Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDECEMBER 7,1999_2 I I I c)lh.J \ 1) I,-'() 711 41:0270 U CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE AUDIO AND VIDEO TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ROll.. CALl: () I ~-I; <' () !It" ,/ MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA and the ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING December 7, 1999 The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in' a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, December 7, 1999, at 6:00 p.m. in the Conference Room of the City Council Chambers. PRESENT: Council members Harbicht, Kovacic, Marshall, Roncelli and Chandler ABSENT: None AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None. STUDY SESSION On May 19, 1999 the City Council asked staff to explore the possibility of reinstating the City Newsletter, which was eliminated in fiscal year 1997-1998. Staff reviewed various altematives for publishing a newsletter at minimal cost, these included advertising, donations, using volunteers and placing an insert on a regular basis in the Arcadia Weekly. An overview of various options for producing a City Newsletter and information about Tele-WorkS, a telephQne system that provides 24-hour access to City Hall are set forth in the December 7, 1999 staff report. Staff believes that a quality newsletter can be printed and mailed to local postal customers three times a year for approximately $21,000 per year, subject to the bid process and prevailing postage rates. This newsletter would not be quite the same quality as "Arcadia At A Glance" was few years ago, but it would be well done and professional. A City Newsletter will include articles on many City activities including those that are paid for out of enterprise funds. Therefore staff suggested that the cost of a newsletter be divided among the General Fund, the Redevelopment Fund, Transportation Fund, Water Fund and Refuse~ecycling Fund. Following the presentation staff responded to Council's question in regard to the City's web site and the procedures for updating the information on the web site. In the discussion Councilmember Marshall noted that she is in favor of the Newsletter. She felt the most effective way to communicate with residents is direct mailing 01 the newsletter, this could generate a positive input to the City. However, she is not happy with the telephone service or Tele-Works. Councilmember Kovacic noted that the City needs a more sophisticated web site with more links to other areas in the City and to actual people. He is in favor of spending more money to get a state-ol-the-art web site. 1 1217/99 41:0271 Mayor Pro tem Harbicht stated, in part, that he is not in favor of spending $21,000 a year I on a newsletter. He felt now that there is an effective newspaper in town which is being published fifty-two times a year, there is not really a lack of communication that cannot be rectified by more press releases. Mr. Harbicht felt that the higher priority now is to spend that money some other way such as scheduling the street sweeping every week instead of every other week. Councilmember Kovacic felt that the City should take more advantage of existing mechanisms of communication by inserting a calendar of events in water bills, publishing press releases in monthly PTA newsletters also in the Chamber of Commerce publication. The Council concluded to put the issue of the publishing of a City Newsletter on hold and directed staff to routinely prepare a calendar of City events to distribute to PTA's for newsletters, and other organizations. At 6:54 p.m. the City Council RECESSED and RECONVENED the Regular Meeting in the Council Chambers at 7:05 p.m. IN\IOCAllON Daniel Chang, Assistant Pastor, Mandarin Baptist Church PLEDGE OF William Kelly, City Manager ALLEGIANCE ROLL CAlL: PRESENT: Council members Harbicht, Kovacic, Marshall, Ronce"i and Chandler ABSENT: None 1. ORD. & RES. READ BY TITLE ONLY 2. 3. City Attomey Stephen Deitsch announced the subject discussed at the Closed Session I held eartier this evening. No reportable action was taken. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS City Manager Kelly requested that "Recess City Council" between Item Nos. 4 and 5 of the Agenda and "Reconvene City Council" between Item Nos. 5 and 6 be deleted. It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tem Harbicht, seconded by Council member Marshall and CARRIED that ordinances and resolutions be read by title only and that the reading in full be WAIVED. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION Harold Kidd, 416 Magellan Road, Arcadia resident for forty year, stated, in part, that after the November 16'h Arcadia City Council meeting and the number of letters to the editors in the Star News, it is evident that Proposition C was a figment of Arcadia City govemment imagination in order to gain public support for a new police facility. He suggested that the City contact the builders of the Ontario Intemational Airport; the contractor completed the project ahead of schedule and under budget. K. Leona. 95 West Orange Grove Avenue, President of Foothills Middle School PTA, commented on the achievements, programs and activities which have taken place at Foothills Middle School in her "What's Right With Arcadia Kids" presentation. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS I See Page 11. 2 1217/99 I I I 4. 41 :0272 PUBLIC HEARING (TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN PREPARED) FINAL EIR, Consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FE)R), Conditional Use permit CUP 99-004 & (CUP) 99-004 and Vesting Tentative Map 52745 for a proposed 31 lot residential planned TM 52745 development at 701 West Foothill Boulevard. The proposed project is located at the (31 Lot Res northwest comer of Baldwin Avenue and Foothill Boulevard on what is commonly known Plnd. Dev. as the "Anoakia" property. The subject of the FEIR is the removal of the existing Anoakia 701 W. Foothlll- mansion and accessory buildings and development of the 19.1 acre site as a thirty-one Anoakia Prop.) (31) lot residential planned development. Jni(\ li~ OJ (;iJ,~' " 0,/\ .0" The house and most of the related accessory buildings were constructed in 1913 by Anita Baldwin, daughter of "Lucky" Baldwin. Ms. Baldwin occupied the house until her death in 1939. In 1941 the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission approved the use of the property for a private girt's boarding school. The property was used for school purposes until 1989 when many of the buildings were cited as unsafe as a result of severe damage from the Whittier earthquake. The Anoakia residence along with some of the other smaller structures on the property were not deemed unsafe and are still in use at this date. The mansion has been utilized as a property management office since 1989 and the grounds and mansion are frequently used for filming. The Anoakia property along with the lots on Anoakia Lane and the adjacent lots to the west, were originally located in the County of Los Angeles. This County island was annexed into the City of Arcadia in 1975 and classified as zone R-l under the annexation. The General Plan designation of the properties was single-family residential 0-2 dwelling units per acre. In 1976 a zone change was initiated at the request of the property owners surrounding the Anoakia property who were annexed into the City in 1975 along with the Anoakia site, to rezone all of the annexed properties R-O 30,000, which would be compatible with the properties to the north and west. These property owners also requested that they be included in the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association. Subsequently, in 1976 the entire area was rezoned R-O 30,000, and in 1978 the design overtay was added to the area placing all of these properties, including the Anoakia site, into the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association. In 1980 the City Council approved the rezoning of the Anoakia property from R-O & D 30,000 to R-O and D 22,000. The developer and applicant, Arcadia Oaks LLC, proposed to remove the existing mansion and outbuildings and subdivide the parcel into thirty-one (31) lots in order to construct new dwellings ranging in size from 4,800 to 5,560 square feel. The average lot size in the subdivision would be 23,228 square feet. The project will be developed with 28'-0 wide private streets with rolled curbs, accessed by a gated entry off of Baldwin Avenue. All City departments have approved the street design subject to the condition that there will be no on.street parking. A secondary emergency access will be located on Foothill Boulevard. There will be no access to the development from Anoakia Lane. Access to a proposed City water well to be constructed in the northwesterty portion of Lot 14 will be provided from Anoakia Lane. There are 487 trees of 293 species located on the Anoakia property (150 of these are oak trees); 294 trees are proposed to be saved including 95 Coast Live Oaks and 20 Englemann Oaks. The lots, dwellings and streets have been designed in an effort to save as many trees as possible and there will be minimal change in the existing grade to reduce the impact on the remaining trees. It was noted in the staff report that, based on an initial study, it was determined that a focused environmental report was necessary and the EIR was prepared to examine 3 12nJ99 41:0273 potential significant adverse environmental impacts that could result from the I development of the proposed project, and to further identify mitigation measures that would either avoid or substantially reduce those impacts. Prior to taking action on this project, the City Council must certify the advocacy of the Final EIR and certify that the decision making bOdy reviewed and considered the information contained in this document, and approve CUP 99.004 and Vesting Tentative Map 52745. Staff noted that the EIR does not recommend approval or denial of the project. Pat Mann, Principal of Cotton, Beland and Associates, discussed in detail the significant environmental impacts which were identified in the FEIR, two of which were identified as most significant with the most potential for adverse effect because of the project, such as the historic and biological effects which are incorporated in detail in the FEIR. They found that the Baldwin estate is a significant resource and would be eligible for the Califomia and National Register of Historic Places in its current state. Ms. Mann presented three mitigation measures which could be possible: 1) Development of an interpreted plan which would preserve some of the key features of the estate at another location as a memorial to ils existence; 2) save a portion of .the estate, in particular, jhe main house and some property surrounding it; and, 3) move some of the key features of the house to the Arboretum or another site to allow the project to be developed as proposed. Referencing the biological effects of the proposed project, her company considered the potential for loss of a substantial number of the existing trees, although the proposed plan would result in preservation of approximately three quarters of the Live Oaks and more than three quarters of the Englemann Oaks. Staff presented a series of photographs of the Anoakia buildings noting various artifacts that Mr. McCaslin, former owner of Anoakia, has donated to the Arboretum, the City and U.S.C. Ms. Buller, Community Development Manager, noted the General Plan states that adaptive reuse of historic structures and landmarks within the planning area is the preferred approach for the Anoakia property. Where this is not possible, future development of the site containing significant historical, cultural or architectural character should respect the character in historical references of the original feature. And, in addition, where appropriate, relocation of historic structures is encouraged, if feasible, if preservation in place is not 'Possible. Ms. Buller noted also that although many of the Anoakia buildings are unreenforced masonry and suffered damage in the earthquake, the mansion did not, however, it would require current seismic retrofits in accordance with California Historic Building Codes as well as structural repair. I Based on visual inspections of the Anoakia property and review of structural retrofit plans, the applicant submitted a preliminary rehabilitation estimate along with an estimate for the movement of the top two floors of the mansion to the Arboretum. At that time it was estimated this would be in excess of $5 million excluding soft costs, site work, furniture, fixtures, and equipment to retrofit and rehabilitate the dwelling on site in accordance with the California Historical Building Code. It was also estimated that it would cost between $500,000 and $850,000 to move the building to the Arboretum. As noted by Ms. Mann, the most significant unavoidable impact of the proposed project is on historic resources due to demolition of the structures on the site if the project is approved as proposed. Ms. Buller reviewed four alternatives offered by Cotton and Beland Associates: 1) Leave the site as It exists; 2) preservation and reuse of the Baldwin mansion on site and subdivide the remainder into 27 half-acre residential lots; 3) reuse the residence and other structures and grounds for use as a museum, community center, park, or resident summer camp; and, 4) re-establish a private school which would require repair and upgrade of all the structures on the site to comply with City and state seismic standards. City Attorney Deitsch further explained that the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not require that every possible alternative be addressed and considered in I 4 1217/99 41:0274 I the EIR. In his opinion the alternative projects in the EIR are legally adequate for purposes of the Council's certification of the EIR, if Council feels comfortable with them. The altematives to the proposed project meet the required provisions of CEOA. Ms. Butler referenced the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program in the EIR that relate to demolition of the structures, including the requirement that the potential developer of the site produce a cost and expense document survey of the property, and all historically significant buildings and structures, in accordance with Historic American Building Survey Standards. This document shall include archival quality photographs of exterior features, elevations, and significant interior features. Scaled, "as-built" site plans and floor plans shall also be produced and an historic documentation report, all to be archived at an appropriate location determined by the City. Ms. Butler further explained a mitigation measure outlined in detail in the December 7, 1999 staff report, as presented in the Final EIR, and the requirements of CEOA placed on the City with respect to approval of the project, and the adoption of a mitigation monitoring program for mitigation measures that are adopted, or make conditions of approval of the project to mitigate significant effects. I The City Attomey advised Council of the findings Council would have to make with respect to certification of the Final EIR: 1) That the Final EIR for the 31-lot Anoakia Residential Planned Development has been completed in compliance with CEOA; and, 2) the Final EIR was presented to the Arcadia City Council and that the Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and, 3) that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as to biological resources, short-term construction noise and geology; and, 4) that the EIR fully and adequately addresses all reasonable project alternatives; and, 5) that the EIR reasonably addresses mitigation measures to reduce impacts relating to the demolition of 15 structures on the Anoakia property which appear to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and Califomia Register of Historic Resources under Criterion B (significant individuals) and Criterion C (design); and, 6) that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City; and, 7) that all documents and records that constitute the records and proceedings thus far are currently located in the Community Development Division of the Arcadia City Hall. City Attomey Deitsch further advised Council of the findings Council would have to make with respect to the Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Map, which findings are fully detailed in the December 7,1999 staff report. At the conclusion of staffs report and in response to questions posed by Council, staff clarified several items addressed in the staff report and presentation, such as the cost estimate for removal of and placement of certain items from the Anoakia site. Staff referred Council to the Mitigation Measures in the staff report. I Considerable discussion ensued centered on items within the Anoakia mansion or on the site which have been given by Mr. McCaslin to the City and to the Arboretum. The items were listed in letters from Mr. McCaslin to the City and the Arboretum with a 30-day time limit for removal, also a newer letter by Mr. McCaslin of other items to be taken out which may have been negotiated by the Arboretum, according to staff. Following is a list of items donated to the City: 1) Carved molding in the living room for around the Mayor's office; and, 2) entire Newel stairway railing and post located in the basement (known as the billiard room); and, 3) bottle glass windows located in the Jinx room In the basement; and. 4) bottle glass accordion doors leading to the bowling alley; and, 5) two molds for living room and library made by a movie company; and, 6) outside um/fountain known as the dragon pond. 5 1217/99 41 :0275 Items to be donated to the Los Angeles County Arboretum from Mr. McCaslin, which must I be removed during the month of January, 2000: 1) two large E.J. Baldwin display wine casks and two small wooden kegs (currently in the basement); and, 2) entire Batchedler tile fireplace from the office of Lowry B. McCaslin; and, 3) J.J. cut glass chandelier and matching sconces from the dinning room; 4) J.J. Sommans etched peacock door; 5) leather upholstered arm chair currently in the library; 6) all ornamental bronze entrance gates surrounding Anoakia; 7) concrete columns and wood pergolas currently on the ground by the swimming pool; 8) two marble benches located by dragon pond; 9) alabaster wishing well currently located on the south lawn; 10) all wood paneling, Batchelder & mahogany fireplace located in the dinning room; 11) fireplace located in the living room; and, 12) Batchelder fireplace, paneling and book cases located in the library. In a brief discussion of the timeframe in which the items must be removed from the site, the City Attorney commented there may be an agreement between Mr. McCaslin and the new owner regarding the removal of the fixtures. In response to a Council question, staff replied there will not be on-street parking allowed in the proposed development. Staff deferred to the developer with respect to visitors on- site parking. Mayor Chandler then OPENED the public hearing. Tom Hover, Managing Member of Arcadia Oaks, LLC, applicant and developer of the project, stated in part that the Carpenters Pension Trust and Costal Farms are his partners in this project, he is responsible for the development itself. Don Metters, General Counsel to the Carpenters Pension Trust for Southern (Trust) California, presented an overview of the Trust stating in part that the Trust is a non-profit I organization that is governed by fourteen (14) volunteers. The trustees volunteer their time to manage the fund to bring pensions to working families: Working carpenters contribute a dollar per working hour to the fund, which now has six million dollars in the pension fund. The trustees of the fund are governed by the Employees Retirement Security Act of 1974... Federal Pension Law requires the trustees and their advisors to manage the assets for the exclusive benefit of the pensioners. They are very proud to be associated with Mr. Hover. Mr. Hover, then went through a presentation of the public conceptual plan that was presented to the Planning Commission in November. Arcadia Oaks LLC acquired the Anoakia property in June of 1998. They received approval of the Rancho Santa Anita Architectural Review Board in February of last year after submitting their map application in January, 1998. Their goal is to maintain the same character of the property that has been there since inception of the Baldwin mansion. Mr. Hover referred to photographs of the property previously shown by Ms. Buller indicating those items within the property which would be incorporated into the new project which would capture some of the character of the existing project and the richness of the Arcadia area. Mr. Hover went over the proposed site plan in detail. In response to Council's question regarding parking for visitors, Mr. Hover referred to the long driveways and the probability of parking in cul- de-sacs within the development. Mr. Hover, referencing the items to be donated to the City and the Arboretum by Mr. McCaslin, commented that Mr. McCaslin excluded a number of items when he sold the property to the developers. Other items such as the fountain and the arbors were purchased by the developers to be used within the development. Arcadia Oaks LLC are prepared to pay the cost to relocate those items which Mr. McCaslin has donated to the I City and the Arboretum, which he noted is approximately $110,000. Further, Mr. Hover commented that other than the fountain and the arbors, his company would incorporate 6 12f7/99 41 :0276 I the gatehouse into the project. For the record, in response to City Attorney Deitsch, Mr. Hover replied that he has read all of the proposed mitigation measures and the EIR and the proposed conditions of approval, with the exception of Condition No. 12, in which the language was changed and/or verbiage added to that which talks about the main structure or any portion thereof or any historic and/or artist interior and/or exterior attached and unattached building elements on the premises... Mr. Hover noted this gets into a grey area relative to what Mr. McCaslin controls. In response to City Manager Kelly's question, Mr. Hover responded that with the exception of that condition... the changed language he agreed with, and accepts all of conditions, and, with the exception to that changed or added language to Condition No. 12, he otherwise agrees with Condition No. 12 as originally prepared and as amended with the substitution of 210 days in lieu of 90 days. This in reference to removal and relocation of certain items from the site. Linda Dishman, Executive Director of the Los Angeles Conservancy, expressed opposition to the potential loss of this historic resource to the community. Ms. Dishman urged Council to do a survey of such historic resources in Arcadia since Council has some leeway in the timeframe for approval of the project. I Marv Douahertv, Member of the Arcadia Board of Education, speaking on behalf of Sue Mossman, Executive Director of Pasadena Heritage, encouraged the Council to explore options with regard to the disposition of the Anoakia property. Ms. Mossman has had discussion with Mr. Hover regarding preservation and possible negotiations with moving the mansion off of the site or some portion of the building. Mrs. Dougherty then proceeded with her comments, stating in part, that it is not too late... the City can detennine that there is no satisfactory way to mitigate the loss of the Anoakia mansion and other buildings on the site. A number of photographs of the site were presented by Mrs. Do~gherty of the Anoakia site, which she had recently seen for the first time. Viraina Lee Brown, 1235 Rodeo Road, a life long resident of Arcadia, commented that Lucky Baldwin gave her a puppy when she was a child which she named Peggy. Ms. Brown expressed her opposition to the destruction of Anoakia because of its historical value. Sandv Wu, twelve year resident of the City, 761 Katherine Lane, spoke in favor of the development stating in part that the project will maintain property values in the City and make Arcadia more beautiful. Vince Folev, 320 Cambridge Drive, staled in part, that his message to the City Council is "don~ rush to judgement". He would hope that the Council would not make a rash decision tonight. Council has a lot of choices. Rubv Lassanvi, 640 Santa Maria Road, member of the American Association of University Women recognized the need for, and supports the preservation and restoration of Anoakia for future generations. I Bob Weber, 152 West Palm Drive, stated in part, that people interested in preservation of Anoakia are not wild-eyed, radical tree-hugging preservationists, but just interested in preserving some of the history of the City. They are interested in memories of the City. Once a physical site is destroyed it is gone forever. He urged Council to consider altematives to preserve some of the property. Forrest Besocke, 416 North Old Ranch Road, 60 year resident of Arcadia, noted he remembers Anita Baldwin driving around town in her big Packard limousine. Mr. Besocke 7 1217/99 41 :0277 stated in part that the Council find a way to preserve Anoakia intact because it would be terrible for Arcadia to lose such an asset. Carol libby, 438 West Norman Avenue, member of the Arcadia Historical Society, stated in part that as guardians of our historic sites it is Council's obligation to preserve them for future generations. To tear Anoakia down is to remove respect for our past. Anita Baldwin was a famous woman in her time who gave a great deal to Arcadia and its beginnings.. the City should treasure that sort of history. I Cathy Simons, 1746 Oakwood, historian and teacher at Rio Hondo College in Whittier, stated in part that she would hate to see an important piece of art history in Arcadia go to the bulldozer. Anoakia is one of the most significant buildings left in Arcadia. John Watson, 291 Acacia, Monrovia, Co-president of the Monrovia Old House Preservation Group, encouraged the Council to protect and preserve Anoakia. John Grimes, 533 Catalpa, wondered why the City did not do something years ago about Anoakia.. the City needs to move on and develop this property. He believes the developers have a very good plan. Tony Henrich, 431 North Altura, President of the homeowners association in his area, stated in part that about twenty years ago his association had a Great Gadsby party at Anoakia and they had an oversold crowd. Anoakia is really a part of Arcadia's history. He urged Council to preserve this landmark. SandY Snider, Historian at the Arboretum, stated in part that Arboretum staff were not aware of the changes in the Final EIR; the details of the mitigations were not given to I them. Ms. Snider requested that Council not make a decision tonight because Arboretum staff would really like to participate in the process of discussion and details of mitigations that are available... She requested that Council consider Anoakia as the historic treasure that it is and that Council take the responsibility for finding an answer that works for everyone involved. Following a brief exchange with Council, Ms. Snider suggested that Council be creative and work at preserving the mansion and work around it. KellY Dobbins, 135 Diamond Street, stated in part that although she has never seen the Anoakia property to see its beauty, she wishes Council could save at least an historical part of it. Adele Chanc, lin Chang and Associates, architects for the project, stated in part that she has many relatives and friends who live in Arcadia who are in support of the proposed project. She noted that she has worked for many developers and Mr. Hover is an aesthetically sensitive and responsible developer. The Anoakia project is an opportunity for the City to have some very beautiful homes that will eventually be a treasured part of Arcadia. Ms. Chang questioned the right of the Council to have homes that were once part of large estates or ranches, and not permit others from having the same. John Chu, 429 Cambridge, noted that he speaks solely for the Asian community, that not all Asians want to just build large houses on lots. He would like the Council to preserve Anoakia as it is and find a development that would build around this house. Further, he does not think that demolishing Anoakia will enhance property values in that area. Leona Clioslein, Conservation Director's Program of Spirit of the Sage Council, located in Old Town Pasadena, 30 North Raymond Avenue, Suite 302, stated in part that the project I site is a very special place for citizens of Arcadia and people all through the foothills. Ms. Clipstein expressed opposition to the proposed project and urged Council to protect this 8 1217/99 41 :0278 I property. Removing the top stories of the mansion and relocating them is not a feasible alternative. It seems contradictory to some of the statements of taking apart the library, the fireplaces and other things rather than keeping them whole and intact. Ms. Clipstein said also that the cost estimate for moving the mansion is not realistic. Her organization does not feel the CEQA alternatives are really adequate. They would like to see an alternative that would include public participation or the City's participation in creating an area like the Eaton Canyon Nature Center and having a foundation that would wor1< with the landholder... there are a lot of other possibilities and feasible alternatives to developing this site. John Schiavone, 1005 Hampton Road spoke in defense of the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owner's Association who wor1<ed diligently with Mr. Hover for a year and with the Planning Commission. At no time, during any of the discussions that were open to the neighborhood and surrounding area, were any objections made to the Anita Baldwin residence. Every inch of the property was evaluated and at the conclusion, the Board accepted and approved the project. Mr. Schiavone thanked the Council and the Planning Commission for consideration of the objections that the Architectural Review Board had. He also expressed his appreciation to Mr. Hover for his cooperation in changing the architecture of many of the buildings within the project to conform with the area. REBUTTAL (following a brief recess) I Mr. Tom Hover, respectfully requested that the Council arrive at a decision this evening. His company has spent a great deal of time over the last year reviewing various alternatives, options and conditions, and have come to the conclusion on all those conditions, as previously discussed. The EIR thoroughly explored all the mitigation measures and the economic impact of the measures relative to maintaining the mansion in any form, or relocating the mansion in any form, as economically infeasible. In response to Ms. Snider, Mr. Hover noted that there has been no modification to the EIR only to the extent that the applicant has accepted additional conditions for the benefit of historical preservation. Mr. Metters, representing the' Carpenters Pension Trust, presented the closing arguments for the developer. Mr. Metters stated in part that he has utmost respect for the views of people who are concerned about historical preservation. His group shares those views in any feasible context. His group, however, is at the point of financial necessity and he would submit for consideration, to the City of Arcadia, that this is "the" development opportunity for the City of Arcadia, and they do request, and need, a decision now. It was then MOVED by Councilmember Kovacic, seconded by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht and CARRIED to CLOSE the public hearing. Considerable discussion ensued, Mayor Pro tern Harbicht related the history of the various efforts to preserve the Anoakia mansion. He was on a committee to explore such a possibility that met for five or six months, looking at different alternatives and costs to move the house. The committee did not come up with any ideas that were feasible. This property has been actively marketed for the last ten years. No one has had the $14 to $20 million to buy and preserve it... he can see no compelling reason to say that this property can not be used in the way that it has been designated by the City for the last twenty-three (23) years. I Councilmember Kovacic, stated in part that this is not a simple yes or no decision for him, he is frustrated that Arcadia does not have a comprehensive scheme to preserve its historic structures. Arcadia does not have a survey of historic structures and the City does not have a designation process for landmarks. He believes this to be a defining 9 1217/99 41:0279 moment in this City. Mr. McCaslin's leller lists only a portion of the items to be saved I from the Anoakia site which are listed in the Mr. Weil leller. Councilmember Kovacic is not clear exactly which items are going to be preserved, and is not clear of how much the applicant is really going to pay for removal and placement of the items. His preference would be to see a redesign of the project to preserve either the mansion itself, or at least some of the out-buildings, to preserve the history of Arcadia. Councilmember Marshall stated in part that she was impressed with Mr. Weil's report which stated that Anoakia is one of the unusual, beautifui, well-kept historical sites in South em Califomia. Ms. Marshall likes the developers proposal.. the homes will be beautiful. She has a problem with unanswered questions as to preservation of the property. Who will pay the preservation costs and upkeep? Are there any federal or state grants that can help do this? Ms. Marshall questioned whether or not the Council has all the infonnation needed to make a decision this evening. Anoakia is a very old part of the history of the City... once it's gone, that's it... Councilmember Marshall agreed with Councilmember Kovacic... she would like more time to see if there is any other way to preserve this property. . Councilmember Roncelli, stated in part that Anoakia holds a lot of memories for him... he allended High School dances at this site. This property was up for sale for a long time. Now it has been purchased and he is a believer in property rights for owners, and the builder has rights also, he has invested a year or so in this property and has done everything the City has asked him to do and they have gone out of their way to make this a really good development. Councilmember Roncelli noted it would take at least $19 to $20 million to purchase the property.. then have to fix up the building... he has a responsibility to the tax payers of the City. Where would Council go to come up with this kind of money? He will vote for the development of this property. It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tem Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Roncelli and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to CERTIFY the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Anoakia Residential Development, including the Errata set forth in Exhibit D, submilled to the City Council on December 7, 1999, and the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth in Exhibit E; subject to staff preparing and submilling for adoption at the December 21, 1999 regular meeting of the City Council the appropriate resolution to certify the Final EIR. I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Harbicht, Roncelli and Chandler Council members Kovacic and Marshall None It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tem Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Roncelli and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE the Mitigation Monitoring Program incorporating the revision to Mitigation Measure NO.2 on page 19 of the December 7, 1999 staff report to read: In consultation with a historic preservation professional approved by the City and compensated by the Applicant, the Applicant shall produce at its cost and expense an interpretive plan for the property for a pennanent display before issuance of a demolition permit which shall include. in oart. a model of the main residence and certain other structures on the subiect orooertv deemed to be of historical sianificance bv the historical oreservation orofessional; and the revision to Mitigation Measure NO.3 to allow 90 days instead of 30 days for a party to submit a completed application to the City for the removal and relocation of artifacts from the Anoakia site, following final approval of the Conditional Use Pennit and the Vesting Tentative Map; and I FIND that the Mitigation Monitoring Program COMPLIES with the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quaiity Act; subject to staff preparing and submilling for adoption at the December 21, 1999 regular meeting of the City Council an appropriate 10 1217/99 I I I 3. 41 :0280 resolution adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Harbicht, Roncelli and Chandler Council members Kovacic and Marshall None It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht, seconded by Mayor Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE the Vesting Tentative Map based upon the findings and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the December 7, 1999 staff report, including a requirement for a physical model of the site showing the character defining features of the site and extend the 30 days under Mitigation NO.3 to 90 days instead of 30 days; and, subject to staff preparing and submitting for adoption at the December 21, 1999 regular meeting the appropriate resolution approving the Vesting Tentative Map. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Harbicht, Roncelli and Chandler Councilmembers Kovacic and Marshall None It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht, seconded by Mayor Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE Conditional Use Pennit No, 99-004 based upon the findings and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the December 7, 1999 staff report; and, subject to staff preparing and submitting for adoption at the December 21, 1999 regular meeting of the City Council the appropriate resolution reflecting the actions of the City Council and recommendations on the Conditional Use Pennit. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Council members Harbicht, Roncelli and Chandler Councilmembers Kovacic and Marshall None MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS RONCELLI Councilmember Roncelli suggested staff prepare three or four page summary reports (Monthly along with the monthly finan,cial report, in order to make the expenditures and revenues Financial Rpt.) more understandable, (Tobacco Rebate) MARSHALL (Holiday Award) (Street Crossing) (Htg. Dr. & Santa Anita) (Quote) KOVACIC (Snow In response to Council member Roncelli's comment in regard to tobacco rebate funds, City Manager Kelly stated, in part, that no one informed staff that the City of Arcadia could be part of the lawsuit and collect funds. Councilmember Marshall announced that judging for the Holiday Home Decoration Awards will take place on December 13th, 14tn and 15th, from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Ms. Marshall reminded homeowners to have their lights turned on in order to be judged and participate in this event. Ms. Marshall referred to a letter from Highland Oaks School parents who are concerned about the safety at Santa Anita Avenue and Virginia Street crossing. Ms. Marshall requested review and a change in the traffic signal at the Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue crossings. Council member Marshall shared a saying by Clarence Darrow, "The first half of our live is ruined by our parents and the second half by our children." Councilmember Kovacic urged everyone to participate at the Holiday Snow Festival, Wednesday, December 8, 1999 at 4:30 p.m., and Tree Lighting Ceremony at 5:30 p.m., 11 1217/99 41:0281 Festival) on the west lawn at City Hall. Mr. Kovacic wished everybody Happy Holidays and/or Happy Hanukkah and urged everyone to do their holiday shopping in Arcadia. (Peart Harbor) Mr. Kovacic referred to the 581h anniversary of Peart Harbor and encouraged everyone to listen and tape some of the remembrances of their parents and grandparents who actually served in Wortd War II, in order to keep an historical record. HARBICHT (Fire Fighters) CHANDLER 4. FINAL EIR, CUP 99-004 & TM 52745 (701 W. Foothill) 5. ROLL CALL ARA RES. NO. 183 (ARA 5-Year Implem. Plan (1999-2004) (CONTINUED 12-21-99) o fa 4(J Mayor Pro tem Harbicht referred to an incident that happened in Massachusetts and expressed his appreciation to all fire fighters including Arcadias. Unfortunately the City had to reduce the number of fire fighters on each truck due to a budget shortfall. He felt the City should have it as a long-term goal, as conditions improve, to get this figure back to four fire fighters per truck. Mayor Chandler also urged every one to attend the Holiday Snow Festival at City Hall. PUBLIC HEARING See Page 3. JOINT MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL PRESENT: ABSENT: Agency Members Harbicht, Kovacic, Marshall, Roncelli and Chandler None PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of the report and recommendation to adopt Resolution No. ARA 183 - approving the Adoption of the Five-Year Implementation Plan (1999-2004) for the Central Redevelopment Project Area: Agency Member Roncelli suggested postponing consideration of the adoption of Resolution ARA 183 and requested a study session prior to the December 21st Agency meeting in regard to this item. The Agency concurred. It was MOVED by Agency Member Harbicht, seconded by Agency Member Roncelli and CARRIED to TABLE Item No.5 to December 21,1999 at 6:00 p.m. Agency Chairman Chandler OPENED the Public Hearing. No one came forward to address the Agency. It was MOVED by Agency Member Harbicht, seconded by Agency Member Roncelli and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to CONTINUE the Public Hearing to December 21, 1999 City Agency meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Agency Members Harbicht, Kovacic, Marshall, Roncelli and Chandler None None 12 12nt99 I I I I I I Sa. MINUTES (10-26-99 & 11-16-99) (APPROVED) 5b. 1998-99 ARA ANNUAL REPORT OG/fJ h: 41 :0282 CONSENT ITEMS APPROVED the October 26, 1999 Minutes of the Arcadia/Sierra Madre Redevelopment Agencys and the November 16, 1999 Minutes of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting. City Attomey Deitsch, suggested to bring back the report and recommendation to approve the 1998-99 Redevelopment Agency Annual Report to the State Controller and the State Housing and Community Development Department in a future meeting for the Council consideration. APPROVED the 1998-99 Redevelopment Agency Annual Report to the State Controller and the State Housing and Community Development Department and forward to the City Council for approval. It was MOVED by Agency Member Kovacic, seconded by Agency Member Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPROVE Agency Consent Items Sa. & b. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Agency Members Harbicht, Kovacic, Marshall, Roncelli and Chandler None Agency Member Roncelli (October 26, 1999 Minutes) None 6a. & 6b. RESOLUTION Consideration of the report and recommendation to adopt 1) RESOLUTION NO. 6144: NO. 6144 & "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RESOLUTION ADOPTING REVISED RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARA-182 THE CALIFORNIA RELOCATION ASSISTANCE LAW AND REAL PROPERTY (Revised Rules & ACQUISITION GUIDELINES"; and, 2) RESOLUTION ARA-182: "A RESOLUTION OF Regulations for THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING REVISED RULES AND Implem. of Calif. REGULATIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA RELOCATION Reloc. ASSISt. ASSISTANCE LAW AND REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION GUIDELINES". Law & Real Prop. Acquis. Guidelines) .J(.',' '1' MOTION (City Council) MOTION (Redevelopment Agency) The State has passed legislation and the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has adopted new regulations implementing changes to the State regulations on relocation. The revised City of Arcadia and Arcadia Redevelopment Agency Rules and Regulations attached to Resolution No. 6144 and ARA-182 were prepared with the assistance of Pacific Relocation Consultants and have been reviewed and approved by the City Attomey and Agency Special Council, Best Best and Krieger. It was MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Council member Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that RESOLUTION NO. 6144 be and is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Harbicht, Kovacic, Marshall, Roncelli and Chandler None None It was MOVED by Agency Member Harbicht, seconded by Agency Chairman Chandler and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that ARA RESOLUTION NO. 182 be and is hereby ADOPTED. 13 12nt99 41 :0283 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Agency Members Harbicht, Kovacic, Marshall, Roncelli and Chandler None None I ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency ADJOURNED to December 21, 1999 at 6:00 p.m. 7. 103<1 ""(\ RESOLUTION NO. 6147 (Calling a Gen. Muni. Elect. 4/11/2000) (ADOPTED) THE CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED CITY CLERK The City Clerk presented for adoption and read the title of RESOLUTION NO. 6147: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2000, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF SAID CITY AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY CHARTER." RESOLUTION The City Clerk presented for adoption and read the title of RESOLUTION NO. 6148: "A 103 U .),1 NO. 6148 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, (LA County REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Registrar/Rec. TO PERMIT THE REGISTRAR-RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY TO RENDER Elect. SVC5.) SPECIFIED SERVICES TO THE CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A GENERAL (ADOPTED) MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON APRIL 11, 2000." ,,\ i, ,\ -' .~', . ,RESOLUTION "'NO.6149 (Candidate Statements) (ADOPTED) The City Clerk presented for adoption and read the title of RESOLUTION NO. 6149: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATE" STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AND THE COSTS THEREOF FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2000." I 10 ~^ . RESOLUTION The City Clerk presented for adoption and read the title of RESOLUTION NO 6150: "A "" ,c',l0NO. 6150 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, (Election ORDERING THE CANVASS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD Canvass) ON APRIL 11, 2000, TO BE MADE BY THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA". (ADOPTED) It was MOVED by Councilmember RoncelJi, seconded by Mayor Pro tem Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that RESOLUTIONS NO. 6147, 6148, 6149 AND 6150 be and they are hereby ADOPTED. 8. 8a. MINUTES (10-26-19 & 11-16-99) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Council members Harbicht, Kovacic, Marshall, Roncelli and Chandler None None CONSENT ITEMS APPROVED the Minutes of the October 26, 1999 Joint Meeting of the City of Arcadia/Sierra Madre City Councils and the November 16, 1999 Regular Meeting of the Arcadia City Council as amended. I 14 1217/99 I I I 41:0284 8b. PURCHSE See Page 15. ORDER AGR. (Instal. 12" DIP Water Main - Clark Street) 8c. 07<;0 7U AWARD AUTHORIZED the City Manager to EXECUTE an agreement in the amount of $15,500 to CONTRACT Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates in a fonn approved by the City Attorney; and, (Santa Anita APPROPRIATED $15,500 from the Water Facilities Replacement Reserve (to complete Reservoir Fac. the design work required to seismically retrofit Santa Anita Reservoir 3). Design) 8d. 0'i13u -3 () VEHICLES AUTHORIZED the City Manager to purchase eight (8) 20 passenger Dial-a-Ride vehicles PURCHASE for the Arcadia Transit system from an existing Omnitrans bid for a total amount of (Eight 20 $410,620 of which 83% will be federally funded and the remaining 17% funded with City Passenger transportation funds. Veh. Arcadia Transit) 8e. ;) 1:iJ '10 FUEL TANK AUTHORIZED an additional appropriation of $34,236.03 for the Fuel Tank Removal and REMOVAL & Installation Project at Fire Station #3 and the Police Department. INSTAL. PROJ. (Fire Sta. #3 & Police Dept.) 8f. ""''/:1 .,/ EMPLOYMENT AUTHORIZED the City Manager to EXECUTE an Employment Agreement between the AGREEMENT City of Arcadia and Philip Sexton for transitional services as the Interim Administrative (Sexton - Adm. Services Director. Svcs. Dir.) THE PRECEDING CONSENT ITEMS 8a, c, d, e and f APPROVED ON MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER KOVACIC, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MARSHALL AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS FOLLOWS: Councilmembers Harbicht, Kovacic, Marshall, Roncelli and Chandler None . Council member Roncelli (October 26, 1999 Minutes) None AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 8b. Off;, ~J EMERG. In response to a Council question, Pat Malloy, Public Works Services Director, stated, in PURCHSE part, the original project for the installation of a 12-inch water mainline in Clark Street was ORDER AGR. modified in 1990 to omit 325 feet of pipeline between Kardashian Street and Varus Street (Instal. 12" DIP to save money. However, the plans had not been changed and they showed the line Water Main - continuing on to the end of the street, which in fact did not happen. Upon issuing the Clark Street) construction permit for the development of 11846-11866 Clark Street it was discovered (RATIFIED) that the main had not been extended. It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Marshall and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to RATIFY the issuance of a Purchase Order Agreement in the amount of $12,625 to Engineered Plumbing, inc., for the installation of 325 feet of 12" DIP water main located in Clark Street; and, AUTHORIZE an additional 15 1217/99 9. 9a. ORDINANCE NO.2115 (Amendment Contract - PERS Board of Admin.) (ADOPTED) ('\ d: 1t. -~tli1 41 :0285 appropriation of $15,000 to be transferred from the Water Reserve Fund to a Facilities I Replacement Account. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Harbicht, Kovacic, Marshall, Roncelli and Chandler None None ADJOURNMENT At 11:32 p.m. the City Council Regular Meeting ADJOURNED to December 21,1999 at (December 21, 6:00 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Council Chambers for a Regular Meeting to 1999) conduct the business of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency and any Closed I Session necessary to discuss personnel, litigation matters or evaluation of properties. ATTEST: CITY ATTORNEY City Attomey Deitsch presented for ADOPTION and read the title of ORDINANCE NO. 2115" "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM: It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tem Harbicht, seconded by Council member Kovacic and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that ORDINANCE NO. 2115 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers Harbicht, Kovacic, Marshall, Roncelli and Chandler None None .~ 16 1217/99 I I I I TRANSCRIPT (lnsofar as decipherable) RELATING TO A REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 7, 1999 AGENDA ITEM NO.4. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL EIR, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-004 AND VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 52745 FOR THE PROPOSED 31 LOT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 701 w. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 7. 1999 PUBLIC HEARING TM 52745 City Manager William Kelly: Mayor, City Council, as indicated, this will be a lengthy presentation. It is a very complicated project and process to explain. This will be a presentation by Donna Butler, the Community Development Administrator as well as the City Attorney, Steve Deitsch to try and walk the Council and the community through each of the steps and procedures, the process, the findings, planning connnission actions, and everything related, so it will be a long presentation. Hopefully, we will Cover before the Council and the community as much detail as on various aspects project and then be able to answer questions from the Council to threes related issues. To begin the presentation, Donna Butler will begin with the project description. Donna. Donna Butler: Thank you Mr. Kelly. Mayor, members of the City Council, the purpose of tonight's meeting is considered the Final Environmental Impact Report, the Vested Tentative Map and Conditional Use Pennit for the development of Anoakia property which as most of you know is located at 70 I Foothill Boulevard, the northwest comer of Foothill and Baldwin Avenue and they are proposing to develop this into a 31-10t residential plan development. The subject of the Environmental Impact Report the removing of the existing of the Anoakia mansion along with the accessory buildings and lbe development of lbe 19. I acre site as a 31-10t residential plan development. The Anoakia property along with the lots on Anoakia Lane and lbe adjacent lots to lbe West were originally located in lbe County of Los Angeles. The house and mostly related accessory buildings were constructed in 1913 by Anita Baldwin, which she occupied until her death in 1939. 1n 1941 Los Angeles Regional Connnission approved lbe use of the property for a private girls boarding school. In 1975 Anoakia, along with the surrounding property, was annexed into the City and under the Arcadia Municipal Code was zoned Rl. The general plan designation at that time was single-family residential 0-2 dwelling units per acre and in 1976, lbe property was re-zoned R-O 30,000 which was compatible with the olber properties in the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association. At approximately same time this was going on, the property owners at that time, Mr. Lowrey McCaslin submitted general plan change to double the residential density of the Anoakia property (inaudible), dwellings per acre which would allow them for a minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. ft. The proposal was to build a private gate residential community and keep the mansion use as a house or private club. The Planning Connnission recommended deuial of this application and in May of 1976 Mr. McCaslin withdrew the application for the General Plan change. In 1976, the entire area was re-zoned R-O 30,000 and in 1978 a design overlay, was added to include this property along with the joining properties to the West and to the North into lbe Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners Association. In 1980 lbe City Council approved the re-zone of lbe Anoakia property from R-O 30,000 to R-O 22,000. 22,000 being lbe minimum lot size for the Anoakia property. 1 I I I I The property was being used for school purposes until 1989. All the buildings on the property are unreinforced masonry buildings with perhaps the exception of the dwelling. There has not been a study done in the dwelling to determine whether or not it is reinforced. As a result of the Whittier Earthquake, many the buildings used for school purposes were severely damaged to be used for school purposes. It is important to know that the Anoakia mansion, along with some of the other small structures which are currently being used as dwellings were not deemed unsafe and are still being used today. Since closing of the school, the mansion has been utilized as a property management office and tlle grounds on the mansion are frequently used for filming. The proposed 31-10t residential plan development is pennitted by the Arcadia Municipal Code with an approved Conditional Use Pennit. The Code established regulations for residential plan developments and provides in the Conditional Use Permit for residential plan development. does not become effective until it has been review and approved by the City Council. The Vested Tentative Map confers the best of right to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the ordinance, policies, and the standards in effect at the date the local agency has determined that the application was completed and thii was January 1999. Properties to the north and west of this site are currently located in the Santa Anita Property Owners Association and are zoned R-O 30,000 which means the minimum lot size is 30,000 sq. ft. Properties to the east across Baldwin Avenue are developed with single-family dwellings and are zoned R-O 22,000 which is the same zoning that is on the Anoakia property. However, these properties are located within the Santa Anita Oaks Homeowners Association. Properties to the south across Foothill Boulevard are developed with single-family also and they are zoned R-I 10,000, meaning the'minimum lot size is 10,000 sq. ft. Many of buildings on this site including the mansion have been modified throughout the years to accommodate both the girls boarding school and then later a pre-school and the day school. As mentioned earlier, the applicant is proposing to remove the existing mansion and out buildings and subdivide the parcels into 31 lot in order to construct new dwelling on lots averaging 23,000 to 122,000 sq. ft. in size. The project will be developed with private streets 28 ft. in width with rolled curbs and will have access from a gated entry off of Baldwin A venue. A secondary emergency access will be located on Foothill Boulevard. There will be no access to the subdivision from Anoakia Lane. The existing gate on Anoalda Lane will be removed and a new wall constructed to match the existing wall. However, access to a proposed water well will b constructed on the northwesterly portion of proposed lot 14 and access to that site will be provided from Anoalda Lane. The Arcadia Municipal Code does allow private streets subject to the approval of the Fire Chief, Police Chief, and Public W orles Director. All departments have approved the design of the streets subject to the condition that there will be no on street parking. The existing 7 ft. high wall that surrounds the property will remain. An additional landscaping planted on the exterior of the wall. There are sidewalks along Baldwin Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The new driveway on Baldwin A venue will be relocated further to the south to align with Arbolada Drive which is at the east side of Baldwin A venue. Currently there are 487 trees of 293 different species located on the I I 2 property; 150 of !hese are Oak trees, 296 trees are proposed to be saved includirig 95 Coast Live Oaks and 20 Englernann Oaks. The lots, dwellings and streets have been designed in an effort to save as many trees as possible and there will be minimal changes in the existing grade to reduce the impact on the remaining trees. I The proposed dwellings will range in size from 4,800 sq. ft. to over 5, 600 sq. ft. There are three basic floor plans with three different elevations for each floor plan. All dwellings will be two story and none of the garages will be visible from the street. The layout of each lot has been designed for off-street parking thus eliminating the need for on-street parking. On February 4, 1999, the City received a letterform the Rancho Santa Anita Homeowners Association approving the design of the homes. The property slopes to the southeast and there is over a 40 ft. variation in grade from north to south. Again, the tract has been designed to minimize on --street parking to reduce the impact on the existing trees and adjoining properties. The 1995-96 Water Master Plan which was adopted by the City identifies the need to incr~ase the water production to serve the current demand in this area and includes the construction of a 1,000 gal. Per minute production well simultaneously with the development of the property. The Public Works Services Department has required that a well site be dedicated to the City at the rear portion of lot. 14. Access to the well site will be from Anoakia Lane. This well will be located in a soundproof building designed to be compatible to the surrounding structures. The site will be enclosed with a 6 ft. decorative block wall on the interior and a wall with gate to match the existing perimeter wall along Anoakia Lane. The Arcadia Municipal Code does allow residential plan developments on sites that contain a minimum of I three acres. The purpose of residential plan developments is to encourage well planned developments by providing the means to greater creativity, flexibility in an environmental design and is provided under the strict application of the zoning ordinance and the subdivision regulations, while promoting and preserving the public's interest, health, safety, welfare and property values. Since the proposal is for residential plan development, compliance with the underlying zoning standards of (inaudible) subdivision regulations of the Arcadia Municipal Code is not required. However, in order to carry out the general purpose and intent of the residential and development regulations, the proj ect is subj ect to all the conditions whicb are set forth in the Conditional Use Permit and the Vest Tentative Map. Based upon the density requirements in the residential plan development regulations, 32 dwelling units would be allowed on this site. The code further allow structures to be tow stories not to exceed 35 ft. The Arcadia Municipal Code requires that no building shall be constructed within 25 ft. of the perimeter property line. All dwellings maintain this minimum requirement with s~tbacks range from 25 ft. to 69 ft. from the perimeter property lines. Prior to taking action on this project, the City Council must certify the advocacy of the Final Environmental Report and certify that the decision making body reviewed and considered the infozmation contained in the Final Environmental Report. Based on an initial study, it was determined that a focused Environmental Report was necessary and the EIR had been prepared to examine potential significant adverse environmental I impacts that could result from the development of the proposed project and to further identif'y mitigation meaSUTes that would either avoid or substantially reduce those impacts. The draft EIR was available for 3 I I I review between July 21 to September 8. On August 4, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission to allow the public an opportunity to connnent on the draft EIR. It is noted that the staff report and at the public hearing that the City Council would be the final decision making body for purposes of certifYing the fmal EIR and approving both the Conditional Use Pemrit and Vested Tentative Map. On November 23, the Planning Commission reviewed the final EIR and voted 3-0 with tWo members absent to adopt Resolution 1600 expressing the Commission's connnents to the City Council on the fmal ElR. It is important to note that the purpose of an Environmental Impact Report is for an information document only that infonns the decision makers and the public of significant adverse environmental effects, of a project possible ways to minimize the significant impacts, describes reasonable alternatives to the project and indicates in which the matter the significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. The Environmental Impact Report does not reconnnend approval or denial of a project. The Government Code does state that is economic or social conditions make is unfeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects the environment of a project, the project may none the less be carried out or approved at the discretion of the agency, which would be the City Council if the project is otherwise pemrissible, under applicable laws and regulations. (inaudible) Property land associates under contract with the City, and under the City's direction, prepare the Environmental Impact Report. The City conducted at its own independent environmental and evaluation and analysis of the draft EIR prior to releasing the document for public review. At this time, Pat Mann with Cotton, Beland and Associates will discuss the environmental impacts, which were identified in the EIR. Pat Mann, Principal of Cotton, Beland and Associates: Thank you Donna. Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, my name is Pat Mann, I am the Principal of Cotton, Beland and Associates and it is under my direction the Environmental Impact Report you have before you tonight was prepared. As Donna indicated the document before you is a Final Environmental Impact Report. It has been through the public review process, we have received connnents from other public agencies and from members of the general public, and responses to those connnents are included in the document before you. In reviewing the envirorunental effects of the project, we first looked at the complete list of 16 potential environmental effects included in the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and we found a shorter list of impacts to be reviewed in the Environmental Impact Report. Of those we found two to be the most significant and the most potential for adverse effects of the project. Those are historic effects and biological effects and we have technical specialists in each of those areas review those impacts and prepare for inclusion in the Environmental lmapct Report. In the case of historic effects, we found that the Baldwin estate is a siguificant resource and would be eligible on the California and on the National Register of Historic Places in its current state. Therefore, the loss of this significant alteration would result in a significant impact on the environment. (inaudible) a potential significant impact in historic resources existed, we looked at the potential for mitigating effect and we looked at three principal possibilities for mitigation. First is the development of an interpreted plan, 4 which would preserve some of the key features of the estate perhaps on another occasion as kind of a memorial to the site in the fact that it was once there. This type of a plan is a required component of the I mitigation program included in the Environmentallmpact Report. The second alternative would be to save a portion of the estate, in particular, the main house and some property around it. We found that this, while would preserve a substantial portion of this estate and would also substantially mitigate the project effects would still result in a substantial, a significant adverse impact on the environment. Because it would eliminate many of the key features of the estate that linked into the local history and make it what it is today. The estate character and the loss of many of the outdoor buildings, which also have their unique characteristics and relate to the function of the estate as a whole. A third option we examined was to move some of the key features to the Arboretum or another site to allow the plan to be developed as proposed. Again, this would result in the significant adverse impact on the environment while substantially mitigating that effect; the project would still have a significant adverse historic effect. Therefore, we did not find a way of proceeding with the proposed project, which would result in an elimination of this significant adverse effect In the case of biological effects, we looked at the potential for loss of the substantial number of the existing trees. We found that we're very fortunate in a way that the trees located on the site as it is today, most of them, principally the Oaks around the periphery and along the drainage that runs through the property and that plus a combination of the very limited grading proposed resulted in the preservation of approximately I three quarters of the live Oaks and more than three quarters of the Englemann Oaks on the property. This is very different from a typical case looking at a natural site and the Oaks are kind of randomly scattered and e have a lot of trouble preserving them. This project resulted in the substantial saving of the existing trees together with the City's Oak tree requirements which require replacement on a greater that 2 for 1 basis of the Oak trees. We found that this would not be a significant impact if implemented in accordance with the City's Oak tree ordinance. Therefore, we find that the project as proposed and with the mitigation measures included would have a significant adverse impact on the environment in the case of historic effects and in that case a statement in writing considerations would be required in order for the Council to approve the project. I would be happy to answer any questions you have at a later time. Thank you. Bill Kelly: Thank you, Ms. Mann. Donna Butler: I want to go back because we want to show some photographs of the site and I'm going to try to do. Hopefully, this would work. What we did was, I would like to mention that 1996 General Plan did not note the Anoakia school site located at Foothill Boulevard is listed on the State Office of Historic Preservation's Historic Data file. We have some photos here that show... this is kind of an overview of the entry to the I mansion. The next photograph actually shows the mansion, which this is, the front elevation. The nest photograph here is the fountain is located in front of the mansion. The applicant is proposing to relocate 5 I this to the gated entry. The photograph that you have here is a photo of the Tea Room We are not sure if this was built as part of the original structure or added later to the house and Anita Baldwin did use this as her Tea Room Access is from the second floor. Next photograph in the second row is the stables. These are... this building here was damaged significantly in the earthquake and has been deemed unsafe by the Building Division, back in the 80's. The next picture is the flood control panel. This bisects the property going from north to south along the westerly portion of the lot.. This is the bridge that goes over it to gain access to the westerly portion of the site. This is just another photograph of the flood control channel that runs through it. The next picture is the structure at the northwest comer of the lot. It was used during the school time to house students and has been used for various other purposes. It was also suffered major structural damage. The house itself as I mentioned did not suffer any... was not considered unsafe after the earthquake. The next picture here is the... this is the gymnasium that's located on the westerly side of the wash. This was also damaged during the earthquake and has been deemed structurally unsafe. This here is the basement what used to be known as the Jink's Room. There was a mural that painted by Maynard Dickson in this particular room that has been relocated and donated to USC. The following picture here is the basement. These are doors which, if the project is approved, Mr. McCaslin has recommended be donated to the City. The doors were designed by Maynard Dickson and they are hand- carved and location which is difficult to identify in this picture. For many of you that don't know Mr. Baldwin did have some nice winery in the City. These are some wine casts that are located in the basement area proposed to be donated to the Arboretum. Down here we have the (inaudible) what was the entry to the Anoakia where this is from the front door. This was covered enclosed at some point in time; we're not sure, we have no information on file that shows when that was dedicated. The second picture on the bottom is the bookcases in the library which has also been donated by Mr. McCaslin, will be donated to the Arboretum. The third picture is the fireplace in the library. It does have some very nice peacock. I don't know if this is a (inaudible), but was noted as significant, again, proposed to be donated to the Arboretum. The final picture is the fireplace in the office here in Mr. McCaslin office and his was, as you can see, in some photos here, there has been some significant changes. The front... the 1" floor of the building is very well maintained. It's been used in numerous fibns and is in pretty good condition. A lot of the painting, the wallpaper is new that was added by filming companies over the years. The next set of photos will further show the bedroom that was... this was the bedroom area... recently; I saw it in the "Pretender" as an office. So as you can see, it's been used for a number of things. This next one is the fireplace in the basement. This was part of the Jink's Room that we were talking about earlier... bathroom off of Anita Baldwin's bedroom... this is the ftreplace in the Dining Room. Photo here... the arbor in front of the dwelling. If you were to go on the side as you look towards the West of Baldwin Avenue, you would look towards the West of Baldwin Avenue, you would look out in this arbor along with the pond was out in the front. This following one is the staircase, which leads up to the 2" floor. In this fmal picture is the Library and one of the General Plan's comments was that Preservation Day of (inaudible) I I 6 adaptive reUSe of historic structures and landmarks within the planning area is the preferred approach for the Anoakia property. Where preservation or adaptive reuse is not possible, future development of site I containing significant historical, cultural, or architectural character should respect the character in the historical references of the original feature. In addition, where appropriate, relocation of historic structures are encouraged, if feasible, and if their preservation in place is not possible. As we mentioned, many of the buildings on this site are unreenforced masonry and suffer damage through the earthquake. The mansion did not, however, it would require to today's standards seismic retrofits in accordance with California Historic Building Code as weU as structural repair. Because the building has been utilized for filming, the 1" floor interior has been painted, waUpapered, and maintained in relatively good condition. The exterior of the building has also been repainted and re-Iandscaped as a result of filming throughout the past few years. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Rehabilitation Estimate along with an estimate for the movement of the top two floors of the structure to the Arboretum. The estimates were based on visual inspections of the property, review of structural retrofit plans as prepared by Coil & Welsh Engineers, an initial walk-thru and scope of development. At that time it was estimated, based upon their walk-thru, there would be an excess of $5 million excluding soft costs, site work, furniture, fixtures, and equipment to retrofit and rehabilitate the dweUing On site in accordance with the California Historical Building Code. It was also estimated that it would cost between'$500 to $850,000 to move the building to the Arboretum. The City's environmental I consultants reviewed these figures and felt that these numbers were reasonably accurate. The (inaudible) guidelines required that arrange of all alternatives be addressed governed by the rule of reason and Mr. Mann has focused on some of these, but not all conceivable needs to be addressed nor do infeasible alternatives b~ considered. The guidelines state that the discussion of all alternatives must focus on alternatives capable of either eliminating any significant environmental effects of the project or reducing them to a less than significant level while achieving major project objectives. As noted by Mr. Mann, the most siguificant unavoidable impact is on historic resources due to demolition of the structures on the site if the Project is approved as proposed. Mr. Mann has identified the alternatives that would set forth in the EIR and I'm just quickly go through them again. Alternative I, which is mandatory by CEQUA that there would be no project. We just leave the site as it exists and, hopefully, something rnight happen. Alternative 2, was preservation reuse of the Baldwin residence. This alternative considers rehabilitating the existing residence on the site and subdividing the parcels by approximate 27 half-acre residential lots. Subsequent development of single-family homes. Anoakia mansion would be used as either a resident or center for the residence of the project. Alternative 3 that was identified was reuse of the Baldwin residence and other structures. This considers again preservation of the residence and related structures and grounds for use as a museum, community I center, park, or resident surruner camp when school was not in session. 7 I I I Alternation 4 is the re-establishment of a private school. All the structures would be required to be repaired and upgraded to comply with the City and State's seismic'standards, The alternatives 3 & 4 would require a Conditional Use Permit, in addition, Supplemental Enviromnental Review may be required for either project depending on the use and any potential adverse enviromnental impacts that have not been addressed in this EIR, The City Attorney at this time is going to further discuss alternatives at this particular time. Steve Deitsch: Thank you. I think Ms. Butler adequately explained the requirements of the California Enviromnental Quality Act, which I'll call CEQUA for purposes of our discussion. As she pointed out, CEQUA does not require every possible alternative included addressed and considered in the Environmental Impact Report. It is the opinion of the City Attorney that the alternative projects considered in the EIR are legally adequate for purposes of your certification of the EIR if you feel comfortable with them. It's also important to note, you do not have to consider every possible alternative to a project. You can only imagine that there are multitude ness possibilities for configuring an alternative project and the four which are set forth in the proposed EIR which included a no project alternative do meet the required provisions of California Environmental Quality Act. Having said that I will return to Ms. Butler and defer any questions for later about CEQUA in particular about alternatives. Ms. Butler: Thank you. As Mr. Mann further talked about, the EIR must include what we ca1l mitigation measures and the mitigation measures which were identified in the Mitigation Monitoring Program that relate to the demolition of the structures include requirement that the applicant produce its cost and expense docwnent survey of the property and a1l historically significant buildings and structures in accordance with Historic American Building Survey Standards. The (inaudible) winning scaled as built site floor plans and the . docwnent package would be archived at the Arcadia Library, Historical Society and the Arboretum. A second one was that the applicant produce at its cost and expenses an interpretive plan for property for permanent display for issuance of the demolition permit. Materials may include, photographs current and historic and written materials describing the historical aspects associated with the property. In addition, there was a conditioning mitigation included that any party has 30 days of fmal approval of the Conditional Use Permit investing tentative map to file a competed application to the City to relocate the main structure or portion thereof or any historic and/or artistic interior and/or exterior attached and/or unattached building elements on the premises. The applicant shall enter into agreement with said party to a1l0w for the relocation without payment subject to the condition that the party wishing to relocate the structures shall bear all costs and expenses of such relocation and provide for reasonable indenmification and the party shall post a bond with the City to be equivalent to the City's cost for the relocation. The agreement shall further provide that the relocation shall be completed (inaudible) a change within 210 days f01l0wing the final approval by the City of the CUP, Investing Tentative Map. In addition, the applicant wi1l be requires to make payment to a not-far-profit charitable organization equal to the cost of segregating and preserving 8 during demolition of structures and thereafter relocating all of the certain items listed to be donated to the Los Angeles County Arboretum and to the City of Arcadia. Items set forth in the letters from the McCaslin I properties, which were dated November 15. The McCaslin properties still owns the items within the dwelling. This is not owned by the developer so that Mr. McCaslin, the McCaslin properties has control over the items within the dwelling. On December 6, the City received a letter from the Arboretum noting that the loss of the mansion cannot be mitigated adequately and that the mitigation measures are inadequate. Mitigation 3 measure addresses the possibility of recreating certain rooms of the mansion at the Arboretum. The cons (inaudible) they have supported as a last resort. The note in their letter that the re-creation of intact rooms at the Arboretum is a much more through mitigation. But again, the cost is prohibited for the counting. The Arboretum is requesting the report submitted December 6 the added final EIR further discussions of both the mitigation details and alternatives to the project be done. The Arboretum did have a cost estimate for salvaging and moving installation of architectural artifacts from t)1e Anoakia site to a new building with five period rooms including the living room, dining room, library, office, bedroom and exterior (inaudible) at the Arboretum of approximately $2.1 million. In addition, the cost estimate they provided to us included salvaging and moving selected materials from the main house at a cost of approximately $280,000. Prior to taking any action on the project, the City Council must certilY that the final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, has been reviewed and considered by the City Council and represents the City's independent judgment and analysis. I The City's Environmental Consultant has prepared an errata supplement dated November 29 which is Exhibit D which you have received. The errata has been prepared to include a mitigation measure that was inadvertently admitted from the Executive Sununary and replaces more general language in certain mitigation measures listed in the final EIR with much more specific language. This will ensure more effective implementation mitigation measures. No additional or no new information or requiremet;1ts have been included in the errata. After considering the final ErR, in conjunction in 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 can find that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. If the City Council determines that the project should be approved, the City is required by CEQA. END OF TAPE I, SIDE A Donna Butler continues. Is the fact that the mansion will be demolished. This allows the decision maker to balance the benefits of the proposed project against the unavoidable environmental risk in determining whether to approve the project. The statement setting forth overriding the considerations supporting the City's decision to be based on substantial evidence and the fmal EIR or elsewhere in the record. The CEQA requires that for each significant impact identified in the EIR, the EIR must discuss feasible measures to avoid or to substantially I reduce the project's significant environmental effect. And as part of approval of a project, the lead agency which would be the City Council must adopt a mitigation monitoring program for mitigation measures that 9 I I I are adopted or make conditions of project approval to mitigate sigoificant effects. It is the responsibility of the City to ensure that the implementation measures occur in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring Program The objectives of environmental monitoring are to ensure implementation of mitigation measures during proj ect implementation, to provide feedback to agency staff and decision makers about the effectiveness of their actins, to identify the need for enforcement action before irreversible environmental damage occurs. The Mitigation Monitoring Program identifies who would be responsible for monitoring the progress the mitigation measures adopted by the City when and how often the monitoring shall be done and the discussion of monitoring and reporting procedures. If the City Council approves this project, they must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the fmal EIR, the Conditional Use Pennit and the Vesting Tentative Map on November 9, 1999. Based on the evidence presented at this meeting and visits to the Anoakia property, the Commission on November 23 voted 3-0 to adopt Resolution 1600 which expresses the Commission's comments to the City Council on the final Environmental Impact Report. The Plaruring Commission expressed one concern and this was regarding Condition 12 which was included as part of the exhibit which relates to the payment for the cost of preserving certain items listed to be donated to the Arboretum and the City and requested that the Development Services Department continue to work with the developer in establishing a defmitive cost for payment to a not-for-profit charitable organization. While the California Enviromnental Quality Act does not require a public hearing on the fmal EIR, public participation is an essential part of the CEQA proves. Tonight's public hearing affords the public an opportunity to comment on the Conditional Use Pennit, the Vesting Tentative Map and the Final EIR. Staff recommends that the City Council proceed to hear the report from the City staff which you are doing right now, open the public hearing, take public testimony from all interested parties: including the Applicant on the final EIR responses to comments on the draft EIR, the Conditional Use Pennit and the Vested Tentative Map, close the public hearing and then it will be open for City Council discussion and City Council action. The City Council will need to make separate findings and emotions on then Enviromnental Impact Report, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Conditional Use Pennit and the Vesting Tentative Map. The Development Services Department is recommending certification of the fmal EIR and the approval of the Conditional Use Pennit and Vesting Tentative Map subject to the conditions set forth in your staff report. At this time, Mr. Deitsch the City Attorney will discuss the fmdings set forth in this staff report. Stephen Deitsch: Thank you, Ms. Butler. If you tum tab 5 of your staff report, you will see a compilation of fmdings, they're very numerous, but if you bear with me, I'lllly to deal with them as briefly as possible. On page 50 of the staff report, again on tab 5, with respect to the certification of the fmal EIR, in order to certify the Council would be asked to make the following fmdings that the Final EIR for the 3 I -;ot at Anoakia residential plan development has been completed and compliance with CEQA and that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project and that changes or alternations had been required in or incorporated into .the. 10 project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment as to biological resource, short- term construction noise and geology. Also that the EIR fully and adequately addresses reasonable project I alternatives. Also that the EIR reasonably addresses rnitigation measures to reduce impacts relating to the demolition of 15 structures on the Anoakia property which appear to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and Cali~ornia Register of Historic Resources under Criterion B and Criterion C ruling to significant individuals and design. And also that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and that all documents and records that constitute the records and proceedings, thus far are currently located in the Community Development Division of Arcadia City Hall. With respect to the proposed adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, the Council would have to fmd that the Mitigation Monitoring Program complies with the requirements of CEQA. Now that's your independent finding but I can advise you that the City Attorney is of the opinion that you could make that fmding as a matter oflaw. With respect to the Conditional Use Pennit, Vesting Tentative Map, the following fmdings apply as to the CUP, the Council have to make the following findings; I) that the granting of the CUP would not be detrimental to the public health or welfare, or injurious to the property improvements in the zone of vicinity in which the Anoakia is located; 2) that the use applied for at the location indicated is property one for which it a Conditional Use Pennit is authorized; 3) that the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and all yard I spaces, parking; padding, landscaping and other features required to adjust the use with the land and uses in the neighborhood; 4) that the site that butts streets and highways adequate and width and pavement type to carry the type of traffic generated by the proposes use; 5) that the granting of such Conditional Use Pennit will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan of the City of Arcadia; and 6) that the City Council concurs with the finings of fact and Statement of Overriding consideration regarding significant effects under provision of California Public Resources 21081 and California Code of Regulations Section 15091 and 15093. Those are CEQA guidelines in the California Environnlental Quality Act itself. With respect to the Vesting Tentative Map, the findings for approval would be that the project and the provisions for its design and improvement are consistent with the Arcadia General Plan and that the discharge of sewage from the project into the public sewage system, will not violate any requirements prescribed b the California Regional Water Control Board for this region. Secondly, that the City Council concurs with the findings of facts and Statement of Overriding considerations regarding significant effects under provision of the California Public Resources Code Section 21081 and the I California Code of Regulations Sections 15091 and 15093. There are alternative fmdings for denial set 11 I I I forth in your staff report. If you cannot fmd it, you cannot approve the Vesting Tentative Map, you can make one or more of the following fmdings: I) that the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general and specific plans; 2) that the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans; 3) that the site is not physically suitable for the type of development proposed; 4) that the site is not physically suitable for the density of development proposed; 5) that the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause potential environmental damage which cannot be mitigated or be subject to a Statement of Overriding consideration which is before you under the requirements of CEQA; 6) the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements is likely to cause environmental damage or substantially avoidably enter fish or wildlife or their habitat in such a way that it cannot be mitigated or subject to a Statement of Overriding Consideration; or 7) that the design of the subdivision of the type of improvement is likely to cause this public health problem; or finally 8) the design of the subdivision of the type of improvements will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In connection with this, the City Council may approve a map if it finds that alternative easements for access, or fur use, be provided and that these will be substantially equivalent to one's previously acquired by the public. This provision shall only apply to easements ofrecords, or to easements established by a judgment of the court of (inaudible) competent jurisdiction, and no authority is granted to the City Council to detenn1ne that the public at large has acquired easements for access, through or use of property within the proposed subdivision other than those I described. Now you have before you proposed conditions which would be included subject to any amendment which you might make to them in the event that you proceed with the approval of the project and the approval of the project is subject to all of the proposed fmdings, which I have outlined for you this evening. Thank you. Donna Butler: Just to wrap this up for everybody, I'm sure you're pretty bored by now. The Development Services Department is recommending approval subject to the conditions set forth on pages 53-64 of the staff report, with the exception that condition 12A on page 64 be amended to read;' "210 days following the final . approval by the City of the CUP, Vesting Tentative Map." This is a change from the 90-day period that is set forth and with the exception of this change, these conditions are consistent with conditions of approval that Were set forth in Planning Conunission Resolution No. 1599. This does conclude our staff report unless you have any questions. 12 Mayor Chandler: OK, thank yon Donna Butler, Mr. Mann and Mr. Deitsch. At this time, it would be appropriate for City I Council members to ask questions of those who have made the staff presentation and we will not conduct a . discussion at this time, but questions. Mr. Harbicht. Robert Harbicht: I have a question. On page II of the report, there's an estimate of$5 million to retrofit and rehabilitate the dwelling. That addresses just the dwelling, one of the other buildings on the property? Donna Butler: That is correct. Robert Harbicht: On page 22, one of the mitigation measures suggested is that there that for every Englemann Oak Tree that's removed, that they be replaced by three Englemann Oaks and any other tree that's removed be replaced by two Oak trees. The purpose of this is... is what? I mean, why is the purpose... why are they being replaced by a greater number than is removed. Donna Butler: Englemann Oaks are very rare, they are the rarest species in this particular area and actually throughout California and we just would like to see the replacement. The total replacement would be 70 trees. We would like to see a higher number of Englemann Oaks replaced on the site and so the total number removed, 35 total trees, we would like to see at a ratio 3.1 the replacement of Engle mann's. I Robert Harbicht: And the purpose of asking for 3.1 is because we anticipate that some of them might not make it or just trying to increase the total number of Englemann Oaks? Donna Butler: Just trying to increase the total number of total Englemann Oaks on the site. Robert Harbicht: So if nothing done here, our Englemann Oaks stays the same? Donna Butler: Exactly. Robert Harbicht: So actually, you'd end up with an increase. Steve Deitsch: Well, Mayor and Councilmembers, if I might add, there was some discussion that the existing trees are mature, it is likely that based on the mitigation measures proposed in the EIR that the replacement trees will be smaller in size when planted; hence, there is some more logic for more than a 1.1 ratio for replacement. Robert Harbicht: OK, I understand. The one thing that I've paper clipped here is the Planning Commissions... I'm looking at page 29. The Planning Commission requested that its Development Services Department to work with the I 13 I I I development to establish a defInite cost for payment to this non-for-profIt organization and that's referenced in here sevel1ll times. Has that been done? Donna Butler: We just actually got the estimates today from the... we received actuillly yesterday a cost estimate from the Arboretum. They had a person that's expert in historical renovation and we also received just, before this meeting, from the applicant some fIgures.. so, no, we haven't been able to sit down with the applicant to discuss fIgures. Robert Harbicht: Well, the reason that I asked this question is because it seems to be a signifIcant part ofany action that we might take. It would be part of our motion if we were to go ahead and approve the project, so do you have an estimate of when the fIgure will be available or do you have some suggestions as to how we can address that? Steve Deitsch: Mayor and Council, perhaps I can get that discussion started a little bit. If you look in tab 3 of your staff report in the Mitigation Measures and if you look on page 18, in particular, and if you look at the bottom of that mitigation measure 3 on page 18 to the last paragraph, you see some language which, at least in some way without specifying fIgures, addresses the mitigation measure and obligation that the City Council might impose on the applicant. This condition is also set forth as condition 12 in the proposed conditions of approval for the project. Donna Butler: 1 am sorry, We are actually on page 20 of the staff report. It's page 18 of the Mitigation Measure, but it's page 20 of the staff report. Robert Harbicht: So then, this anticipates that the property owner would pay all the costs of relocation, whatever it is. Steve Deitsch: That's correct, and, it fact, the correspondence which staff received today from the applicant. Staff has indicated... the developer, the applicant has indicated with the provisions to staff of Some letters from developer's consultants what the estimated costs of segregation and relocation might be for certain items that are presently located within the main structure on the Anoakia site. I think it would be best the applicant, at the right time, could step forward and make a presentation regarding that and I think his staff has already alluded too. There is correspondence dated December 6, 1999, from Peter Atkins, CEO of the County of Los Angeles of Parks & Recreation, the Arboretum of L.A. County, with attachments where the Arboretum has also obtain some reports from its consultants regarding estimated costs for removal of those fIxtures that are described in the applicant's consultant's report, plus apparently yet additional fIxtures that the Arboretum felt merited some consideration for relocation and perhaps the Arboretum would with to address that if there is a representative from the Arboretum tonight. 14 Robert Harbicht; OK, on page 42 of the staff report it talks about the maintenance of common areas and I asswne that it I means that the eventual purchasor(s) of these homes would have some kind of assessment against their property and will be made on a regular basis to take care of the common areas along the walls, the planting outside the walls. They came, ask for these four things, there were no objections to those four things, but the Commission took up some other things. Ms. Butler: They... as part of the design, they have right to review the Architectural Design Review, and that was what their major concern was about. Robert Harbicht: OK. Those are all the questions I had at this time, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Chandler: Thank you 'Mr. Harbicht. Mr. Kovacic. Gary Kovacic: Thank you. Mr. Mayor and thank you, Donna. I have several questions. First of all, with respect to the Oaks and you indicated that the Englemann Oaks are especially of some concern to the City and I noticed that the tree reports that four are going to be removed. It looks to be like three of those are either right at or right next to curb lines. Was any effort made to maybe discuss an adjustment of the curb line to save those I three trees? Donna Butler: We did discuss this, yes, because of the location of the street having to modifY makes it very difficult but they are so close. Oak trees don't do well when there is any sort ofreal major work and because the street is... even if they were to relocate it a little bit, it wouldn't be almost enough to keep those trees out of the.. I mean, excuse me, keep street out of the drip line. They did go back there; they were originally removing... I believe it was nine Englemann Oak; they did go back and come up with a plan that you see before you tonight. If they'd... we could ask the applicant to look at perhaps saving more to relocate'the street see how the trees do. Gary Kovacic: Is it staff's position that no more Englemann Oaks can be saved by any tweaking of the streets? Donna Butler: It's real questionable. That's why we've looked at their... they have a very good arborist on board and we defer to them as to where they could... if these could be saved. Gary Kovacic: Next, I'm just going in order of the staff report so logically I may jump around a bit and I apologize for that. I We received a study by an architect by Mr. Weil, but the staff report says that no additional or new infonnation of requirements have been included in the EIR or in the errata. Should a report like that be 15 I I I included in the EIR to make an adequate document? Or legally, how do we deal with sigoificant input that comes, I guess, after the Final EIR's been basically before it comes to us? Steve Deitsch: You have discretion to incorporate this report and, for that matter, for any reports what are forthcoming this evening or any that might have been submitted for which I'm unaware. In the Final EIR and you can ask staff, would rest this submission as well. For example, in response to the December 6, letter subinitted to the City of Arcadia by the County of Los Angeles Department of Parks & Recreation, the Arboretum, if would be reasonable for the Council to consider the following response. And by the way, attached to that letter was the Weil estimate, along with yet an additional estimate by another consultant, that was California Waterproofmg & Restoration, and the proposed response could be something to the effect of the costs of the removal of the entire structures or the main structure, the mansion, the residence on the Anoakia property was generally considered by staff and the City Council and was found to be of a cost of either was unreasonable to impose solely on the developer and that because their mitigation measures set forth in the Final EIR are reasonable and adequate to deal with mitigation of the potential loss of the historical resource under CEQA. Gary Kovacic: OK, thank you. Now, Donna I understand that because this is a planned development and because it contemplates no on-street parking, somehow it doesn't have to comply with standards, street widths and other setback requirements that we would require for other improvements? Is that correct? Donna Butler: Yes, that is. Gary Kovacic: Has any calculation been done to determine lots this property would be permitted to have if rules and regulations ere strictly applied to the development? Donna Butler: Actually, as a matter of fact, it was done back when Mr. McCaslin came his original development back in '78. I was reviewing the files the other day and they can put approximately the same amount of lots with a conventional subdivision because you're only required only 100 ft. deep lots by 100 ft. width. Now, obviously you have to meet the 22,000 ft. requirement, but at that time, the figured anywhere from 25 to up to 30 lots depending on how the configuration was. Gary Kovacic: On page 19 or the staff report and page 17 of the mitigation plan, condition 2 talks about an interpretive plan and then locating the display. What is contemplated by this condition? Is the plan different than the display or are they synonymous? If they are, what are they? Donna Butler: The interpretive plan is actually a written document that which includes photographs, it could be a videotape, but it documents what an interpretive is kind of a loose... because they don't know how this 16 house looked prior to its current condition without going back to some photographs. We have some photographs of the exterior when it was a school, but what the interpretive plan does is try to develop a history of this using all the background information it can using current data, taking photographs and they would be professionally done photographs so that our archival photographs. They can also do videotape; this has been done in some instances, thoui;h there is a number of things can be done, but it's considered interpretive because you are... you don't have all the facts of when it was... you don't have photo... you may not have photographs and so forth of when it was used by Anita Baldwin. Gary Kovacic: Would it include the preparation of a model demonstrating what the buildings looked like and where they were located on the subject property? Donna Butler: It could, I was just talking to a gentleman today about this particular issue and he said that what they've generally done they do a lot of photographing. They've even done videotaping. He didn't mention anything about a model that... Gary Kovacic: And then the final Arbetor's are the historic preservation professional and staff to determine whether it's an adequate plan and display? Donna Butler: Right. Gary Kovacic: Okay, a question for Mr. Deitsch. You were going through the various conditions and findings and you mentioned as a potential rroding for denial find that she is not physically suitable for the type of development: Does that refer to the topography of property or does it... could it refer to the existing structures on the property? What do you mean or what does the law mean by "physically suitable?" Steve Deitsch: Generally speaking, historically speaking, the requirement has been directed toward things like topography or shape of the real property. I have not had any experience in interpreting that rroding as applicable to an existing man,made structure on the site. So I can't tell you with assurance that can be specifically part of a negative finding. Gary Kovacic: OK, thank you. I am b bit confused about what items are, in fact, suggested to be relocated. There are two letters from the McCaslin's with a 3D-day time limit to remove the items. Then there is a list that was prepared I think by somebody, the Arboretum or the Historical Society or the Conservancy or Mr. Weil. And, then there was sort of a wish list that I think the city's presented. What is the list that we are gonna refer to as the list in your condition requiring preservation of items. 17 I I I I I I Donna Butler: It's the list that Mr. McCaslin submitted to both the Arboretum and the City. Now, Mr. McCaslin wished to allow other items to be taken out, but it is up to his discretion if there are other items. The list in the Arboretum's report include items which are not on the list that we have been given a copy of from the McCaslin estate. They may have negotiated these things with them, we don't know. Gary Kovacic: Ok, and, again for Mr. Deitsch. Is that legal opinion as well that the City cannot require more than what the owner is willing to donate? Steve Deitsch: In the following sense, yes. If we're talking about fixtures and equipment on the property, that is material that, in my opinion, could" be removed by an owner of the property in any time without pennit by the City. That is something as opposed to demolition of the structure, which would require a pennit to be issued by the City. If the latter were the scenario, then the City would have some ability under CEQA itself, if this were historical structure, and I think it is for our purposes here, to condition demolition on retention of " historical portions of the structure. But, if it's anything short of that which doesn't require the City permit such as removal of fixtures, the City has no authority, in my opinion, to prohibit the owner of those fixtures from removing, keeping them, using them for the owners own purposes, if that was the desire of the owner. Gary Kovacic: OK, so we have jurisdiction over buildings and items attached to the buildings but not to movable items or items that can be presumable moved without much damage to the building. Is that an easy way to say it? Steve Deitsch: Generally speaking, but even more specifically, we have authority where elimination or demolition is required by pennit but not otherwise. Gary Kovacic: Okay, now McCaslin letter as I recall also indicated that they wanted the items moved by dates certain in January. Is my recollection correct? Donna Butler: They have 30 days after approval of the project to remove the items, to have the items removed. So, it's actually after 30... they're. Gary Kovacic: Who's they? Donna Butler: McCaslin. The McCaslin properties. They are being optimistic with this date of January. They were basing it upon the public hearings and so forth. If this project is approved, at such time that the projects approved, there is 30 days window in which the items that are listed in the two letters, and anything else which obviously the McCaslin properties agree to can be removed from the site. 18 Gary Kovacic: OK, the letter I'm referring to says these items must be removed in the month of January 2000. And, you I are proposing a condition that basically says that the developer shall dismantle the house and dwelling in such a manner that certain agreed upon elements of the structures shall be preserved for future pennanent display or use. Does that condition contemplate that all this has t be done during the month of January 2000? Donna Butler: It really contemplates that it will be done at such time as the projects is approved and within the window time that Mr. McCaslin has and in our discussions, it appears that there would be some flexibility in that time frame. Gary Kovacic: OK, then how does that dovetail with the other time limits as far as somebody coming in and making a proposal and there's additional time to do things? Donna Butler: If someone, and it's my understanding... perhaps Mr. Deitsch can help me here but, it's my understanding that if, let's say someone should come in with a legitimate, bona fide proposal within 30 days, some of this ends up being a moot issue because then this structure would be deemed, they would be selling the property, the structure, whatever on the site, then it is allowed to have 200... The applicants... The original proposal, I as you know, was 90 days in which to remove everything. The applicants have indicated to us that they would extend this to 210 days based upon what it would reasonably take to remove everything and to relocate the structure in another location. And, we're talking about relocation as part of this condition. Gary Kovacic: So, just so I'm clear on this. If somebody comes in with a proposal in the 30-day window, then Mr. McCaslin's statement that the items must be removed during the month of January 2000 doesn't apply? That 210 days applies? Steve Deitsch: Perhaps I can address that. I believe that that offer still remains intake and we would have to respond in the time indicated. The offer was made in respect to those items only if the proposed recipients, the Arboretum or the City, desired to leave them as part of the removal process for the structure with these fixtures, that would be another matter altogether. The recipients could wave that and Mr. McCaslin could wave it. Now, he's the party who has control over his two lists. The ones that are attached to the conditions. Therefore, it's in his discretion, how to deal with those at least through the end of January, as I understand it. When I said, "as I understand if', by the way, I believe there may be an.agreement between Mr. McCaslin and the ..owner of the property regarding the tim.eframe and the removal any fixtures. That's something the owner might be able to speak to. I 19 I I I Gary Kovacic: Okay. And one last question Donna. You're referred to it just now, on of the conditions has been modified, as I understand it...could you just give me the summary of what that condition now says? Is that the 30 days and the 90days is now 30 days and 210 days? Donna Butler: Well, actually no. Anybody who wished to come fOlward and actually present to the applicants a bona fide offer to relocate, reestablish this building, to move it onto another premises. There's a 30-day window in which someone could come forward with a bona fide offer subject to the conditions, which we require, which is indemnification. We want to make sure it is a legitimate proposal. Then, they would have actually from the date of approval, 210 days, which in other words would be another 180 days from that 30 day period in which to actually relocate the building. 90 days after investigation was found to be cutting it real short, 180 days would give adequate time to relocate the building to another site: So, they've actually extended it 180 days beyond". So, additionally it was 30, then 90 days from the date of approval and now, it's 30 and 210 days from the date of approval. Gary Kovacic: Okay, and, within the 30 days, this person or organization has to provide and application, right? They don't have to... Donna Butler: Correct. Gary Kovacic: Reach an agreement with anybody? Or execute a contract? It's just submitting some kind of an application? Donna Butler: The code does provide for an application process for relocation of buildings, and it gives more flexibility to historical buildings in our code. There is a specific application, yes. Gary Kovacic: Okay, and one fmal question, I'm sorry, Steve, just as far as the timing of when we have to act as a Council, if I understand the staff report"", we have to certifY the EIR no later than January 25", 2000. Is that correct? Steve Deitsch: That's correct. That's the requirement under CEQA and the permit-streamlining act. Gary Kovacic: There's no penalty set forth for failure to do so, interestingly. But, we would want to comply with the law. CertifY the EIR no later than J annary 25". Steve Deitsch: Correct. Gary Kovacic: " And, then legally we have to make a decision on the proposed project within 180 days after the EIR is certified. 20 Steve Deitsch: In my opinion, that is correct. More specifically, the proposed project that would be subject to that I provision would be the Conditional Use Permit. The Tentative Track Map. On the other hand, is governed by the subdivision map act and your approval or disapproval of that would have to take place within the next 30 days from tonight. Gary Kovacic: Okay, so the CUP and the Tentative Track Map would have different time limits that apply to them? Steve Deitsch: That's correct. Gary Kovacic: Okay, thank you. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, Mr. Kovacic. Other questions of staff, Mr. Roncelli? Gino Roncelli: I just want to go over... about the trees on the property. I want to go with that. I've added things up here and it looks like we're going to have an average of about four Oak trees per property after some have been removed. An average of five, almost six other trees on each property plus they're going to add sixty-four something new trees and that's another two per property. So, we're looking at eleven or twelve trees per lot, some of them are going to have more and some less but it seems certainly adequate. There's here on I page 20 of the litigation monitoring check list, it said replacements trees which they're talking about sixty something trees, could be located on site or off site in an area dedicated open space such as public parks or other such locations deemed appropriate. We could be forcing this developer to plant trees somewhere else besides this property? Is that right? Donna Butler: That is correct. This something that has been required, not within the City 'cause we haven't had a project of this size before, but this is not an uncommon condition replacement. Gino Roncelli: Does it have to be in the City? Donna Butler: Yes. Gino Roncelli: It doesn't say that. Donna Butler: It does have to be in the City. Gino Roncelli: My yard first, okay? I 21 I I I Donna Butler: Okay. UNKNOWN: Public place. Donna Butler: Public. Gino Roncelli: Ob, is Ibis public? Where does it say that? UNKNOWN: Fine print. Gino Roncelli: Off site in an area of dedicated open space. Donna Butler: Yeah, dedicated is interpreted as public use but... Gino Roncelli: Okay, thank you. Mayor Chandler: Is that is, Mr. Roncel1i? Gino Roncel1i: Now,itis. Mayor Chandler: Okay, thank you. Okay for now. I have couple, just quick questions maybe for purposes of clarification, Mr. Deitsch. The term, vesting, keeps corning up under the tentative map, can you please define that for us so that We know what we're getting in? What's the time limit? Steve Deitsch: That means that under the law, if the vesting track map is approved, the developer would have the right to proceed with development in the future based upon today's existing municipal code and other requirements of the City. Vesting really pertains to the right of the developer being locked into place to proceed in accordance with today's standards even if the City somehow amends it's code in the future. Mayor Chandler: That goes on in perpetuity? Steve Deitsch: No, it does not go on in perpetuity. It does extent for the life of the map, which is a maximum initial term of two years plus a one-year extension plus a possibility yet of moratoria and additional extensions under the subdivision map act, but basically speaking, as long as the map, the tentative map remains in place, the vesting applies. 22 Mayor Chandler: The standard street in Arcadia is, Donna, thirty-six, thirty-eight? Donna Butler: Well, the actual street paved area is thirty-six. The dedication of right-of-way is a minimum fifty feet. The standard for some streets are sixty but the minimum is a fifty-foot of dedication which means you have five feet of sidewalk on either side with a... sony, backwards, seven feet on either side with the thirty-six foot wide street. So, the actually paved area is thirty-six. Mayor Chandler: Okay, so fire and police have already signed off on 28 if it's undedicated. Donna Butler: If there's no parking and that's enforced. Mayor Chandler: All right. Any further...okay, Mrs. Marshall, question? Gail Marshall: Donna, what would happen if somebody in that facility had a party and there's no street parking, where do they put the cars? Donna Butler: That's a real good question. Actually, it's a very good question. They don't have nay on site parking which you sometimes see in condominium projects where they'll have areas set aside, supposedly guest parking, I which sometimes you fmd more of the other. But, that's a good question to ask the developer. Gail Marshall: You know, these are big houses, so I'd think that they'd be good big arty houses. So, consequently, I would think that could create problein possibly. Donna Butler: It could possible and I think the developer may have some thoughts on that. Gail Marshall: I think these small, narrow streets would give a very nice village effect to the compound which would be nice, but that's my only concern on that. Thank you, Mayor Chandler: Mr. Kovacic. Gary Kovacic: Donna, I just want to revisit one of my previous questions. You indicated the developer had to comply with all of the normal regulations street widths, set backs, distance between buildings, private yard, minimum lots characteristics, etc. That it would calculate out to be about the same number of lots, isn't there a minimum twenty-two thousand square foot lot requirement in this area? Donna Butler: Correct. 23 I I I I I Gary Kovacic: So, if you abided by that twenty-two thousand square foot lot requirement, plus you required normal set backs and streets, how many lots would you have on this subject property. Donna Butler: Well, again, based upon the design we did a number of years ago, it actually worked out that you could potentially put on the sarne number, close to the sarne number that you've got here. Part of the reason is you've got a lot more open space here, you've got a perimeter walls that would be eliminated and you've got private entries on this particular one where, literally, houses could go. So, you've got more open space and it's kinda balances itself out. Gary Kovacic: Okay, because when you answered me the frrst time you talked about hundred fool... Donna Butler: Those are minimum code requirements. They would have to be minimum hundred feet width, hundred feet depth, but obviously you'd have to have almost two hundred foot deep lots to over two hundred feel. Gary Kovacic: To make the twenty-two thousand... Donna Butler: Right. Gary Kovacic: So, anyway, it's staff position that if they were required to do things to the code requirements, you'd still get the sarne number oflots or something close to it. Donna Butler: You'd get something close to lit. And, one of the things that I think is important, and this is why residential planned developments tend to work for this particular site, is' because, if you had a conventional subdivision, it'd be very difficult to preserve the arnount of Oak trees on this site. It's difficult because conventional subdivisions don't allow you the flexibility of the street design and so forth. Gary Kovacic: Okay, thank you. Mayor Chandler: Well, isn't it true too Donna, that the conventional... if everything was done the conventional say, that would probably result in the walls coming down and some of the houses being oriented toward. Donna Butler: Dwellings fronting Anoakia Lane which would just offset the southSide of homes fronting on Foothill Blvd. and you would have more access points. I think it was two streets, I believe, that carne in. So, it would differ in design significantly. 24 Mayor Chandler: Right, .okay, if there are no further questions from the City Council to the staff, I will then open the public hearing. No further questions? Fine, thank you. We will .open the public hearing and begin with the applicant. Tom Hover: I Mr. City Manager, Mr. Mayor, fellow Councilmembers, good evening. First of all, I'd like to introduce myself, my name is Tom Hover, I am the managing member of Arcadia Oaks, LLC, which is the development entity that is the applicant and the developer .of the project. I would also like te make you aware that I have partners. One of my partners is the Carpenters Pensien Trust, and also Coastal Farms. My responsibility is primarily fer the development itself, "and the financial partners responsible for the financial investments of the project. At this time, I weuld like to introduce Mr. Den Metters who is the counsel for the Carpenters Pensien Trust te further explain te you the particular issues associated with the trust. Don Metters: Thank you Tem Mr. Mayor, Council, my name is Don Metters, I am a twenty-five year residents of Pasadena and sa I have, certainly, I think, a feeling for the difficult issues that you face in yaur job. And, I have served for a number of years as General Counsel to the Carpenters Pension Trust for Southern California. I wanted to first .of all, on behalf of the maybe, fifty thousand working families that benefit from the I pensions under the trust... we wanted to thank the staff and the "City of Arcadia for many, many months of effort. We'd like to think that this is leading ta, we hope, what we believe perhaps the fmest residential development that currently underway and bring that to Arcadia. That would be a goal. . The Carpenters Pension Trust, it might interesting te the community to knaw that there's always a discussi.on .of the develeper and there's always a picture .of these large entities that are engaged in commercial development with very deep pockets. I think maybe the community wauld like te know that the Carpenter Pensien Trust is realIy a non-profit organizatien that's governed by fourteen volimteers like many City Councils. The trustees volunteer their time to manage a fund, to bring pensions t.o working families. And, we maybe provide, yeu kn.;w, typicalIy, say a five hundred delIars per month pensien to working families. Working carpenters have ab.out a delIar an hour contribution made t.o the fund. So, for example, the six million dollars will... the Carpenters Pension addresses by far, the largest financial participant in this development. And, the six millions dollars that we presently have up, represents six million hours of carpenter work. And, of ceurse, there are many significant, there's a large significant additional fmancial commitment that we are attempting to address here to bring this to its conclusien. Let me just say for your information, we are governed, the trustees are governed by the Employees Requirement Security Act of 1974, the Federal Pension Law and it requires the trustees and their advisors, I their fiduciary advisers to manage the assets in the exclusive benefit, and that the language in the statute, exclusive benefit of the pensioners, and we endeavor our very best to do that. To preserve, and protect the 25 I I I assets of the trust and we have to do what is required. And, that is our sole obligation. We think her that you know, we're very optimistic about the excellence of the project and very proud to be associated with Mr. Hover's, one of the finest developers in Southern California. We are very anxious to see a decision on this matter. I thank you very much and I'll be available for any questions that may arise. Mayor Chandler: Thank you. Thank you Mr. Metters. Tom Hover: Thank you, Don. At this time, I would like to go through a presentation of the public conceptual plan that we presented to the Planning Connnission in November. First off, I would like to start off by saying that we acquired this property in June of 1998, which is approximately a year and a half ago. We spent a great deal of time with the Rancho Santa Anita Architectural Review Board, in which we received their approval in FebnIary oflast year. As you know, we submitted our map application in January oflast year. As all of you are aware, the property is surrounded by Baldwin to the east, Foothill to the south and Anoakia Lane to the north. Anoakia Lane happens to be the lower photo on the right. Our intent from the beginning here was to try to maintain the look of the existing property in terms of maintaining the existing walls, maintaining the look that has been present there since the inception of the Baldwin mansion. That's why we internalized the project and one of the reasons we privatized the project. So, we could maintain that Same character that's been in existence practically from day one. One of the other conditions I wanted to mention (why don't you go back to the last photo). The Homeowner Association will also be responsible for all the maintenance on all of these three streets to our property line which will be the common area; maintenance on Anoakia, Baldwin and Foothill. I just wanted to make you aware of that. Some of these existing structures within the project, obviously the main dwelling to lower left, in front of the dwelling is a fountain which was done by a Frenchmen, was entitled "Le June" it is our intent to use the fountain in the new project entry. Try to capture some of the character of the existing site. These are some of the photographs that Donna showed you earlier of the existing structure. These are various photographs of the interior shot going upstairs, fIrst floor going up to the second. This is outside . going over to the tearoom on the lower photo on the left. There's the tearoom. As stated, we've had a number of people look at the condition of the mansion and, based on estimates, it's not... it requires substantial structural retrofItting and a great deal of money to refurbish the !l'"nsion. As mentioned the McCaslin family has, over the past few years, leased the property out to film companies for movies, television movies and they have spent a substantial amount of money refurbishing certain rooms of the fIrst floor. Here is some of the out-buildings. I think again, this is probably.... talked about the original stables which is a shot of the north. And, these are caretaker cottages, which also look there on the property. A shot of some of the existing out trees. This is a shot of the project entry, as it would look, opposite Arbolada coming.off of Baldwin. Again, it is our intent to secure the community. We have an entry gate, gatehouse 26 as you come into the project and this location would be directly cattycorner from the Arboalda entrance onto Baldwin. The shot to the right is the overview of the projected entry. As you come into the project off of Baldwin, which is right here, Baldwin running north and south, you'd be coming in here. This area bere would be the gates structure, you come around, you go through the gates... The "Le June" fountain that I mentioned before would be relocated here and we would try to reproduce that architecturally right here. Clean that you and reproduce that. In addition, these arbors are in existence on the propetty right now, they're pretty worn down. We would use the columns and try to replicate the design of the actual trellis and we would reproduce those in this location here as you come into the entryway here and right here, as well. Again, capturing some of the character of flavor of the existing project. Here's the shot, again of the fountain and here's the architectural illustration as you would come into the entry, here what you would see, you would see the fountain, again. This is the site plan showing the thirty- one units. Here, again is the entry off Baldwin. In addition, we have an emergency access here, which comes, off of Foothill. Which would be used strictly for emergency access. In addition to the conunon area we have, we have on the perimeter of the property; we would also have this, the area and the gate. The entry area would also be part of the conunon area. In additionally, we would have some additional conunon area lots here. And, then also, bordering along the channel in this particular area right here. This is some of the architectural elevations that we have received approval upon from the ARB. Our intent was to capture some of the character and the richness of the Arcadia area. We have tried to work with the site plan to maximize the number of trees and we have done a very good job doing that. In doing so, we have been able to be flexible with the location of the garages. For example, in this particular house here, the garage is actually detached and would be located somewhere in the rear of the property. So, we have used this particular house because of the narrow width where we could maximize the number of trees on each particular lot. This particular house, for example, the garage here would go through a portica sheer here and the garage would be located to the back of the house. Basically, the garage is off of the street scene entirely. Here, again, in this particular house, a very traditional house.. . here, again you go through a protica sheer getting back to the garage which is back located some twenty something feet fro this point, thirty feet from this point. And you have the same condition existing here as well. Again, you would to through gates here to get to the garage in the rear of the property. As you can see, we have tried to provide a diversification of architectural styles, rooflines and materials. And, because of the building for us to locate our garages in different forms, provides 'us a lot of flexibility in terms of site planning and also in terms of driving through the neighborhood. You're going to see a lot of configurations relative to houses. Effectively, that's our presentation. I would like to state, as I said earlier we have spent a great deal oftime dealing with the City staff. I'd like to thank the staff for their cooperation with the ARB, two representatives with the ARB are here this evening. As you know, we received approval from the Planning Connnission and we ask for your approval here this evening. I'll make myselfavaHable for questions if you should have any questions. 27 I I I I I I Mayor Chandler: Questions of the applicant? Ms. Marshall. Gail Marshall: What do you do if you have a party? Tom Hover: That's a good question. The majority, as I mentioned as regarding the garages, most of the driveways in thee houses are rather deep. Our average driveway, I'm guessing right now, but I would say is probably about 45 feet deep. We have some sixty-foot, seventy-foot deep driveways. So, there's plenty of parking on the driveway. We have some conditions where there's cul-de-sacs where you would probably be able to park, we have a number of cul-de-sac conditions in there as we.., which you would be able to park in the cul-de-sac conditiollS. But, for the most part, most party parking would occur on the driveways. Gail Marshall: Thank you. Mayor Chandler: Mr. Harbicht. Robert Harbicht: I'm a little bit confused here. You mentioned that you acquired this property in 1998, yet we have letters from Mr. McCaslin, the former owner, offering certain things to the City and to the Arboretum Who owns these pieces of the property and who has the authority to agree to, or give it or not? Tom Hover: When we acquired the property, Mr. McCaslin excluded a number of the items within the property. For lack of a better term, the artifacts included in the mansion, the artifacts surroundiog the property, the arbors... there's a wishing well on the property. There's an urn out in the fountain area. We did receive the right to buy "Le June", the fountain that I pointed to earlier. And, we are going to be buying the arbors from Mr. McCaslin as well so we can use those on the site. He reserve those items, excluded those items from our purchase. So, he has been connnunicating with the City and the Arboretum, The letter he sent out . on, I believe, November the 15th,the items apparently he had come to the conclusion with on the Arboretum and the City in tefIllS of what he was willing to donate. And, this issue was brought up earlier, but, we are prepared to pay the cost to relocate those items to the Arboretum and to the City, which I believe is condition twelve. Robert Harbicht: That was my next question. I brought this up earlier; there is a condition of approval, which is just that. Yet, apparently there is some 'debate as to what the cost would be. Is there a specific figure? The Planning Conunission had asked that staff work with you to come up with specific figure. Have we got a figure? Tom Hover: We have a figure, yes, and as I said, we're willing to absorb that for the items that Mr. McCaslin has identified. 28 Robert Harbicht: Can I know what the figure is? Tom Hover: I It's about a hundred and ten thousand dollars. Robert Harbicht: I'm sorry? Tom Hover: A hundred and ten thousand dollars. Robert Harbicht: Thank you. Mayor Chandler: Okay, Mr. Kovacic. Gary Kovacic: Mr. Hover, thank you for your presentation. Have you seen the ...this is a follow-up to Mr. Harbicht's question. Have you seen the letter report submitted by Mr. Weil, the historic, or restoration architect? Tom Hover: I received that his afternoon, yes. Gary Kovacic: Have you had an opportunity to review Appendix A, which report to list of all, I guess, items worthy of I saving. Are you familiar with that Appendix? Tom Hover: I reviewed it, this afternoon, yes. Gary Kovacic: Is it safe to say that you have no control over any of these items? Is that a correct statement? Tom Hover: That's a correct statement. Gary Kovacic: So, these are all items over which Mr. McCaslin has control. Tom Hover: That's correct. Gary Kovacic: Okay, other than relocating the "Le June" fountain and replicating the trellises, are you proposing to preserve any of the structure on the subject property? Tom Hover: The only structural preserving, to maintain, would be the gate structure on the comer of Baldwin and I Foothill. 29 I I I Gary Kovacic: The gatehouse? Tom Hover: The gatehouse. It's actually incorporated into the wall; perimeter wall project and our intent would be to maintain that. It has very little or no impact upon the lot that particular house, that unit is on. And, it's part of the integrity of the perimeter. And, that's as I've said from day one, has been our goals, to maintain that integrity. Gary Kovacic: Okay, and, so all other structures will either be relocated somewhere or demolished. Tom Hover: Correct. Gary Kovacic: Thank you. Mayor Chandler: Further questions? Yes, Mr. Deitsch has input. Steve Deitsch: For the record, has the applicant read all of the proposed mitigation measures and the EIR and the proposed conditions of approval? And, is prepared before tonight and has amended, in accordance with Ms. Butler's statement during her presentation? Tom Hover: Yes, with exception of one condition which we received toe, apparently the change to, that goes back to Councilman Ko~acic's comment... let's see, it's on page two, I believe and the way the condition was originally written. Excuse me one second, yes, the way the original condition was written, which was condition twelve, it indicates that the, let's see, if any person or any submits within thirty days of the final approval of the City of Arcadia, this conditional use pennit invested into the map a completed application to the City pursuant to Arcadia Municipal Code. Let's see, to relocate the main existing structure, or any portion thereof, in the applicant showing into an agreement with such person, there's been verbage added to that which talks about, let's see here, the main structure or any portion thereof, or, and this is the additional language, any historic and/or artist interior and/or exterior attached and unattached building elements on the premises. It gets into a gray area relative to what Mr. McCaslin controls and we would obviously prefer the verbage as it was Originally developed. Mayor Chandler: With the exception of that condition, that changed language that added language... Tom Hover: Yes. Steve Deitsch: You agree with and accept all of the conditions? 30 Tom Hover: That's correct, yes, I do. Steve Deitsch: ' And, with the exception to that changed or added language to condition twelve, you in particular, or otherwise agree with, condition twelve as originally prepared and as amended with the substitution 21.0 days in lieu of 9.0 days? Tom Hover: Yes. Steve Deitsch: All right, thank you. Mayor Chandler: Okay, any further question for Mr. Hover? At this time, I might remind that we will move on to all others but the applicant will have the fmal rebuttal and so, you would be invited back. And, at this time, thank you, sir. And, now we will now invite any individual who would like to speak to the issue, either for or against, please step forward, give your name and address for the City Clerk and if possible try to keep your presentation five minutes or reasonable. Linda Dishman: Good morning, or good afternoon, evening I guess...it's been a long day. My name is Linda Disbman and I'm the Executive Director of the Los Angeles conservancy, and we're here tonight because we're all very concerned that a very historic resource will be demolished. We have written several letters on this issue to the City Council and to the Planning Conunission. And, we have a couple of cOllUDents. One is that we are very pleased that you take Oak trees so seriously in the City and we think you have to take historic resources as seriously. This will continue to happen, these threats to historic resources unless a survey is done. That is in our letter to the Planning Conunission and we certainly would urge you as pan of the mitigation ~o undertake this survey. We're vel)' concerned that this is the second time we've now been to the Arcadia City Council; we were here last summer on the Santa Anita. There are continued threats to historic resources in this cOllUDunity, we believe that a lot of people in this cOllUDunity care about historic resources, and, we believe that there are a lot of historic resources in Arcadia, so, we certainly would implore you to do a survey. And, to perhaps at this point, since you have a little bit of leeway in your time frame in approving this project, to perhaps look at alternative once more, which is losing potentially four sites on the property but maintain the historic resource of the main house. And, so we would encourage you to look further at that, before actually adopting the Final ElR on this. Thank you. Mayor Chandler: Okay, thank you, Linda Dishman. I would like to ask you to please not applauded. I'm sure that most of you are supporting preservation, please don't applaud. We are trying to keep as orderly as possible. 31 I I I I I I Mary Daugherty: G90d evening, Mr. Mayor and the City Council persons, fIrst, I'm Mary Dougberty. I am a member of the Arcadia Board of Education. However, tonigbt I am appearing here as a private citizen. This is not an issue that has been considered by the Arcadia UnifIed School district. I ma here because of concern, and I would like to before I start with my remarks, be sure that you... I was informed that the letter from Sue Mossman, Executive Director of Pasadena Heritage would be recorded in full, made a part of the record tonight. And, that she has encoUraged to explore options. .She also made note of the fact, that she had had discussion with Mr. Hover regarding possible preservation and possible negotiations with moving off the mansion or some portion of that. And, now I'd like to proceed with my own comments. I just wanted to make sure that that became a part of the record. Tonigbt, you're faced with a dilemma of divergent interest. You've got private property interest of the developer; and, you've got architectural historic interest of the community. The reason why this is a dilemma of this late date is that we have no preservation policy in Arcadia. Otherwise, this wouldn't be an issue this late. Now, this is mandatory public hearing and that's why the appropriate time. As an elected official myself, I don't interject myself into a lot of the City's business. But, now is the appropriate time and that's why this public hearing is required. It is not too late. The City can determine that there is no satisfactory way to mitigate the loss of the Anoakia Mansion and the building I'll call the Parthenon. Because I was blown away when I saw it, I'd didn't know we had a Parthenon rigbt here in Arcadia! I think that you should sequester those and say those building must be preserved. This does not infringe on the private property rights. The developer simply has to take that into consideration. Still can determine how to develop it. Whether to sell it off, whether to make it a private, semi-private, public whatever use. I believe you can have a committee, if you and if the developer chose to explore appropriate uses. And, the mansion and the Parthenon building could be the crown jewels of this development. Either private residence or some kind of community facility, as I said, private, semi-private or public. I believe that the . building is a wonderful piece of architecture. It has been extraordinarily well preserved in the public areas. And, you now have a choice. You can leave a legacy of preservation and responsible development or be known as the demolition derby Council. And, remember, demolition is forever. Once it's gone, it's gone. I have a number of photographs over here, Mr. Mayor. I don't know if you want to go througb the individual photographs of what's there. When I visited, I was astounded by the beauty of it and the loss. and, the reason why most people haven't come forward is they simply don't know what's there. They've never seen it. Most people have never seen the outside much less the inside. So, I felt very privileged to have the opportunity to visit the site and to take those photographs. And, if you would like, I'd be happy to share the photographs with you. Mayor Chandler: Mary, we can ask the photographer to zoom on those if you like? 32 Mary Dougherty: Okay. I left my laser pointer at home, so I'll apologize but on the upper left hand comers, one view of the mahogany staircase, you did see that partly before. The next photograph to the right, I can't see the monitor, what? The bookcase, those are in the den office. It's one whole wall of bookcases. Adjacent to that, on the right of that is the, one of the batch elder tile frreplace that is in that same den office. The doors down in the middle you saw previously. Those doors are downstairs and are the entry into the bowling alley according to the list provided by the McCaslin. Further down, on the left you see the frreplace and the recreation room Those are downstairs in the basement recreation room. It's a huge room with bottled glass, leaded glass window. And, at then very bottom is the wine cellar with one wine cask dated 1876. And, the ceramic, there are two walls of ceramic wine racks to keep your wine property cooled. Thank you. At the top on the left, is the structure that I called the Parthenon because I was blown away when I saw it. And, that, it's my understanding that that was built by Anita Baldwin so her youngster would have a safe place to play. And, that's a gymnasium that it's my understanding was converted to a chapel by the school. On the right hand side, the top one there on the left shows the molding found in the, I thought it was living room, maybe it's dining room, but it has Oak leaves and acorns in that molding. And, the photograph below that shows the frreplace in that same room with iridescent tile and there used to be a Tiffany light fixture in that room. And, there is some speculation that those tiles might be Tiffany titles. That I don't know. I am not an expert. In the center, is the loggia or entryway there. Those are glass bricks in the ceiling and it's all covered over so you don't get the impact of the light streaming through those and filtering through... at the present time, the floor is covered by carpeting, if that removed, there's skylights to the bowling alley in the basement. On the right hand side is the library. And, the library with the books in it. And, the two pictures of the batch elder frreplace, both of those... those are the same frreplace and those are in the library. The blue picture with the brick frreplace is one of the bedrooms, and below that is another bedroom with a white frrepIace. You can see in those photographs the condition of the floors is absolute excellent. They're hardwood floors in the public areas are just excellent. And, another room still have the original flat chain that raises and lowers the windows by a pulley system. The upstairs bathroom with a hip bath, double bowl pedestal, lathe and tube and white tile walls and ceiling... there is not a crack in any of the wall tiles and ceiling tiles and none are missing except for picture molding tile around one mirror at one end of the room And, this is why I say I regard it as a gem. I think it's worth preserving. I think we ought to frod a way and ] think creative minds can frod a win-win. As] said before, demolitions is forever, once it's gone, it's gone. Thank you very much. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, Mary Dougherty. 33 I I I I I I Virginia Brown: I am Virginia Lee Brown, I was born her over eighty years ago and I have lived here all my life. I live at 1235 Rodeo Road, Arcadia. I have a house on Foothill and I think the only vacant lot in the Highland Oaks. Lucky Baldwin gave me puppy when I was a child, a Gennan Shepard which I named Peggy. My father, Scott M. Lee, started developed the water department, I believe around 1950, 1960. And, three streets have been name for him Lee Street, Lee A venue and Lee Lane. I am interested in Arcadia and I agree with Mary. I hate to see AllOakia be destroyed. It should be saved, it is of historical value. Thank you. Mayor Chandler: Virginia Lee Brown. Mrs. Marshall and I live on Lee, I guess named after your father? Virginia Brown: Yeah, that's my father. Mayor Chandler: Ah, well. Virginia Brown: That's the only Lee in the phonebook in those times. Mayor Chandler: First I've heard .of it. Virginia Brown: Oh, really? Mayor Chandler: Thank you. Virginia Brown: And then Watson, he was the City Engineer, he had his office next to my father. Mayor Chandler: Is that right? Virginia Brown: Db huh, he moved to Palm Springs, long time ago. I don't know if he's still there or not. No. I doubt if he's still there. Mayor Chandler: Well, gee, come and see the street that your day made. Virginia Brown: Pardon? Mayor Chandler: Come and see the street they named after your dad. Virginia Brown: Db huh, Lee Street, yeah. 34 Mayor Chandler: Lee Avenue, that's right, thank you. Virginia Brown: I didn't... I thought there was one but then I looked on the map, the new map of Arcadia and I saw Lee A venue and a Lee Lane and I noticed that you lived on Lee Street. Mayor Chandler: Lee Avenue. Virginia Brown: Avenue. Mayor Chandler: Giving me a history lesson, thank you. Sandy Wu: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, City Councilmember, City Manager. My name is Sandy Wu; resident of Arcadia for twelve years. I am also the commissioner of Arcadia Beautiful but I represent myself as a neighbor. I live in Arcadia at 761 Catherine Lane just across the street of Anoakia. What the subject has always been a private property closed to the public. The mansion has never been available to the City population and this project doesn't change that. If the artifacts from the mansion were donated to the City institutions and then made available for public viewing and appropriate settings such as the Arboretum. Then, we will benefit more than we ever have from this piece of local history. While, number two, the property is currently in a captive nuisance, only for the movie shooting. And, the kids go in to break and do damage in addition to possibly hurting themselves. Number three, the City will gain, I tlJink, about ten times the current revenue in taxes generate this property once this project is developed. Well as Donna just mentioned, and we have been seen all through the pictures. Well, I believe that house, the homes are will designed and compatible with the general area of the City in the architectural style and size. The next, I believe this project will maintain the property values in the City and make Arcadia amore beautiful. So, We should welcome it. So, I like to highly reconunend the City Council approve this project. Thank you. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, Sandy Wu. Vince Foley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the Council, Mr. Mayor and City staff. You obviously have...oh, I'm sorry. I'm Vince Foley and I live at 320 Cambridge Drive in Arcadia. You obviously have, I think, a wide range of choices before you tonight. And, my message to you is don't rush to judgment. I would hope you would not make a rash decision tonight. I think you've heard a lot of new information, and, the range of choices that I think you have, is telling the developer all the way from, "you can't demolish it or any of the outbuildings", or all the way to "you can tear them down and go on your merry way". But, I think there 35 I \. I I I I I are a whole lot of things in between that you can do. That you can tell the developer that he must do in order to proceed with the development, you might say, how can we make a private property owner spend money? Well, I guess you can't, but you can certainly say what that developer can do, which might mean they have to spend money'in order to do what you allow them to do. Meaning, for instance, one of those choices in between... find a suitable place for a good part of that building, a representative piece of the building and move it there and then, well, let you tear down the rest of the facility and go head on. So, 1 think, you don't need to rush to judgment. I would hope you wouldn't, I would hope you would take the time that the law provides to you and wait until next month you have all of the infonnation before you. That you obviously have a lot of choices; otherwise, you wouldn't be here deliberating this. If there were only one way to go, all of this would be an exercise in futility for all of you and all of us as well. The other item I want to talk about very briefly is when we were before the Planning Commission, one of the Planning Commissioners made a statement, well, where were you all ten years ago? And, I think Mary , said it, I will say it again, ten years ago this facility was not in the public arena, I had a chance to see it for the fIrst time after that Planning Commission meeting a couple of weeks ago and I was astounded and I was saddened that most people in Arcadia haven't see it and ought to be able to before, if it is, tom down. Hopefully, it won't be. But, certainly this was not in the public arena ten years ago. So, that's why, we weren't here ten years. So, I would hope that you would not do as I think the Planning Commission did' and that is, denigrate the individuals who are today participating in the democratic process and operating by the way, well within the system. Thank you for your attention. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, Vince Foley. Ruby Lassanyi: Good evening, Mayor, City Council and the Planning Commission. My name is Rudy Lassanyi and I've lived in Arcadia since 1965. I belong to the American Association of University Women, Arcadia branch. Our executive board recognizes the need for and supports the preservation and the restoration of Anoakia for future generatioI1ll. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, Rudy Lassnyi. Bob Weber: My name is Bob Weber, I live in, at 152 W. Palm Drive in Arcadia. Council, Mr. Mayor and staff, the people that are interested in this are not wiId-eyed, radical tree-hugging preservationist but people who are just interested in preserving some of our history. They are interested in the memories that we've got of the City. And, you know, in then United States we don't have a lot of old buildings. When you go to Europe, they consider something eighty' years old to be fairly new. It isn't old until it's six hundred, eight hundred years old. And, that's because they have preserved these buildings. Can you imagine going to Europe and not seeing the fIne old palaces and the castles and the old buildings. If something that came up like this in 36 Europe, the people would be up in arms because there's no way they would allow... can you imagine some ofthe old, beautiful buildings, the museums should be destroyed. Never would happen. I There's only two things in history that you have, you have memories and you have physical sites. And we can keep our memories, of course, through the written word but once a physical site has been destroyed, it's gone, as has been said before tonight. It's gone forever. So, I implore you to please take a look at some alternatives and not rush to judgment. And, think of what possibly can we do to preserve some of this? Because, I think its very sad that we're even to this point, thinking about destroying something so beautiful. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, Bob Weber. Forrest Besocke: Good evening, members of the Council and others. My name is Forest Besocke, live in Arcadia here, 416 N. Old Ranch Road. Our family has lived in the Arcadia area for close to sixty years. As a young child, I can remember Anita Baldwin in her; I believe it was a big Packard Limousine, driving around town. Anyway, during the war, my father had a manufacturing plant in Arcadia making aircraft parts. And I agree, we've lived here a long time and there's, the root are deep. My sister attended school at Anoakia when it was a girl's school.' And, I was there with the family and we attended a lot of functions and we have a lot of deep regard for Anoalda. I agree with Mary Dougherty that some way has to be found to preserve the Anoakia intact because it would be a terrible asset for Arcadia to lose. So, I would very much hope that I the City Council will give serious consideration to fmd any way of preserving it intact. Thank you very much. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, Forest Besocke. Carol Libby: Good evening, my name is Carol Libby; I live at 438 W. Norman Avenue. (GAP IN TAPE). Anoalda. As guardians of our historic sites, it is our obligation to preserve them for future generations. What we're doing here is destroying something that has a bit of tradition to it. What we all need is a respect for the past. To tear this down would remove that respect for our past. Anita Baldwin was a very famous woman in her time, a very dear woman who gave a great deal to Arcadia and it's beginnings. Let do something to treasure that sort of history. Treasuring memories that we could have of a beautiful woman who had a wonderful mansion and who was part of us, let's try to preserve it. Thank you. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, Carol Libby. Cathy Simons: I am Cathy Simons and I live at 1746 Oakwood, and, I've lived there with my husband and family for twenty-three years. I am also an art historian and I teach at Rio Hondo College in Whittier. One of the I classes I teach is architectural history. For many years, I have been showing Anoakia as a fme example of California architecture and I would hate to have to tell my students that it no longer exists. Was very lucky, 37 I I I must have been now, ten, fifteen years ago, to have the opportunity on a community tour to go through the mansion. And, I would hate to see an important member or our, important piece art history in Arcadia go to the bulldozer. We have very few historical buildings left in Arcadia and this is certainly one of the most significant. Thank you. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, Cathy Simons. J ohn Watson: Good evening, Mayor, Council, my name is John Watson, I live 201 Acacia in Monrovia. I'm co-president of the Monrovia Old House Preservation Group. For about twenty years now, our group has been an organization that saving old buildings, old structures, part of our history. And, I think Arcadia should be doing the same thing. I believe this is a wonderful place. We've been trying for almost two years just hold a meeting in there to take a look at. The pictures I've seen, the stories I hear, I would encourage you to protect that particular property. Thank you very much. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, John Watson. John Grimes: Hello, members of the Council, Mayor, good evening, my name is John Grimes, I live at 533 Catalpa. I've lived here for approximately ten years and have also lived in Sierra Madre for a number of years. Its' kind of interesting all the hoopla over the property. I've been driving by that property a good twenty years and ('ve never been in it. I see the beautiful pictures, I hear a lot of different things going on but I keep wondering why hasn't something been done along the way. And, I stop and think and see all these things that are happening and I just said, you know, we really need to move on with this property, we need to do something about it, we need to develop it. And, I think they have a very good plan. And, I think we should do that. Thank you. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, John Grimes. Tony Henrich: Good evening, my name if Tony Henrich. I live at 43 I N. Altura in Arcadia. Lived here for over twenty- five years now. I was just recently elected president of our homeowners association for the Rancho and College area. Interesting, about twenty years ago, we wanted to have party for the homeowners association, so, in the meeting they said, what about Anoakia? And, we said, Anoakia? We could possibly get into Anoakia. But, we asked McCaslin and he said yes. So we decided to have for homeowners association a Great Gatsby party and we did. We had newspaper boys handing out papers, we had antique taxi cabs taking us up to the front of the fountain, the band wee playing, we advertised this to generate enthusiasm to the newspaper. . Well, I got to tell you, I happened to be chairman of the party, we had an oversell crowd; people were begging to come in and see this, this mansion. We had Rush Chandler, religious editor of LA. tomes, who 38 gave us... I asked him to do an historical tour, a self-guided tour, which he did. We still have that preserved. I tell you, people still talk today about that party, about Anoakia. It really is part of our history. I I would like to see Mr. Weil's letter... so, I ask you, let's not rush to judgment, let's find our what we can do to preserve this landmark. Thank you. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, Tony Henrich. Sandy Snider: Hello everyone, I'm Sandy Snider, the historian at the Arboretum and I'm guessing you have some questions for us because of all the lot of questions for all of you! The changes in the Final EIR, the details of the mitigations, we at the Arboretum were not mode aware of, so whatever you were talking about tonight, we don't know about. And, it would be the first reason I would encourage you not to make a decision tonight, we would certainly like to participate in the process of discussing any details of . mitigations that are available now. A lot of that, I am guessing, is based on Martin Weil's report. Martin Weil is a noted restoration architect. We were denied access to this property until I had to call the City to ask for intervention. We wee not up there until the day before Thanksgiving. Martin Weil had to hurry up to get this report done. His evaluation was based on the possibilities of removing key rooms, five rooms, as we talked about and what you will find in the Martin Weil report. Taking them apart and recreating them at the Arboretum, total cost I on that is a little over two million dollars. For double that you can restore fifty rooms of the mansion on site and do the right thing. There are, there have been proposals, Lawry McCaslin had a proposal twenty years ago that only got to the Planning Commission because people weren't willing to be creative at that time. If it requires a zoning variance, is that different than a variance in street widths that was permitted because of the special ness of this development? I ask, as everyone else did, that you consider this as the historic treasure that it is. That you take the responsibility for finding an answer that works for everyone here. And, I encourage you to speak even the memory of the man everyone was so upset with all those years ago, Lawry McCaslin. Lawry McCaslin keep that house standing for over fifty years. He had his office there longer than Anita Baldwin live in the house. He treasured it; he made sure it stayed standing. It's up to all of us now to carry on the project. Thank you very much. Robert Harbicht: Sandy, can I ask you a question? We have a situation here were we have this property and this building.nd a number of buildings. There's talk about moving it to the Arboretum somehow, significant cost involved, anywhere from half a million up, to move it, five million to rehab it. And, just kind of thinking out loud here, what about if we move the Arboretum to it? I 39 I I I Sandy Snyder: That's not a half-bad idea. Years ago, I approached the county about that very idea that a non-profit organization of foundation, something else, is the right ownership. And, yes, I.. we're not going to move the Arboretum there today. Robert Harbicht: You approached the county and didn't get anywhere. What I'm suggesting, what about if you traded the northerly nineteen plus or minus acres of the Arboretum? Sandy Snyder: , Interesting concept, I welcome that creative thought, Bob. I obviously can't speak on behalf of the entire county of Los Angeles. Robert Harbicht: I thought that the board of supervisors had sent.. Sandy Snyder: Sent me here directly to address you? No, they didn't. They may not even know that I'm here. It's the creativity that we are after. Commissioner Bruckner, the only decent vote in the final Planning Commission hearing. I heard his decent vote. I don't know how the meeting after that ended up three-zero as opposed to four-one, which was the vote that I heard Mr. Bruckner made that point. This is a wonderful development, looks great, be fabulous anywhere else in town. Let's be creative here and work around the house. Wee it is, and go from there. I don't think we realistically can trade nineteen acres of Anoakia, but I'd be happy to look into it. Robert Harbicht: Why not? Sandy Snyder: I can't speak for the county, Bob, obviously. The Arboretum property is protected under state law and it's restricted to use as an Arboretum. Part of the quitclaim deed when the county ....when the state quitclaim their interests in it back to the county, put those restrictions on use of all of that acreage that is the Arboretum. So, we couldn't develop nineteen acres into a different residential complex, if that's what you're talking about. Robert Harbicht: We.., that is what I'm talking about, I just, I think... Sandy Snyder: We're dealing with... Robert Harbicht: There just seems to be a fair amount of willingoess to impose restrictions on a property rights of the owner of this property. 40 Sandy Snyder: What we're asking is, that consideration be given to the greater public good here. That there is cause to I argue the benefits of this property in the public interest. As an historic structure, the ElR says that you cannot mitigate the loss of this house. It's going to be lost. You've heard that over and over, again. 'Even if we chose to come up with two million dollars to put five rooms at the Arboretum, it's not a mitigation that undoes the adverse impact of losing this historic house. Robert Harbicht: I guess the answer... I don't want to debate you on this, Sandy. Sandy Snyder: I know. Thank you Bob. Robert Harbicht: The thing is, is just that no, it can't be cone. Can't use the Arboretum property. Sandy Snyder: I'm not going... I'm not saying that even. Again, I would welcome anyone going to the board of supervisors to talk about that but I obviously can't speak on behalf of the board of supervisors. Certainly, we'd be happy to put that on the table with the other creative thoughts that should be out here in the public. Don't do the same one.. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, Sandy Snyder. . Sandy Snyder: I like the idea about the problem with parking the card, too. What do you do when you to a party with a long skinny driveway? Have everyone leave in order? Mayor Chandler: Thank you, Sandy. Okay, is there anyone else who would like to participate I the public hearing? Kelly Dobbins: I Yes, my name is Kelly Dobbins and I live at 135 Diamond Street. As you can see I'm a younger generation Arcadian. I wish I was lucky enough to go into Anoakia and see the beauty. But, unfortunately, I haven't been able to and don't know if! will be able to. As we all know, tlle dynamics of this City has changed greatly. I wish we could save a part of it, at least a very historical part of it. Mayor Chandler: I missed your first name, is it Kathy? Kelly Dobbins: Kelly, I'm sorry. Mayor Chandler: Kelly Robbins? Kelly Dobbins: Dobbins, yes. I 41 I I I Mayor Chandler: Dobbins, got them both wrong. Thank you. What are you laughing about, 0 for two...okay. Adele Chang: . My name is Adele Chang. I'm with Lin Chang and Associates, the architects for this project. Members of the City Council and Mr. Mayor, I have many relatives and friends who live in the City of Arcadia, but, for various reasons, the majority of them are too shy to come here to speak, and, from my understanding, I can speak for them They are in support of this project. Mr. Hover, even speaking objectively, is one of the most esthetically sensitive and responsible developers I've ever worked for. And, that is the truth; I'm not . trying to build him up because he's my client. I've worked for quite a number of developers. So, I feel that this project is quite an opportunity for this City to, in whatever form this eventually gets approved to, have some very beautiful homes that will hopefully, eventually, be also a god part, a treasured part of Arcadia. One last thing that I would like to say, that most of you here in the audience and on the Council, live in homes that are on properties that were subdivided from large estates or ranches. Maybe not recently, maybe longer ago, but that has happened. Now, that you are comfortably here, is it right to prevent others from having the same? Thank you. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, Adele Chang. John Chu: Good evening, Mayor, Councilmembers. My name is John Chu, I live in 429 Cambridge, I have been living in Arcadia for my last eight years. And I would like to solely speak for the Asian community that not all Asian wants to just build large houses on those lots. Trying to build oversize houses on those lots. I've been to some of those showcase houses in Pasadena and I'm so impressed of a lot of those houses. I'm so fortunate at this time to be able to see the picture of the houses that the homeowners association meeting, just like two weeks ago, and just by looking at the pictures, I think those houses out runs, most of those showcase houses I've ever seen. I am glad that we have such a property in Arcadia, and I think we should do a lot to try preserve it as it is. I think that if this property is located in Pasadena, it's not a topic of discussion because I don't think it's ever going to be demolished. But her in Arcadia, it seems like, it's really like I think it's going demolished, rather than not. I think that we should do our best in preserving it the way that it is. I think we sell it, fmd a development which build around this house or any other proposal that is creative and makes sense to the developers and all the others in the community. I don't think demolishing it is going to be the only way that we can do. And I don't think that demolishing it, is going to enhance all the public value around it. Thanks very much. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, John Chu. Okay, seeing no other wishful participant, am I correct? People are just moving around, okay, the applicant, would the applicant wish to address some of the questions that were raised? Would the applicant choose to use his time? 42 Tom Hover: If we could, your honor. Mayor Chandler: What we'll do, if you don't mind, ladies and gentlemen, we will take a five minutes recess. That's according to your honor. FIVE MINUTES RECESS Mayor Chandler: Okay, we will resume after the brief recess. During the recess, Leona Clipstein apparently was watching on TV at home and felt that she would like to participate and the applicant has generously allowed us to go back and then allow participation from Mrs. Clipstein. Give your name and address, please. Leona Clipstein: Yes, good evening, my name is Leona Clipstein, I am the Conservation Director's Program of Spirit of the Sage Council, a non-profit conservation organization with offices in Old Town Pasadena, 30 N. Raymond A venue, Suite 302, Pasadena. I am resident of Sierra Madre, I was born in Pasadena, I attended School in Monrovia. This project site is a very special place, not only for the citizens of Arcadia but for the people all through the foothills. Even though, it has been behind walls, it's almost been thought of a sacred kind of place of being protected. And, this evening when I heard some of the alternatives and some of the things that wee said about CEQA, definitely a red flag went up. One in regards to the Oak trees in that apparently you don't have nay alternatives, other alternatives besides the new project alternatives to protect all of the Oak trees. It appears that the proposal would remove three-quarters of the Oak trees, well, then if! am wrong, please correct me. The other thing that I heard, I believe it was alternatives three and four, of removing the top stories of the main building and relocating them. It appeared to me from listening to it, it really wasn't a feasible alternative. I really don't see how it could be feasible to move this area intact and still keep it restored. It also seemed contradictory to some of the statements of actually taking apart the library, taking apart the fueplaces, taking apart all of these pieces rather than keeping them whole and intact. And, I don't think that hose alternatives are feasible or are mitigating the impacts totally. And, yes you said that you would have to give over riding considerations to those alternatives but I still don't think that you've selected a feasible alternative to keep it in place. The five millions dollars or more than you said to do the renovations in place is possibly correct but the cost analysis you have of moving it, I don't think includes, really, taking it apart, reassembling it and being to be able to ever restore it to its full capacity. So, our organization doesn't feel like your CEQA alternatives are really adequate. We would like to see an alternative that would include public participation or the City's participation in creating perhaps an area like the Eaton Canyon nature center, where you could keep all of the trees intact and the flora and fauna as well as restoring the buildings and even having a charge or creating a foundation that wonld pay for the restoration and management of the area. 43 I I I I I I I believe that there is enough people in the City of Arcadia and the surrounding communities of Pasadena and Sierra Madre and Monrovia that you could find enough citizens that would help the City pullogether a foundation and work with the landholder. Even though there are private property sights, often those people that are proposing the development are corporations and corporation have privileges, not rights. And that I would hope that the City of Arcadia would take the side of the people that are concerned about this area and also about the heritage. I know that this is a wealthy City, that you have the race track, that you have the malls; there is a lot of commerce here. And growing up in Monrovia, I've seen the foothills in Arcadia developed and I have not seen the City Coming forward to actually do something to create a nature park, or some type of natural heritage area that his could possibly be. Our organization would be willing to work with you, we know it is not pie-in-the-sky, since we have been around in 1991, we have been able to work with Fish and Game, and fish and Wildlife in local jurisdictions in acquiring lands that were held privately out in San Bernardino area. We have gotten over two thousand acres set aside and we are working on that. I and personally been appointed by the County of riverside, Supervisor Molens...1 am on the advisory committee on for their multi-species habitat conservation plan that's county wide. There are a lot of other possibilities and actual feasible alternatives. Again, I don't think alternative three and four is feasible. Thank you very much. Do you have any qnestions? Mayo! Chandler: Thimk you, Leona Clipstein. Somehow I think you tricked ine. I don't think you wee at home watching on TV. John Schiavone: Good evening Mayor and members of the Council. My name is John Schiavone, I live at 1005 Hampton Road. I lived there for twenty-seven years, and I want to speak in defense of the homeowners association. Now, we worked diligently with Mr. Hover for a year and with the Planning Commission. We made every opportunity for the public to put their input into our discussions. At no time, during any of the discussions that were made open to the neighborhood and surrounding area, was any objections made to the Baldwin residence. Every square foot, every inch of the property was evaluated and at the conclusion was accepted and approved by the board. Again, after making available to the public and to ,the association and its members. I would like. to thank the Council and especially the Planning Commission for the consideration of any objections to the, what ARB had. Throughout the year with this proposal, I thank the CounciL But also I want to thank Mr. Hover because when we first discussed this proposal, or this operation, he gave us the architectural pictures of the buildings and without any objections, changed the architectural of many of the buildings so it would conform with the area. So, this is the point that I wanted to make in defense of the association. And, again, thank you. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, John Schievone. 44 Tom Hover: Thank you, Mr. Mayor; I respectfully request from the Council this evening that there should be no delay. We request a decision this evening. We~ve spent a great deal of time over the last year and half, as I mentioned earlier. We have reviewed various alternatives, options and conditions. We've come to conclusion on .11 those conditions as discussed earlier. The Environmental Impact Report thorougWy explored all the partition mitigation measures, and, quite frankly, the economic impact of the measures relative to maintaining the mansion in any form, or relocating the mansion in any form, is economically infeasible. I respect your decision and request that you make a decision this evening. In addition, as I said, the altematives discussed this evening by a number of the opponents are economically infeasible. No one, as Mr. Schiavone has stated just previously, has come forth in the last year and a half since we've owned this property, and proposed acquiring the property, acquiring the mansion, relocating the mansion or doing any type of funding to relocate or renovate any of the buildings. Not only has that happened in the last year and a half, according to Mr. McCaslin, no one has come forth in the thirteen years prior to our ownership of the property. Responding to Miss Snyder, there's been no modification to the EIR, and only to the mitigation measures that have been discussed have been modified only to the extent that the applicant, which is us, has accepted additional conditions for the benefit of historical preservation. It may be noted, too, that those mitigation measures were discussed in a public forum at both the Planning Commission sessions. So, it was not something that was not held in a public forum. Other than that, I heard lot of a comments were similar nature, quite frankly it is economically feasible for us to look at many other alternative at this point. I would like to have Mr. Metters, who represents the Carpenters Pension Trust response our closing comments. Mr. Metters: First on behalf of the trust I would like to express our most respect for the views of, people who are concerned about historical preservation, we certainly share those views in any feasible context. Weare however at a point of financial necessity and I am, I would submit for consideration to City of Arcadia that, this is the opportunity, we are not here to talk about the City of Arcadian, the views of people from the City of Arcadia, we know the development opportunities out there the development community and we are very sincere and honestly believe that this is the respectful development opportunity for this property and we appreciate the difficulty in making a decision that is forward looking but we do request we need that decision now and we thank. you very much for your sincere consideration. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, Mr. Metters. Would that conclude the applicant's rebuttal? Okay, I entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Gary Kovacic: So moved. 45 I I I I I I Mayor Chandler: Hereby motion and a second by Mr. Harbicht. Robert Harbicht: Second. Mayor Chandler: No objections, public hearing is closed. I know I still have the chance to loose control but I must commend you that you have been very polite audience and we really appreciate that very much thank you. At this time, the public hearing being closed, we will move on to City Council discussion. Whoever wants to be fIrst? Well Mr. Harbicht never failed, sticks his chin out there. Robert Harbicht: This is as everyone recognized a difficult decision; there are sincere people on both sides of this issue they made number of points here. I made some notes here, in fact if we go back just a little bit in time; there is talk about rush to judgment and failure to explore other alternatives. This property was zoned for single family development in 1976, which I think it should have been a pretty good sigoal as to what was going to happen here eventually, back there twenty three years ago, 1980 it was rezoned to half acre lot, single family development. As it happens I was a member of a committee about fIve, six years ago which included some of the people who spoke here this evening, Sandy Snyder, Carol Libby, (inaudible) Horseman, who no longer lives in the City, Bill Sclunit, myself and the purpose of that committee was just a group of people who got together, explorer ways that we can possibly preserve the Anoakia mansion. We met for, I would say fIve or six months, looking at different alternatives, looking at the possibilities and cost of moving it trying to fmd some wealthy individual to develop as an individual estate, looking at any alternative that we can think of and even with the great lines that where assembled in that committee we never came up with anything that was feasible. And, as I listen this evening, I hear, how many people testifIed here but majority of them were saying preserve this house, but I didn't here one suggestion as what the alternative would be to deal with it. We have an extremely expensive piece of property, we talk about fIve million dollars to rehabilitate the house, you want to argue whether it's four million or six million, it is still substantial amount of money but that doesn't even address the cost of the property itself which would probably be two to three times no plus there are several out buildings which have that signifIcant damage to them if they were to be preserve. Again on the point of rush to judgment, this property has been actively marketed for the last ten years, why didn't somebody buy it and (inaudible) it. It there was an alternative why didn't somebody do it? It's because nobody has an alternative, nobody has the fIfteen to twenty million dollars that would be required to do that and so we waited for somebody else to buy it and then said they ought to preserve it. I love to see it preserve, I was member of that committee because I truly hoped that we could find some way to preserve it, but we didn't. And, I guess my orientation is strong believer in property rights that if you have a piece of property and there are certain rights that accrue to the owner of that property to use it in the way that it is desigoated in zone, it is really not a question of should I let him do what he is allowed by law to do, the question is should I as a government official step in and stop him from doing it? Are there good 46 strong reasons to say you can not use your property in the way that it is designated to be used, and, I don't really see those strong reasons here, I would love to see that property, that home preserved in some way whether it" on side or moved, but all these years, no one has come forward to do it. And so I can see no compelling reason to say that this property can't be used in a way that it's designated by the City of Arcadia for at least the last twenty.three years to be used. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, Mr. Harbicht. Mr. Kovacic? Gary Kovacic: For me this is not a simple issue, I don't think it is a simple issue for any of us up here, for me it's not a simple yes or no either. I fully appreciate and support the private property rights, in fact, throughout my professional life, most of my business is defending private property owners, including several religious organizations who are confronted with last minute attempts to disturbs reasonable legitimate plans to either repair, build or expand the building. And, I can fully appreciate the frustration of an owner or developer staff, when folks show up at the last minute, they have a legitimate question, which is where have you been? As, Mr. Schiavone indicated there were number of homeowners association hearings and discussi9n the draft EIR has been available since July, Planning Commission held a hearing on August 24th to receive comments and held two subsequent hearings on this particular proposal. And, there is a frustration with me as to the lack in the City of the group of true committer defenders, people who are willing to sign a check to either preserve or create. Perhaps we need an organization similar to Monrovia Old House Preservation group that can be called in to action. But, occasionally there is a ground swell of support, those of you who lived in Arcadia for a long time remember the Mantra saved the Depot, I think I was in high school at that time and that became kind of a citywide mantra and I assumed some group of somebody decided to do something with Queen Anne's Cottage, to preserve it as basically the landmark of our entire City. And, occasionally there is also meeting between developer and the community group, who can sit down and really wrestle on the top issues and come of with an acceptable solution. But, I understand people are extremely busy and government is extremely confusing and the laws are extremely complicated and we really don't have an affect over on this City to reach every single resident on every single issue, it is just impossible, so the fact that people are coming to this hearing, I think that's great and I also think it's ireat that we had a surprisingly diverse group of speakers, it's nice to see that people speak in City Council meetings who haven't been here before. I am frustrated that Arcadia does not have a comprehensive scheme to preserve its historic structures. We all know and really appreciate the contribution the Gilb's made for the Historical Museum and many dedicated volunteers who worked there, but as a City, I think we have done very little officially to preserve our historic structures. We don't have a survey of historic structures and we don't have a designation process for our landmarks. I think this is .. derming moment in this City, it's not the most derming moment in this City, I think the decisions we make about public safety, education, efforts to bring together our richly diverse community and if I may put in a END OF TAPE NO.4. 47 I I I I I I Mr. McCaslin's letter only list a portion of the items that the Weilletter identifies and I am still not clear in my mind exactly what items are actually going to be preserve, and it is not clear in my mind how much the applicant is really going to pay, and so in all fairness to everybody ihere has to be some kind of a mechanism establish to work out that figure and if it can't be worked out there has to be some kind of an appeal process or some kind of a process where by that, it is not left hanging. My preference would be to see a redesign of the project to preserve either the mansion itself which I think would be or at least some of the outbuildings to preserve the history of Arcadia. 1bank you. Mayor Chandler: 1bank you, Mr. Kovacic. Mrs. Marshall. Oail Marshall: Thank you. I was extremely impressed with the Weil report when I read that and it talked about how this is one of the unusual, beautiful, well-kept historical sites in Southern California. I love the proposal that this particular company's put before us, I think it's beautiful homes and I think it's a very good pot layout, had we not had an historical site on there it has been sitting there when they did buy it. I appreciate the fact that the developers have tried to save as many trees as possible on this site with developing. My problem is the' questions. The questions that have to be answered. If we save this, if we restore it, who pays to do it, who has the money, what are we do about upkeep after it's preserved? I have a question, has any body looked into to see if there is any federal or state grants that can help us on any of this and if so was the answer no, are we aware of any of this? Have we looked into that? I don't think there is any question that the site needs to be upgraded, but do we have all of the information needed to make a decision this evening. The developer has been very, very patient and cooperative with the City, and that's very much appreciated. It seems to have been doing everything that City has asked him to do and it is a bit of a hardship on him to be restricted or to be put off longer. However, as was said during the meeting, when this building is gone, its gone, we can never get it back. It is very old, it is part of our history, once it's gone, that's it. So, I don't feel real comfortable on making, what I feel in this point is a hasty decision when I feel that more information could be worth coming. Has the structure ever been advertised? Maybe somebody would come forward, want to do something. To my knowledge, I don't think it has, would this be worth doing, put it on the Internet, whatever, I don't know, sometimes there is eccentric people out there that maybe would step up, who knows. Removing the structure from the site, I believe demolishes its historic value in trig; part of the mystery of this is where it did sit on that site. As far as restoring it in a gated community area, I question if the two uses are compatible with each other? How would the City, citizens of the City had any access to it if it was restored in a gated community? There is a lot of people who had never been on the particular property or in the site and I don't see where that would increase if we spend citizens tax money on restoring it, if it is in a gated community there still not gonna have access to it. So, one think I agree with Mr. Kovacic, on hopefully, you have my vote for buying a little bit more time to see, make sure, we have to make sure, once its gone, its gone, and maybe Oary we need to as Council make it a goal in the real near future to survey our City for historical buildings, and put something together where we are covered 48 with this, people are more aware of what is going on, but you have my vote and that's about what I had to say, you said it very well. Thank you. I Mayor Chandler: Okay, thank you Mrs. Marshall. Mr. Roncelli, you don't have to talk but we really want to know what's on YOul' mind. Gino RoncelIi: I don't have to? Mayor Chandler: No, you only required to vote though. Gino RoncelIi: I really don't want to, but you know this piece of property really brings back a lot of memories for me. When I was in the high school, I used to go to dances there, in the 50's, and I have a lot of great memories of that place, not particularly the building though, of nice young ladies over there. And, also the beautiful property, if you drew into there, 1 mean it's a beautiful wall, if was fabulous, so I do have good memories of that place. I am in kind of area of property rights also, owners rights, especially when they are connected with homeowners associations that are right there in that area that they both believe the same thing, not one is feeling one way and one is feeling the other, both of them agree, something has to happen and it's been up for sale for a long time, the builder has the rights himself, you know he is invested a year or so on the property, what happens if we don't do it, those people will loose the money, the people who invested on this company. They have every right, they came here and did everything our City asked them to do, they went to ever hearing, everything our City asked them to do they did, and it was a lot, you think about all the things that City has asked them to do, they have gone out of their way to make this a really good place where people could live, with all the trees and making it right like you said, it could have been different. We look back of two years ago when somebody else tried to save that, save the building there, people on neighborhood didn't like that because it was 4 to an acre, I think instead of two, so this is a much better alternative. You know on the end, and I listen to everybody up here, I partially agree with most of that but it is so much money we are talking, I think probably that property has worth at least a half a million, half acre, so you are looking at maybe $19 to $20 million just for the ground, and then to fix up the building. We are talking a lot of money here. I have a responsibility here for the taxpayers of this City, where we going to Come up with this kind of money? We have a heck ofa time just trying to fix up the buildings we have, trying to put a police department in town, and the maintenance of that building from then on, and if it becomes privatized, there was some people mentioned, that someone would have that then we have no aCCess to it. Some of the people even said they never seen it before, you know what, you wouldn't get to see unless you were invited there, it was a private home, it wasn't a public building, it's never been a public building and if someone wanted to make a library or an art center, whatever, it still may not be open to the public it maybe just be a private place where you have to pay to go. It is very difficult decision, there was one building on there that someone here tonight, Mary Daugherty said that reminded her of a Parthenon. I 49 I I I I I didn't want to let that go, Parthenon, as evel)'one knows was made out of marble and it's two or three thousand years old at least, I've been there, this building is twenty-eight years older than my house, and it's made out of plaster, clad hollow clay tile, this is not marble,. this is not something exotic to be saved I think, it's got a pretty, but it is made on of not a vel)' strong foundation and if you want it, according to the developer, you can come and get it, just move it, I think that's what he said, maybe it isn't (inaudible) that belongs to McCaslin, but whoever wants it I think can come and get it. I think that's about ~1I I have to say, it is a difficult, I am going with the developer to go ahead and build it. Mayor Chandler: Thank you, Mr. Roncelli. Mr. Hover, can I please ask you to step up again? If we can basically count, it looks like we are close to a decision here, I also think it is impractical and unfortunately unavoidable that most of these historical rite is going to be ultimately lost, and, without reintegrating what evel)'body discussed, because I, to that property on two separate occasions in a period of twelve years for proposed developments at least this time I am vel)' happy that the homeowners association in the area is happy, the last time there where not. The one thing that I am concerned about here, you've been the developer, you put a price on a table of an $ I 10,000 okay, are we talking in the same line? Tom Hover: Yes. Mayor Chandler: Okay. Tom Hover: Can I add to that? Mayor Chandler: Yes, you can add money to that. Tom Hover: No, that was for the items that was in McCaslin letters I said, and we didn't receive the Weilletter until this afternoon. Mayor Chandler: I see, well, it seems to me that the letter that was send to us has a figure of a $280,000. Are you familiar with that figure? Tom Hover: Yes. Mayor Chandler: Okay, personally I am willing to make the deal for. $280,000 not an $1 10,000 to remove the contents and the artifacts at your expense up to $280,000. You don't have to decide now, I can make a motion to close the deal contingent upon that, or you can tell us that are what you want to do and I think I have the votes to do that, I hope. 50 Gino Roncelli: Inside, outside? Robert Harbicht: Outside, you're looking at a mode of the estate.... Gary Kovacic: I am looking at, basically, a bird-eye view of the estate. We don't have cost estimates on any of these other elements. All I'm suggesting is this is another element of the plan. Gail Marshall: I think that's a good idea. Mayor Chandler; It might get up to that two eighty. . . Robert Harbicht: So, be it. I will move to direct staff to prepare the appropriate resolution for the Mitigating Measures. Steve Deitsch: Well, actually, to certify that ErR. Robert Harbicht: I thought you wanted to do them separately. Okay, certify the ErR. Steve Deitsch: Which, of course will include the revision that were just mentioned. Robert Harbicht: Those two revisions to Mitigating Measure and including the statement of over riding considerations. Steve Deitsch: And, Findings of Fact, based on the ErR. Mayor Chandler: And, Findings of Fact. Okay this is a motion now? Steve Deitsch: That's a motion. Gary Kovacic: Do we have everyone... Steve Deitsch: Yes we do. Gino Roncelli: Do you want to go sixty days or ninety days rather than thirty? Robert Harbicht: Ninety:it's ninety days to file for removal and then two hundred and ten days beyond thal!o do... Gino Roncelli: So, you will give people ninety days to decide what they want? What they would like to have? I I I 56 I I I would be a limitation that's not currently set forth in condition twelve or mitigation measure number three on page twenty. That mitigation measure is unlimited and the developer has agreed tot hat unlimited obligation. Mayor Chandler: He's agreed to an amount in excess of the two hundred and eighty thousand, perhaps? Steve Deitsch: If it comes to that, if it's possible that the actual cost of segregating and relocation the McCaslin listed items exceeds two hundred and eighty thousand, the developer has agreed to that condition, as I understand him. And, that's certainly the way the condition is no worded. Let's put it one more way to make sure that you understand. The '.Veil letter addresses additional items, the applicant represents, and I don't know whether this is true or not true for a fact, but the applicant represents that the additional items are under Mr. McCaslin control and the applicant indicates that he has no authority to control their disposition. Mayor Chandler: Okay, so, the fact that it may go up to two hundred and eighty thousand is still a reasonable request. It's just that, had you estimated personally a hundred and ten thousand for the initial list, the McCaslin list? Torn Hover: The McCaslin list to the Arboretum was right at a hundred and ten thousand and I think the list of the City was right around eight or nine thousand. So, what my, earlier statement was what that we will take the responsibility bear all the costs, relocate, we move, we relocate those items that were on the McCaslin list to the Arboretum and to the City. Mayor Chandler; Okay, now. Tom Hover: Whether that cost goes above my estimate or not, I mean, I concur with what the City Attorney is saying. Mayor Chandler: If Mr. McCaslin though, however, allows you or us to take more of his stuff,' it could then very well go above one-ten to two-eighty. I mean, it could get into the Weillist ifhe allows you to, right? Tom Hover: Yes, it could. Mayor Chandler: Mr. Harbicht? Robert Harbicht: I'm kind of uncomfortable with this; all of a sudden we're playing "let's make a deal" here. The fact is, we're talking about apples and oranges. We have a list of things, which are included in our report, and we have this other list, which was prepared by some outsider. And, to say, if McCaslin says these are available too, that's just not the way to do business. We either put the developer, the property owner, on the hook for 52 June Alford: Marshall? Gail Marshall: I love the plan that they've put together, and I know this site has to be developed, but the historical significance is so great to me that I have to vote no. June Alford: Roncelli? Gino Roncelli: Yes. June Alford: And, Chandler? Roger Chandler: Yes. Okay that's first motion. Second motion? Steve Deitsch: The next proposed motion would be to approve the Mitigation Monitoring Program based on you ability to make the rmding set forth on page 51; and, to direct staff to bring back an appropriate resolution of approval for submission at the next regular City Council meeting; and, the Mitigation Monitoring Program will include the revision described with respect to the Mitigation Measure in the first motion. Robert Harbicht: So moved. Roger Chandler: So moved Mr. Harbicht, Mr. Roncelli do I have a second? Gino Roncelli: I'll let Gail do that. Gail Marshall: I don't think I can do that. Gino Roncelli: Okay, I'll second it. Roger Chandler: Roll call Madame Clerk. June Alford: Councilmember Harbicht? Robert Harbicht: Yes. June Alford: Kovacic? 58 I I I I I I June Alford: Kovacic? Gary Kovacic: No. June Alford: Marshall? Gail Marshall: No. June Alford: Roncelli? Gino Roncelli: Yes. June Alford: And, Chandler? Roger Chandler: Yes. Steve Deitsch: And, then fmally, staff recommends the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the revised conditions as revised this evening and to direct staff to bring back an appropriate resolution of approval for the next regular City Council meeting. Robert Harbicht: So moved. Roger Chandler: Second. Roll call please. June Alford: Councilmember Harbicht? Robert Harbicht: Yes. June Alford: Kovacic? Gary Kovacic: No. June Alford: Marshall? Gail Marshall: No. 60 June Alford: Roncelli? Gino Roncelli: Yes. June Alford: And, Chandler? Roger Chandler: Yes. Steve Deitsch: Ms. Butler, have I included every required motion that you can think of? Donna Butler: I believe you have, yes. Mayor Chandler: Okay, I believe that concludes the public hearing and the matter, and I do thank you for your courtesy. Thank the participants and the applicant. 61 I I I