great, some of it not so good. But all in all, I think it's a healthy process, and I think it's very important that we, collectively, make every effort to keep pace with that. KOVACIC But from your perspective, with your entitlement package, what do you conceive to be the nature of these 750-square-foot signs on Baldwin and Huntington? How many? And I Page 29 I I I we may be getting to the cart before the horse because we're going to go through plan review on it, but you're asking for the right to construct these signs, so I'd like to know what you sort of have in mind. Are you planning to list 10 tenants, 20 tenants, five tenants? What does the industry want you to do? HOKANSON I think that what we would be looking at doing is, we will have less than more, and if you tie into staff's comments relative to, and believe me, I'm not trying to be smart, I am attempting to be smart. KOVACIC You're maintaining your flexibility. HOKANSON If you look at the criteria that's been established by staff, where 25, 35, and 40,000 square foot stores get certain sign considerations to the exterior of their building, we would hope that those concepts can be, again, be drawn out to those two particular pylon sign locations, one at Baldwin, one at Huntington. And so, when you look at that, we're probably somewhere in the 6 to 8 range, and that's really on the maximum. KOVACIC OK, well that's helpful. OK, any other questions. OK, anyone else on your team, would they like to speak? PENMAN Mr. Mayor, I can also clarifY. When we, when there were no limits on the signs, we suggested four, and Westfield came back and said, "How about five?" So it's a nmnber somewhere in that range, that's why we recommended four. HOKANSON Four and five. PENMAN Four and eight, apparently, I guess. HOKANSON Let me clarifY that if! can. Because I'm assuming, we have one existing. We have two that that are pending approval, and I'm really looking for two additional for a total of five. KOVACIC OK. How does this relate to the two signs 'you mentioned that have the tenants on them? HOKANSON Those are included in the overall number. KOVACIC And the others are just generic Westfield signs, or, what are they? Page 30 HOKANSON I think it needs to be defmed. In terms of how we deal with that. KOVACIC More flexibility, OK. Anyone else like to talk on behalf of Westfield. Dr. Chang, I'm sorry. CHANG Mr. Chang, r have a question. OK, these numbers, we mentioned about four, five numbers. Does it include the existing sign? PENMAN Let me clarifY what I thought the request was, and then Westfield can correct me if I'm wrong. They have a mall identification sign on Huntington, pardon me, Baldwin. They also requested a mall identification sign on Huntington, and then a monument sign on each of the streets, or signs, as I mentioned, that had to be defmed, and the question was how many on the monument signs. So we're talking about mall identification sign on the two major streets, and then a monument sign on each of the major streets, which could incorporate anywhere from four or more tenants on that sign. That was the request. KOVACIC So that adds up to four. PENMAN Plus a mall identification sign on each street, Baldwin and Huntington. KOVACIC Four total, correct. PENMAN Four total, correct. Well no. KOVACIC That's one of the mall identification signs. PENMAN They already have a mall identification sign on Baldwin. They're asking for one on Huntington, and then monument signs on each of the streets which could include four or five or perhaps six tenants on each of the monument signs. KOVACIC Let me just get it clear, as clear as we can get it. Two different things. We're talking about total number of signs, and then we're talking about number of tenants listed in a particular sign. You already indicated it would be in the neighborhood of six to eight probably less. How many total signs are you asking for tonight. HOKANSON We'll run with staffs recommendation offour. Page 31 I I I I I I KOVACIC HOKANSON KOVACIC LEWIS POLLARD OK, the two identification signs and the two tenant identification signs. Yes. OK, great. Would anyone else like to speak on behalf of Westfield? OK, thank you Mr. Hokanson. OK, would anyone else in the audience, pro or con or on the fence, like to address the City Council? Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Lewis Pollard. I live at 405 South Baldwin Avenue, Apartment #1. I first moved to tllis address in 1964 after I took a position as planner with the City of Arcadia. I spent 16 happy years in various positions before moving to the private sector. Living here, I've seen a transformation of Baldwin A venue north of Huntington Drive from a quiet residential street to what it is today. I have problems with noise, particularly traffic noise. Traffic and the lack of an overall coordinated plan for the future development of Baldwin Avenue corridor, including the shopping center and the racetrack, which we're not looking at this as a whole, we're looking at it in a piecemeal fashion. And other medals are planned. I also thiok that no zone change should be considered before you see what you get. Given the matter before us, I want to focus my objections on the proposal to create two commercial pads on Baldwin A venue. I have two principal problems with this. First, is the encroachment of parking, especially employee parking, on Baldwin Avenue, Hugo Reid and Old Ranch Road. And I might mention, that this isn't just that far from all these streets. Hugo Reid is right between the two mall pads, and is very convenient. When the holiday shopping season comes, it seems to be coming earlier each year. Employees are required to park on the racetrack lot to the east. Given the distance of this parking, they want to park closer to their jobs. The managers of business during the year will not want these employees parking next to the buildings. They might point out the parking to the south, which I thiok was talked about here, of these pads is in a hole and really not easily accessible. If these buildings are built, one impact will be parking on Hugo Reid, Old Ranch Road and Baldwin Avenue. I don't think there's any question about that, and I hope we're not taking a chance with that. I've talked to several residents on these streets, and I've yet to fmd one that approves of this encroachment. In retrospect, I wish I had carried a petition, because this date, next to a holiday and the start of school, is bad for attendance. I also would like to remind the Page 32 Council that the zone notice only reached a small number of people. So we depend upon you to act in the overall community interest. The offsite parking will disrupt Hugo Reid neighborhood and Baldwin A venue. And there is very limited parking on Baldwin A venue, and any parking encroachment will be an extreme hardship on tenants' parking, guest parking, delivery services and repairmen. What you have on Baldwin A venue is many small residential businesses. Mom and Pop ownership. I am the owner of one of those buildings. We depend upon this parking. You need to be sensitive to our investments and our tenants' needs. The second part of my objection is to do with the nature of the street. When the shoppmg center was fIrst approved and a zone change given, there was a big fight and a large part of the city did not want the shopping center here. One protection that came out of all the meetings was to have a zoning envelope that set all buildings back from Baldwin A venue. In addition, a landscape berm was erected to screen the commercial buildings and parking from the street. When you look at it today, you barely see the buildings, and at car seat level ) you do not see them except for the berm breaks. Even a one story building will project well above the berm. Any building here will start the destruction of a fimdamental protection built into the original plan. It will also change the character of the streetscape. You will start to commercialize Baldwin A venue north of Huntington Drive more than it is today. Now we have a greenbelt stretching north of Huntington Drive to the freeway. Mixing commercial uses close to residential is not a good idea, and it's not good planning. The residents on Baldwin A venue will have a vision of commercial buildings, not pleasant greenery. With respect to noise, there is so much noise created by the traffic that it penetrates the front units like the one I live in, and makes for an unpleasant living environment. Staff has said there is not much they can do to tie this to the present proposal, or offer mitigation measures. And this, I think, shows how things can get worse when you don't pay attention to incremental changes over time, such as those proposed here. I believe there are certain things that can be done, and I'd like to get further input on that, but my allotted time is running out. It's running short. In conclusion, I would like to point out that one of these two pads is within approximately 300 feet from my bedroom There are other units on the street within 150 feet of this pad. I do not thiok that any of you would want to have a commercial building within that distance of your bedrooms. Page 33 I I I I I I KOVACIC POLLARD KOVACIC SCOTT SAYRE These two pads will not make or break this development. If they want restaurants, there is no reason they can't locate them out in front of the existing mall buildings, or in the development. I would also like to point out that any, I also don't like to see any monument signs or other signs on the perimeter. I think that this, again, gets away from what the protections we had. And I might also point out the 750 square foot sign in the size of a two-sided billboard. And I really think that is out of character with what this commmtity is accepting of. And again, as I say, we are talking about a small notice area here. This location, the location of these things makes a big difference to us. So please deny the request to further commercialize Baldwin Avenue and honor past planning projections to save what tranquility we have left. And thank you for your consideration and hearing me. Did I mention that I did receive another letter from, John C. C. Tsao, I believe, and that was in the record, right? Dated September 4. There were some other people here I believe that I had talked to, who had some children that they had to pick up and did not leave, so, as I said, it is difficult to get people. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Pollard. Any questions? Thank you. OK, would anyone else like to address the City Council? Good evening. My name is Scott Sayre. I live at 444 West Huntington Drive, across the street from the mall. I'm an architect licensed in California. First, let me make clear that in general, I approve of the proposed mall expansion. I understand that the main body of the addition will be an outdoor shopping plaza in the northeast quadrant of the properly. I believe that an expansion of this size can be accommodated with appropriate design. Rather than repeat all my comments from the Draft EIR hearing, which are already part of the public record, I would like to reemphasize my concerns about the proposed parking ratio reduction. As an example for your consideration. I did some checking with some acquaintances, who are presently working on a remodel of a department store in a Westfield owned mall in Northern California. The total project there is very similar to this one, including parking garages, the mall expansion, and additions to the major tenants, some of the same tenants found in Page 34 our mall. The required parking ratio for that project is 5 stalls per thousand. Why? Because, when the city required it and stuck to their guns, Westfield readily complied. I personally have worked on numerous large shopping centers around the state, and this is the standards requirement, 5 stalls per thousand. Based on historic precedent, Arcadia's mall has always required a minimum of 4.75 stalls per thousand square feet. Most of the time, that works out fine. However, we all know that between Thanksgiving and New Year's, it's not so fine. The addition of a multiplex cinema with big parking demands will only make matters worse. Rather than provide a higher ratio, Westfield is actually requesting to reduce the ratio to 4.5 stalls per thousand. And they've produced a passel of consultants and studies to prove it's OK. Our common experience says otherwise. Let's talk dollars for a moment. When applied to the gross leasable area of 1.5 million square feet, the historic parking ratio, 4.75 minus 4.5 equates to about 375 extra parking stalls, the difference between what they're proposing and what would be required otherwise. At about 300 square feet per stall, and about $20 per square foot, this equates to a rough estinrate of, a rough estimate of $2 million. Again, estimating roughly, the total project will be around $80 million in site and shell costs alone. Will Westfield pick up their marbles and leave just because we ask them to add a little more parking at a cost of 2 or 3% to their budget? No. They'll just add another tier to one of the new parking garages. Should we ask them to do it? Of course! Why take a chance? It provides a margin of safety, just in case Westfield's traffic engineers and other consultants might be wrong. In my opinion, we should be asking for a lot more, but I'll settle for sticking with the original parking ratio of 4.75. Also, and this is equally important to me, I would again like to state my vehement objection to the proposed extension of the D and H-8 overlay zone to the southeast corner of the property. And I'd ask you to look at your site exhibits if you have them handy. This would allow a structure of some 80 feet in height to be built directly across from condominiums on the south side of Huntington Drive. On the west side of the property, facing Baldwin Avenue, this line has been held back 100 feet or more in front of Nordstroms, and much more in most places from the street. Why must it be extended right to the property line at Huntington Drive? I think already know. The applicant intends to locate multi-tier parking structures there. And if you allow this zoning change, there will be no legal way to prevent them from doing just that. If I'm wrong, the applicant should have no objection to moving the boundary north. And I'd like them to Page 35 I I I I I I do it. I'm urging you to rethink the city's positions on these issues. Send these elements back to staff. Oh, and before I fmish, I'd like to particularly compliment Mr. Kovacic for asking some very penetrating questions. All of you need to keep digging further into this whole matter. Thank you for your consideration. KOVACIC Thank you, Mr. Sayre. Any questions. Yeah, I have one question. Your friend's experience up north. Were they dealing with gross leasable area or modified floor area. What was the thousand? SAYRE MMM. I don't know off the top of my head. I'm going to guess it was gross leasable area but I'm not sure. KOVACIC And have you seen Westfield's suggested revision to the height limit along Huntington? SAYRE No I haven't. KOVACIC Perhaps they can give you a copy of their letter dated September 5. They are designating an area that looks like a, I can't remember my geometry, does that look like a parabola? That is going to be reduced to the C-2 height restriction. What would C-2 height restriction be? PENMAN 40 feet. KOVACIC 40 feet. Can we tell the measurement of that area? Perhaps Westfield can address that on your rebuttal. Thank you Mr. Sayre. Would anyone else like to address the City Council? JEFF PAGE My name is Jeff Page. I'm the store manager of JC Penney here in Arcadia. And I'm not here to ask for any additional signs. I think I have plenty. I would like to speak on behalf of Westfield. I was here prior to Westfield coming to town, and I've been with JC Penney for quite a while, in fact 30 years, all in California, so I have some involvement with malls. The bottom line, when Westfield took over Santa Anita, there's no question that the standards and the level of expertise raised. So Page 36 KOVACIC BEN GARRETT when you're entering a venture like this, you've got to look at that factor. In my mind, they know what they're doing and they're professional about how they do it. I My second reason for supporting this expansion is that, plain and simple, malls as we know it are changing. If we're not willing to change, somewhere down the road we're going to experience a loss of sales. I don't think the City wants to experience that, and neither do I. The one thing we have to realize is with the Internet and everything else that is going on in shopping, they do not have to come to the mall. We have to give them a reason to come to that mall, and it requires some changes. This expansion is going to do that change. And as far as I'm concerned, Westfield has demonstrated the ability to pull this off, and once it's done, to manage it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Page. Any questions? Thank you. Good evening, members of the Council and staff. My name is Ben Garrett, and I reside at 512 Vaquero in Arcadia. And I'm here to speak in favor of my neighbor. Reasonable commerce is vital to any community. And during the years I've lived in this town, I've had a chance to meet my neighbor, both in a vital role and in a social role. I The vital role has been in my participation on the Board of the American Red Cross and the Disaster Services Committee. The mall and its staff and the management of that complex over the years has represented a willingness to be a good neighbor and a participant with us in a vital service as it plans for disasters that we may encounter in this County and in the City. I've also had a chance to work with the mall management in a role through a joint program with the Police Department and amateur radio operators during the holiday season where we provided additional security for the shoppers by being a part of that program. I've been in on meetings where I've listened to my good neighbor talk about the mall's impact, their concern for the neighborhood and the safety of the citizens, and our residents, during the shopping season. I also support this project in that it gives the City a chance to review certain traffic patterns and possibly modifY some areas in our City that need some adjustment in that general area of the mall and Huntington Drive and Baldwin Avenue. I'm also tired of spending my tax dollars in other cities. I think that the revenue generated from a mall I Page 37 I I I KOVACIC JOY MULLINER KOVACIC AUDRA MINET expansion would allow us to benefit economically, which any community, of course, needs. I'm also able to talk to my neighbor. They're willing to listen, and as I understand it, tonight's presentation is just more of an entitlement, which I support. I'm sure we're a long way from final decisions and technicalities of square footage and placement of buildings. And I think that this Council has a wise foresight to represent our City and our citizens to our best interests. It's my hope that you join in this enthusiastic endeavor, and add to this economic and vital interest to our City. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Garrett. Any questions? My name is Joy Mulliner, and I live at 405 South Baldwin Avenue. And I'm here to support Lew Pollard in his quest to try to keep certainly the restaurants off Baldwin Avenue if we can. My issue is more one of values. I think it has to do with quality of life. And it's something I try to instill in my son. I mean it's hard to envision down the road where we'll be with' this, but I can certainly tell you, having my bedroom on Baldwin A venue that currently the truck traffic, even at 3 in the morning, is horrendous. And I'm speculating, I don't know for sure, but I know aJot of the trucks, Vons certainly goes through there going down to the EI Monte warehouse, and maybe that's another issue we should look at. But when I come off of Baldwin Avenue off of the 210, it is so beautiful and it's very impressive to me of Arcadia as a beautiful city and a very desirable city to live in. And if you change the complexion of it, by adding a lot more commercialism to it on that street, and I'm not just saying it as being a resident there, it's also a certain pride in the city, I think you're going to be disappointed. And again, it goes back to the quality of life. One reason I chose to live here is because it's a very exceptional community that way. And I think you did a very good job of designing the berm the way you did. But the other issue I wanted to mention, certainly related to the restaurants, is that they require more parking than the commercial buildings do, which will only aggravate the traffic situation. And I urge you to address that. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Mulliner. Good evening, my name is Audra, and I am a small, compared to JC Penney, merchant inside the Westfield Shoppingtown. I'd like to bring up several things that I've Page 38 KOVACIC AUDRA MINET KOVACIC LEE SHIMMIN experienced being with Westfield. One thing is that I have an art gallery, lower level, next to Nordstroms. Very different than maybe a typical gallery. The design of it was I very unique. On a constant basis, the residents of Arcadia and surrounding cities have approached the gallery and said, "Wow. We are so happy to have something so diverse within the mall." Our response to that, many a time, is that they should thank Westfield. Because Westfield has the insight of the community. I believe that another example of their insight is this expansion. The amount of jobs that are going to be created with this expansion is phenomenal. And also, I'd like to address a little bit about being a small merchant and the Internet. I believe what Westfield is doing is a necessity. People need, in their home and their environments, a stimulation. They want to be able to go out into a community environment and be stimulated with all ages of their family. And I believe what they are proposing is a total solution for the family. I'd also like to address something that I'm not sure if I'm supposed to give away mall secrets or not, but last holiday season, I've worked with many malls. And Westfield goes out of its way to make sure that we are definitely parking within the proper boundaries. They actually hire shuttles. They make sure they do everything they can to make sure that ~e comply with those rules. And this is a good thing for both the residents, for us as I store owners, and for our customers. I'm definitely in favor of this expansion and I hope that you will look favorably upon it. Thank you. Thank you. Was the last name Audra, or the first name Audra? First name Audra, last name Minet. Thank you. Good evening, my name is Lee Shimmin, Chamber President and resident of Arcadia for 24 years. What brought me into the area of Arcadia was the mall. In fact here is a copy of the JC Penney ad that we had in 1980 where we had a big sale and we celebrated five years of the mall. Ever since I came here in Arcadia, the mall has given back as a great citizen to this community, many, many things that wouldn't have been there if we hadn't had the mall. And I'm very appreciative of them, and I just want you all to know that I think that this mall, if we didn't have the mall, where would we be? With the diminishment of the racetrack and many of the things that have gone on in the City, where would our tax base be? I Page 39 I I I KOVACIC TONY HENRICH As a businessman, I feel that we made the right decision at that time. I'm very happy that citizens have come before you and talked about the various aspects of the mall. I feel this is very, very important that we have the mall that we want for the City of Arcadia. I feel that Westfield shopping center is that mechanism that's going to bring us the type of mall that we would want. And I'm in favor of this project. We cannot stand with doing nothing. We must move forward in this time. We should be concerned about our citizens and the help that they have with a good tax base in a city that is funded properly. And I believe, from the Chamber of Commerce and from all the citizens that are in here, that we need to support this development and go through the process of asking all the good questions, which you've all asked. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Shimmin. Good evening, my name is Tony Henrich. I'm the President of the Homeowners Association for the Lower Rancho and the College areas. My concern is not with the expansion, per se, but just information regarding what is happening here. Last Thursday, was the fIrst that I was aware of that this public hearing was going to take place. And I've not seen the EIR, so I really can't pass judgment on the expansion. I'm certainly not opposing that. I do have concerns about what has been voiced already, about the increased traffic and the parking along Baldwill. And really about the conunercialization, as someone had said, of Baldwin itself. Because we have these beautiful berms and it was there with the vision of Arcadia to sort of protect the vision of Baldwin and the stores that go along it, and not have a commercialization right up the street. I hear people talk tonight that said, well, they're put there at that location because they're more visible. And that's the issue at hand. And if, in fact, restaurants are there, you would probably want to have the name there, and that also encroaches on the visibility. And so what I would like to advocate that maybe, in the future, <al we would postpone the decision on those or eliminate those two pads, so you don't have that visibility encroachment on Baldwin, which hurts what we have now. But also in the future, we might have more information that expansions like this would come before the public, maybe we should have a town type meeting, in which these issues are fully presented to the people so they have a chance to respond back to you, our representatives. So I would Page 40 like to get more information if we were to make an intelligent input into this meeting regarding exactly what those pads would be, or eliminate them at this point in time for future consideration. Thank you. KOVACIC Thank you, Mr. Henrich. Donna or Don, perhaps you can at this point give us a summary of what public input and opportunities have been available throughout this process? BUTLER We started out with a scoping meeting in which everyone within 1,000 foot radius of the perimeter of the mall property were sent notices of the scoping meeting. It was also advertised in the paper. This took place, oh my goodness, approximately a year ago, just about a year ago. The public hearings, all of the notification by code is 300 feet. We expanded it to 1,000 feet, feeling that it would at least be more, involve more property owners. Notification again was at the time that the EIR was completed, the Draft ErR, we sent notices again to everybody within 1,000 foot radius, and anybody who had requested previous notification. And we held a public hearing before the Planning Commission on the Draft EIR. Following that, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission in July, July 25, on the ErR, the Final ErR, as well as the three applications. Again, that was noticed in the paper and also notices sent to all property owners within a 1,000 foot radius. This involves a little less than 1,000 people that we sent notices to. And tonight's meeting was noticed in the paper on August 3, and notification again was sent to everyone within a 1,000 foot radius. And I should note that this is on the latest census, excuse me, the latest equalized assessor's roll that we have. PENMAN So we've had one public meeting and this is the third public hearing. KOVACIC OK, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the City Council? POLLARD Excuse me Mr. Mayor, may I make one more comment regarding the notice radius? KOVACIC Sure. POLLARD OK, I might just want to point out, that when you look at the property, when you go north of the shopping center, the racetrack takes up all of that area to the north and to the east, so nobody, the homeowners are going to get notice above that. And then there's a substantial amount of commercial to the south. And the Arboretum comes into play. So we're really talking about a very limited area. Thank you. So when we're looking at public input. Page 41 I I I I I I KOVACIC OK, thank you. JOHN MAC DONNELL Good evening Mayor and Council. My name is John Mac Donnell, a resident of the City of 35 years. I remember years ago when the track had the warmup track there, and the City kind of changed as it went along. And they okayed the mall to be built there, and then there was a lot of talk, I remember my parents talking about how a lot of people were upset because they were going to have this great big building that was now going to be sitting where there used to be this beautiful warmup track. And I remember my grandfather talking about when he was working there about all the things that were going to happen, and the changes that were going to happen over the next 40 or 50 years. A couple of the things that I know, the City is surrounded, and each of the properties are surrounded by each other, little properties, so the only real place you can go is up. And then you can only go so high. A couple of the things that are proposed, I noticed, that a couple of the other people talked about are how the parking structures could wind up on the south side of the mall. I think that the racetrack doesn't really have a problem with structures being built in their view. Because the main thing of the racetrack is that once you're in the racetrack, then you're looking at the mountains as the races are going on. I think that the zoning for the areas where they would like to build these parking structures, if they could shift these to the north side, the northeast side or north side of the mall, those would be areas that would be hidden and not put in the view of all the homeowners and the people driving east and west on Huntington Drive or north and south on Baldwin Avenue. The pads for the restaurants, I think that those are things that Westfield would probably, if they had enough people talking about how they don't want to have the smoke and the smells and the traffic of these particular restaurants that would be sitting on these pads blowing over into the people that live along Baldwin or the people that drive up and down Baldwin, I think that that's something that they would probably change. I don't think that's the defming part of their intentions to expand the mall. I think the expansion of the mall is a good thing. I think it's going to bring a lot more taxes and as it was mentioned before, jobs to the City. That's a positive. These two little pads, I don't think it's something that's going to be detrimental to their decision to withdraw or to expand their program. They're still going to expand the mall, whether they get the pads or not, I'm sure. Page 42 I know that there was talk about the parking during the season between November and January. I know that the racetrack allows employee parking in a large portion of their facility. They may be, in the future, expanding as well, and that may be something they are going to have to look at as to whether that can be part of their program to still allow that. I'm not Sure how the agreement is reached, that the mall traffic can now park over there, because now it's Westfield and the track is another owner. But that's something that has to be taken into consideration as well. Even though it's a good gesture, and a good neighbor agreement, that might be something that will change in the future. So that might be something to be looked at, as well. I know that in talking with several managers and people that work at the mall, I've had the opportunity to actually kind of eavesdrop and overheard how, when I'm at the bank, managers talk about how they have to call security to corne escort them to the cars and stuff, and that's really slacking, from what they say. And so a lot of these managers, especially late at night, they'll go out and move their car forward, up closer to their business. Well, I would expect that they would do that if they don't have any escorts to take them out to their car, for their safety. I think that's of vital importance. But I think that's something that not the City Council has to look at, but the mall has to look at, to make sure that their managers, male or female, get to their car safely in the evening time. So that's something that also has to be looked at. The last thing I have is, I think what we need to do on the signage, and I would hope that the City Council would take this into consideration, is that we go around and look at the Huntington Center over on Huntington behind where Embassy Suites is? They have a ~ign there that has many different businesses that, they have little signs. I don't know what the exact square footage is of that sign, but a reference being brought up earlier that the sign 750 square feet would be the size of a billboard. You're going to have a lot of businesses in this expansion that are going to be wanting to put their names on there. And it's not something we want later to have little subdivided signs and stuff, where six big signs became 12 little signs or 24 tiny signs, you know, httle tiny signs. But with all these businesses that are there, that's something that has to be made sure that it's clarified in the request and I know that Don and everyone takes consideration in those signs. But I know that the ones at the Huntington Center get real small and there's a lot of them. That's really a commercial area that is right down Huntington so that doesn't affect what would be affected here on Baldwin and on Huntington, because there's residential around it now. Page 43 I I I I I I KOVACIC AUDRAMINET KOVACIC VINCE FOLEY The Westfield sign, I think it looks great. It took a great place in place of the old theater sign that was there. They put a nice modern sign there. I think that one on Huntington wouldn't hurl. But I think when you start adding the signs with the businesses, I think that that would be detrimental to the city. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Mac Donnell. Sorry, r just wanted to bring up one more thing about the signage. As a small merchant in the mall, we depend on our anchors to bring in the consumers to the mall. I believe that putting the signage out there, done tastefully, which Westfield has an impeccable, reputation of doing, can add not only more business to the mall for us, I might be saying this as a selfish business owner, and looking at the bottom line, but the way that they do it is also beautiful to look at. I've heard so many discussions tonight about how beautiful Arcadia is. The reputation of Westfield and the way that they build their malls, their consideration for the nature and their design and signage, I believe will actually add to the environment of Arcadia. Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the City Council? Good evetting Mr. Mayor and members of the Council and management. My name is Vince Foley. I live at 320 Cambridge Drive. I think it's 1,005 feet from the perimeter of the mall since I wasn't notified. Didn't get my notice. I've known about mall expansion for some time because I've be~n involved on the periphery of City politics for a while. I've always supported the mall, have supported expansion of the mall, and I was always led to believe, and in fact even when I ran for Council, was led to believe that all the mall expansion was going to be to the east. And I don't think anybody objects to that. And I think tonight, the biggest bone of contention you've heard is about those two pads on Baldwin, which is not east, and it's kind of a big surprise to virtually everybody, that all of a sudden there's a plan for putting something on the edge of Baldwin. And it seems to me that save for the one gentleman who lived on Huntington Drive who was concerned about the height of possible parking garages on Huntington Drive, it seems to me that if this Council eliminated those pads tonight, you wouldn't have any opposition at all. Thank you very rnuch. Page 44 KOVACIC Thank you, Mr. Foley. Would anyone else like to address the City Council before we give Westfield the time to rebut? Or close, or whatever you want to do? I HOKANSON Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, all those members of the community who reached out, spoken out this evening. I honestly and sincerely appreciate it. I'm hearing four key issues this evenmg. And not necessarily in order of priority, one is the pads along Baldwin A venue, and their proximity to residential. Two is increased parking along Baldwin A venue, that may serve as a detriment to the residential. The third element is existing noise and the potential for increased noise along Baldwin Avenue and the adjacent residential. And the fourth element is the reduction of the proposed parking ratio from the 4.75 to the 4.5. I'd like to address each of those items, perhaps beginning with the last, fIrst, and fIrst last. As it relates to the parking ratio reduction, and as a clarification to Mr. Sayres' earlier comment, the project that he was speaking of was our Westfield Shoppingtown Valley Fair project in San Jose, which is undergoing a major expansion at this particular time, and should wrap up somewhere in March. At that center, there is a 4.5, or a 5.0 parking I ratio for the site and that is measured against modified floor area. But I do want to make that clarification. On that issue and referring to my letter that was submitted to staff earlier this afternoon and subject to the Council's approval of the concept of the gross leasable area, we are willing to accept or remain with the existing code provision that requires 4.75 stalls per 1,000 of gross leasable area. As for the traffic along Baldwin A venue, we believe that with your approval of the EIR this evening, that the traffic at Baldwin Avenue, and let's say the congestion that currently amounts at Baldwin A venue and Huntington Drive and several other intersections that are currently operating below an adequate level of service today, without the expansion, will, in conjunction with the expansion, be improved to a level that is satisfactory to you and I believe our community as a whole. As far as parking goes along Baldwin Avenue, as I'd mentioned earlier, I think we do have a very aggressive program, parking management program, for our employees as well as the tenants and merchants of the center. And I think we get a high degree of I Page 45 I I I participation and cooperation from those. But I would like to recommend, that perhaps we consider, or the City consider, the institution of a parking permit program along Baldwin A venue, whereby retail or tenants of the Westfield Shoppingtown Santa Anita would be exempt, and more importantly, the residents would be the beneficiary of those permits. And last and certainly not least, with respect to the pads along Baldwin A venue, I think if we were to break them down and not necessarily discuss the pads but discuss one pad in particular, and that (END OF SIDE ONE OF TAPE 2) (BEGINNING OF SIDE TWO OF TAPE 3) adjacent and across from the Arboretum is acceptable, then we really need to focus in on the second pad that tends to encroach upon the residential area, or at least that seems to be the bulk of concern. KOVACIC That's the one designated A. HOKANSON I'm in particular, assuming for the moment, that area B is acceptable. That area A, in terms of its location, can be modified to create a greater setback from the roadway. But the one thing that I do want to add is, that, you know, it's our effort and our attempt to assemble a strong mix of good, great retailers, entertainment and dining opportunities at the Westfield Shoppingtown Santa Anita, and in order to do that, we need to have the tools necessary in order to give these particular tenants what they not only want, but what they need in order to effectively go into business and continue to operate for years to come. At this particular location, to the extent that it's a restaurant, I'm not committing myself to a restaurant, but to the extent that it is a restaurant, it is not only subject to a specific plan process, but also, with the concurrence of staff, subject to a conditional use permit process as well, which opens up the public hearing on that particular unit, as well as A and B for that matter. And we are ready, willing and able to go through that process with you and with the community on site specific issues. We can deal with signage, and when that signage is turned on and when it's turned off, so it won't encroach upon the residences. We can look at specific servicing issues, when deliveries are made, more importantly when they're not made, where the servicing is conducted, where the trash is Page 46 contained, how the smoke or exhaust of the restaurant is undertaken, as well as where are the entries and where are the windows and how do we develop good sound solid restaurants that are the least invasive on our residential neighbors. And so with that, we are willing to step to the line and make those adjustments with you. KOVACIC Thank you, Mr. Hokanson. Any questions? Ms. Marshall. MARSHALL Could you please address the issue of the H-overlay being moved north so that the double tier doesn't obstruct views? HOKANSON I can, yes. Further in my letter to staff this afternoon, and does everyone have a copy of that? On that, the zone was to be moved out to the southerly line toward Huntington Drive. We have since that time instituted an area within the red zone that would remain as a C-2, or a maximum 3-story, 40-foot building area, or maximum building height area. We believe, again, going back to my earlier comment regarding maintaining flexibility in the design development process, we would like to see that continue on. Weare willing to abide by that C-2 restriction in that particular area. And let me say this in response to, I think, a comment made by Mr. Sayre, is that, it's obvious we're going to put parking stmctures in that area. And with a large percentage of our testimony tonight, we are attempting to gain maximum exposure for our retail merchants. And for us to stand here and claim that, and at the same time to come back and put a parking structure, a big wall that looks like a parking structure in front of it, it defies logic. So I'll leave that, as it is. When it comes to putting parking structures in or, let's say, shifting that area to the north, I think we would be more than happy to shift that line north, so that that is an additional consideration that we can undertake. But one of the things that we need to make sure we do, is that we provide parking facilities, it's important that those parking facilities have numerous accesses to the shopping center, and not through anyone particular store and' only one store, but actually can access the property from the largest number of areas that we possibly can. And that's one of the problems, I'm not saying it's out of the question, it's just one of the problems that we would have to deal with is moving it to the north, completely. KOVACIC Any other questions? Yes, Mr. Chandler. CHANDLER The question, well, the implication was made that you'd do the deal if you didn't have these two commercial pads once again, probably, for restaurants. How important are Page 47 I I I I I I these two restaurants to this huge expansion, and I think we all remember the talk about updating and staying ahead of the curve, but probably the only objection that's standing, I think you mitigated the parking objection that Mr. Sayre made on Huntington Drive, this one is the only one standing. How significant to your project are two restaurants at that location? HOKANSON Thank you. Councihnember Chandler, I think that two restaurants, be it on this particular side of the property, are very important in establishing or re-establishing the critical mass for the property, or for the ProP9sed redevelopment of the property. At that particular location? I don't want to see them slid off the plan arbitrarily. I would really like to see the process run its course. Let us get in and mix it up with the cornmunity and come up' with an acceptable solution. And I believe that under the specific plan guidelines, and the conditional use pemrit guidelines or processes, we have that venue. We have that obligation, if you will. But I do believe they are important to the overall critical mass. KOVACIC Ms. Marshall? MARSHALL I have one more question, if you don't mind. John brought up a very good question, I thought. What if Santa Anita expands and withdraws the extra parking between December and January that they extend to the mall and that could be a big possibility that we have to think about. I thought that was an excellent question. HOKANSON I'm sorry, I'm sort of in a void here. I'm not quite sure what the. MARSHALL Santa Anita offers parking, Santa Anita Racetrack offers parking to the mall between November and January for extra parking when they're extra crowded. Now, if Santa Anita decided to expand themselves, and they have to withdraw that extra parking, is this going to create a problem for the mall during that peak period for the holidays? HOKANSON I think it's an excellent question. Unfortunately, it prompts me to ask a question, if you don't mind. Is Terry here? Terry, I have one quick question. How many parking stalls are you relying on, over there, and what's the purpose of their use? Page 48 KOVACIC TERRY WALTON Westfield Shoppingtown HOKANSON MARSHALL HOKANSON KOVACIC HOKANSON Mr. Hokanson, you're hijacking my hearing. Why don't you have Mr. Walton come back down here, identifY himself, so we can get all this on the record? Just so we get everything on the record. I My name is Terry Walton. I'm the General Manager of Westfield Shoppingtown, Santa Anita. I believe there was a question between the cooperative agreement that we have with Santa Anita Park for parking during the holiday season. We have, as far back as I remember, had a cooperative agreement with Santa Anita Park, whereby we use approximately 225 parking spaces in their parking lot during the holiday season. I believe that answers your question. We're talking about 225 spaces. Let me also add, if I can. When it comes to determining an appropriate amount of parking for a center, not only do we employ, but in this particular instance, the City has employed, traffic engineers to look at parking and so forth, but it really doesn't end there. It's actually, where it really begins, is yes, we're looking at the parking and traffic, but also each of the individual department stores who employ traffic engineers, and more often than not, have them full time on staff, are looking at the parking, because that is a critical component to their sales. Without parking, with a discouraged customer, that customer will go someplace else. If every time they've got to come down to Westfield Shoppingtown Santa Anita and fight for parking, they will look for another place to shop. So that's a natural guard, if you will, against going too far. I But I would think that you defmitely need to keep this fact in mind that this could happen, I would say, somewhere in the future. And it's very possible that this agreement could be withdrawn. So that you accommodate for that happening if it, in fact, does. I think it would be something to really keep in mind. Because that is the peak time, and it's gonna be very imperative for your sales at that time. And if it is imperative to our sales, then, yes, we will fmd another venue to replace that. I have two questions about the four points that you talked about. The point about the spaces per thousand, this Valley Fair Mall that's currently going under expansion is 5 spaces per 1,000 of modified floor area? Is that correct? That is correct. I Page 49 I I I KOVACIC And then you stated that you were willing to agree to the City's currently existing requirement of 4.75 per 1,000 but you want it to be gross leasable area as opposed to modified floor area. Is that correct, and the current code is modified floor area? HOKANSON That is correct. KOVACIC So you are asking for a reduction? HOKANSON Weare, at that. KOVACIC And then you talked about possibly modifYing the location of building area A, but we didn't get real specific. What did you have in mind as far as modifYing the area of building area A? HOKANSON If we can get up and over this hurdle, I will eliminate building area A, in concert with this hearing. KOVACIC I see. And then one other thing. Internally, do you need the commitment of your majors to do the expansion, or is that something that Westfield is entitled to do on its own. HOKANSON We do need unanimous approval of the department of stores for any and all expansions and modifications. KOVACIC OK. Any other questions? Mickey. SEGAL I just have a question about the sign you discussed. You had asked for 750 square feet. I'm just wondering what's staff's recommendation on the signage in size? PENMAN I believe our recommendation was four tenants, 500 square feet. That would provide 125 square feet per tenant if they're on a new monument sign, in addition to the mall identification sign. SEGAL So they've asked for substantially more. That's 1500 square feet, just those two signs. PENMAN Right, and we've recommended 1,000 for the two, with four tenant max. Page 50 HOKANSON KOVACIC DA VI!) DOLL Westfield Shoppingtown Councilmember Segal, we will concede to staff's recommendation. OK, any other questions? Does Westfield want to add anything else to the presentation? I Mr. Mayor, thank you, my name is David Doll. I'm Executive Vice President of Westfield. Just as it relates to the parking issue, I'm a little more familiar with the Valley Fair situation. The City of San Jose has a specific defmition as to how they get to their gross leasable area. Now there is a certain formula of excluding space within a project to get down to their defmition. Staff's struggle with the concept of modified gross, or modified floor area, is that It can obviously change over time. A department store can come in, once they build the walls, they have a certain amount of shafts, etc., and during the future years, they may want to make alterations, etc., and it's very difficult for staff to continue to monitor that change. The definition that they put in place is not un-standard, as Donna had mentioned. And once the walls are built, the calculation is set, staff can calculate it, it doesn't change without creating a new building envelope. And so I think there are some benefits that staff has gone through in this analysis to get to the point where they are. I As David mentioned, we have partners in this project, the department stores. We have 39 regional centers across the country. They have many more regional faciHties. And they will be looking at these projects, not only on a count of the parking stalls, but where they're located, how they're laid out, how they work within the facility, so there's many more factors that go into the adequacy of parking than simply just the counts. As Councilmember Marshall asked, where do we put these parking spaces in peak periods? We're not required to find peak-period parking spaces. We do it as a matter of operation. And we have many malls where we will move those spaces around to other commercial venues, in and around the city, whether they're office buildings that aren't operating on Saturdsys and Sundays, whether they're a vacant retail facility somewhere down the road and, again, employing shuttles, etc., that can accommodate those spaces during the time of need. So I think there are many more issues that go into it than simply the count. What staff has suggested gives staff and the Council a very easy way of determining what requirements are necessary and insuring that those are there for the long term as opposed to the immediate tenant improvement plan that has been put forward. I Page 5 I I I I KOVACIC Thank you, Mr. Doll. Dr. Chang. CHANG It appears to me that you, Westfield rationalized the increase of the parking space by the theory that there are shared parking spaces between the custorners, among the customers of theaters and restaurants and retail stores. I don't know how accurate it is, you know. So I think that for the sake of this argument, OK, can we ask for five per 1,000 gross leasable area? DOLL We'd prefer not to, Doctor, and there's a nmnber of reasons for that. As we begin, and if we look at, take a simple example, a McDonald's that stands alone, has its own parking facility. Obviously at lunchtime, it needs many more parking spaces than it needs at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. So if you're looking at a stand-alone McDonald's, its parking requirements really have to stand on its own. The studies that both the ICSC and the Urban Land Institute have recently performed, which Donna and staff have looked through quite extensively, what they've done is look at the characteristics of these types of facilities in different size strata, as well as elements such as theaters, restaurants, retail, and have been able to chart through those the peaks and valleys of these various different uses. And actually that was part of one of our traffic studies, to go through a theoretical study as well. And we could show, on a theoretical basis, that a 4.5 ratio was going to be sufficient. Now staff's obviously picked up on the point that until a specific plan, and a specific size of theater, and a specific size of restaurant has been identified, which would be done during the specific plan process, that theoretical calculation is exactly that, theoretical calculation. But it is quite common. And we have projects that have 4.0 spaces per 1,000. We have some that have been recently approved at 4.5 in different cities. As was mentioned, the Valley Fair was a project that we acquired and a previous developer had processed a plan for a 5.0 ratio, but under a formula excluding out certain pieces of square footage. So they're not necessarily apples and apples in every community. KOVACIC OK, thank you again, Mr. Doll. One other question. CHANDLER Since the Doctor's proposition didn't work too well, how do you like 4.75 per modified area? Page 52 DOLL I'm not sure that the 4.5 on a modified CHANDLER 4.75 I DOLL 4.75 on a modified versus against the gross leasable, as staff was defming it, is significantly different. And maybe Donna's got a calculation for that. I think what it really did was created a defmable definition of how many square feet were there. The modified said you take and you calculate certain shafts, and certain elevator cores, and certain things that were in the building shell on a set of improvement plans, and then obviously changes can occur within the building walls that would change that calculation over a period of time. What staff is proposing is, when the building walls are determined, you can determine the amount of GLA at that point in time, multiply it by a ratio, and the parking requirement comes out the other end, as opposed to, OK, what's the building size? Now, let's start defining tenant improvements within the building, and how do we now calculate what our parking requirements would be. Is that an adequate description of the quandary, Donna? BUTLER That's a pretty good description, yes. Modified gross floor, just to expand it, I mean, it's very complicated. It deletes mechanical, custodial areas, closets, public corridors, balconies, air shafts, toilets, so it gets to be a very complicated formula, because everybody kind of defmes it a little differently or calculates it, I should say, differently. The gross leasable area is a much easier calculation. I DOLL So it takes and says, based on typical projects, this amount of square footage would be associated with those uses and we use that as a standard throughout the development of the project. CHANG I have a question, since we talked about this parking area. I have a question for the staff. In our code, the calculation is by modified floor area, is it? BUTLER Actually, the only current modified gross floor area used is for the mall itself. All other commercial buildings area based upon gross square footage. The mall has been the only use, it used to be that all uses in the City were modified gross floor. KOVACIC Gross square footage, or gross leasable area? BUTLER I'm sorry, gross square footage. I Page 53 I I I KOVACIC Gross square footage. CHANDLER That would make it onerous for these people. BUTLER Right, because when you're looking at a mall, you have a lot of common open areas, the hallways, the mall common area. And that's why it was used as modified gross floor. CHANG Ms. Butler, since you just admitted that gross floor area is mOTe difficult to calculate than gross leasable area, why don't we modifY, why don't we amend our coding using this opportunity? BUTLER Actually, gross floor area is the easiest way of determirting. You take the outside dimensions on gross floor area. That's the way we calculate all of our office buildings, our individual commercial buildings, retail buildings, and so forth. In a mall, because you have enclosed common areas that aren't devoted to retail space, the recommendation, well, the current code bases it upon modified gross floor area, which it takes out the public corridors, lobby areas, the closets, mechanical and custodial. The gross leasable area is proposed to be the actual leasable space within the mall itself. And we feel very comfortable with that. That is a standard that is utilized throughout the industry. This isn't something that we created. This is a common standard used for mall areas, for shopping centers. CHANG GLA. KOVACIC GLA. BUTLER Right. CHANDLER The question was, why don't we go to that, if it's common? PENMAN We're recommending that, and the developer originally came in and asked for that change, 4.5. He's now modified that request to remain with the 4.75, but have the new definition, which is a pretty typical defInition. And I think as Mr. Doll pointed out, the range is really, we can certainly say we can fmd a whole range of parking requirements. Page 54 CHANDLER So you answered my first question, early on. Actually, we don't need to carry this further. We can accept 4.75 at gross leasable area. PENMAN If you're comfortable with that, that's our recommendation. OUf recommendation was actually for a lower standard. We're glad that they modified that, based on the concern of the Planning Commission to go back to 4.75 with the new defmition. KOVACIC OK, great. That took awhile. PENMAN Thank you. CHANDLER I have one other question, Mr. Mayor, for Mr. Hokanson. KOVACIC Sure. CHANDLER At the tail end of your last testimony, as the Mayor likes to put it, maybe because you were beaten down and tired, you said, if I can get over this hurdle, I'll eliminate building A on the pad. Is that what, you said that? (Laughter). And he accuses me of berating the witness. Did you just say, if you could just get rid of this issue, you'd get rid of one of these restaurants? HOKANSON I would give up that particular location, but I would still hold on to my feeling that we need the critical mass. We'll just move it elsewhere. CHANDLER OK, I need to know what to vote on. What I thought I heard was, well, we'll just get rid of one of those restaurants. But you didn't say that. You just said, if you can get over the hurdle, meatting get your plan approved, for essentially two commercial pads, you would be willing at the next phase, to relocate A. HOKANSON Yes. CHANDLER Is that a correct interpretation of what you meant? HOKANSON I'll accept that interpretation. KOVACIC OK, yes. Thank you. Do we have a motion to close the public hearing? Page 55 I I I I I I SEGAL So moved. MARSHALL Second. KOVACIC Motion by Segal, second by Marshall, seeing no objection, the public hearing is closed. This is the first of five public hearings we have tonight, and it's 5 to 10, but I'm going to take some executive privilege and take a five minute break and then we'll reconvene for discussion and vote. 10 MINUTES RECESS KOVACIC We are going to reconvene the meeting of the City Council if we can have it a little quieter. For future planning of all you City Council junkies out there, we are going to advance public hearing JOE to be held after B. So after this hearing which is lOA we are going to go to lOB, then 10E, then 10C and 10D. OK. Now it's time for discussion, and staff, if you would walk us through the minefield here, and tell us the order of decision making and also the issues that have been raised, and we'll deal with them as they come up. PENMAN Certainly. I think it's best if we suggest that we deal with each one, and resolve that, and move on to the next. And the first would be the Environmental Impact Report. As Ms. Butler indicated during her presentation, that's an information document that the Council uses to make your subsequent decisions. So our recornmendation is that the City Council adopt resolution 6197, which is a resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, certifYing the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for Westfield Shoppingtown expansion project, adopting environmental fmdings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. KOVACIC And this does not tie us into any of our future decision making tonight, as far as the specific. PENMAN Exactly, this would be adopt ErR, and then you would move into the next phase, which is to make specific decisions on the requests and recommendations. CHANDLER Mr. Mayor. Page 56 KOVACIC Yes, Mr. Chandler. CHANDLER I move to adopt resolution 6 I 97 as just described by Mr. Penman. SEGAL Second. KOVACIC OK, we have a motion by Chandler and a second by Segal. call, please. Any further discussion? Roll ALFORD CHANDLER ALFORD CHANG ALFORD MARSHALL ALFORD SEGAL ALFORD KOVACIC Councilmember Chandler? Yes. Chang? Yes Marshall? Yes Segal? Yes and Kovacic? Yes. PENMAN Mayor, just for the record, that is exhibit, or section 7, with a typo in the number. It should be 6197. For the record it's exhibit 7, or section 7, in your packet. KOVACIC The staff report is correct. Is the agenda correct? CHANDLER Instead of 67? PENMAN It should be 6197. KOVACIC OK, that's what we passed. OK, Mr. Penman? PENMAN The next. CHANDLER Did we vote? MARSHALL Yes, we just did. Page 57 I I I I SEGAL It's 10 after 10. I want to vote again. (Laughter) PENMAN The matter, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, pertains to the General Plan Amendment request. Specifically, this has to do with the request to change the floor area ratio from .40 to .50, which, in effect, would allow what's currently permitted the .40 is about a 300,000 square foot expansion. The request to change to .50, which is consistent with the other commercial areas in the community. Staff is recommending that Council adopt resolution 6198, the resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, amending Table 21, City General Plan, Land Use Designation and the Community Development Section of the General Plan to increase the maximum floor area ratio, FAR, from .40 to .50 for the Westfield Shoppingtown Santa Anita, the northeast corner of Baldwin Avenue and Huntington Drive. KOVACIC OK, this does not have anything to do with the boundaries of the development envelope, merely the ability for them to add 600,000 square feel as opposed to 300,000 square feet. PENMAN I KOVACIC PENMAN KOVACIC CHANG CHANDLER KOVACIC Correct. We still are talking about the location of that additional. Exhibit 8 in the staff report. OK, any discussion about that? Do we have any problems with that proposal? Mr. Mayor, I want to move to approve, to adopt resolution 6198 as stated by the staff. Second that. OK, we have a motion and a second. Motion by Chang, second by Chandler, to adopt resolution 6198. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. I ALFORD CHANDLER ALFORD CHANG ALFORD Councilmember Chandler? Yes. Chang? Yes Marshall? Page 58 MARSHALL ALFORD SEGAL ALFORD KOVACIC Yes Segal? Yes and Kovacic? Yes. Mr. Penman, the next item? I PENMAN Yes. The next item pertains to the zone change request, Z-99-003, and there are a couple of issues there that the Council needs to address. The fIrst is the building envelope. We also have the pad, which would include the pad. Pad A, which currently the developer has indicated a willingness to remove from that location. And the H, the revised H overlay, which the developer also, by his letter, submitted today, has indicated he would pull that back away from Huntington Drive based on his exhibit. And you could not adopt, we have no ordinance for you, because it is a zone change. and it requires an introduction of an ordinance. What we would be seeking tonight is your direction on those issues. KOVACIC OK. So this would involve establishing the building envelope, which on our map is the expanded area in red, building area C, plus the two pads A and B. That's one issue. A second issue would be the overall height limitation and consideration of Westfield's suggestion to reduce the height, am I still on the right matter? Yes. I PENMAN KOVACIC OK, to reduce the height to a C-2 standard along a portion of Huntington Drive, OK? And what else, is that it? PENMAN Uh-huh, for the zone change. KOVACIC OK, the extent of the envelope, the existence of the two pads or combination of pads, and also the height limitation. OK. SEGAL Would it include their proposal to limit the pads to one story? BUTLER That's actually governed by the design overlay. Thai's incorporated in the design overlay, if you wish to limit that. It currently is part of the design overlay, which is a separate document that you will be adopting. That's a resolution format. SEGAL Thank you. I Page 59 I I I CHANG Is it one story or two stories? PENMAN That would be exposed under the resolution. That's the final action that we would seek direction on this evetting. CHANG So we don't need to specifically indicate. PENMAN Not for this particular action. In 15 minutes, you will. KOVACIC OK. In the H-8 height designation, which existed prior to this application, and we're still talking about portiOns of the existing mall approaching that height. So is anyone suggesting eliminating that height restriction? PENMAN No. KOVACIC OK. Council, let's discuss the extent of the envelope. Building areas C, which is the large mall area, and A and B, which are the two pads, and also the height and modification submitted by Westfield concerning that portion along Huntington. Anybody want to start? I am glad that they did suggest that modification along Huntington. I think that's a positive step, and I think that with that modification, I do understand the slight.... (END OF TAPE TWO, SIDE 2) (PICKING UP TRANSCRIPTION OFF BACKUP TAPE #4) encroachment, and I'm talking about building area C right now, I do understand the slight encroachment to the west in order to get Nordstroms a more reasonable area on which to expand. And I think with the modified height limitation as indicated in the letter dated September 5, from Westfield, I think building area C, to me anyway, is satisfactory. I am concerned about building areas A and B. And I'm willing to lead the discussion on this, of course, my preference obviously would be to eliminate both pads, but I can see some justification for keeping building area B as a cardinal pad. But I'd like to see at least building area A unmade, so that it's not moved, but eliminated. CHANG Mr. Mayor. Page 60 KOVACIC Dr. Chang? CHANG For matters of clarification, this zone change we are talking about here, is to expand the existing zone regulation here to the area in the envelope C. KOVACIC Right. On this map, it would be changing it from the yelIow boundary to the red boundary. CHANG Yes, but this would, but the two pads are excepted, are not included? KOVACIC They are part of the proposed building envelope, and they are in the. red. But they are designated as A and B, and I don't think we're talking about the height. PENMAN No. The height is actually their proposal was to limit it to 30 feet. Now they've modified that as part of their letter that they would actually lower that to single story, with perhaps some building articulation or roof structure up to, say, 25 or some percent. But that's not within the code that they requested. It's actually lower than C-2, which allows 40. KOVACIC So is that part of the zone change, or? PENMAN Well, the pads only, in terms of the building envelope. KOV ACre Is the height of the pads part of the zone change? PENMAN No. KOVACIC Ms. Marshall. MARSHALL I think a good compromise would be to have them relocate those pads to a more acceptable area. I think making them totally eliminate them is really restricting them frorn having the upscale restaurants that they plan on putting in that, most input that I get from the people in the community, it's wanting these upscale restaurants. I think that's a mistake. I think we need to work with them to relocate them to a more acceptable area. CHANG I don't think we are eliminating them. MARSHALL Well, Gary wants to eliminate them. Page 61 I I I I I I KOVACIC Well, my preference would be not to have either pad. I agree with the statements that Baldwin Avenue as was originally planned in 19, in the early 70s, as sort of a pristine, in an urban sense, corridor, with the mall set back significantly off the street, and protected by the berms, would not contemplate these kinds of pads. And I think these two pads are anathema to what was originally contemplated by this mall. I do think that there is some justification for at least one of them, because it's further north, it's across from the County facility. But I do think the other one does encroach into an area that, at least the original planning of this mall, conternplated being open. I understand Ms. Marshall is maybe suggesting that we keep both pads, but we move them, both of them, further up Baldwin, and I don't know if anybody's contemplated that, or not. I'm not sure where they'd go, because, I guess you could move it closer to the other envelope. And of course, this envelope, as the mall currently exists, the mall is much smaller than of course even the existing envelope. So you could move either pad closer to that envelope, whether that makes economic sense or planning sense, on that shift. CHANG I think that's a good idea, that we move both pads upward to the mall. Setback, have a greater setback to the mall on these two pads. KOVACIC I think we went through that. I was trying to get that from Mr. Hokanson. Clearly if you have a restaurant you have to have it on a main artery where people can be attracted to it. I mean, what's the sense of having a restaurant that's hidden? We will end up with a dud or two duds, doing it like that. Quite frankly, I don't see any value in asking them to eliminate one. It seems to me that B, quite frankly, is a problem of more concern to some of the residents in the Lower Rancho because it's closer to them. A is of concern to the people that live across the street on Baldwin who have to hear truck noises as it is, and what have you. But I don't see what we have to gain in a compromise, if you will, removing one, thinking we've solved the problem. I don't see doing that, at all. Either we're going to have restaurants out there, or we're not. And the next stage is the specific phase, which, then they have to give and take with Homeowners' Associations. Maybe there's a parking problem. I don't know if there is a parking problem, but if there is, we'll deal with it when the time comes when we see what that problem is. Either, as the man suggested, by permit or by using shuttles or whatever. But right now, that's speculation. Page 62 Let me remind you that when this mall was originally built, a whole lot of people didn't I even want the mall. So, and it had to go to a public vote. The City Council couldn't even decide it. It was a public vote. So at this point, we can't do a plan that appeals to everybody. There's always going to be somebody that's impacted. But I didn't mean to suggest that. Let me finish. I didn't mean to suggest that we should rely on arguments against the mall that were obviously defeated in the litigation concerning the mall and the subsequent planrung. What I was talking about is what is actually there, what was actually there, what was actually approved. CHANDLER The question again , if we were, if we stayed in that point in time, that's like the testimony that we heard. The Internet could take us out. I'm not accepting that everything that was done, and quite frankly, I think that those people did a good job of planning that mall. But I'm not saying that that's set in concrete and that's the way we should live forever. KOVACIC I'm just talking about this area of the mall. I've already said that I agree with the overall expansion of building area C. Hopefully I am not stuck in the past. I'm merely suggesting that my preference would be to not have either building pad, but I could live with one building pad. And as far as I know that Westfield made this argument that they can mix it up with the public later on and everything will come out OK, hopefully. It seems we give them the right to build on these pads, ultimately we are going to have to give them a permit to build on the pad. It may take one hearing, it may may take three hearings, it may take four hearings, but they have the right to build on those pads. I So it's not like we can say, let's just establish pads A and B and maybe they'll build on them, maybe they won't, and maybe they won't come back, or maybe they won't be able to get an agreement with the community. Ultimately, there's going to be something there. CHANDLER OK, well, you wanted to discuss. I absolutely don't have anything to gain by saying, OK, you can have one but not two. I mean, you can build a mall but not a very big mall. Ok, so we'd like to vote to make a decision. CHANG Mr. Mayor. KOVACIC I guess we disagree. Let's hear what everyone else thinks. I Page 63 I MARSHALL Could we possibly put in this that with that those can be built, with the request that they be relocated? If it's something that everybody agrees on? KOVACIC Well, I think we have to figure out where that relocation site is. MARSHALL Now? We can't do that later? CHANG Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve Z-99-003 as suggested, as recommended by the staff. CHANDLER Which would include A and B where they're at? Second. KOVACIC OK, we have a motion to approve zone change Z-99-003 by Chang, second by Chandler, as suggested by the staff. I'd like to have staff clarifY what your suggestions are. PENMAN I KOVACIC PENMAN KOVACIC PENMAN I guess I would ask if the motion included Westfield's proposal to pull back the building zoning envelope along Huntington Drive. That's one issue. Because they did propose that. The height? The height, not the envelope, but the height limit. So that's one questions. Are we clear on the exact dimensions of that area? No. All we have is their exhibit. What they would have to do, since we would have to craft an ordinance anyway, they would have to give us a legal description of that. KOVACIC But that can be cleared up before it becomes fmal? PENMAN Yes. KOVACIC Ok, that's one of your recommendations. What's your other ones. I PENMAN Well, I think that the policy questions on the pads. Page 64 KOVACIC Well, let me ask Dr. Chang that. Are you contemplating, Dr. Chang, that A and B remain where they are designated on the map? CHANG That's correct. KOVACIC OK MARSHALL I don't like that proposal. I want to see the proposal state in there, that they have to relocate those to an acceptable area. I don't want to eliminate it, but I'd like to see them relocate it. CHANG What would you suggest? MARSHALL That's not my expertise. That's for them to come up with. But it would have to be OK'd by staff and Council, but not at the location they're at right now. KOVACIC Any further discussion? Mr. Segal. SEGAL I don't know why, listening to this discussion, we wouldn't take advantage of the offer that was made to relocate one of them in the fIrst place. That offer was made and they made it and it seems to me there's substantial concern on anything being there, but certainly why would we give up something they've offered to give us in the fIrst place? They must have a reason they made that offer. And accordingly, it seems to me, we ought to make the motion read that we approve, and I'm looking at it, it's B and we relocate A as per their conversation with us. Not do something that is certainly counter to what some public opinion is, and second of all, they made the offer. They actually did, and we ought to take advantage of it. KOVACIC OK, any further discussion? MARSHALL Are we amending the motion? KOVACIC I don't hear any. CHANDLER Hold on a minute. We aren't getting anywhere. Yeah, the man made the offer and I asked him what he really said. He didn't say what he thought he said. That was take A out of the picture. He said he might consider moving it, but that certainly wasn't specific. Page 65 I I I I I I And we haven't, in this discussion, we haven't required him to say specifically where he might move it. I offered to put it by the fIre station and he didn't like that. It tasted like sour grapes. We have to, as opposed to bringing the man back up here and asking where, I mean, we're trying to architecturally design a big project right here as we sit. And staff previously has gone through this over and over. They explained why these are the locations to make a business run. Now, obviously, if you want to ask him some more questions, you can do that. But those, they just didn't stand around the water cooler and pick those two spots. He made a faux pas. He shouldn't have said that. KOVACIC Dr. Chang. CHANG If you look at this map, OK, I think these two locations probably are the best locations for these two pads. The other thing, as mentioned earlier, that, you know, you have to have visibility in business, you know. And these two locations have good visibility. So that's why r want to recommend these two locations. KOVACIC We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? SEGAL Would it be inappropriate to let Westfield explain to us, what their proposal was in agreeing to relocate one of the locations? (END OF BACKUP TAPE LABELED #4) (BEGINNING OF BACKUP TAPE LABELED #5) HOKANSON I think what we would propose is, does everyone have a small diagrarn in hand? If you look at the county public works property that's located along Baldwin Avenue, and go to the center line of that street that runs perpendicular to Baldwin mnning off in a westerly direction, actually northwesterly, from that draw a line straight across the site. In essence, what happens is you split building area A from building area B. What we would propose is to move building area A over and into that right hand sector. CHANDLER Right next door to B, then? HOKANSON Yes. CHANDLER So just put them close, right next, side by side. Page 66 HOKANSON Actually what we would do is, splitting it here, we would create a zone. These boxes are substantially larger than a restaurant footprint, by probably 200%. So by splitting that, we would basically create an area here that is separated from KOVACIC So pad A would be east of pad B? HOKANSON We could, conceivably we could do that. KOVACIC Or, you are just saying create an area where you can bring. MARSHALL Either east or west. HOKANSON Or call it, combined area A and B. Pad area A and B into one block. Then we will create or plan for the nice, neat little restaurant pod in that area. KOVACIC So both pads would be either north or east of this line that goes down the middle of Hugo Reid. HOKANSON Yes. KOVACIC Or the extension of Hugo Reid. CHANDLER So what have we gained? SEGAL I guess the question is, you could still end up with two restaurants frontaged on Baldwin Avenue. HOKANSON Yes. But adjacent to the county (unintelligible). As opposed to the alternative, which would be adjacent to the residential sector. CHANDLER You could move that further down, closer to the fIre station, still. HEALY Mr. Mayor, if you're going to re-open the public hearing, may I address that? KOVACIC Let me try to gain a little bit of control here, again. Is there anything else that Westfield wants to add? Page 67 I I I I I I DOLL In originally selecting these two areas, the view was to try and group them together, and we did look at some of those areas closer down by the fIre station. But that seemed to be, again, across from the residential, and so the idea of placing them up in this northern corner was thought to be a compromise where we had wide enough berms, etc. Mr. Hokanson's desire to move them together, I think, accomplishes some of the things that the residents have looked for, as well as gives us the opportunity to bring in those types of signature restaurants that we're trying to attract. KOVACIC OK. And Mr. Pollard, a brief rebuttal. POLLARD I'm just saying, again, take that area, the half area to the south off limits. And again, stack the restaurants over there, I think that, and because you do have the County parking lot, that is a good compromise and removes a lot of the objections that we've had with that conveniently across from us all. I have to think that's an acceptable proposal and will accept the compromise. KOVACIC Is there a motion to close the public hearing? CHANDLER I move to close the public hearing, Mr. Mayor. SEGAL Second KOVACIC OK, motion by Chandler, second by Segal. Seeing no objections, the public hearing is re-closed. We have a motion pending, and Dr. Chang. CHANG I want to modifY the recommendation to take in these two pads together, and that moves A to B. Right? KOVACIC I think what we proposed, and if I'm wrong let me know, and I think what they're suggesting is to create a zone that is north of the extension of Hugo Reid and east of Baldwin, the dimensions of which we are not quite sure right now, in which they could put two I O,OOO-square-foot pads for restaurant use. CHANG Somewhere close to the location ofB pad. Page 68 KOVACIC They may both be next to each other on Baldwin. One may be on Baldwin, one may be behind it. That gives everybody some flexibility to work with. Is that OK? It's not a floating zone? DEITSCH Well, there will be a legal description, probably prepared by the developer and approved by staff that will be part of the ordinance that we will bring forward at the next meeting. KOVACIC OK, with the map. DEITSCH With the map. KOVACIC OK. Mr. Chandler, do you? CHANDLER Yeah, I will modifY that amended motion to second it. KOVACIC OK, is everybody clear, then, on the motion? OK? Staff, are you clear on the motion? PENMAN We are. KOVACIC OK. Roll call, please. ALFORD CHANDLER ALFORD CHANG ALFORD MARSHALL ALFORD SEGAL ALFORD KOVACIC Councilmember Chandler? Yes. Chang? Yes Marshall? Yes Segal? Yes and Kovacic? Yes. OK, next item. PENMAN The next item is the text amendment. Again, this is an item that will require an ordinance. And therefore, we'll have to get Council direction, will have to be brought for subsequent introduction and ultimately adoption. First, is request I, the parking amendment. Westfield tonight has modified their request. They would like to use the new defmition for floor area, but also keep it at 4.75. Page 69 I I I I I I KOVACIC Now how is that consistent with staff recommendation to continue consideration of this until a parking plan? Does this supercede that? PENMAN Well, our recommendation, the Commission recommended a study based upon the 4.5 request from Westfield. Staff felt that made sense, but we didn't actually originally recommend the 4.5 based on the Urban Land Institute and the ICSC analysis. We believe that based on the 4.75, with the new definition, even though that would result in fewer parking than what would be currently required, based on that information we can support that request. 4.75 with the new definition. KOVACIC And can you calculate how many fewer spaces we're talking about? PENMAN Not really, because it depends on the mix of the tenants. For example, theaters, restaurants, while there's the shared parking formula, the mix will affect how that works. It would be a reduction. [don't think it would be a drastic reduction. It would be 100 to 200 cars. KOVACIC Would this have, do we play any role at this point on whether it's angled parking or? (END OF TRANSCRIPTION FROM BACKUP TAPE) (BEGINNING OF SIDE ONE OF TAPE 3) PENMAN That's really a design issue that would go through? I don't, if the code provides that it's angled or 90 degree, or? BUTLER The code does allow for both angled and 90 degree. Ninety degree, the parking space requirement is 9 x 20, and this is for regional shopping centers currently. And the parking stall size for angled parking is 9 x 20, for 90 degree, it's 8.6 feet by 18 feet. PENMAN There are no compact spaces? BUTLER Right, no compact allowed. KOVACIC You get more spaces if you do it 90 degree. Who makes that decision? Does the Council have any discretion going one way or the other? Page 70 PENMAN Well, it's a design issue. They would submit their design. KOVACIC So it's part of the design review? The actual striping of the parking lot? PENMAN Well, the site plan, the circulation. KOVACIC OK, so you are then modifying your recommendation because of the concessions made by Westfield concerning the number of spaces, and we're making a concession concerning the gross leasable. OK. CHANDLER So Mr. Mayor, r would move to direct staff to prepare an appropriate ordinance, for introduction at the next meeting, to alter parking to 4.75 per 1,000 ofGLA, gross leasable area. KOVACIC OK. There is a motion by Chandler and a second by Segal. Any further discussion? PENMAN Mr. Mayor, r would make sure that we are covering kiosk and carts as well? KOVACIC That's next. CHANG A question here. KOVACIC Dr. Chang. CHANG So we don't need to do further study of the parking? KOVACIC No. PENMAN It doesn't mean, though, that we would necessarily in the design review process agree with where their parking structures and their parking is provided. We still have that control. If we believe, based on our analysis, that the parking is too remote, we would ask them to redesign it. But we're not asking for a separate, independent study which was one of the Commission's original recommendations. KOVACIC How about the height of, or the number of levels, of the parking structure? Page 7 I I I I PENMAN It really boils down to an equation. They have to build it, if they go more than two levels, it would depend upon, I think, proximity of parking. One of the things that we discovered in our analysis and discussion with consultants in the field is, and I think Westfield addresses, proximity is as critical as the number of spaces. They can have a more than adequate total number, but if it's not close enough to where the theaters and the restaurants are, then it's a problem. So they may be required to go up another level in a structure to be able to provide the number of spaces close enough to their new expansion area. I KOY ACIC And within the confines of the design requirements that we're going to deal with later concerning the parking structure, we would still have ultimate authority to determine through design review what that looks like and how tall it is? PENMAN KOY ACIC ALFORD I CHANDLER ALFORD CHANG ALFORD MARSHALL ALFORD SEGAL ALFORD KOY ACIC PENMAN CHANG PENMAN MARSHALL PENMAN Correct. OK, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. Councilmember Chandler? Yes. Chang? Yes Marshall? Yes Segal? Yes and Kovacic? Yes. Was that D or E? In essence you dealt with gross leasable area, if! understand the motion as well. What's going on? We just fmished parking. Now request 2. I Well, the request 2, then, is the defmition of gross leasable. Same thing. That's what I'm saying. There are three parts to this. The parking ratio. The defutition. And then kiosk and carts. The motion, I felt, dealt with the fIrst two, but we weren't . changing the parking ratio, because that was already in place. That wasn't changed. Page 72 What we're changing is the defmition. That was the motion to change, 4.75 with the new defmition. That's our understanding at the Council's direction. KOVACIC So we adopted E, and we're not dealing with D at all. PENMAN And the fmal one on this one is kiosks and we're recommending that parking be calculated including them KOVACIC And Westfield would prefer that we not do that. PENMAN Correct. KOVACIC OK. Any discussion? MARSHALL How much difference does it make in the parking? Do you have an approximate? BUTLER I think they figrued there would be about 25 parking spaces. We did not feel, I mean, it's retail space and should be counted as such. And based upon the number that they currently have, it was figured that it would add about 25 parking spaces, I believe that's the figure that came up. KOVACIC I favor staff recommendation. I think you can never have too many parking spaces. CHANG So do we have to vote on this? KOVACIC Yes. Does somebody want to make a motion or further discussion? CHANG This is regarding Request 2 or Request 3 or both? KOVACIC Yes, this Request 3, text amendment. I'll make a motion to adopt staff's reconunendation concerning kiosks and carts. CHANG Second. KOVACIC OK, motion by Kovacic, second by Chang. Any discussion? Roll call, please. ALFORD Councilmember Chandler? Page 73 I I I I I I CHANDLER ALFORD CHANG ALFORD MARSHALL ALFORD SEGAL ALFORD KOVACIC Yes. Chang? Yes Marshall? Yes Segal? Yes and Kovacic? Yes. OK, then we get down to the design overlay, which is resolution 4185. Mr. Penman, you want to go through the issues there. PENMAN A few key ones. One is the supermarket and the limitation of 38,000. It is my understanding in discussion with Westfield that was one of the issues they had recommended greater flexibility. So we'll need some direction on that one. I think that was the only one I can recall in terms of uses. The Commission imposed some CUP requirements for certain types of uses, within the mall, that involve more entertainment. It is our understanding that Westfield does not object to that. But they did ask for more flexibility on the supermarket issue. KOVACIC OK. Go through the entertainment issue again. BUTLER What they were requesting, the concern of the Planning Commission was they had requested entertaimnent as an incidental use to a restaurant activity. And then they described the entertainment uses as being high-tech interactive simulation games, live music and so forth. The Planning Commission felt that really, entertainment uses as such should require a conditional use permit, even within the mall complex. Because they felt that in some cases, where do you draw the line between and this being incidental to food, and so anything that would have entertainment as a more than incidental use would require going through the CUP process. So that's where it actually is right now. And their recommendation is that they don't, they feel that it just should come back for a conditional use permit if it's located within the mall area, or on a restaurant pad, such as a Dave and Buster's, should require a conditional use permit. KOVACIC Uh-huh. OK, I guess that raises two issues. One is, why, what's the reason for the City abandoning its authority to grant CUPs in the mall area? That would be a change, right? Currently we have that ability. Page 74 BUTLER Correct. KOVACIC What would be the justification for doing that? And two, how do you defme incidental? Is there a standard that you folks use to determine whether something's incidental or not? I BUTLER In response to your fIrst question, it has been siaff's experience over the 20-plus years that the mall has been in existence, that there has never been a conditional use pennit declined for inside the mall area when it relates to, and the primary use has been restaurants. That required a conditional use permit. KOVACIC Has there been discussion or determinations that would affect what conditions are imposed in that CUP? BUTLER Absolutely none. I think at the time, when you read back through the resolutions, I think it was just felt it gave them some control because they weren't sure how much, how many types of uses that required CUPs would be coming into the mall and just gave them the ability to review that. We do not think it's necessary. Uses outside like the restaurant pads would require still coming back through the conditional use permit process. As far as incidental, we've usually based it upon, in our experience in this planning, is I that we've usually based it upon what is the primary floor area devoted to? Restaurant uses, in other words, if over 50% is devoted to actual dining tables, the restaurant is the primary use. I used Dave and Buster's simply as an example. It's kind of hard, because Dave and Buster's has adequate dining, but on the other hand it has a lot of incidental entertainment uses, such as interactive video-type thing. They have all sorts of simulation games. I mean, it's real hard to draw the line there. KOVACIC The suggestion here is that a conditional use permit should not be required for uses within building area C. By defmition, doesn't that include everything within that red area, that's C? So that would include the outdoor. Is there a specific exception for outdoor restaurants and things like that? BUTLER No, what we were suggesting is that restaurants including outdoor dining, as long as it was in that building area C would not require a conditional use permit. KOVACIC I see. OK. So any questions about that particular issue? Any feelings one way or the other? The next one is the changing of the parking structure from two-level to multi- I Page 75 I I I level and we sort of talked about our ability to still have design review. We've already dealt with the carls versus kiosks thing, haven't we? That gets us to the food stores, and I think it's clear that staff recommended 38,000 square feet because they thought that would insure a specialty store. Discussion about that. CHANDLER I have no problem with that at all. As a matter of fact, I think we are about lined-up ready. KOVACIC OK. Westfield, they had requested no restriction. PENMAN Correct. KOVACIC Anything else? OK, nobody else? CHANDLER Our objection to no restriction was that it would not ensure a specialty-type market? PENMAN Well, it could result in, I think, even an 80,000 square foot grocery store. I think the original intent of the mall was to be more unique shopping. We recognize malls have changed and prototypes have changed, but I think our concern was to try to insure that a specialty grocery store went in there, we put the size restriction in. If we didn't have the size restriction, a new supermarket could enter the market and eat up some of the square footage that we believe would be better devoted to retail or entertaknent. \ KOVACIC And why 38 and not 50? PENMAN Because 50 would accommodate a full service grocery store, and 38 would probably not. I think Gelson's, 30-35, something in that range, is probably one of the larger. Now I admit, based on some information I received from the Mayor's wife, that there's a wonderful store in Northern California called, I think, Drager's that has a 60-thousand- square-foot specialty grocery store. But they have a cooking area, and a restaurant, and all sorts of things. But all I can say is by today's standards, 38 would probably accommodate a specialty grocery store, and 50 would allow for a full service. If we allowed 50, then there's no guarantee that it would be a specialty grocery store. KOVACIC And we can't define specialty grocery store, or go at it that way, as opposed to trying to limit the square footage. Page 76 PENMAN Well, we could try. MARSHALL That's a good idea. That would make more sense. PENMAN We could try to define product type or the number of, we haven't really looked at that angle. KOVACIC What do other folks do, out there? PENMAN I'm not sure. We'd have to look at that and see what they do. CHANDLER There's another point, Mr. Mayor. KOVACIC Yes CHANDLER I was kind of maybe lulled asleep on this one. It seems to me these people are in the mall business. And quite frankly, we don't get sales tax revenue from food anyhow. Groceries. So us screwing around here trying to direct here what's going to go in there, when they're the ones that have to be the landlord and build the mall, it seems like we're being a bit presumptive and maybe trying to overrnanage their project. I mean, if push comes to shove and they fmd out that a full service supermarket makes that mall work, I'm sure they would put one in. But we're sitting here speculating that we want a Bristol Farms or whatever, so we're going to limit. I think we ought to let them run the show on the square footage. I don't see what we have to gain by limiting them. We end up with a dinky little store. People bumping into the walls with shopping carts, or something. don't get the logic. KOVACIC I understand. I don't quite think, I don't think we're micro-managing anybody. In fact, I think we're being quite accommodating to the mall. The only thing we've really changed so far, aside from the concessions made by the mall, is the positioning of A and B, and that was their proposal anyway. So, I don't see any problem with at least giving this 38,000 square feet a shot, and I guess we can always adjust it. What do you folks think? SEGAL That was my question. We can approve 38. If they came back and they needed 45, what happens? PENMAN We just have to rnodifY the resolution. Page 77 I I I I I I KOVACIC Right. PENMAN Which is a single evening action, if you would. It's not an ordinance requiring a fIrst and second reading. SEGAL Seems to me our intent is not to tie their hands and so, if staff recommends 38, why don't we take that recommendation and if they need more, I'll assure you they'll knock on the door and ask for some more square feet. MARSHALL So this won't keep them held to that size. We'd know what the project is, if they came back to us that way. KOVACIC They have the ability to come back to us and ask for more square footage. MARSHALL Because maybe what Mrs. Kovacic saw, maybe is, sounds to me, the incoming thing, where they do the cooking and all this, and they need a bigger area and if they need a bigger area, we should be able to accommodate that, and. CHANDLER So easy enough, let's do it now. MARSHALL Yeah. CHANDLER They wanted unlimited. MARSHALL Not necessarily that way, though. KOVACIC Dr. Chang. CHANG r think there aTe two separate issues. One is the size of the store and the other is the nature of the store. I think if the reason that we limit the size of the store is because we want to have that particular nature of the store, OK. As mentioned by Roger, I don't think we should overmanage the nature of the store. That would be the potential tenant of the mall. I don't think there is any meaning to limit the size of the supermarket that they propose. So let them do their own planning and fmding of their potential tenants. Page 78 KOVACIC I respectfully disagree. I think that at least in t1us particular use, it is important for us to maintain some kind of control over the type of use. SEGAL And I would agree with that. MARSHALL Mr. Mayor. KOVACIC Yes, Ms. Marshall. MARSHALL Being that they could come back to us, and at that time we would know exactly what they're asking for, then we can make a decision, if we really want a specialty grocery store, we could probably get a grocery store. I mean, speaking as a woman, that attracts a lot of women in town. That's really want people want. And they can come back and ask for a bigger specialty store. I say, start at this and let them come back and ask for bigger and we'll know what we're dealing with, and they are probably going to be more apt to get a specialty store okayed, even for a bigger size, than they would a regular grocery store. KOVACIC Actually, I agree with Dr. Chang to a certain extent. That is, my preference would be to defme exactly what we'd like to see there, as opposed to picking a somewhat arbitrary number and hoping that's what shows up. But I'm hearing from staff that it would be somewhat difficult to define the exact type of store that you would feel comfortable with. PENMAN The only way I've seen that done as a generic specific is through a development agreement, which we're not doing here tonight. I mean, that is where an applicant and a city agree upon, if you do this, you get this. We're not there in that kind of issue. We're talking about more uses, like defming what record store you want based upon square footage. MARSHALL Why don't we do that? PENMAN A development agreement? It's a whole different animal. KOVACIC I'm not sure we can designate an exact user. This is an entitlement. OK, I think we've all aired out. No, we still have to deal with signs. That's part of this as well. Page 79 I I I I I I PENMAN Signs, and then any design restrictions on the pads. Heights, setbacks, should also be part of the resolution. The signs, I think we discussed those a little while ago. Basically, the request is to have two building, that would be page 63, thank you, to have two mall identification signs, one one Huntington and one on Baldwin, which would be 350 square feet per sign, no more than four tenant monument identification signs, not exceeding a total of 500 square feet. And then, a series of interior signs that would be restricted based on size of the tenant and location, I think. That's our recommendation, and I believe I heard Westfield say they would go along with that, although they did start with more monwnent signs, but that would be our recommendation. OK, so we're talking about a total of six signs where there is now one sign, if you look at A and B. KOVACIC PENMAN Well, perhaps. Although our vision on the tenant monument signs would be to group those into a single type of sign, or a design that didn't have separate monuments for each tenant along Baldwin and Huntington. But theoretically, that other way it's written today, you're correct. It could be six. SEGAL Again, since I understand the agreement was that they were happy with four, why again would we give six if they were happy with four and agreed to our sizes? It seems to me we ought to adjust this to what they agreed to, and be very happy about it, and it appears to me they seem happy about it, too. So. KOVACIC That's what I thought was said, and I thought we were talking about two and two, which equals four. PENMAN It's just that the way it is written now is they could theoretically have separate ones for each monument. That wasn't the intent, and that's certainly subject to design review. SEGAL I think they've agreed to take two and two, so can we make that change. PENMAN Yeah, we can just add language that says two, well, we have the two free-standing and have two tenant monument identification signs not exceeding 500 square feet each, that allow up to four tenants per monument. KOVACIC Right, I like that. Mr. Kelly, you wanted to? Page 80 KELLY And that these signs could be combined, rather than separate, two total signs or four signs, so there is no confusion? Or does Council care at this point, and wait for a design review? KOVACIC You mean the identification sign combined with the tenant sign? KELLY Correct. So that would be two signs on each street, or rather one sign on each street versus two signs on each street. You can hold that discussion until design review. SEGAL I think that's up to, if that's what they want to propose, we'll look at it during design review. But right now, we seem to have an agreement we ought to take it. Let's leave it at two and two. KOVACIC OK, anything else? PENMAN Not on signs, unless you have any questions about C and D for the Planning Commission and staff concurred on C and D on the sign question. And the only other thing is design review factors related to the pads in terms of setback and building height. I think we've heard tonight that they would accept the single story, with some flexibility in terms of the roof structure. And then, if it was over a certain height, I believe they would set it back further to 35 feet. KOVACIC Right PENMAN And if that's acceptable, then we can incorporate that language into the resolul1on. KOVACIC The language is, developer will agree to limit these proposed buildings, pads A and B, to a one-story structure of approximately 25 feet in height, with a building setback of approximately 20 feet. However, a portion of the building may project up to 30 feet, or a maximum 35% of the roof area, in order to support storage and service-type mezzanines. Should the building height exceed 25 feet, then a 35-foot setback will be observed. Has staff had a chance to review this proposal? BUTLER Just what we've seen tonight. Just as a matter of information, currently the setback, the width of the landscape berm along Baldwin Avenue, is 20 feet. So. KOVACIC So they could build it right up to the berm, then. Page 8 I I I I I I I PENMAN Well, it wasn't quite clear whether they meant 20 feet in addition to what's the 20 feet that's already there, or they would build it behind the 20 feet, which is a requirement already. KOVACIC What does staff think would be the best from a planning standpoint? PENMAN Well, I think the taller the building, the further it should be set back. KOVACIC From the berm. PENMAN From the berm. Currently the minimum is the 20-foot requirement, which is the berm. Now the question is, how much further back than the berm. KOVACIC So we are talking about 20 plus 20 or 20 plus 35, depending on the height of the structure. PENMAN Well, we're not quite sure what they meant. We don't know if they meant in their letter that they would take the 20, which is already in place, and if they go higher, then they would add another 15 to that. KOVACIC Well, with all due respect to Westfield, I'm asking you, from a staff point of view, what's the best for planning? PENMAN Well, I think we can go 20 and 20 as long as there's no parking in there, because then that kind of defeats the purpose. I mean, the building, if the entrance, it's really a design issue, because if the entrance is away from the residential, that's probably a better design than having the entrance facing the residential and having cars closer to residential. So, from a design standpoint, it's something we'd have to look at. I'd rather have the parking, the building buffering the parking from the residential, rather than having the parking on that side. So if we set it back too far, then we might actually allow parking in there, at least a single row. And that may not be desirable either. Then again, we can cover that with design review. We certainly believe if they're going to go higher, then they should add another 15 feet, as a minimum. KOVACIC How about delivery and storage and trash bins, and all that kind of stuff? Don't they need some kind of space between the berm? Page 82 PENMAN Well, perhaps, but sometimes delivery can be an issue, because it's typically done in the early morning hours, and the ambient noise level is lower, so it can be more of a problem at that hour. KOVACIC So what is your suggestion? PENMAN Pardon me? KOVACIC So what's your suggestion? PENMAN I think we can add 15 feet and that would probably be a reasonable compromise. KOVACIC 20 plus l5? -- - - - - - - PENMAN Existing 20 plus 15. KOVACIC And if they go the higher height? They're suggesting 15 there, I guess, aren't they? PENMAN Well, they're suggesting a 35-foot setback. I'm assuming they mean the existing 20 plus 15 more. KOVACIC Uh-huh. SEGAL What do you propose, 20 plus 15 plus l5? PENMAN I'm concerned about a dead zone there from a design issue. I'm not sure that's a good design. That's why I'm reluctant to say, create 40 feet between the building and berm. Then you're going to have parking. What do you do with it? A double aisle of parking is 65 feet. So you know, if you don't have 65 feet, then what do you have left, and what do you do with that space? KOVACIC When we created this new zone, did we create a mechanism that these pads sort of float around subject to? PENMAN Well, they would have to give us an actual legal definition of where they would go. It wasn't really clear that they wanted flexibility. Page 83 I I I I I I KOVACIC As I understand it, the pad, the zone as you put it, the building envelope, would be legally described, and then they could place buildings within that envelope anywhere they want. Anywhere they want. So we would have to, at this point, dictate PENMAN Subject to design review. KOVACIC But this design overlay resolution can include the setbacks by way of standards. We can adopt those through the resolution. PENMAN Truly it is a design kind of issue for us, because if we create a space in there that's not functional, then I'm not sure that's a good design. Clearly I think if the building's higher, then there should be a formula that says KOVACIC That you should get further off the street. PENMAN Right, but if it's 25 feet and it's single story, I'm not sure we want to create a 10 or 15 foot space in there that, I'm not sure what you'd do with it. I mean you could landscape it, but I'm not sure what it accomplishes. KOVACIC Design review could take care of this issue at a later date, even without specifYing the setbacks now. PENMAN I think we've clarified that the request was to put the pad to the permitted area, up to the 20 feet. Because they wouldn't want a dead zone in there of 15 feet that you can't do anything with. You couldn't even put a single row of parking, because a parking space is 18 feet deep. So, you know, from a design standpoint, that may Dot be very fimctional. However, there should be a formula that if they DO wish to go taller than a certain height, then it should be set back more, and it's just going to have to be landscaped. KOVACIC And we're sure that we're not encroaching on the berm within this 20 feet? PENMAN Well the berm is 20 feet, and from that point, that's where they're actually proposing where the building could be constructed. From the setback. KOVACIC Say that again? Page 84 PENMAN The setback is 20 feet, which is the berm. Then under their current proposal, they're asking that they be able to build to that setback line. KOVACIC OK, and what I'm asking is that are we positive that the berm is within the 20 feet, so that, I mean, is it possible the berm is 25 feet and they'll remove five feet of the berm to build a structure? PENMAN Well, I can't say it's not possible. I doubt it. But we could also include as part of our review that they don't encroach upon any existing berm. KOVACIC I have no idea how wide that berm is. PENMAN It's supposed to be at least 20 feet. KOVACIC I suppose that's my point. If it's at least 20 feet, that means it's possible it's more than 20 feet. PENMAN Correct, and again, we can condition it that the berm is not encroached upon, even if it exceeds 20 feet. KOVACIC OK, do you want to suggest some language, then? PENMAN Sure. That if the building height exceeds 25 feet, then a 35-foot setback is required. KOVACIC You want to suggest some language for a motion? PENMAN Well, I think the Council's, I heard some consensus on signs, and on the market, so now it's the question on this is the setback. We're suggesting an additional 15 feet if it exceeds 25 feet in height. KOVACIC That's this one. PENMAN If the building height exceeds 25 feet, then a 35-foot setback, which is basically another 15 feet above what's already required, be applied. KOVACIC And no portion of the existing berm shall be removed. Page 85 I I I PENMAN Correct. I KOVACIC OK, is everybody clear on that? Then it seems like the appropriate motion would be to adopt staff's recommendations with the change on page 63, item 3-B, change 4 to the number 2. Is that correct. Plus the suggestion by Westfield concerning the building pads with the additional modification made by, suggested by staff, concerning no removal of the berms. PENMAN KOVACIC SEGAL MARSHALL KOVACIC I ALFORD CHANDLER ALFORD CHANG ALFORD MARSHALL ALFORD SEGAL ALFORD KOVACIC And 15 feet, right. 15 feet, OK. Everybody clear on that? I'll make that motion. Second. OK. Any further discussion. OK, roll call, please. Councilmember Chandler? Yes. Chang? Yes Marshall? Yes Segal? Yes and Kovacic? Yes. OK, thank you very much. Westfield is a good neighbor and we're glad you're here and do a good job I Page 86