No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 20, 1996�A G E 111 ® A Arcadia City Council o, and ,ORPORAT89 + Redevelopment Agency Meeting August 20, 1996 7:00 p.m. Arcadia Council Chamber THIS MEETING IS DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF DENNIS A. LOJESKI ACTION INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Harbicht, Young and Kuhn TRIBUTE TO DENNIS LOJESKI Comments from Mayor on behalf of the City Council Comments from the public 1. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS. MOTION Read Ordinances and Resolutions by title only and waive reading in full. 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Report and recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5942 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California revising the official truck route system within the City of Arcadia. b. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5932 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, finding the City of Arcadia to be in conformance with the Congestion Management Program and adopting the CMP Local Implementation Report in Accordance with California Government Code Section 650898. *A G E N D A Arcadia City Council and Redevelopment Agency Meeting August 20, 1996 7:00 p.m. Arcadia Council Chamber THIS MEETING IS DEDICATED TO THE MEMORY OF DENNIS A. LOJESKI ACTION INVOCATION Rev. Phillip Wood, Sr. Pastor, Church of the Good Shepherd PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Arne Kalm ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Harbicht, Young and Kuhn All present TRIBUTE TO DENNIS LOJESKI Comments from Mayor on behalf of the City Council Mayor Kuhn Comments from the public Craig Lucas and Jeffrey Lojeski I.' SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS. None MOTION Read Ordinances and Resolutions by title only and waive reading in full. 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Report and recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5942 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California revising the official truck route system within the City of Arcadia. b. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5932 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, finding the City of Arcadia to be in conformance with the Congestion Management Program and adopting the CMP Local Implementation Report in Accordance with California Government Code Section 650898, Adopted 4 -0 Public Hearing Closed - Adopt Res. -0 Public Hearing Closed - Adopt Res. 5932 4 -0 ACTION 3. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO G. Marshall ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL L. Spencer (NON- PUBLIC HEARING FIVE - MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) D. Denne 4. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS See Minutes City Council Reports/ Announcements /Statements /Future Agenda Items RECESS CITY COUNCIL S. MEETING OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Harbicht. Young and Kuhn a. Minutes of the August 6, 1996 regular and July 10, 1996 adjourned regular meetings. ADJOURN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY to September 3, 1996 @ 7:00 p. m. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL 6. CONSENT ITEMS All present Approved 4 -0 a. Minutes of the August 6, 1996 regular and July 10 and July 24, 1996 Approved as adjourned regular meetings. amended 4 -0 b. Report and recommendation to award a contract to D & M Construction, Approved 4 -0 Inc. in the amount of $56,243.20 for the renovation and upgrade of Bicentennial Park. Job 612a C. Recommendation to approve a 60 -day extension of the Agreement Approved 4 -0 with the Pasadena Humane Society for animal care and control services. d. Report and recommendation to purchase one street sweeper for the Approved 4 -0 Maintenance Services Department from Nixon -Egli Equipment Co. in the amount of $117,063.00. e. Recommendation to approve final acceptance of the 1995 -96 Water Approved 4 -0 Services Division Street Cut Repaving Project and to authorize final payment (10% retention) of $3.541.91 to Copp Contracting, Inc. W. D. 569 2 7 9. 0 0 f. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5941 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California approving Supplement No. 15 to Encumber Federal Aid Funds for Pavement Rehabilitation of Eastbound Huntington Drive from Holly Avenue to Santa Clara Street and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute this agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney. g. Report regarding the City of Arcadia's 1996 -97 Statement of Investment Policy. h. Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5944 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia. California to approve Arcadia Transit's FY 1996 -97 Proposition C discretionary funding for over- crowding relief to the Transit Dependent. CITY MANAGER a Report and recommendation to continue discussion of the General Plan Update and related Environmental Impact Report to September 3, 1996. b. Declaration of Council vacancy (Charter Section 403). C. Consideration of filling Council vacancy (Charter Section 403) CITY ATTORNEY a. Ordinance No. 2054 - ADOPTION -An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, amending Division 9 of Article VI of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to the regulation of taxicabs and automobiles for hire and the operators thereof. ACTION Adopted 4 -0 Received and F iTe- -- Adopted 4 -0 Continued to 9i tg. 4 -0 Vacancy Declared Gary Kovacic Appoin e -0 Adopted 4 -0 b. Ordinance No. 2056 - ADOPTION - An Ordinance of the City Adopted 4 -0 Council of the City of Arcadia, California, amending the Arcadia Municipal Code by adding a Chapter 4A and Chapter 4B to Article I to provide for Municipal Code Enforcement by Administrative Citations and Administrative Remedies. ADJOURN in memory of Dennis A. Lojeski to September 3, 1996 @ 7:00 p. M. Adjourned at 8:44 p.m. 3 v3 � /o - "';�f) r STAFF REPORT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Date: August 20, 1996 To: Mayor and City Council From: Pat Malloy, Director of Maintenance Se s James S. Dale, Administrative Services Directo Prepared by: Tracey L. H. Williams, Purchasing Officer ' Subject: Report and recommendation for the purchase of one street sweeper for the Maintenance Services Department - Sweeper Division. SUMMARY It is recommended that the City Council award a contract for one street sweeper to Nixon -Egli Equipment Co. of So. California, Inc., in the amount of $117,063.00. Funds have been previously budgeted in the Equipment Fund in Fiscal Year 1996 -97 for this acquisition. DISCUSSION: The street sweeper will be used to replace Unit #107, a 1977 street sweeper with 132,000 miles, and Unit #111, a 1985 street sweeper with 102,500 miles. Both units will be sent to auction. The City of Inglewood let Bid B -0633 for the purchase of two (2) street sweepers. Their bidding process complies with the City of Arcadia's bidding procedures. The bid was awarded to Nixon -Egli. The bid package contained a "piggyback" clause. This clause allows any government agency to purchase the same item for the same price as the bidding agency. This new procedure allows for all other agencies to supersede the bidding process, as long as the bidding process of the primary agency is in compliance with the bidding process of the others. The contractor must also agree to the same price, terms and conditions. FUNDING Funds for the purchase of the street sweeper are budgeted in the amount of $135,300.00 in the Equipment Fund in Fiscal Year 1996 -97. LASER WAGED IV *AO Mayor and City Council August 20, 1996 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended by staff that the City Council award a contract for the purchase of the street sweeper to Nixon -Egli Equipment Co. of So. California, Inc., in the amount of $117,063.00, and authorize the City Manager to execute said contract in a form approved by the City Attorney. Approved by��G William R. Kelly, City Manager IV CITY OF ARCADIA EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION DETAIL FORM 1996 -97 (Year) I. EQUIPMENT TYPE: Street Sweeper 2 Ton Truck with Sewer fetter LOCATION: DEPARTMENT: Maintenance Services PRIORITY: X _Highly Desirable - (Should not be delayed) Desirable - (Could be delayed) ESTIMATED TOTAL EQUIPMENT COST: $270.300 EQUIPMENT REQUEST New Replacement x_ Previously Budgeted in FY 95 -96 Programmed For FY 94 -9S, But Not Commenced II. EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION Street Sweeper ( #107) . 619 400 3307 8701 2 Ton Truck with Sewer Jetter ( #169 -2) . 521 400 3306 8701 V CITY OF ARCAD IA CONTRACT BID #9697 -12 THIS CONTRACT, made and executed this 21th day of August 1996, by and and between the City of Arcadia, California, hereinafter referred to a "City ", and Nixon - Egli Equipment Co., Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Contractor" and "Bidder ": WITNESSETH: City and Contractor do mutually agree as follows: 1. The Notice Inviting Bids, the Bid, Specifications and all amendments thereof, when approved by the parties hereto, copies of which are attached hereto, are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Contract by reference, as though fully set forth herein, and all of the foregoing shall constitute the Contract documents. 2. Contractor agrees to sell and deliver a street sweeper within the time specified in its bid in strict conformance with the contract documents. 3. City agrees to pay contractor the amount specified in the Contract documents and in the manner specified therein. 4. Time is of the essence of this Contract. If Contractor should fail to make delivery as specified in paragraph 2 above, City may give 30 days' written notice to Contractor to make said delivery, and if Contractor fails to do so, Contractor shall be liable to City for damages incurred by such failure, including, but not limited, to, the price differential in purchasing and securing delivery of the street sweeper in conformance with the Contract documents on the open market from another vendor, with or without advertised competitive bidding. 5. Contractor agrees that City is not obligated to make payment until documents of title, with necessary endorsements in full compliance with the Vehicle Code are delivered to City, which delivery date shall be the same as that set forth in paragraph 2 of this Contract. 6. In addition to other warranties and guarantees, Contractor warrants that the street sweeper as described in the Specifications, will be of merchantable quality and will be fit for the purposes set forth in the Specifications and other ordinary purposes for which it is used. 7. The risk of loss is on and title shall remain in the Contractor until written acceptance of the street sweeper by the City's Representative. Contractor shall obtain adequate liability, collision and property damage insurance to cover the street sweeper at no cost to the City. Such insurance shall remain in effect until written acceptance of the street sweeper by the City's Representative. 2 r ti v✓ 8. Contractor agrees that in the performance of this Contract, Contractor is an independent Contractor, not an employee, agent or officer of the City. 9. This Contract shall be interpreted, construed and given effect in all respects according to the laws of the State of California. 10. Contractor shall not assign this Contract, or any part thereof, or any monies due or to become due thereunder without prior written consent of City. 11. Contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, and its officers and employees, from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, loss, damage, injury and liability, including costs and expenses incurred in connection therewith, however caused, resulting from, arising out of, or in any way connected with the performance of the contract, including delivery and unloading of the supplies and equipment. 12. Contractor shall hold the City, its officer, agents, and employees, harmless from liability of any nature or kind, including costs and expenses, for infringement or use of any copyrighted or uncopyrighted composition, secret process, patented or unpatented invention, article or appliance furnished or used in connection with the Contract. 13. Contractor warrants that no gratuities (in the form of entertainment, gifts, or otherwise) were offered or given by the Contractor, or any agent or representative of the Contractor, to any officer or employee of the City with a view toward securing the Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect to any determinations concerning the performance of the Contract. For breach or violation of this warranty, the City shall have the right to terminate the contract, either in whole or in part, and any loss or damage sustained by the City in procuring on the open market any items which the vendor agreed to supply shall be borne and paid for by the Contractor. The rights and remedies of the City provided in this clause shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under the Contract. 14. Rights and remedies of City for default: (a) In the event any item furnished by the Contractor in the performance of the Contract should fail to conform to the specifications therefor, the City may reject the same and it shall thereupon become the duty of the Contractor to reclaim and remove the same forthwith, without expense to the City and immediately to replace all such rejected items with others confirming to such specifications; provided that should the Contractor fail, neglect or refuse so to do, the City shall thereupon have the right to purchase in the open market, in lieu thereof, a corresponding item and to deduct from any monies due or that may thereafter become due to the Contractor and difference 3 between the price named in the Contract documents and the actual cost thereof to the City. (b) In the event of the cancellation of the Contract, either in whole or in part, by reason of the default or breach thereof by the Contractor, any loss or damage sustained by the City in procuring any items which the Contractor therein agreed to supply shall be borne and paid for by the Contractor. (c) The rights and remedies of the City provided above shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under the contract. 15. Subject to the provisions of this Contract, all terms, covenants, conditions and provisions hereof shall inure and to and shall bind each of the parties hereto and each of their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. 16. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY: During the performance of this Contract the Contractor /vendor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964: Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, no person shall on the grounds of race, color or national origin, be executed from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. 17. MINORITY: Minority vendor /contractors are encouraged to bid. Please check if you are one the of following: Black/African-American Hispanic Asian and Pacific Islander American Indian or Alaskan Native Woman Owned Business 4 m Cn IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this contract to be executed the day and year first above written. ATTEST: CITY OF ARCADIA Cit Jerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Affix corporate seal (if applies) 1. _,o CONTRACTOR P-Ar L- VICE PRESIDENT Title 5 ,.� .... ryz gs OP MEMORANDUiN1 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Date: August 14, 1996 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCyIIL FROM: CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL VACANCY DECLARATION OF VACANCY Section 403(a) of the Arcadia City Charter states that " A vacancy shall exist on the Council, and shall be declared by the Council, if a councilmember ...... dies." Accordingly, in view of the death of City Councilmember Dennis A. Lojeski on August 1$, 1996, the following action is required: Recommended Motion: Declare a vacancy on the Arcadia City Council. FILLING OF VACANCY Section 403(c) of the City Charter sets forth the procedure for filling a Council vacancy. In sum,. it provides that any vacancy on the City Council shall be filled by a majority vote of the remaining councilmembers within 30 days after the vacancy occurs(i.e. by September 11, 1996). If the vacancy is not filled within the 30 day period, Council must call an election for the earliest possible date to fill the vacancy. The City Clerk has information on potential specific election dates and estimated election costs. Such an election could not take place for at least three months from the time it is formally called for by the City Council. The Charter provides that if the vacancy is filled by appointment, the appointed Councilperson fills the vacancy until the next municipal election (April, 1998) rather then the complete unexpired term of the vacated seat which would not be up until April of the year 2000. At the April 1998 general municipal election the person elected with regard to the LASER IMAGED 1 " RtORATff o' STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT August 20, 1996 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mohammad Mostahkami, Acting City Engineer /OM Prepared By: Ed Cline, City Traffic Engineer Awe—._ SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING - REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 5942 REVISING THE OFFICIAL TRUCK ROUTE SYSTEM WITHIN THE CITY OF ARCADIA SUMMARY It is recommended that the City Council open the Public Hearing to receive any comments concerning the proposed amendment to the City's Official Truck Route System. It is further recommended that upon closure of the Public Hearing, if City Council finds from all evidence submitted that the proposed revisions to the City's Official Truck Route System is appropriate as recommended by staff, adopt Resolution No. 5942. BACKGROUND Resolution No. 4232 establishing truck routes in the City was adopted on January 4, 1972. Over the last 24 years, a number of changes have occurred in and around the City. Annexations in the northwest section of the City and completion of the Route 210 freeway are two examples of these changes. For this reason, the Development Services / Engineering Division, Maintenance and Police departments concluded that the City -wide Truck Route System should be re- evaluated. These departments, through the recently established Traffic Committee, requested that the City Traffic Engineer evaluate this issue and prepare a report with recommendations. DISCUSSION The City Traffic Engineer has completed a report on this matter. A copy of his report is attached for your review. The report recommends the following revisions to the Truck Route System in the City: 1. Delete Foothill Blvd. from the east intersection of Baldwin Avenue to Santa Anita Avenue. LASER f MAGEO Mayor and City Council August 20, 1996 Page Two 2. Add Duarte Road from the west City limit to Baldwin Avenue and from Santa Anita Avenue to the east City limit. 3. Add Peck Road from the south City limit to the north City limit (near Clark Street). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council open the Public Hearing to receive any comments concerning the proposed amendment to the City's Official Truck Route System. It is further recommended that upon closure of the Public Hearing, if City Council finds from all evidence submitted that the proposed revisions to the City's Official Truck Route System is appropriate as recommended by staff, adopt Resolution No. 5942 amending the City's Official Truck Route System within the City as described below: a. Delete Foothill Blvd. from the Truck Route System between the east intersection of Baldwin Avenue to Santa Anita Avenue. This action would retain the segment of Foothill Boulevard east of Santa Anita Avenue as a truck route for access to the abutting commercial development. b. Add Duarte Road to the Truck Route System between the west City limit and Baldwin Avenue and between Santa Anita Avenue and the east City limit. This action would provide continuity with existing truck routes on either side of the City and improved access to commercial development in the City without adding a continuous truck route through the City. C. Add Peck Road to the truck route system from City limit to City limit in the vicinity of Clark Street. This action would provide logical continuity with existing truck routes either side of the City's segment of Peck Road. Approved By: rLLIAM R. KELLY ity Manager MRM: EC: m10 Attachments t �� vacated seat would serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Accordingly, one seat for Council office at the April 1998 election would be for a two year term. If the vacancy is filled by a special municipal election rather than by appointment during the 30 day period, the person elected would serve the remainder of the unexpired term that now exists which is until April, 2000. cc. City Clerk City Manager _Z' , 38:0276 Pg. 1 — EXCERPT FROM THE AUGUST 20, 1996 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6a. MINUTE On MOTION by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Councilmember Young and APPROVAL CARRIED on roll call vote as follows, the minutes of the August 6, 1996, regular and (Aug.6, July 10 July 10 and 24, 1996, adjourned regular meetings were APPROVED as corrected. & 24, 1996) (APPROVED) AYES: Councilmcmbers Chang, Harbicht, Young, and Kuhn NOES: None ABSENT: None 6g. CITY WVEST- Consideration of the City of Arcadia Statement of Investment Policy for Fiscal Year MENT POLICY 1996 -97. Councilmember Chang asked about the safekeeping of the City's securities. FOR FY 1996 -97 The City Treasurer stated that securities which the City purchases from Sanwa Bank, (RECEIVED Bank of America, and Dean, Witter, Reynolds are kept by banks in their trust depart - AND FILED) ments, and further explained the investing and safekeeping of the City's money. It was MOVED by Councilmember Chang, seconded by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to RECEIVE and FILE the City of Arcadia Statement of Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 1996 -97. AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Harbicht, Young, and Kuhn NOES: None ABSENT: None 7. CITY MANAGER 7a. CONSID.OF Consideration of request to continue discussion of the General Plan Update and GEM PLAN related Environmental Impact Report (EIR) from the July 16 Council meeting to the UPDATE & EIR September 3, 1996 Council meeting, in order to provide responses to comments from the (Continued to City regarding the final EIR. Sept. 3, 1996) 7b. DECLARATION OF CITY COUNCIL VACANCY It was MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Chang and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to CONTINUE deliberation of the General Plan Update and EIR to the September 3, 1996, Council meeting. AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Harbicht, Young, and Kuhn NOES: None ABSENT: None Declaration of Council vacancy due to the untimely passing of Councilmember Dennis A. Lojeski on August 1%! 1996. The Arcadia City Charter, Section 403(a), states that, "A vacancy shall exist on the Council, and shall be declared by the Council, if a Councilmember resigns, is legally removed other than by recall, dies, or forfeits his office." It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tern Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to DECLARE that a vacancy exists on the Arcadia City Council. AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Harbicht, Young, and Kuhn NOES: None ABSENT: None 8 8/20/96 38:0277 Pg. 2 — EXCERPT FROM THE AUGUST 20, 1996 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING % 7c. V/ FILL VACANT Consideration of filling the Council vacancy created by the demise of Councilmember POSITION ON Lojeski. The Arcadia City Charter, Section 403(c), sets forth the procedure for filling a CITY COUNCIL Council vacancy. If Council does not fill the vacancy by appointment within 30 days of (Gary Kovacic) said vacancy, then it is required that the matter be submitted to the electorate. A Councilmember who is appointed will serve until the next regular municipal election in April 1998. If the vacancy is filled by election, the Councilmember so elected would serve the entire unexpired term, through April 18, 2000. It was the consensus of Council that, due to the estimated $60,000 cost to hold a special election and the amount of time involved, the appointment process was preferred. Councilmember Chang stated that it would be his preference to select for appointment the person who received the next highest number of votes in the last City election, Gino Roncelli. There was no consensus of Council for that process. Each Councilmember submitted their choices for appointment as follows. Councilmember Young: Gino Roncelli and Warren Shaw, both of whom have volunteered for the appointment; Peter Ulrich; and Gary Kovacic. Mayor Pro tem Harbicht: Vince Foley, Ruth Gilb, Pat Gibson, Roger Chandler, and Gary Kovacic. Councilmember Chang: George Fasching, Gino Roncelli, and Ed Huang. Mayor Kuhn: Peter Ulrich and Gary Kovacic. Considerable discussion ensued. It was agreed that all who were nominated are dedicated workers. Mayor Kuhn, Mayor Pro tem Harbicht, and Councilmember Young noted that they all put forth the name of Gary Kovacic. They agreed he would be their choice to fill the Council vacancy. Councilmember Chang commented that he does not have any opinion on Gary Kovacic, as he does not know him very well. It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tem Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows to APPOINT Gary Kovacic to fill the vacancy on the Arcadia City Council by completing the unexpired term of Councilmember Dennis A. Lojeski to the next regular municipal election in April 1998. AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Harbicht, Young, and Kuhn NOES: None ABSENT: None 8. CITY ATTORNEY 8a. The City Attorney presented for adoption and read the title of Ordinance No. 2054: ORDINANCE "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, NO. 2054 CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DIVISION 9 OF ARTICLE VI OF THE ARCADIA (ADOPTED) MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE REGULATION OF TAXICABS AND AUTOMOBILES FOR HIRE AND THE OPERATORS THEREOF." It was MOVED by Mayor Pro tem Harbicht, seconded by Councilmember Young, and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance No. 2054 be and it is hereby ADOPTED. AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Harbicht, Young, and Kuhn NOES. None ABSENT: None 8b. The City Attorney presented for adoption and read the title of Ordinance No. 2056: ORDINANCE "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, NO. 2056 CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ARCADIA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A (ADOPTED) CHAPTER 4A AND CHAPTER 4B TO ARTICLE I TO PROVIDE FOR MUNICIPAL 9 8/20/96 38:0465 Pg. 1 — EXCERPT FROM THE APRIL 15, 1997 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Our tree - lighting ceremony and Arcadia snow during the holidays was a great success. Such events as concerts in the park and the proposed Farmer's Market will add to a sense of community. Continued support of these types of activities will promote community involvement so that all citizens will share our spirit and pride. "The final item was legislation, and we must continue to maintain a pro -active stand on legislation to help protect our rights for local government. Highlights of the year must include the Grand Re- opening of our wonderful new Library, as well as the gift from the McCaslin family of a beautiful antique desk belonging to Anita Baldwin to be used and displayed in the Mayor's office. I hope to see the collection of City artifacts and items of historical significance grow and be there for your enjoyment for many years to come. The Mayor's office should be considered the heart of the City, and it belongs to you. The final highlight of my year was the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast. Thanks to all of you, it was beautiful, inspirational, and financially successful. We were able to donate $1,000 each to the Campership Program, the Arcadia Library Foundation, and to Soroptomists. In addition, twelve of the wonderful watercolor paintings donated to the Library by Edna Lenz and Justine Wishek were framed through donations of our local businesses, with a retail value of somewhere between $2,500 to $3,000. Please go to the Library and enjoy them. "One of the first things you learn about politics is that you must be patient, for results more often than not are slow in coming. No instant gratification here, but the reward is that of being a player, of having the opportunity of being involved in decisions that improve the quality of life for citizens, and the pleasure that comes from doing something for others. As the volunteer well knows, that's irreplaceable. Thanks to all the staff for smoothing out the way as much as possible. Thanks to June Alford. Again, thanks to my family. And thank you for allowing me to serve as Mayor of the greatest city in the State of California. It has been a great year. Thank you." REORGANIZATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR 1997 -1998 The City Clerk stated, "Consistent with Section 404 of the Arcadia City Charter, and by the affirmative vote of not less than three Councilmembers, the City Council shall elect one of its members as Mayor and one of its members as Mayor Pro tem for the ensuing year, April 15, 1997, through April 21, 1998. Therefore, this is the date and time so specified by the City Charter for the reorganization of the City Council. As Clerk of this City Council, I now declare that the nominations are open for the office of Mayor for the ensuing year." Councilmember Chang placed in nomination the name of Mayor Pro tem Harbicht to serve as Mayor for the ensuing year. Hearing no other nominations, the City Clerk polled the Council for the vote for Nominee Robert Harbicht. ELECTION OF NOMINEE VOTES MAYOR FOR Mayor Pro tem Robert Harbicht Councilmembers Chang, Harbicht, Kovacic, 1997 -1998 Young, and Kuhn ( Harbicht) Following the unanimous vote, Mayor Harbicht assumed the Mayor's seat at the Council table. Mayor Harbicht then called for nominations for the office of Mayor Pro tem for the ensuing year. 4/15/97 38:0466 Pg. 2 — EXCERPT FROM THE APRIL 15, 1997 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1/ Councilmember Kuhn placed in nomination the name of Councilmember Kovacic to serve as Mayor Pro tern for the ensuing year. Hearing no other nominations, Mayor Harbicht called for the roll call vote of the City Council. NOMINEE VOTES ELECTION OF MAYOR PRO Councilmember Gary Kovacic Councilmembers Chang, Kovacic, Kuhn, TEM FOR Young, and Harbicht 1997 -1998 (Kovacic) Councilmember Gary Kovacic was unanimously elected Mayor Pro tern for the ensuing year. REMARKS BY MAYOR HARBICHT "I would like to start out by introducing some guests that I have here this evening. First is my wife, Patsy. I'm also very pleased to have here this evening my dad, Bob Harbicht, a resident of Duarte, and my brother John, who is also my business partner. I'd like to introduce my daughter, Jill, who just came in from her cake decorating class. I'd like to thank the Council for the opportunity to serve as Mayor of Arcadia, and I'd like to offer my congratulations to Mayor Pro tem Kovacic. "It was a, quarter of a century ago, in fact, exactly 25 years ago this week, that I was elected Mayor of the City of Duarte, and I can still remember the excitement, the anticipation, the pleasure that I felt at that time. And in thinking about that I thought, well, maybe it's because I was young, I was only 31 years old at the time. But I can assure you that I feel the same level of emotion today as I did then. I'm very, very excited about the opportunity to once again serve as the Mayor of Arcadia and looking forward to the year ahead. And in thinking about the year ahead, the typical question is, what do you want to accomplish? And I hark back to a conversation about eight years or so ago when I was Mayor of Arcadia before and I got a call from a reporter from the Herald- Exaininer ... the Herald- Examiner was still in business at that time ... and there had been something that had happened that affected all cities and so he was calling various mayors getting comments on that particular thing. It didn't have anything specifically to do with the City of Arcadia. So I responded with some comment. Then he said to me, "You know, we haven't written anything about the City of Arcadia lately." And I said, "You know, that's the way we like it. Every time I read in the newspaper about some city, it's usually about a problem, about a fight among councilmembers or some other problem that is dire enough to make the Herald- Examiner." And so I guess one of my goals this year would be to keep Arcadia out of the newspapers, at least with regard to that kind of a story. "We're facing a number of challenges here. We're going to be dealing with Santa Anita's application to develop part of their parking lot, and that will stretch on for probably most of this year. More immediately, we have to deal with some severe budget problems. In fact, we just set this evening a meeting for two weeks hence to really start getting into that, although we've been talking about it now for a couple of months. But I think there is a tendency in this kind of a situation to focus on the challenges or the problems. But I think that it's important that we not forget that while we have these things that we have to deal with, we're going to continue to sweep the streets, keep the parks watered and mowed, operate one of the nicest libraries in the State of California. If you have a fire, we're going to come put it out. We're going to respond to any medical emergencies that you have. We're going to patrol the streets. We're going to put the bad guys where they can't harm you. Operate programs for the hundreds of senior citizens who participate at our Community Center from 8:30 to 5:00 five days a week. We're going to accommodate the hundreds of children who take part in our after- school recreation programs, 6 4/15/97 R- ORATSo. STAFF REPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT DATE: August 12, 1996 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ronnie D. Garner, Assistant City Manager /Chief of Police By: Nancy Chik, Management Analyst SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A 60 -DAY EXTENSION OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE PASADENA HUMANE SOCIETY FOR ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL SERVICES S Y Since 1993, the City has contracted with the Pasadena Humane Society for animal control services. The current contract will expire on August 31, 1996. This report requests the City Council's approval of a 60 -day contract extension to allow staff sufficient time to evaluate possible provision changes and make a recommendation to Council. DISCUSSI Staff is studying the feasibility of developing an in -house capability to issue some or all of the dog licenses for Arcadia residents. More time is required to complete the analysis and coordinate a proposal with the Pasadena Humane Society. FISCAL IMPACT None. Extending the current contract for 60 days is consistent with our budget allocation for animal control services. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to approve the 60 -day extension agreement with Pasadena Humane Society for animal care and control services pending approval as to form by the City Attorney. Attachment: Commitment from Pasadena Humane Society extending service until October 31, 1996. Approved: "IZf1t � /� �- - " i vz� � r-, iliam R. Kelly, City Manager DG:nc �1� LASER IMAGED U83v- 3 J n cl J, �R�oR.toa. STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT August 20, 1996 Mayor and City Council Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator Prepared by: David Feinberg, Transportation Services Officer SUBJECT: Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5944, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia to approve Arcadia Transit's FY 1996 -97 Proposition C Discretionary Funding for Overcrowding Relief to the Transit Dependent Summary: Attached for City Council review is Resolution No. 5944, authorizing the City Manager to submit Arcadia Transit's FY 1996 -97 Proposition C Discretionary Funding for Overcrowding Relief to the Transit Dependent. The Memorandum of Understanding (attached) will be submitted to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The City will receive $14,851 in Proposition C funding in FY 1996 -97. Discussion: Proposition C is a countywide 1/2 cent sales tax dedicated for transportation services. Forty percent of the Proposition C revenues are set aside for discretionary uses such as bus and rail improvement programs. In March 1996, MTA approved the Bus System Improvement Plan to improve service on overcrowded bus systems. The Board set aside $10.4 million in Proposition C Discretionary funds to distribute to the municipal operators based on the previously agreed upon formula allocation process. Arcadia Transit receives approximately one tenth of one percent of the formula. Fiscal Impact: As previously mentioned, the City will receive $14,851 in Proposition C Discretionary funds to operate Arcadia Transit. This amount represents approximately 1% of Arcadia Transit's FY 1996 -97 Operating Budget. L.4-S" i1 � AGED 4do1110 7.'v Proposition C Discretionary Funding August 20, 1996 Page Two Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 5944, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia to approve Arcadia Transit's FY 1996 -97 Proposition C Discretionary Funding for Overcrowding Relief to the Transit Dependent. Attachment Approved: Rbnnie Garner, City Manager Pro -Tem RESOLUTION NO. 5944 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE ARCADIA TRANSIT'S FY 1996 -97 PROPOSITION C DISCRETIONARY FUNDING FOR OVERCROWDING RELIEF TO THE TRANSIT DEPENDENT WHEREAS, on November 6, 1990, the voters of the County of Los Angeles approved by majority vote Proposition C, an ordinance establishing a one -half percent sales tax for public transit purposes; and WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ( "MTA "), is the agency responsible for administering the tax; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of the governing board on March 27, 1996, MTA approved the Bus System Improvement Plan including a one -time appropriation of $10.4 million in Proposition C Discretionary Funds for Fiscal Year 1997 using the formula allocation process for all operators that receive regional funds, for an annual Countywide program to improve service for the transit dependent; and WHEREAS, City of Arcadia is an eligible operator and desires to receive the Funds to operate additional service for transit dependent riders; and WHEREAS, the Project will further MTA in meeting its goals of improved mobility and increased quality of life for its constituents. 1 1- NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Manager of the City of Arcadia is hereby authorized to approve a Memorandum of Understanding with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for Proposition C Discretionary Funds. SECTION 2. That the City Clerk for the City of Arcadia shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Passed, approved and adopted this day of August, 1996. ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney of the City of Arcadia -2- Mayor of the City of Arcadia STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } SS: CITY OF ARCADIA } I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 5944 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council held on the day of August, 1996 and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: City Clerk of the City of Arcadia IN1IO U # MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR ALLOCATION OF PROPOSITION C DISCRETIONARY FUNDS FOR OVERCROWDING RELIEF TO THE TRANSIT DEPENDENT WHEREAS, on November 6, 1990, the voters of the County of Los Angeles approved by majority vote Proposition C, an ordinance establishing a one -half percent sales tax for public transit purposes; and WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ( ",MTA "), is the agency responsible for administering the tax; and WHEREAS, at its meeting of the governing board on March 27, 1996, MTA approved the Bus System Improvement Plan including a one -time appropriation of $10.4 million in Proposition C Discretionary Funds ( "the Funds "), for Fiscal Year 1997 using the formula allocation process for all operators that receive regional funds, for an annual Countvwide program to improve service on overcrowded lines for the transit dependent ("the Project "), and WHEREAS, City of .Arcadia ( "the GRANTEE "), is an eligible operator and desires to receive the Funds to operate additional service on overcrowded lines with transit dependent riders; and WHEREAS, the Project will further MTA in meeting its goals of improved mobility and increased quality of life for its constituents; and WHEREAS, MTA and GR.XNTEE desire to agree to the terms and conditions described in this Memorandum of Understanding ( "the MOU" ). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms and conditions contained herein, MTA and GRANTEE hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. PAYMENT OF FUNDS 1.0 To the extent the Funds are available, MTA shall make to Grantee a one- time grant of 514,851 subject to the terms and conditions contained herein. 1.1 This one -time grant shall be paid over a twelve (12) month period. MTA shall make four (4) quarterly disbursements with each disbursement not to exceed the amount of 53,713. .. -AW ,NIEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Name of Grantee ARTICLE 2. TER NI 2.0 The term of this MOU will be in effect from July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997. ARTICLE 3. INVOICE OF GRANTEE 3.0 Each quarter, Grantee shall submit one (1) invoice to NITA requesting the Funds not to exceed the amount 53,713. All invoices must include adequate information documenting the cost of the Project. :ARTICLE d. USE OF FUNDS 4.0 GRANTEE shall utilize the Funds in accordance with the MTA Proposition C Guidelines (as adopted by NITA in May 1992) ( "the Guidelines"), only for operating assistance of the Project and in accordance with the MT A Board of Directors' action at its March 27, 1996 meeting. 4.1 GRkNTEE shall not use the Funds to substitute for any other funds, service, or project not specified in this MOU. 4.2 GRANTEE shall not carryover any unused Funds to a subsequent fiscal year. 4.3 Any unspent Funds must be returned to MTA no later than 60 days after the completion of the FY 1997 fiscal and compliance audits performed either by the MTA or the GRA:IITEE. 4.4 Unused funds shall revert to the %ITA. .ARTICLE 5. REPORTTYG AND .AUDIT REOUTRENTENTS 5.0 MTA, and/or its designee, shall have the right to conduct a financial and compliance audit(s) of the Project. GRANTEE agrees to establish and maintain proper accounting procedures and cash management records and documents in accordance with conditions defined by this MOU and the Guidelines. 5.1 The GRANTEE shall comply with all Federal National Transit Database reporting requirements and shall submit a copy of said report to MTA. 5.2 The GRANTEE will submit a separate Transit Performance Measurement (TPM) report to the MTA for the fiscal year of this Project. 5.3 To measure the effectiveness of the addition of capacity, both in terms of ?allocation of Proposition C Discretionary Funds for Overcrowding Relief to the Transit Dependent Page 2 I". a% MEMORAINDUIM OF __�DERSTANDING Name of Grantee relieving overcrowding and improving travel times, the GRALNTEE shall submit to the MTA baseline measurements of average running times (end - to -end travel time of vehicles assigned to fixed routes) and average passenger loads (expressed as number of passengers over the average seating capacity of assigned vehicles) during the peak one -hour period at the peak load point of each service or bus line which GRAINTEE intends to allocate additional service using funds provided under this MOU, prior to expenditure of funds. 5.4 After deployment of additional service, the GRANTEE shall monitor the effectiveness of the additional service by collecting data on the bus routes, route segments, or demand - responsive services for which additional service is deployed. Data should be collected at least once every three months, using a methodology developed by the GRANTEE and approved by the MTA. This data shall be submitted quarterly to the NIT:, no later than October 18, 1996 for the first quarter, January 17, 1997 for the second quarter, April 18, 1997 For the third quarter, and July 18, 1997 for the fourth quarter of the Fiscal Year 1997. Submitted data shall be specific to each service for which additional service is deployed, and shall include average daily boardings, total seat capacity of vehicles assigned, average passenger loads during the peak one -hour period at the peak load point of the service, number of standing customers reduced, number of peak buses, number of revenue service hours, average running time, and schedule reliability expressed by fixed route operators as the percentage of total trips arriving no later than 5 minutes after the scheduled arrival time at the time point closest to the peak load point of the line, and expressed by demand responsive services as response time to a request for pick -up. ARTICLE 6. CONDITIONS 6.0 This is a one -time grant subject to the terms and conditions agreed to herein and in the Guidelines. This grant does not imply nor obligate any future funding commitment on the part of the MTA. 6.1 Prior to expenditure of funds, the Policy Board of GRANTEE shall adopt a resolution to certify that the Funds will be used to operate additional service to relieve overcrowding for the most transit dependent riders in GRANTEE'S transit system. The resolution shall read: "The City of Arcadia hereby acknowledges that these funds are to be allocated to services that will relieve overcrowding for the most transit dependent customers and affirms through signature below that staff has been directed to develop a methodology for the allocation of these Allocation of Proposition C Discretionary Funds for Overcrowding Relief to the Transit Dependent Page 3 MEMORMNDUM OF UNDEn ,3TANDING Name of Grantee funds so that service quality for the transit dependent improves and that said allocation shall be contingent upon policy board approval of that methodology." The GRANTEE shall transmit to the MTA the adopted resolution with any staff report attached prior to receipt of funds. If GRAINTEE's Policy Board does not adopt the above resolution by August 31, 1996, the Funds shall be returned to the �1TA. 6.2 GRANTEE agrees to strive for a minimum 38% farebox recovery ratio (passenger fares plus local revenues divided by operating costs). 6.3 GRANTEE agrees to comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in the provision of public transit services. 6.4 GRANTEE understands and agrees that in programming these funds and entering into this MOU, %1TA is acting pursuant to its statutory authority and shall have no liability in connection with the use of these funds for public transit purposes. GRANTEE agrees to indemnify MTA for all liability arising out of GR.- NTEE's performance in the provision of public transit services paid for by these funds. 6.5 GRANTEE is not a contractor, agent or employee of the MTA. GRANTEE shall not represent itself as a contractor, agent or employee of the MTA and shall have no power to bind the MTA in contract or otherwise. -ARTICLE 7. PENALTIES 7.0 The MTA reserves the right to terminate this MOU and withhold funds if it is determined that the GRANTEE has not made every effort to adhere to all warranties and conditions identified in the Proposition C Discretionary Guidelines. In addition, the MTA reserves the right to terminate this MOU in the event of continued and/or gross violations of this MOU. 7.1 Any withholding of funds, termination of the MOU, or imposition of any financial penalty against GR.ANTEE under the Proposition C Discretionary Guidelines is subject to nine (9) affirmative votes by the governing board of the MTA. Allocation of Proposition C Discretionary Funds for Overcrowding Relief to the Transit Dependent Page 4 I�'► . k MEMORANDUM Oh UZVDERSTAN"DING Name of Grantee N WiTtirESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Memorandum of Understanding for allocation of Proposition C Discretionary Funds for overcrowding relief to the transit dependent to be duly executed as of the dates below with all the foralities requi m red by the law. GRANTEE: City of Arcadia Bv: —"A WTLLI. -,t R. KELLY City %tanager Date: 5. 1.16 APPROVED AS TO FORM: B. Y NAME : Michael H. Miller Title Citv Attornev Date: Mav 6, 1996 I: bs,pVnou 1Ow overcrowding re4cito neat dependan Allocation of Proposition C Discretionary Funds for Overcrowding Relief to the Transit Dependent Page 5 LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRA- SPORTATION AUTHORITY By: JOSEPH E. DREW Chief Executive Officer Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: DeWitt W. Clinton County Counsel By: Deputy Date: STAFF REPORT 'RtORATtO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT August 20, 1996 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator ByrJames M. Kasama, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5932: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, finding the City of Arcadia to be in conformance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and adopting the CMP Local Implementation Report in accordance with California Government Code Section 65089. 16111u . . The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (MTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires local agencies to submit an annual Local Implementation Report. The Report must be adopted at a public hearing, and submitted to the MTA by September 1st. The Report is to be adopted by a resolution self - certifying that the City is in conformance. In order to conform with the requirements of the CMP, the City must perform the following compliance actions: 1) Continue to implement the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance (Ord. No. 1984) and the Land Use Analysis (LUA) program (Reso. No. 5780). 2) Submit to the MTA, by September 1st, a Local Implementation Report that consists of a self - certifying resolution of conformance; a deficiency plan status summary; a new development activity report; and transportation improvements credit claim forms if applicable. The Report must show that the City is meeting its congestion reduction responsibilities. The requirements of the TDM ordinance and LUA program are being imposed upon applicable projects, and the attached resolution and report show that the City of Arcadia is satisfying its congestion reduction responsibility, and is in conformance with the CMP. 14d o 1 7`P v/ LASER IMAGED Awk yt— - --• Compliance Action No. 1 Aw The City Council adopted a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance (No. 1984) and a Land Use Analysis (LUA) program (Reso. 5780) in 1993. The TDM ordinance applies to new, non - residential developments of 25,000 or more gross square feet. The LUA program applies to any project subject to an environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Compliance Action No. 2 The Local Implementation Report to be submitted to the MTA must include the following: a Self- Certified Resolution of Conformance. Resolution No. 5932 finds the City of Arcadia to be conforming with the CMP and adopts the Local Implementation Report in accordance with California Government Code Section 65089. • Deficiency Plan Status Summary Based on the "credits" granted for past regional transportation improvements and the "debits" accumulated due to new development, the City of Arcadia, as of May 31, 1996, has a positive balance of 10,888.29 congestion "credits ". Therefore, the City is satisfying its congestion reduction responsibility, and is in conformance with the CMP. • New Development Activity Report The CMP requires that cities mitigate traffic congestion that results from new development. The CMP applies congestion "debits ", to new development. Cities are required to track all new development to determine the amount of congestion "debits" that must be mitigated. For the period of June 1, 1995 to May 31, 1996, the City of Arcadia accumulated 756.71 congestion "debits" as a result of new development activity. • Transportation Improvements Credit Claims If applicable, cities are to submit to the MTA a list of regional transportation improvements. Those improvements that reduce regional congestion are awarded "credits" that can offset "debits" incurred by new development. For the period of June 1, 1995 to May 31, 1996, the City did not implement any regional transportation improvements and, therefore, did not receive any congestion "credits ". The City of Arcadia did, however, in October of 1995. receive 10,000 credits for its application regarding the traffic reductions resulting from Santa Anita's Satellite Wagering Program. These credits can be utilized at the City's discretion. Reso. 5932 / CMP Conformance Report August 20, 1996 page 2 ,m► Aak ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSI The adoption of a Local Implementation Report is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The development or adoption of red -ional transportation improvement programs are exempt by statute (CEQA Guidelines Section 15276). Any individual projects, however, that are to be implemented pursuant to a regional transportation program would be subject to CEQA. FISCAL IMPACTS Nonconformance with the CMP could jeopardize gas tax funds. If MTA determined that a city is not in conformance with the CMP, the State Controller is notified to withhold from that jurisdiction its allocation of the state gas tax increase enacted by Proposition 111 (Streets and Highways Code, Section 2105). If, after 12 months, a city still has not conformed to the CMP. the withheld gas tax funds will be allocated to the County. For the City of Arcadia, the amount of these funds for the past three years has averaged $283.589.09. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following: A) That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 5932: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, finding the City of Arcadia to be in conformance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and adopting the CMP Local Implementation Report in accordance with California Government Code Section 65089, and; B) Direct the City Clerk to transmit a signed copy of the Resolution to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority by September 1, 1996. Approved: illiam R. Kelly, City Manager Attachments: Resolution No. 5932 Local Implementation Report: • Deficiency Plan Status Summary • New Development Activity Report Reso. 5932 / CMP Conformance Report August 20, 1996 page 3 r RESOLUTION NO. 5932 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA FINDING THE CITY OF ARCADIA TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089. WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), acting as the Congestion Management Agency for Los Angeles County, adopted the CMP on November 17, 1993; and WHEREAS, the adopted CMP requires that the MTA annually determine that the County and cities within the County are conforming to all CMP requirements; and WHEREAS, the adopted CMP requires submittal to the MTA of the CMP local implementation report by September 1, 1996; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 20, 1996. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City of Arcadia has taken all of the following actions, and that the City is in conformance with all applicable requirements of the 1993 CMP. The City has locally adopted and continues to implement a transportation demand management ordinance, consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Transportation Demand Management Chapter. The City has locally adopted and continues to implement a land use analysis program, consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Land Use Analysis Program Chapter. The City has adopted a Local Implementation Report, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consistent with the requirements identified in the CMP. This report balances traffic congestion impacts due to growth within the City with transportation improvements, and demonstrates that the City is meeting its responsibilities under the Countywide Deficiency Plan. t SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall forward a copy of this Resolution to the MTA. Passed, approved and adopted this 20th day of August, 1996. /S/ ROBERT C. HARBICHT Mayor/of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: Pro Tem /S/ JUNE D. ALFORD City Clerk of the City of Arcadia APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Xttome3 of the City of Arcadia STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 5932 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor/and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council Pro Tem held on August 20, 1996, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote. to wit: AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Harbicht, Young and Kuhn NOES: None ABSENT: None /S/ JUNE. D. ALFORD City Clerk of the City of Arcadia 5 932 ..., APPENDIX F - INSTRUMONS FC. ;ONIPLETING 1995 LocAL INIPLENIE.,TATIO. .LEPORT PAGE F -S EXHIBIT F -2 DEFICIENCY PLAN STATUS SU`NARY JURISDICTION: CITY OF ARCADIA 1. Total Current Congestion Mitigation Goal [from Section I] ( -) ( 756.71) 2. Transportation Improvements Credit Claims [from Section II] + -0- Subtotal Current Credit (Goal) _ (756.71) 3. Carryover Credit from Last Year's Local Implementation Report + 11, 645.00 NET DEFICIENCY PLAN BALANCE - 10, 888.29 CONTACT: Jim Kasama, Associate Planner PHONE: (818) 574 -5445 1993 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County November 1993 Aw AAk APPENDIX F - INSTRUCTIONS FC 20NIPLEI'ING 1995 LOC,\L. INIPLEMEN7XRG. _CEPORT PAGE F -9 EX IBIT F -3 SECTION I - NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PART 1: NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Category Number of Dwelling Units Impact Sub total Value Single Family Multi- Family Group Quarters –48– x 6.80 = (326.44 x 4.76 = (166.69 x 1.98 = ( –0– ) –35– –0– COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Category Thousands of Gross Square Feet Value per Sub -total 1000 sq.ft. Commercial 0 -299 KSF Commercial 300+ KSF Free - Standing Eating and Drinking –0– x 22.23 = ( –0– ) x 17.80 = ( –0– ) x 66.99 = (644.44 –0– –9.62– NON- RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Category Thousands of Gross Square Feet Value per Sub -total 1000 sq.ft. Lodging Industrial Office 0 -49 KSF Office 50 -299 KSF Office 300+ KSF Medical Government Institutional /Education –0– x 7.21 = ( –0– ) x 6.08 = (32.35) x 16.16 = ( –0– ) x 10.50 = ( –0– ) x 7.35 = ( –0– ) x 16.90 = ( –0– ) x 20.95 = ( –0– ) x 7.68 = ( –0– ) –5.32– –0– –0– –0– –0– –0– –0– Other (Describe) + Daily Trips Impact Sub -total Value –none– –0– x 0.71 = ( –0– ) ADJUSTMENTS (OPTIONAL) - Complete Part 2 = + 413.08 ILT—OTAL CURRENT CONGESTION MITIGATION GOAL (POINTS) _ (756.71 1993 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County November 1993 Awk ..w APPENDIX F - INSTRUCTIONS FO. OMPLEnNG 1995 LOCAL INIPLEMEWATIO: _.EPORT PAGE F -10 ENMBIT F -3 (continued) SECTION I - NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PART 2: NEW DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS IMPORTANT: Adjustments may be claimed only for 1) development permits that were both issued and revoked, expired or withdrawn during the reporting period, and 2) demolition of any structure within the reporting period. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS Category Number of Dwelling Units Impact Sub -total Value Single Family Multi- Family Group Quarters —48— x 6.80 = 326.40 x 4.76 = 66.64 x 1.98 = —0— —14— —0— COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS Category Thousands of Gross Square Feet Value per Sub -total 1000 sq.ft. Commercial 0 -299 KSF Commercial 300+ KSF Eating and Drinking —0— x 22.23 = —0— x 17.80 = —0— x 66.99 = —0- —0— —0— NON- RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS Category Thousands of Gross Square Feet Value per Sub -total 1000 sq.ft. Lodging Industrial Office 0 -49 KSF Office 50 -299 KSF Office 300+ KSF Medical Government Institutional /Education —0— x 7.21 = —0— x 6.08 = —0— x 16.16 = 20.04 x 10.50 = —0— x 7.35 = —0— x 16.90 = —0— x 20.95 = —0- x 7.68 = —0— —0— —1.24— —0— —0— —0— —0— —0— Other (Describe) Daily Trips Impact Sub -total Value —none— —0— x 0.71 = —0— TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS, POINTS = 413.08 1993 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County November 1993 Ank APPENDIX F - INSTRUCTIONS FOK COMPLETING 1995 LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION kl-PORT PAGE F -i 1 EXHIBIT F -3 (continued) SECTION I - NEW DEVELMN ENT ACTIVITY REPORT PART 3: EXEMPTED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (NOT INCLUDED IN NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY TOTALS) Low /Very Low Income Housing _0_ Dwelling Units High Density Resid. near Rail Stations —0— Dwelling Units Mixed Use Developments near Rail —0— 1000 gross sf Stations —0— Dwelling Units Development Agreements entered into —0— 1000 gross sf prior to July 10, 1989 —0— Dwelling Units Reconstruction of buildings damaged in —0— 1000 gross sf the April 1992 Civil Unrest —0— Dwelling Units Reconstruction of buildings damaged in —0— 1000 gross sf the January 1994 earthquake —0— Dwelling Units EXEMPTED DEVELOPMENT DEFINITIONS: 1. Low /Very Low Income Housing: as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development as follows: Low- Income: equal to or less than 80% of the median income, with adjustments for family size. Very Low- Income: equal to or less than 507a of the median income, with adjustments for family size. 2. High Density Residential Near Rail Stations: development located within 1/4 mile of a fixed rail passenger station and that is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the maximum residential density allowed under the local general plan and zoning ordinance. 3. Mixed Uses Near Rail Stations: mixed use development located within 1/4 mile of a fixed rail passenger station, if more than half of the land :rea, or floor area, of the mixed use development is used for high density residential housing. 4. Development Agreements: projects that entered into a development agreement (as specified under Section 65864 of the California Government Code) with a local jurisdiction prior to July 10, 1989. 5. April 1992 Civil Unrest Reconstruction: until June 1, 1995, buildings and structures damaged or destroyed in Los Angeles County as a result of civil unrest during the state of emergency declared by the Governor on April 29, 1992. 6. January 1994 Earthquake Reconstruction: until June 1, 1997, buildings and structures damaged or destroyed in Los Angeles County as a result of the January 1994 earthquake. 7. Any project of a federal, state or county agency that is exempt from local jurisdiction zoning regulations and where the local jurisdiction is precluded from exercising any approval /disapproval authority. These locally precluded projects do not have to be reported in the Local Implementation Report. 1993 Congestion ;Management Program for Los Angeles County November 1993 (Revised 2194) Auk -Ak June 13, 1996 MTo: City Managers CMP Local Agency C Vntta s From: Jody Feerst, Manager (L; S) 1?2 -z- L0 Los Angeles County Congestion Managem bram Metropolitan Transportation Subject: Congestion Management Program 1996 Self - Certification and Authority Local Implementation Report One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA The CMP's annual cycle of new development activity tracking closed on May 31_, 1996. Jurisdictions should no�v begin nrenprin their ann'ua! re— sc!,.t; 90011 begin - a - .,�.�,�,Cn self - certifying conformance with the CMP and their 1995 Local Implementation Report. 213.922.6000 C nP x 283 0 /Nefl;kc Mailing Address P.O Box 194 Los Angeles, CA 90053 CMP conformance is required in order for your jurisdiction to continue receiving state gas tax (Section 2105) funds and to preserve your eligibility for other state and federal transportation dollars. By September 1, 1996, jurisdictions must submit to MTA: A Local Implementation Report (LIR) showing a positive balance of CMP credits, based on: A. The balance from the bank of credits accrued since 1990 that have been previously approved by the MTA Board of Directors; B. "Debits" accrued as a result of building permits issued from June 1, 1995 - May 31, 1996; and C. Credit claims for qualifying transportation strategies implemented from June 1, 1995 - May 31, 1996, 2. A resolution adopted by the city counciVBoard of Supervisors at a public hearing adopting the LIR and self - certifying the jurisdictions conformance with local CMP requirements. A copy of your adopted resolution and Local Implementation Report should be sent to: Los Anceles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Attention: Congestion Management Program, 99 -23 -2 P. 0. Box 194 p Los Angeles, CA 9005' ) OIN 00i NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, will hold a public hearing to consider a resolution finding the City of Arcadia to be in conformance with the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) and adopting the Local Implementation Report in accordance with California Government Code Section 65089. Date & Time of Public Hearing: Tuesday, August 20, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. Location of Public Hearing: Arcadia City Council Chambers 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California The Arcadia City Council will hold a public hearing at the above date and time at the above location. The purpose of the public hearing is to afford the public an opportunity to be heard concerning the proposed resolution and report. The draft resolution and report are available for review at the Arcadia City Hall in the Planning Services office. If you have any questions or comments regarding the hearing, or the resolution and report, please contact Associate Planner, Jim Kasama at (818) 574 -5445 in City Hall at Planning Services located at 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021. Arcadia City Hall is open Monday through Thursday, from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and on alternate Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. City Hall will be closed on Friday, August 16th. June D. Alford City Clerk Publication date: August 8, 1996 CITY OF *ARCADIA City of Arcadia City Clerk Iunr 1). Alford Citi. Clel* 240 kV Hunrin,s.,ron Drive Post Ofhcc Box 60021 Arcadia, CA 91066 -6021 (818) 5-4-;4.55 (818) 44" -7524 Fax Awk August 21, 1996 Ark. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program, 99 -23 -2 P.O. Box 194 Los Angeles, CA 90053 ATTENTION: Jody Feerst, Manager, Congestion Management Program Dear Ms. Feerst: At its August 20, 1996 regular meeting the City Council of the City of Arcadia held a public hearing followed by adoption of Resolution No. 5932. As required, a certified copy of Resolution No. 5932 and the Local Implementation Report are enclosed. Resolution No. 5932 reads as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA FINDING THE CITY OF ARCADIA TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALI- FORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089." Very truly yours, Cj �L June D. Alford City Clerk JDA:ja Enclosures c: James Kasama, Associate Planner, City of Arcadia Planning Services DATE: TO: FROM: August 20, 1996 Mayor and City Council U83v -'� D STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator - � Prepared by: David Feinberg, Transportation Services Officer SUBJECT: Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5944, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia to approve Arcadia Transit's FY 1996 -97 Proposition C Discretionary Funding for Overcrowding Relief to the Transit Dependent Summary: Attached for City Council review is Resolution No. 5944, authorizing the City Manager to submit Arcadia Transit's FY 1996 -97 Proposition C Discretionary Funding for Overcrowding Relief to the Transit Dependent. The Memorandum of Understanding (attached) will be submitted to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The City will receive $14,851 in Proposition ,C funding in FY 1996 -97. Discussion: Proposition C is a countywide 1/2 cent sales tax dedicated for transportation services. Forty percent of the Proposition C revenues are set aside for discretionary uses such as bus and rail improvement programs. In March 1996, MTA approved the Bus System .Improvement Plan to improve service on overcrowded bus systems. The Board set aside $10.4 million in Proposition C Discretionary funds to distribute to the municipal operators based on the previously agreed upon formula allocation process. Arcadia Transit receives approximately one tenth of one percent of the formula. Fiscal Impact: As previously mentioned, the City will receive $14,851 in Proposition C Discretionary funds to operate Arcadia Transit. This amount represents approximately 1 % of Arcadia Transit's FY 1996 -97 Operating Budget. w LASER IMAGED C04. 6 -Z 0 Proposition C Discretionary Funding August 20, 1996 Page Two Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 5944, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia to approve Arcadia Transit's FY 1996 -97 Proposition C Discretionary Funding for Overcrowding Relief to the Transit Dependent. Attachment . Approved: ' z R nnie Gamer, City Manager Pro -Tem RP°""t4 STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT August 20, 1996 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator,4 By: James M. Kasama, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5932: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, finding the City of Arcadia to be in conformance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and adopting the CMP Local Implementation Report in accordance with California Government Code Section 65089. SUMMARY The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (MTA) Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires local agencies to submit an annual Local Implementation Report. The Report must be adopted at a public hearing, and submitted to the MTA by September 1st. The Report is to be adopted by a resolution self-certifying that the City is in conformance. In order to conform with the requirements of the CMP, the City must perform the following compliance actions: 1) Continue to implement the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance (Ord. No. 1984) and the Land Use Analysis (LUA) program (Reso. No. 5780). 2) Submit to the MTA, by September 1st, a Local Implementation Report that consists of a self-certifying resolution of conformance; a deficiency plan status summary; a new development activity report; and transportation improvements credit claim forms if applicable. The Report must show that the City is meeting its congestion reduction responsibilities. The requirements of the TDM ordinance and LUA program are being imposed upon applicable projects, and the attached resolution and report show that the City of Arcadia is satisfying its congestion reduction responsibility, and is in conformance with the CMP. 114 r'ED .4dd 71e p /4. r 1 r DISCUSSION Compliance Action No. 1 The City Council adopted a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance (No. 1984) and a Land Use Analysis (LUA) program (Reso. 5780) in 1993. The TDM ordinance applies to new, non-residential developments of 25,000 or more gross square feet. The LUA program ' applies to any project subject to an environmental impact report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Compliance Action No. 2 The Local Implementation Report to be submitted to the MTA must include the following: • Self-Certified Resolution of Conformance. Resolution No. 5932 finds the City of Arcadia to be conforming with the CMP and adopts the Local Implementation Report in accordance with California Government Code Section 65089. • Deficiency Plan Status Summary Based on the "credits" granted for past regional transportation improvements and the "debits" accumulated due to new development, the City of Arcadia, as of May 31, 1996, has a positive balance of 10,888.29 congestion "credits". Therefore, the City is satisfying its congestion reduction responsibility, and is in conformance with the CMP. • New,Development Activity Report The CMP requires that cities mitigate traffic congestion that results from new development. The CMP applies congestion "debits",to new development. Cities are required to track all new development to determine the amount of congestion "debits" that must be mitigated. For the period of June 1, 1995 to May 31, 1996, the City of Arcadia accumulated 756.71 congestion "debits" as a result of new development activity. • Transportation Improvements Credit Claims If applicable, cities are to submit to the MTA a list of regional transportation improvements. Those-improvements that reduce regional congestion are awarded "credits" that can offset "debits" incurred by new development. For the period of June 1, 1995 to May 31, 1996, the City did not implement any regional transportation improvements and, therefore, did not receive any congestion "credits". The City of Arcadia did, however, in October of 1995, receive 10,000 credits for its application regarding the traffic reductions resulting from Santa Anita's Satellite Wagering Program. These credits can be utilized at the City's discretion. Reso. 5932 / CMP Conformance Report August 20, 1996 page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS The adoption of a Local Implementation Report is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The development or adoption of regional transportation improvement programs are exempt by statute (CEQA Guidelines Section 15276). Any individual projects. however, that are to be implemented pursuant to a regional transportation program would be subject to CEQA. FISCAL IMPACTS Nonconformance with the CMP could jeopardize gas tax funds. If MTA determined that a city is not in conformance with the CMP, the State Controller is notified to withhold from that jurisdiction its allocation of the state gas tax increase enacted by Proposition 111 (Streets and Highways Code, Section 2105). If, after 12 months, a city still has not conformed to the CMP. the withheld gas tax funds will be allocated to the County. For the City of Arcadia, the amount of these funds for the past three years has averaged $283,589.09. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following: A) That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 5932: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, finding the City of Arcadia to be in conformance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and adopting the CMP Local Implementation . Report in accordance with California Government Code Section 65089, and; B) Direct the City Clerk to transmit a signed copy of the Resolution to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority by September 1, 1996. • Approved: i� � d_.1 6(° - illiam R. Kelly, City Manager Attachments: Resolution No. 5932 Local Implementation Report: • Deficiency Plan Status Summary • New Development Activity Report Reso. 5932 / CMP Conformance Report August 20, 1996 page 3 11) A , t .v)J , RESOLUTION NO. 5932 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA FINDING THE CITY OF ARCADIA TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089. WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), acting as the Congestion Management Agency for Los Angeles County, adopted the CMP on November 17, 1993; and / WHEREAS,-the adopted CMP requires that the MTA'annually determine that the County and cities within the County are conforming tol(CMP requirements; and WHEREAS, the adopted CMP requires subylittal to the MTA of the CMP local implementation report by September 1, 1996; an/ WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 20, 1996. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESO/VE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City of/Arcadia has taken all of the following actions, and that the City is in conformance withll applicable requirements of the 1993 CMP. The City has locally adopted and continues to implement a transportation demand management ordinance, consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Transportation Demand Manaement Chapter. The City has locall'adopted and continues to implement a land use analysis program, consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Land Use Analysis Program Chaptr. The City has adapted a Local Implementation Report, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consistent with the requirements identified in the CMP. This report balances traffic congestion impacts due to growth within the City with transportation improvements, and demonstrates that the City is meeting its responsibilities under the Countywide Deficiency Plan. • RESOLUTION NO. 5932 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA FINDING THE CITY OF ARCADIA TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND`ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089. WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), acting as the Congestion Management Agency for Los Angeles County, adopted the CMP on November 17, 1993; and WHEREAS, the adopted CMP requires that the MTA annually determine that the County and cities within the County are conforming to all CMP requirements; and WHEREAS, the adopted CMP requires submittal to the MTA of the CMP local implementation report by September 1, 1996; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 20, 1996. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City of Arcadia has taken all of the following actions, and that the City is in conformance with all applicable requirements of the 1993 CMP. The City has locally adopted and continues to implement a transportation demand management ordinance, consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Transportation Demand Management Chapter. The City has locally adopted and continues to implement a land use analysis program, consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Land Use Analysis Program Chapter. The City has adopted a Local Implementation Report, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consistent with the requirements identified in the CMP. This report balances• traffic congestion •impacts due to growth within the City with transportation improvements, and demonstrates that the City is meeting its responsibilities under the Countywide Deficiency Plan. • . I SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall forward a copy of this Resolution to the MTA. Passed, approved and adopted this 20th day of August, 1996. /S/ ROBERT C. HARBICHT Mayor/of the City of Arcadia ATTEST: Pro Tem /5/ JUNE D. ALFORD City Clerk of the City of Arcadia • APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1/q ))1- 7 _ City Attorneir of the City of Arcadia STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §: CITY OF ARCADIA ) I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 5932 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor/and attested to by.the City Clerk at a regular meeting of said Council Pro Tem held on August 20, 1996, and that said Resolution was adopted by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Councilmembers Chang, Harbicht, Young and Kuhn NOES: None ABSENT: None /S/ JUNE D. ALFORD City Clerk of the City of Arcadia - 2 - 5932 APPENDIX F - INSTRUCTIONS F(: ;OMPLETING 1995 LOCAL IMPLEME`TATIC,- _ .EPORT PAGE F-8 EXHIBIT F-2 DEFICIENCY PLAN STATUS SUMMARY JURISDIC I ION: CITY OF ARCADIA 1. Total Current Congestion Mitigation Goal [from Section I] (-) (756.71) 2. Transportation Improvements Credit Claims [from + -0- Section II] Subtotal Current Credit (Goal) = (756.71) 3. Carryover Credit from Last Year's Local Implementation Report + 11,645.00 NET DEFICIENCY PLAN BALANCE. = 10,888.29 CONTACT: Jim Kasama, Associate Planner PHONE: (818) 574-5445 1993 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County November 1993 APPENDIX F - INSTRUCTIONS F( 'OMPLETING 1995 LOCAL IMPLEMENTATR ,SPORT PAGE F-9 EXHIIBIT F-3 SECTION I - NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PART 1: NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Category Number of Dwelling Units Impact Sub-total Value Single Family —48— x 6.80 = (326.40 Multi-Family —35— x 4.76 = (166.69 Group Quarters —0— x 1.98 = ( —0— ) COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Category Thousands of Value per Sub-total Gross Square Feet 1000 sq.ft. Commercial 0-299 KSF —0— x 22.23 = ( —0— ) Commercial 300+ KSF —0— x 17.80 = ( -0— ) Free-Standing Eating and Drinking —9.62— x 66.99 = (644.44 NON-RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Category Thousands of Value per Sub-total Gross Square Feet 1000 sq.ft. Lodging —0— x 7.21 = ( —0— ) Industrial —5.32— x 6.08 = (32.35) Office 0-49 KSF —0— x 16.16 = ( —0— ) Office 50-299 KSF —0— x 10.50 = ( —0— ) Office 300+ KSF _0_ x 7.35 = ( -0_ ) 'Medical —0— x 16.90 = ( -0— ) Government —0— x 20.95 = ( —0— ) Institutional/Education —0— x 7.68 = ( —0— ) ' Other (Describe) Daily Trips Impact Sub-total Value —none— —0— x 0.71 = ( —0— ) ADJUSTMENTS (OPTIONAL) - Complete Part 2 = + 413.08 TOTAL CURRENT CONGESTION MITIGATION GOAL (POINTS) = (756.71 1993 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County November 1993 APPENDIX F - INSTRUCTIONS Fa _ DMPLETING 1995 LOCAL IMPLEMENTATIO._"'EPORT PAGE F-10 EXHIBIT F-3 (continued) SECTION I - NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PART 2: NEW DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS IMPORTANT: Adjustments may be claimed only for 1) development permits that were both issued and revoked, expired or withdrawn during the reporting period, and 2) demolition of any structure within the reporting period. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS Category Number of Dwelling Units Impact Sub-total Value Single Family —48— x 6.80 = 326.40 Multi-Family —14— x 4.76 = 66.64 Group Quarters —0— x 1.98 = —0— COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS Category Thousands of Value per Sub-total Gross Square Feet 1000 sq.ft. Commercial 0-299 KSF —0— x 22.23 = —0— Commercial 300+ KSF —0— x 17.80 = —0— Eating and Drinking —0— x 66.99 = —0- NON-RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS Category Thousands of Value per Sub-total Gross Square Feet 1000 sq.ft. Lodging —0— x 7.21 = —0— Industrial —0— x 6.08 = —0— Office 0-49 KSF —1.24— x 16.16 = 20.04 Office 50-299 KSF —0— x 10.50 = —0— Office 300+ KSF —0— x 7.35 = —0— Medical —0-- x 16.90 = —0— Government —0— x 20.95 = —0- Institutional/Education —0— x 7.68 = —0- r Other (Describe) Daily Trips Impact Sub-total Value —none— —0— x 0.71 = —0— TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS, POINTS = 413.08 1993 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County November 1993 APPENDIX F - INSTRUCTIONS vrt COMPLETING 1995 LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION .iir-ORT PAGE F-11 EXHIBIT F-3 (continued) SECTION I - NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY REPORT PART 3: EXEMPTED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY (NOT INCLUDED IN NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY TOTALS) Low/Very Low Income Housing -0— Dwelling Units High Density Resid. near Rail Stations —0— Dwelling Units Mixed Use Developments near Rail —0— 1000 gross sf Stations —0— Dwelling Units Development Agreements entered into —0— 1000 gross sf prior to July 10, 1989 —0— Dwelling Units Reconstruction of buildings damaged in —0— 1000 gross sf the April 1992 Civil Unrest —0— Dwelling Units Reconstruction of buildings damaged in —0— 1000 gross sf the January 1994 earthquake —0— Dwelling Units EXEMPTED DEVELOPMENT DEFINITIONS: 1. Low/Very Low Income Housing: as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development as follows: Low-Income: equal to or less than 80% of the median income, with adjustments for family size. Very Low-Income: equal to or less than 50% of the median income, with adjustments for family size. •2. High Density Residential Near Rail Stations: development located within 1/4 mile of a fixed rail passenger station and that is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the maximum residential density allowed under the local general plan and zoning ordinance. 3. Mixed Uses Near Rail Stations: mixed use development located within 1/4 mile of a fixed rail passenger station, if more than half of the land sea, or floor area, of the mixed use development is used for high density residential housing. 4. Development Agreements: projects that entered into a development agreement (as specified under Section 65864 of the California Government Code) with a local jurisdiction prior to July 10, 1989. 5. April 1992 Civil Unrest Reconstruction: until June 1, 1995, buildings and structures damaged or destroyed in Los Angeles County as a result of civil unrest during the state of emergency declared by the Governor on April 29, 1992. 6. January 1994 Earthquake Reconstruction: until June 1, 1997, buildings and structures damaged or destroyed in Los Angeles County as a result of the January 1994 earthquake. 7. Any project of a federal, state or county agency that is exempt from local jurisdiction zoning regulations and where the local jurisdiction is precluded from exercising any approval/disapproval authority. These locally precluded projects do not have'to be reported in the Local Implementation Report. 1993 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County November 1993 (Revised 2/94) .... ..- -,, .!»a?•aa.+�F.:4• - .-'flcfi ":4` ti:r .",F' A,»Y+r•?Ya'- a _"#3 C-'r Liar....i! ,t I- June 13, 1996 To: City Managers 114 E TkR.o CMP Local Agency C nta s From: Jody Feerst, Manager (z..4) 9zL-ZBao Los Angeles County Congestion Managem t Pr tram Metropolitan Transportation Subject: Congestion Management Program 1996 Self-Certification and Authority Local Implementation Report One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles,CA The CMP's annual cycle of new development activity tracking closed on May 31, 1996. Jurisdictions should now begin preparing rinb their annual resoluti on C:90012 self-certifying conformance with the CMP and their 1995 Local Implementation Report. 213.922.6000 GnPx2830 CMP conformance is required in order for your jurisdiction to continue receiving Nef/,4e Mailing Address: state gas tax (Section 2105) funds and to preserve your eligibility for other state P.O. Box 194 and federal transportation dollars. Los Angeles, CA 90053 By September 1, 1996,jurisdictions must submit to MTA: 1. A Local Implementation Report (LIR) showing a positive balance of CMP credits, based on: A. The balance from the bank of credits accrued since 1990 that have been previously approved by the MTA Board of Directors; B. "Debits" accrued as a result of building permits issued from June 1, 1995 - May 31, 1996; and C. Credit claims for qualifying transportation strategies implemented from June 1, 1995 - May 31, 1996. 2. A resolution adopted by the city counciUBoard of Supervisors at a public hearing adopting the LIR and self-certifying the jurisdictions conformance with local CMP requirements. A copy of your adopted resolution and Local Implementation Report should be sent to: La§Ang omit, etr©poltitai Tranfsportawon >`it'liori Atitentmi®ti Co,ng s'ion 'anagei ent-Program -M3o Angeles; c°' 90®D3-; . • NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ARCADIA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California, will hold a public hearing to consider a resolution finding the City of Arcadia to be in conformance with the Los Angeles County _Congestion Management Program (CMP) and adopting the Local Implementation Report in accordance with California Government Code Section 65089. Date & Time of Public Hearing: Tuesday, August 20, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. Location of Public Hearing: Arcadia City Council Chambers 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California The Arcadia City Council will hold a public hearing at the above date and time at the above location. The purpose of the public hearing is to afford the public an opportunity to be heard concerning the proposed resolution and report. The draft resolution and report are available for review at the Arcadia City Hall in the Planning Services office. If you have any questions or comments regarding the hearing, or the resolution and report, please contact Associate Planner, Jim Kasama at (818) 574-5445 in City Hall at Planning Services located at 240 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91066-6021. Arcadia City Hall is open Monday through Thursday, from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and on alternate Fridays from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. City Hall will be closed on Friday, August 16th. June D. Alford City Clerk Publication date: August 8, 1996 • • SITY 4gllpllIlhzo • r) LITV OF IL ARCADIA '-°14 /°� 4,PORATE9 City of Arcadia August 21, 1996 • City Clerk Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program, 99-23-2 P.O. Box 194 June D.Alford Los Angeles, CA 90053 City Clerk ATTENTION: Jody Feerst, Manager, Congestion Management Program Dear Ms. Feerst: At its August 20, 1996 regular meeting the City Council of the City of Arcadia held a public hearing followed by adoption of Resolution No. 5932. As required, a certified copy of Resolution No. 5932 and the Local Implementation Report are enclosed. Resolution No. 5932 reads as follows: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA FINDING THE CITY OF ARCADIA TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALI- FORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089." Very truly yours, June D. Alford City Clerk JDA:ja Enclosures c: James Kasama, Associate Planner, City of Arcadia Planning Services 240 W. Huntington Drive Post Office Box 60021 Arcadia,CA 91066-6021 (818)574-5455 (818)447-7524 Fax \ I • "'°°"_S° STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT August 20, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: Recommendation to continue consideration of the General Plan Update and related EIR to the September 3, 1996 meeting. SUMMARY The City Council at its July 16 meeting continued its consideration of the General Plan and related EIR to tonight's meeting. On August 13, a copy of the "Responses to Comments" was delivered to the City Council for review. If the Council concurs with the "Responses to Comments" they will become part of the Final EIR for the General Plan Update. Also included for your information are copies of the approved Planning Commissio minutes relating to the General Plan and related EIR. The Development Services Department is recommending that the City Council continu their consideration of the General Plan to the September 3 meeting. DISCUSSION As you are aware, there is a very specific process required before the City can adopt a General Plan. One of the requirements of State Law is a response to all comments relative to the Environmental Impact Report. Accordingly, a copy of the "Responses to Comments" were delivered to you on August 13 for your review. A considerable amount of time was spent responding to the large volume of material submitted by both the public and various agencies. While much of the material submitted was repetitive, it stall required careful review and a response. As a consequence, preparation of the "Responses to Comments" took much more time to complete than was expected. LSA Associates is currently working on revisions to the General Plan document, including the City Council changes to the language for Transition Area 1 and the sectio relating to housing. - Furthermore, additional work must be done to restructure the document to reflect Council direction. It is anticipated the revised document will probab'y be ready on August 16 or the 19. In addition, the Resolutions for the certification and adoption of the EIR and the General Plan are being finalized to reflect the deliberations and direction of the City Council. General Plan Memo August 20, 1996 C oN /A/ .D 7`O 9-3- 9� Page 1 £, M. ;1 . V Although we originally targeted the August 20 meeting for adoption of the General Plan, we are now recommending that the City Council consider this memorandum and continue its consideration to the September 3 meeting to adopt the Resolutions relating to the General Plan and EIR. This will allow the City Council more time to analyze all of the material in order to ensure that your direction has been incorporated into the document. RECOMMENDATION The Development Services Department is recommending that the City Council continue its consideration of the General Plan Update and related EIR to the September 3, 1996 meeting. ACTION The City Council should continue its deliberation of the General Plan Update and EIR to the September 3, 1996 meeting or to another date certain as determined by the City Council. Approved by: IA// ' .!///i/L •nnie Garner, City Manager Pro-Tem Attachments: April 29, April 30, May 14, May 16 and June 25 Planning Commission minutes General Plan Memo August 20, 1996 Page 2 MINUTES via Tr:ji=r1 Arcadia City Planning Commission Monday,April 29,1996 7:00 p.m. at the Community Center Planning Commission proceedings are tape recorded and on file in the office of the Community Development Division. The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in a special session on Monday, April 29, 1996 at 7:01 p.m. at the Community Center of the Arcadia City Hall, 365 W. Campus Drive,with Chairman Robert Daggett presiding. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Bell,Huang,Kalemkiarian,Kovacic,Murphy, Sleeter,Daggett ABSENT: None SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butler distributed additional correspondence that was received today. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS(5 MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) None • OTHERS ATTENDING: STAFF: Council Member Dennis Lojeski City Attorney Michael Miller Community Development Administrator Donna Butler CONSULTANTS: Lloyd Zola,LSA Associates Rob Balen,LSA Associates Margaret Sohagi,Freilich,Kaufman,Fox&Sohagi 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (GPU) AND RELATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIR) A. Supplemental Staff Report Regarding Procedure - Consideration of concurrent hearings regarding Draft General Plan Update Transition Area One(Santa Anita Commercial Entertainment Area)and Santa Anita Specific Plan. B. Staff report regarding Draft General Plan Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report. pcminute/42996 • Ms. Butler indicated that tonight is the first of several nights that both the City Council and Planning Commission will hold public hearings on the GPU and the DEIR. The meetings are important because the Commission's input will help the City in adopting a GPU which will serve as the foundation upon which all future land use decisions will be based upon. She introduced the consultants, special legal counsel and the City Attorney. Mr. Miller remarked that Arcadia has established a true tradition on holding orderly public hearings. The primary reason for this public hearing is to get the facts and to fmd out the citizens thoughts and concerns. If someone is a spokesperson for a group, or someone's position has been adequately stated please use discretion and do not reiterate. However, if you feel you'd like to participate,please do. Those representing a group or a common position should try to appoint a spokesperson. He introduced Margaret Sohagi, who is the special Counsel with the law firm of Freilich, Kaufman, Fox& Sohagi and explained that Ms. Sohagi has read the documents and has provided Staff with legal guidance. Ms. Butler read a letter that was received by the Development Services Department at 2:50 p.m. today from Santa Anita Realty Enterprises. She read the letter in full for the audience and distributed copies to the Commission and had copies available for the public. The letter in part stated that: "The Santa Anita Realty Ent. has been evaluating the prospects of developing an entertainment center within the 120-acre area south of the Santa Anita Racetrack for over a year. A draft Specific Plan was submitted to the City in February which outlined a proposed development program for the property over a 10 year period We hoped that the submitted plans would address the needs of Arcadia and would be welcomed by the community. In the course of the last few months as the City moved forward with the GPU, we continued to assess the prospects of moving forward with our plans. Due to a number of factors including community reaction to the scale of the project and the financial exposure we felt would be entailed in meeting the conditions likely to be imposed on the project of such scale, we have decided to withdraw our application and re-assess the circumstances pursuant to which we would be willing to proceed with development of the site. This was not an easy decision. We have expended a tremendous amount of time, effort and resources to get to this point. More importantly, we are all well aware of and truly grateful for all of the support we have received over the past year from the large number of Arcadia citizens who are excited about the prospects of bringing additional retail and entertainment uses to the community. While we regret that we can not proceed under the current plan, it is our desire to return in the future with a well-conceived, economically viable project that we, they city, and the community as a whole, will embrace. We believe the GPU should go forward, and that if anything, the withdrawal of our specific plan may reduce some of the confusion that has arisen concerning the appropriate detail of the GP. We also believe that the Commercial Entertainment Designation proposed for the Santa Anita property is an important step in establishing sufficient flexibility to accommodate appropriately-designed future uses in the area, and that the alternative development densities which have been identified in the current plan, aptly cover the range of choices available to the decision makers and the community as a whole. Sincerely, T.D.Austin." Ms. Butler indicated that in response to expressions from the citizens and organizations, Staff had originally recommended in the Staff report prepared for tonight, that the Planning Commission consider combining the GPU hearing on Transition Area 1. the Santa Anita property, with the future public hearings on the specific plan and zone change on the subject property. Staff felt the Specific Plan and Transition Area 1 should be considered at the same time when the EIR would be available which was anticipated to be in June/July. As a result of Santa Anita 's withdrawal of their application. Staff is now recommending that after the City's report tonight, the public hearing be opened, and testimony be received from everyone who wishes to address the Planning Commission; and then to set aside a specific night to focus on the issue of Transition Area 1 and continue the public hearing to Tuesday night and after Tuesday night's hearing,to Thursday.May 16th. She went on to say that prior to receiving this letter, Staff was going to recommend that the Commission pull Transition Area 1 from consideration and discussion and consider it along with the Specific Plan EIR but in light of the withdrawal, Staff feels that a special hearing should be scheduled to discuss Transition Area 1. May 16th is the next free night that the Community Center is Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 2 4/29/96 • 0 available. The City needs to move ahead with the GPU and does not want to stop this process. The City is not un er any legal mandates to do this within a certain period of time. Commissioner Kovacic could not understand why discussion of Transition Area 1 should be continued to another date and felt that is merely delaying the opportunity for the people that are present to.speak. Ms. Butler recommended taking testimony from anyone who would like to speak tonight and tomorrow night. The May 16th meeting would be an additional night and opportunity for the public to express their comments. She explained that the Commission has several options: • The Commission can decide to look at alternatives for the Transition Area 1 site - as suggested by the EIR • After receiving testimony, the Commission can consider if they want to make any changes at this time or wait until a future date Mr. Miller said Staff is not trying to take away any of the discretion or input from the public but merely deferring this until May 16th, as far as decision making, due to the short notice from the withdrawal. At the May 16th meeting, the Commission can procedurally or substantively make the determination regarding the land use of Transition Area 1. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to continue the hearing .m April 30, 1996 to Thursday, May 16, 1996, to discuss Transition Area 1. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Bell, Huang, Kalemkiarian,Kovacic, Murphy, Sleeter, Daggett NOES: None Chairman Daggett explained the procedure for tonight's hearing. Staff will present the reports and the Commission will then have the opportunity to ask questions. Following the Commission's questions, the public hearing will be opened and testimony taken. He noted that he would call names from the Speaker Cards and that person can then approach the microphone and speak. There were some cards submitted on April 10th meeting and those persons would be called upon first. If anyone would like to speak tonight and has a Speaker Card,they can hold it up and the Secretary will pick them up and turn it into the Chair. Ms. Butler presented the Staff report: '%fr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, in March 1995 when the City Council authorized the Development Services Department(DSD) to proceed with the GPU, the city selected the fire of LSA Associates to prepare the GPU and related EIR. In addition, the city contracted with Agajanian and Associates to prepare a Fiscal Impact Report(FIR) to assess the fiscal impact of the GPU upon the city's budget. Even though LSA Associates prepared the documents, both the GP and the draft FIR were independently reviewed by all city departments, by special legal council, and by city consultants hirCd expressly to review the traffic issues and the water, sewage, and drainage technical studies. This process began back in March of 1995. The first meeting on the GP actually took place in May of 1995, at which time the city held a community workshop at the Center here. The purpose of the workshop was to receiJJ�e input from the community in identifying A ing what the citizens perceive as their vision of the city's future. n initial study which is a preliminary analyses to determine whether an Environmental Impact Report Ain negative declaration, must be prepared for project, was completed by LSA Associates in conjunction with city Staff to identify the potential environmental effects of the proposed GPU. As a result of the initial study, it was determined that an EIR would be completed. On December 26, 1995, a Notice of Preparation (NP)for the draft EIR was distributed to all responsible agencies, public and State agencies, and persons expressing interest regarding the GPU, inviting comments on the GPU. A revised NP was mailed on January 8 to the same persons, documenting revisions to the project description. Comments received on the NP have been addressed as part of the draft EIR. On July 19, a Joint Public Hearing was held before Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 3 4/29/96 the Planning Commission (PC) and the City Council (CC) to discuss the formulation of alternatives, to be addressed in the draft EIR and the GPU. At this meeting, potential GP alternatives were presented to the PC and the CC, whose comments were considered in formulating the recommended GP Land Use Map and the alternatives that are presented and have been analyzed in the draft EIR. The Notice of Completion ('VC)for the draft GPU, E1R, and the GPU were distributed to all adjacent cities, agencies, and interested persons on February 21 of this year. The public review period for the draft E1R was February 21 -April S. This date was extended through April 10 to coincide with the PC's hearing and continued to April 23. Tonight's meeting actually was continued from April 23, and notification of tonight's meeting was mailed on April 18th and 19th to approximately 18,000 property owners, interested persons, and agencies. Notification of tonight's meeting was also included in articles in the Star News and various other newspapers. The Staff Report has been organized into four sections: the GPU, the FIR, the Fiscal Report, and the Planning Commission Action. Lloyd Zola will present a comprehensive overview of the GPU and Rob Balen will provide a synopsis of the draft EIR. Lloyd Zola,LSA Associates, 3403 10th St., #520, Riverside, said his fur was retained by the City to prepare the GPU and EIR. Mr. Zola explained both his and LSA's experience and qualifications. The City's Community Mission Statement,adopted in 1993, was used as the basis for all of the text in the GPU because: • this document is a long-term policy statement • a statement of community vision;and • how the City will achieve that vision The statement describes Arcadia as a"community of homes, top-quality neighborhoods, high level of services and that the high level of services residents and businesses enjoy, is supported by the commercial vitality of the community." The funding for the high level of service is from the commercial uses in the City. Mr. Zola explained the seven mandatory elements of the GP: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Open Space, Conservation, Safety and Noise. Because State law was adopted over a period of many years, each of the individual requirements for these elements in GP tend to overlap each other. The proposed GP has been organized in a manner that fits the community and not necessarily by the specific elements. The GP also includes an implementation and monitoring program. The GP is not a benign document that gets put away once all the hearings have been conducted and it has been adopted. The GP, by State law, is the lead document in terms of planning and development review the"Constitution for Development of a Community" and subsequent actions and development projects are intended to be consistent with this policy statement as it will ultimately be adopted. The GP is "what the City Council,Planning Commission and its citizens expect in temps of new development". Several letters asked why the GP was being adopted, since one was adopted in 1990? The reasons are listed below: 1. The portion of the GP dealing with the provision of housing is by law to be updated every five years. 2. State law requires that the Land Use and Circulation Elements be correlated; that the amount of land use and the street system fit together. The 1990 GP did not update the traffic figures compared to land use figures. It is now time to make certain that there is a correlation between land use and circulation. As part of this process, they analyzed how much traffic will be generated by the land use map as it is being recommended, and what roadways are necessary to support that land use to update the data base. 3. In order to support the level of services that is desired, how much income producing land, sales Transition Area x, job creating land does the community need. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 4 ' 4/29/96 LSA met with City departments including Planning, Maintenance Services, Engineering, Police and Fire in preparing this document. The GP was a compilation of not only the consultants but also City Staff. The recommendation is tha the GP land use as it exists today,remain the same and not be changed, however, four areas were identified that have a potential for land use change. By putting a designation on the map does not mean that-a project is approved. This process is looking at long term policy of identifying what State law requires, what are the appropriate land uses throughout the community, in what areas and intensity. The GP law now requires(which it did not in 1990)that not only an area have a special designation but that each category on the map have a maximum intensity. In essence then the policy states not only the appropriate land use but also the maximum intensity of the use. This,however,does not commit the City to approve projects at the maximum intensity on the land use map. If the 24 units per acre is adopted for the multiple-family zone, the City is not committed to approve a project at 24 units per acre. Any project that comes before the City will be reviewed for consistency with the policies of the plan. He explained each Transition Area : Transition Area 1 -Santa Anita Property This area has generated the most interest in the community. Transition Area 1 was included because of the potential for change and not just because there was an application before the City. In the long term, the tendency in any city is that costs rise faster than revenue, and with declining revenues at the race track, City revenues have been declining. If the City was to expand income-producing uses, it would have to decide whether to expand the amount of land devoted to uses such as commercial/industrial, that generate more net income to City. The race track has the potential for housing uses or carrying uses that create net revenue to the community. What the GP will do when ultimately approved is identify the City's policy towards land use. There are two options: 1. The Planning Commission can maintain the existing GP for Transition Area 1, in effect saying to them to come back with another project because at this time they are not contemplating a change;or 2. To address, approve or recommend to the City Council, a different designation, and set a series of rules for the property owner to follow. Staff and consultants will assist both the City Council and the Planning Commission in determining what is th appropriate maximum density. intensity and how much can be built on the site. Transition Area 2-Santa Clara&Huntington The area along Santa Clara and Huntington Dr. is a mixed use area with odd parcel configurations. The existing uses there are reflective of a mixture of commercial types and there is also a potential for senior housing. The Commission is b ing asked to determine the appropriate long-term land use. Transition Area 3-Downtown Residential Area This area is comprised of the area south of the downtown. Several letters addressed this area and why the density is being raised from 7 du/ac to 24 or 30 du/ac and why are apartments being proposed? He explained that presently the GP designates this area as "multiple-family residential/7+". There is no maximum in the GP for Transition Area 3. The recommendation is that a maximum density be imposed in this area. He went on to say that this area is now designated as "multiple-family" and it is evident that the area is already well into the process of conversion from single-family homes to multiple-family units and the recommendation is permit the continuation and completion of that process of conversion. It is the belief of both the consultants and staff that in terms of meeting the City's objectives and goals under the Housing Element, to provide a sense of equity through that area and simply to complete what has already begun,that the multi-family categories are the appropriate ones for this area. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 5 4/29/96 He explained that State law requires that every community provide it's fair share of low and moderate income housing for its community. The term"moderate income"means"average income". Transition Area 4-Rodeffer Inert Landfill This area is along Lower Azusa Rd. The GP recommends that the areas on the north and south side of Lower Azusa Rd. be designated and remain as "industrial" which is the current designation in the GP. To the north of Lower Azusa Rd. there is an abandoned mining pit which will be filled over a long period of years and the"industrial" designation would be the appropriate designation for the land fill operation. Staff believes that once it is filled,"industrial"would be the best land use for the area. As part of the EIR, Staff considered alternatives such as residential and because of potential impacts on schools, access patters to eliminate traffic through residential neighborhoods to the west, and for the safety of children living in the area and not forcing them onto Lower Azusa Rd. and considering that there are existing industrial and mining uses in said area, that"industrial" is the appropriate designation. The EIR which was prepared looks at the impact of the GP including traffic, noise and the air quality emissions. He introduced Rob Balen of LSA Associates who would discuss the EIR. Rob Balen,LSA Associates, One Park Plaza,#1,Irvine, said he is the principal planner with LSA. The GP/EIR has been devised to provide the public and the decision makers with an analysis of the environmental effects and the land use changes as described by Mr.Zola. The document also provides mitigation measures to alleviate impacts created by land use changes: The GP is written with policies and development standards that will reduce the level of impacts. The EIR is a disclosure document affording the community and the public agencies the ability to review the environmental effects of the land use changes. This document describes the: • Objectives of the GPU • Environmental setting • Analysis of impacts relating to the action The document points out potential land use impacts and inconsistencies, and provides mitigation requiring separation of uses, setbacks, especially in Transition Area 1 where there is the potential for a large amount of development to occur. Population and Housing Increases that would be brought about by changes in land use and the GPU are well within regional and city-wide planning objectives and are consistent with those,therefore,there are no impacts in the areas of Population and Housing. Traffic and Circulation A screening process was done to determine what lengths of roadway within the City might exceed their capacity if development were to occur as projected in the GPU. Staff projected into the future the amount of traffic generated by the land use changes. along with additional"background growth" - which is the normal growth in traffic that any community in this area experiences over time. The two were combined and they came up with a large number of roadway links that required further study. It was determined in the analysis that"Michillinda Ave."which is already exceeding the roadway design capacity would get worse and the EIR calls that a significant impact. The EIR projects that there would be significant impacts with regard to air quality, construction and long-term development. The EIR analysis uses future traffic projects and emissions (from mostly automobiles), and adds them to the existing air quality conditions. It also addresses alternatives to the project such as"no-build alternative", "no-project alternative", and"alternatives in addition to those analyzed". Alternative one would be a lesser commercial development in Transition Area 1, with increased residential throughout the community; alternative two is development at the full 1.5 million sq. ft in Transition Area 1 and a lesser degree of residential in other areas; and alternative three is a 1.5 million sq. ft in Transition Area 1 and an even smaller number of residential units in the other areas. . The EIR indicates that the environmentally superior alternative is the "no Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 6 4/29/96 • project/no build", which is generally the case in all EIRs. However, the EIR points out that the GPU impacts would actually be less than those impacts in the"no project/no build". In response to a question from Commissioner Murphy. Mr. Zola said the recommendation is for approximately 670 new dwelling units of senior and affordable housing in Transition Area 2 and Transition Area 3. Mr. Balen explained that"affordable housing" is a generic term for housing that is affordable to either very low/low or moderate income households or households having either average or less-than-average incomes within the Los Angeles County. Mr. Zola explained that the seven elements mentioned in the beginning of his presentation are ones that the GP must address. In page 1-9,there is a summary of the law for the seven mandated elements, and beginning on page 1-10, in the left hand column is a listing of every issue that must be addressed. With the exception of the "Housing Element" where State law states that there must be a good-faith effort, that the community accept its fair-share of housing for all economic segments of thell community, State law is specific as to the issues that must be addressed but not to the point of dictating what the policies should be. There are no requirements relative to fiscal impact analysis as part of this procedure. Commissioner Kovacic asked why the 7 du/ac is being eliminated and replaced with 24 du/au and 30 du/au He asked for a list of projects that have the 24 and 30 du/au so the Commission will see the scale. Mr. Zola said 12 to 24 du/ac seems to be the density of the new projects that are being constructed. Appendix A, Exhibit 2, entitled"Results of Target-Area Survey"under Utilized Residential Parcels of the GP identifies addresses throughout the City but this section does not include actual number of units per acre for all the individual sites. He explained they anticipated a household growth of 300 units. This number was derived by determining how many new households will be formd within the community and how many households would the City need to provide for? SCAG reviewed both the GP and EIR and concurred with the household projections used in the"Housing Element" as being consistent with regional policy. The 290 units refers to projected needs. The 670 figure used earlier was"build-out". In response to a question by Commissioner Kalemkiarian,Mr.Zola said that the term"community"in State law really is intended to mean "county". In the "Housing Element" and "Appendix A" what has been as "very low income, low income. moderate income, upper income" is based on the County's median income. According to the 1990 Census, 28%of the households in the community have incomes that are 80%or less than the county average. Based on Table A-6, Arcadia currently provides for 28% of the existing housing in Arcadia for"low and very low" incomes. In Chapter 2,Page 2-33, it says that 93 of the 2910 households would be"very low or low" incomes, which is almost 28%or almost 1/3. The change in this area would increase the economic viability of the downtown area and also meet the City's housing objectives for "low" and "moderate" income housing. By increasing the density in Transition Area 3 to 30 du/ac, the maximum density would be increased from 24 to 36 du/ac, thus. reducing land cost, infrastructure cost, per unit, and help make those units more affordable. This would make it easy to provide market rate housing, non-subsidized housing, affordable to households having incomes in the "very low, low d moderate" income ranges. Without that increase in density, it wile be difficult to demonstrate to the State Department of Housing and Community Development that the City can meet its housing objectives. He explained the process in reviewing the"Housing Element". The State Department of Housing and Community Development reviews the housing portion of the plan and makes comments/recommendations. The City Council and Planning Commission adopt the document with or without revisions to meet State housing law. After adoption, the element is returned to the Department of Housing and Community Development and is returned back with more comments. In answer to a question by Commissioner Murphy, Mr. Zola replied that any development project that requires consistency with the GP can be denied if there is a tie back to the Housing Element that is not adequate. The worst case scenario might be if the City is sued and a court determines the appropriate Housing Element for the City, in which case the City would find ftself in court with the California Department of Housing and Community Development dictating where and at what density housing in the community should be placed. In reply to an inquiry about the Fiscal Impact Report,Ms. Butler said that a summary of the report would be provided to the PC at the next meeting. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 7 4/29/96 Mr. Zola explained that Agajanian and Associates were retained by the City to prepare the Fiscal Impact Report. They looked at the existing and future city costs, maintain the same level of services as today; such as police, fire, parks and recreation, 20 years in the future. They reviewed existing and past city budgets and projected costs into. the future, looked at revenues, property Transition Area x, sales Transition Area x and other types of subventions that as a community get based on population, business license fees and projected those out into the future for the GP as it is proposed, looking at both within the existing city limits as well as the City's sphere of influence. Table 3 summarizes costs and services by types of land uses for the various revenue areas: various cost areas; for single-family residential; multi-family residential; commercial other than commercial/entertainment and hotel uses; as well as industrial. A specific analysis was done for commercial/entertainment uses. Table 4 summarizes the fiscal impact for the GP and there are 3 scenarios listed there: • Scenario A-the GP with commercial/entertainment at 1.5 million square feet of new use • Scenario B -the GP as proposed with 975,000 sq.ft. of new commercial/entertainment use • Scenario C-the GP as proposed with 600,000 sq.ft. of new commercial/entertainment use. The net revenue to the City without annexing the sphere of influences is much greater than with them because the sphere of influences are nearly exclusively residential, and residential (with the exception of expensive homes) costs more in services than it raises directly in revenue. Without incorporating or annexing sphere areas that are residential, the fiscal picture is much better. All three scenarios include a commercial/entertainment use and with any of these scenarios, the GP as proposed, does yield in the long term, net revenue to the City, which in average times would translate into the City being able to put money into capital funds for replacement of major buildings with a good reserve in lean times. Over the long term,the City would break even and in good times there will be a surplus that would be needed at slow times. Commissioner Huang remarked that although crime is not a State mandated element, he felt strongly that it should be addressed in the GP. He was surprised by the statistics in the report that with the exception of auto theft,that most of the crime has declined within the past few years and said he did not have that impression. The report also indicates that the Police Department is working at its maximum capacity and that additional Staffmg is needed,yet,based on this report, crime has not been presented as a major problem. He requested an explanation and the result of the study. Mr. Zola responded by saying that as part of the preparation of the GP, EIR and Final EIR (FEIR), there were a substantial number of meetings held with City Staff including the Police Dept. regarding police needs over time and what would be required to maintain the level of service and to maintain a situation where crime is kept under control: In looking at projected costs for the City in the future, they looked at what size Police Dept. would be needed, the cost of the Dept., what would be their needs in terms of facilities,operating costs,and ongoing equipment replacement which has all been incorporated into the FEIR. In response to questions from Commissioner Sleeter, Mr. Zola said this a GP and not a zoning change. In areas where the maximum density is 24 du/ac,the GP reflects that and the zoning in those areas will not be changed. Commissioner Sleeter indicated that he will be absent from the May 16th meeting and said there was no mention in the.GP or in the EIR of the traffic,regarding the impact of shifting parking from the southern parking lot to the northern parking lot, which is essentially currently unused, except for on the biggest race days, and the concomitant increase that traffic will have on Colorado Pl. and Colorado Blvd. as the logical exit areas from that parking lot. Commissioner Bell asked if there will be further study of the additional housing and its effects on the schools and how the City intends to provide classrooms,teachers and education for the additional residents. Mr. Zola replied that in the EIR Staff projected the number of new students that would be generated out of residential, commercial/industrial/entertainment uses and existing capacity within Arcadia Unified School District. The GP also includes a "concurrence policies" which requires each individual project to mitigate all of its impacts and provide facilities as necessary to account for the number of students or the amount of traffic. The GP requires full mitigation of any subsequent project of school impacts. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 8 4/29/96 Ms. Butler responded to a question by Chairman Daggett by saying that all the adjoining cities were notified of the proposed changes and received the Notice of Preparation and were invited to make any comments. She said the County of Los Angeles. Sierra Madre, Pasadena.Monrovia, Irwindale,El Monte and San Marino were all notified. Chairman Daggett explained the rules for the public hearing. He said that "all interested parties are encouraged to participate: however, remarks should be kept as brief as possible, and written evidence will be received and considered including all letters that were received. Speakers are urged to avoid repetition and those who are representing a group or common position should try to appoint a spokesperson. An orderly process is required. Speaker cards have been distributed and tonight's meeting will be continued to tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. at the Arcadia Community Center. However, the meeting tomorrow night will not be televised. He indicated that he will be calling names from persons who filed cards at the April 10th meeting. When approaching the microphone.please speak directly into it and state your name and address for the record. He called Mr. Nicholas Tomchuk to the microphone. Nicholas Tomchuk, 431 W. Naomi Ave., spoke against any change in the GP that would allow the development of any entertainment center or like commercial construction. Specifically, he did not think there should be any land use change in the Santa Anita Race Track area. The best quality of life for all residents and their children is zero development. These is no need for commercial development in Arcadia and they need to preserve the qualities that make Arcadia a desirable place Ito live. Any entertainment center will have millions of visitors per year, bringing with it gang members, drugs and guns - all bf which are inevitable which in turn will invite violence, drive-by shootings, murder and other forms of violence: Based on what has been heard, an entertainment center means a lot of changes in the traffic patterns and perhaps widening of streets and busier streets. Who would want to live on a busy street? Homes on busy streets have lower property values so this would be a guarantee that property values would decline. He felt that Santa Anita Realty is only interested in the profits it will earn in developing the property and are not concerned with the quality of life in Arcadia. They are not interested in paying taxes. Their basic interest in that property is investment and that precludes true caring for citizens of Arcadia. Based on the testimony by the consultants and Staff, they are recommending that the GP for this property be changed to accommodate different sizes of an entertainment center and there seems to be no suggestion of zero growth. Leave things as they are presently which would be better for the rest of the citizens. Several times it was mentioned the increased revenues from this. but should we be selling the quality of Arcadia citizens for quality of life? The citizens want to maintain in their quality of life. He was surprised that 28%lower income is not enough and thought it was plenty and asked why they should be providing more and stressed that this again would decrease the quality of life. He suggested minimizing housing density,people and the revenues that will go for the upkeep to improve the quality of life. He urged the Commission to maintain in the zero growth community and keep Arcadia as a"Community of Homes". Earle Steck, 831 San Simeon, spoke against the entertainment center. Forty five years ago the race track made the same move as tonight and at that time it was called the"World Transportation Fair". The residents organized the"Arcadia Residents League" and after a long series of hearings the proposition was defeated. He was amazed that this large book that was thrown together with all these"experts" failed to mention this very important part of history because that was supposed to settle the of no nighttime activity at the race track. The plan mentions noise, lights and traffic and said there would have to be factors" but those were not defined. The racetrack in its presentation said that the initial uses focus on family-oriented entertainment and that the later phase of the project would accommodate additional entertainment uses. He indicated that there has been no limitation of"entertainment". He was astonished because he felt that "entertainment' comes in many different packages and even though it will all bring in revenues are they all consistent with"Community of Homes"? The residents have tolerated the gamblers because they are not here everyday and they go home at night but what this is proposing is that the"party" doesn't begin until night time. The noise, traffic,bright lights and the crowd that has paid a lot of money for entertainment is not about to tiptoe through the City so as not to disturb anyone. This is not a"Community of Homes" and Arcadia is rot a beggar standing on the corner with a tin cup, waiting for who can drop the most coins regardless of what they bring with them. The big issue is that should Arcadia remain a"Community of Homes" or should it become some type of carnival complex? He did not think that neither the City Council nor the Commission should be making that type of a decision of the local gambling facility. This is a decision that should rest with the residents of the City and there should never be an entertainment complex in this City except upon the vote of the people who are the ones that have the most at stake; their property values and lifestyles are at stake and they should be the ones making that decision. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 9 4/29/96 7 1 • David Saldana, Planning and Building Director, City of San Marino, 2200 Huntington Dr., San Marino. He was present to represent the interests of the citizens of the City of San Marino. The proposed entertainment center is of great concern to many of the residents of San Marino. Regardless of the contention that a separate EIR will be prepared for the entertainment complex, the impact of the land use change must be addressed in the GP EIR. After the NOP was distributed, San Marino requested that a traffic analysis include Huntington Dr., California Blvd., and San Gabriel Blvd. within San Marino city limits but this was not reflected in the EIR and did not go beyond Arcadia borders, therefore, impacts to the adjacent cities were not reflected in the report. He questioned if the personnel who conducted the traffic study were adequately qualified and felt that a Traffic Engineering Consultant was not retained to conduct that study. He asked what specific traffic mitigation measures have been proposed in or near the city limits of San Marino? He requested that a traffic distribution diagram be provided. Noise which would also increase within his City was not addressed. San Marino has many attractive homes and burdening those residents with added traffic and noise generated by development in surrounding cities is unacceptable. One main concern is late evening noise. The EIR concludes that Arcadia will be able to accommodate the needed police and fire services at GP build-out without any additional safety personnel and felt that this conclusion has been accomplished without any visible supporting data. This development will attract a significantly large number of people and vehicles from outside the City of Arcadia city limits and many of whom will be traveling through surrounding communities. The EIR also fails to recognize this. He asked that the concerns would be addressed in the EIR. Chairman Daggett called Mr. Gene Moscaret who was not present. He then called Stuart Boss, David Huntoon, Mark Persico from the City of El Monte. Harold Johanson, Community.Development Director, City of El Monte, 11333 Valley Blvd., El Monte, said Mr. Persico could not attend tonight's meeting; therefore;he attended in his place. He read a statement prepared by Mark Persico. He was certain that Ms.Butler prepared the best she could given the short notice, thus, their comments read from the letter do not reflect the new changes. He incorporated comments from April 5th letter. In summary,the comments discussed: 1. That the Draft EIR did not contain an adequate project description relative to Transition Area 4, otherwise known as the Rodeffer Inert Landfill project. 2. The Draft EIR did not contain an adequate environmental setting by its failure to acknowledge the wetlands that are on the site 3. The Draft EIR failed to consult with all the responsible agencies including the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers His comments tonight focused more on the inadequacies of the Draft GP relative to Transition Area 4, the Rodeffer site. He pointed_out that the traffic analysis conducted for Transition Area 1, the Santa Anita Entertainment Complex is inadequate because it fails to address the traffic impacts on El Monte or the region. This traffic analysis is particularly important along Santa Anita Area Ave. and Baldwin Ave. in El Monte. The two existing regional facilities;the Santa Anita Fashion Park and the race track; impact both of the above north/south major arterials. The GP does not contain an adequate description of the existing community context for Transition Area 4 and fails to discuss the large residential neighborhood to the west in El Monte. El Monte has always been concerned that there would be a full, fair and an objective evaluation of all the impacts of the use and the reclamation of the Rodeffer site and that the large residential neighborhood immediately adjacent to the site be acknowledged. They believe the Draft EIR fails to fully evaluate the impacts of the use and re-use of the Rodeffer site on the El Monte residential area. The GP contains good strategies for defining future land uses on pages 2-36 & 37, Community Development Strategies CD5 to protect the character of the existing residential neighborhoods, CD7 to ensure that the new development within the areas designated as transitional land use areas are compatible with concepts identified in the GP Land Use Element. However,the City of El Monte believes that these two strategies have been ignored by Arcadia's decision to develop Transition Area 4 as industrial. The Draft EIR contains an analysis of three alternatives with Transition Area 4. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 10 4/29/96 i 1. Residential developments of 600 units 2. Residential developments of 300 units and a public facility/park 3. Residential developments of 35 units and a public facility/park The above alternatives seem to be dismissed rather quickly because Arcadia feels that residential area is too separated from the main portion of the City without adequate city services which would lead to housing deterioration and lack of long term investment in this residential neighborhood. The Draft EIR concludes that none of those alternatives are better than existing industrial land designation. El Monte believes that this conclusion is incorrect and disagrees. There are services such as police services that are currently provided along Lower Azusa Rd. in Transition Area 4. Also, the City's Public Works yard is closer to Transition Area 4 than to the main portion of Arcadia. Also, the cities of El Monte and Arcadia have a mutual aid fire service agreement. El Monte believes that a moderate density housing development containing 75 to 100 dwelling units is one of the best uses in Transition Area 4. Further, the Draft EIR fails to recognize that an inert landfill with an 8-12 year life span would create physical deterioration upon the residential neighborhood in El Monte which will ultimately lead to long term disinvestment in an existing well established and maintain neighborhood. He discussed the Housing Element and the City's acknowledgment that Arcadia can't provide enough housing to meet the City's housing needs. The GP defines the need through the year 2000 as to 290 total dwelling units but the plan only anticipates the construction of 218 dwelling units. This shortfall is in part created by the City's decision to not allow housing development within Transition Area 4. If Transition Area 4 was developed as housing,the City's housing needs could conceivabl be met. In summary,El Monte believes that the Arcadia GP and Draft EIR are inadequate'and has failed for the following reasons: 1. To recognize the long term well established El Monte residential neighborhood west of Transition Area 4 2. To consider a moderate density housing development in Transition Area 4 3. To meet the housing needs that Arcadia must fulfill 4. To be internally consistent with respect to community development strategies CD5 and CD7. Dick Martinez, 301 W. Magna Vista.. He spoke against the change for Transition Area 1. He concurred with previous speakers in expressing the concerns of the community. He was alarmed and concerned that the race track has all of a sudden withdrawn their application. He felt although they were pulling their applications they still wanted the City to go ahead with the GP change and later would return with another proposal and at that time it would be too late to convert it back to the current zoning. He thought this is a basic strategy on their part. Mr.Zola discussed the"Mission Statement" and it is the Commission's obligation to address that issue which states that"it is to provide for the quality of a residential area for the community",not a commercial area and not the Hollywood/San Gabriel area. This is a community of homes which is the City's motto. Most of the traffic would be going through where all the kids are in school and the kids would be exposed to more traffic not only during the day but also at night. He recommended that the Commission not make any changes. Victor Ceporius, 32 E. Camino Real, spoke in favor of the entertainment center. He felt this is the most logical, sensible thing that he has heard in the city. He felt the remarks about crime and traffic are spreading fear rumors to get people all excited and against something. There has go to be common sense in this community. This is private enterprise company, fulfilling all of code requirements, investing their money to develop a project that will benefit the City through Transition Area taxes and provide enjoyment for the citizens of the city. There are so many people yelling and screaming about how awful the proposal is. He said he was almost ashamed for the city. Chairman Daggett called Barbara Cogomo, Colleen Doan. Colleen Doan,422 N. Gerona Ave., San Gabriel. She said she is a planning consultant who has worked as a planner in California for thirteen years. She has worked with in the cities of Pasadena, Ontario and Torrance in planning and redevelopment and has worked and consulted for private companies such as Urban Design Studio who did the City's Downtown 2000 design. She has also worked with Mr.Zola. She is representing"Neighbors for Arcadia" and other concerned residents in the City. She formally represents some 4,000+concerned citizens,who may or may not agree with the GP or the analysis of the EIR. However, they are Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 11 4/29/96 united in that they have interest and concerns and wish to express and debate within the public hearing format. She explained that her experience in working as a consultant has usually been to go into various cities by default at the last minute.build bridges and put out fires, try to fmd out how the city operates and very little input usually from city Staff This has been her expertise and she was baffled by the City of Arcadia. She was confused and was unclear with what was Staff's recommendation. Her duties are to explain the process to the "Neighbors-for Arcadia"; to review, analyze and explain in simple terms the GP and EIR and related documents; to express the citizen's concerns to the City Council, Planning Commission and Staff. She was surprised with Santa Anita's sudden withdrawal of their application and felt that no doubt, soon, they will reapply with a different application. She contacted them and discovered that they are very much committed and have spent a lot of time fording investors for this project for several years. She was confused as to whether it is a good idea to proceed with the land use designation change,when all along,her group has felt that that is Santa Anita's obligation. She went on to say that her group has felt that the GP for Transition Area 1 should not considered as part of this procedure and should be reviewed with their development application. They are requesting that concurrent analysis of specific information which would be available with the project specific EIR and Specific Plan for Santa Anita be reviewed concurrent with any consideration of any land use change by the City. They felt it would be appropriate for Santa Anita to reduce the maximum intensity for Transition Area 1 below the 600,000 sq. ft. that was analyzed, to limit the broad range of uses in Transition Area 1 and to reduce the area proposed for commercial/entertainment land use designation, so that only a portion of the Santa Anita property would be included. They want more citizen involvement through the establishment of a "Citizen Participation • Committee"which would review the GP and EIR for any upcoming Santa Anita application. In her experience, she has had a lot of luck with this type of a committee which not only allows input from the City, it allows issues to be hashed out, not necessarily in a public hearing type atmosphere, and results in dealing with smaller groups of people who are not frustrated, angry or emotional. She requested a response from the items included by her in the April 10 meeting packet. These topics represent conflicting, missing, mistaken, or illogical assumptions and information within the EIR. Some of the items might be resolved or compounded by future information from Santa Anita, if it is submitted from their project EIR. She went on to say that even though it has been stated that the land use vision for Santa Anita property and the GP were formulated independent of the application by Santa Anita , they submitted an application, at the same time, that this area was included in the GP. The City Council will be considering at its next meeting, the large amounts of money that has been spent for the preparation and analysis of the E1R,beyond what was initially anticipated for the GP,prior to the inclusion of Transition Area 1. Although the Planning Commission will not be making decisions regarding expenditures, they can recommend excluding Transition Area 1 from GP and allowing it to come forward with the submitted GP amendment application filed by Santa Anita. If Santa Anita does not chose to file an application, why should the City spearhead changing the Transition Area for them? The Commission's recommendation could provide additional direction to the City Council, as to what, if any, additional expense should be footed by the taxpayer and not at all by Santa Anita, unless this requested land use change becomes the obligation of Santa Anita rather than the City's. The draft EIR prepared for the GP identifies numerous areas where significant, potentially significant, and possible unavoidable negative impacts, could be further identified or even mitigated, if project significant information were available. Although GPs do not generally include such specific information, due to their general nature, in this special circumstance where there is a project application, how can an accurate and informed policy decision be made regarding the land use designation for Transition Area 1 by the City without benefit of the specific information? She believed that the race track peak level traffic should be analyzed in the EIR. Races run from October to April, 5 days a week/5 hours a day. Much of the major traffic congestion throughout the City is related to race season traffic. To ignore the amount and duration of traffic related to horse racing in this City, while attempting to study traffic impacts for development on the Santa Anita property, is to leave out an extremely important and essential factor. In summary, she said that that the following are clear to her: • The request for GP change for Transition Area 1 is Santa Anita's obligation,both financially and during the review process • Separating Transition Area 1 from this process and having it come forward with the Santa Anita development will allow relevant information to be reviewed by the City. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 12 4/29/96 Harold Kidd, 416 Magellan Rd., addressed the traffic in the GP and asked how could Michillinda Ave. be classified as a secondary arterial -a road that runs from Foothill Blvd. south to Huntington Dr. Baldwin Ave. is also a secondary arterial and this road is from the 210 Freeway south to the 10 Freeway, and goes through several cities. One afternoon he witnessed several trucks traveling through this street. How can Duarte Rd. be classified as a major arterial and Baldwin Ave. a secondary arterial? He contacted the County Public Works Department and spoke to Mr. Greg Kelly who said Michillinda is a secondary arterial. Baldwin Ave. is considered to be a major highway to be widened to 100 ft. He asked why this information has not been included in the GP? He has seen a letter from Mr. Cliff Goodrich who states that when this is fully built-out, it will attract several million people annually through the City and he felt that will definitely cause an impact on the City. William McKinley, 17 W. Sierra Madre Blvd., had several concerns. He discussed the density issue and said recently he was involved with a low-income housing development in the City of Duarte where the density was 9 du/ac and remarked that the units are very close to each other. He expressed concerns with Transition Area 2 where the businesses might have to operate under zoning variances. A commercial/industrial use would be more beneficial as opposed to only commercial use. That would be better for established businesses which could be considered to be of an industrial nature. Judy McKinley, 17 W. Sierra Madre Blvd., felt that Santa Anita should consider putting a major skating facility. Many skaters and hockey players now go to far away cities to enjoy their hobby. With regard to Transition Area 3, she did not think that 24 or 30 du/ac is a reasonable amount and thought it should be reconsidered. Tom Wallace, 1901 Seventh Pl., was opposed to Transition Area 1. Transition Area 2 and Transition Area 3. He was against turning Transition Area 1 into a fun-zone or theme-park with gambling. It will result in extra traffic on the streets and need extra round-the-clock police. With regard to Transition Area 2 he said to have a mixed commercial/multiple-family dsignation, as apartments over storefronts is not in the best interest of a residential community as a whole. This type of a development would quickly deteriorate. He was against Transition Area 3 and increasing density to 24 or 30 du/ac which would be like third world type development which has no place in Arcadia. These proposals, individually and collectively will result in extra traffic. population, density that will exceed the capacity of the existing infrastructures in sewers, streets, utilities, fire and police departments. It will rupture the already strained school system. The changes in the above Transition Area 's will change the City logo from"Arcadia-Community of Homes"to"Arcadia-A City of Urban Blight". Chairman Daggett called Floretta Lauber, John McInerney, James Harvey? None were present or chose to speak. Ralph Bicker, 101 White Oak. was in agreement with all of the speakers with the exception of one. Transition Area 1 with its potential and magnitude for change should be decided by the voters and not decided by the City Council or the Planning Commission. Drew Krynicki, 321 Le Roy, was extremely happy to hear that Santa Anita withdrew its application. Two comments made by them showed much courage. They indicated that the withdrawal was as a result of community opposition and becahse it did not financially feasible. He did not think this to be a tactical move on their part and believed that the project is"dead". Even though he was pleased with the withdrawal of the application, he was concerned that the City would still choose to go ahead with the GP change of Transition Area 1. The EIR offered 3 alternatives to Transition Area 1 and if Santa Anita has withdrawn their application, how can the City proceed to make the change from horse racing to commercial/entertainment. Ms. Butler recommended that the Specific Plan and the GP for Transition Area 1 should be considered at the same time. If that is the case, why will there be a meeting on May 16;there is no specific plan to discuss. Presently, at another race track the horses are housed elsewhere and are brought to the track on race days. Conceivably. this could happen at Santa Anita which would be a logical move for the owners to build a stable facility somewhere else. This could lead to a very significant chain of events�if the zoning of the area is changed. Glenn Watson, 333 S. Hope St., Los Angeles, attorney representing Rodeffer Investment. He discussed Transition Area 4: the mined gravel pit that operated from 1960's to late 1970's -a hole in the ground. This land is 85 acres in size and is about 150- 165 feet deep,has 30'-40' of water in the bottom because groundwater rises and moves into the pit and the other water recedes in the pit. Under State law,the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, this gravel quarry must be filled/reclaimed. Arcadia amended its ordinance in accordance with state law to also require it. His client, Rodeffer Investment has the obligation to reclaim the gravel pit by filling it with the only thing it can be filled with; and that is inert, clean fill, such as broken concrete,gravel, rock and things of that nature. When the fills reach above water, broken asphalt might be put in, but not initially. This is strictly Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 13 I. 4/29/96 i • regulated by the Water Quality Control Board. He submitted two copies of the Waste Discharge Requirements that have been completed under strict regulations by the Water Quality Control Board to prevent any water contamination. He went on to say that this pit must be filled and the law requires them to fill it. Rodeffer must comply with State law: must fill it even though it is an expensive operation. Hopefully, when it is filled and compacted, there will be a nice flat 85 acre compacted, clean, piece of land available for development. Rodeffer is not proposing any industrial development on the site, at this time. They are in agreement with the GP and feel it is appropriate in the long-range view. They anticipate it will take 8-10 years to fill it. He said 10 million cubic yards of material is needed to fill it up. El Monte has been opposed to this and he could not surmise why they took that position. For safety and to comply with State law the pit must be filled. El Monte claims that the GP and EIR have not adequately dealt with and considered the residential area to the west. He was unclear as to how it could be dealt with beyond what the GP and EIR have done. The documents describe it. state the location and that it is located near residential area. Arcadia has been very sensitive to the well-being and environment considerations involved in filling this pit. He said to fill the pit, the trucks would enter from the 605 Freeway, travel approximately 500' westerly from the freeway to the entrance of the quarry, enter and go down the grade into the quarry,dump a load of clean material,push it out into the water after it has been inspected to ensure that the material is clean, and then the empty truck goes up the bank and returns to the freeway. The approved CUP prohibits the use of city streets in El Monte by the trucks and that is stated in the EIR. The EIR discusses the effects after the pit has been filled. It states that"contoured landscape burins" should be provided to serve as buffer between the residential zone and industrial zone. He felt the residents' wishes have been adequately dealt with. The City of El Monte has spent$1.5 million in legal and consultant fees trying to prevent this project from taking place and he could not understand their reasoning. This project will take place, even if the law must step in and require it. The State Mining and Geology Board has the authority to invoke its powers to require filling, and if there is an emergency, that might have to be.done. He said they will be responsive through the requirements of the CUP. GP and the zoning and remarked that the EIR is adequate and it deals with the issues full and adequately and should be approved. Peter Neumann, 1022 Greenfield, said they should all work together to improve their lives in Arcadia. Arcadia is not just a "Community of Homes";unlike San Marino that does not allow apartments; or Irwindale which is mostly industrial. Arcadia is a fully developed community, a wonderful place to live, which is at cross-roads and a set of factors has come before us which may never occur in our lifetimes again. He begged that they all work together to solve the challenges which is before them. He thought they should work together to develop an otherwise empty parking lot which will ultimately add to their life style. Although it will increase traffic, he has noticed it increasing every day while driving to work. Arcadia can't afford to stand still. He wanted Arcadia to continue to grow. Nassef Eskander, 76 W. Pamela Rd., spoke against Transition Area 1. He quoted an article/advertisement published by Santa Anita which stated"Santa Anita Frolic -Last Big-style Fun and Prizes, Play Roulette." There is a very simple solution to what can be done with the 5 acres. He has a masters degree in Planning and said the 28%quoted is comprised of the senior citizens living in the community. These people should be.respected. They are not low income people, rather they are living a good life. Most of their homes have probably been paid off and did not think they should be counted as 28%below standard. He remarked that Pasadena is being called the"City of Gardens" in order to create a more beautiful living environment. Their property values have increased. His property in Arcadia declined by 25% yet the one in Pasadena appreciated 25% and he attributed that to their planning. He did not want to move out of Arcadia but if things continue, he will move back to Pasadena. He could not understand the proposed increased in density in Transition Area 3. He said the reasoning for increasing the density seems to be that the State is requiring and he asked how other cities are complying? What will be the consequences if the City does not comply? He also was dissatisfied with developers buying lots and creating several small lots. They purchase large lots and instead of keeping the density, they increase it. He asked if that was taken into consideration when they were computing the available housing. Chairman Daggett declared a 5 minute recess. Chairman Daggett said there are four more cards left and after they have been given time to testify they will continue the meeting to tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. Barb Proffitt, 11 Altura, said she wished she coula speak as eloquently as Mr. Neumann. She was surprised that people would want to be bound by things that took place 45 years ago. She remarked that she enjoys the modern way of life such as air- Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 14 4/29/96 • conditioning, clothes dryers and microwaves, etc. Things do and have changed. How can the citizens expect to maintain in Arcadia as a"Community of Homes" with declining revenues. She felt there would be an increase in the crime rate if there is less money for police and if the needed commercial development is not added. Peter Keller, 275 Hacienda Dr., wondered if he could ask questions? He has heard that if the proposal for Santa Anita was approved the project would be completed by 2002, is that true? Will that be the time when revenues would come'into the City? . What would the City have to do as far as personnel; i.e. fire and police prior to the year 2002? Those outlays only could be covered after the stream of income would come in, once the entertainment center would be opened. How can the City Council, Planning Commission and Staff guarantee that the entertainment center would be a success. In the event that it should not work out, the City would lose moneys that have spent primarily in human resources. What would happen in case of a natural disaster such as an earthquake? Has City Staff discussed with its attorneys whether or not they'd be willing to provide the irrevocable guarantee that would eventually expire only 20 years after the entertainment center has been opened. So in case the project is a failure,the City would be able to recover its costs. • Finally, he asked if the Commission or Staff were aware of the number of schools that are within a 2 mile radius of this project and what is the total number of students in these schools? He asked if the City has considered adopting an ordinance that would ban an entertainment center to be located within 2 miles of any schools? Chairman Daggett stated that since there was no one else who would like to speak, the Commission will continue tonight's meeting to tomorrow night. If anyone that has or has not spoken tonight; would like to address the Commission they can do so tomorrow night. ADJOURN TO APRIL 30,1996 10:00 p.m. • • Secretary,Arcadia Planning Commission • • • • Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 15 4/29/96 • w`" �VIINUTES =: Arcadia City Planning Commission Tuesday,April 30,1996 7:00 p.m. at the Community Center Planning Commission proceedings are tape recorded and on file in the office of the Community Development Division. The Planning Conunission of the City of Arcadia met in a special session on Tuesday, April 30, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at the Community Center of the Arcadia City Hall. 365 W. Campus Drive, with Chairman Robert Daggett presiding. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Bell,Huang,Kalemkiarian,Kovacic,Murphy, Sleeter,Daggett ABSENT: None OTHERS ATTENDING: STAFF: City Attorney Michael Miller Community Development Administrator Donna Butler CONSULTANTS: Lloyd Zola.LSA Associates Tony Petros,LSA Associates Margaret Sohagi,Freilich,Kaufman,Fox&Sohagi 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (GP) AND THE RELATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(DEIR) A. Supplemental Staff Report Regarding Procedure - Consideration of concurrent hearings regarding Draft General Plan Update Transition Area One(Santa Anita Commercial Entertainment Area)and Santa Anita Specific Plan. B. Staff report regarding Draft General Plan Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report. Chairman Daggett announced that the Commission meeting will continue its hearing from the previous night. He said that Speaker Cards are available and if anyone wishes to speak they can fill one out and give it to the Secretary. This does not preclude anyone else from speaking after all the cards have been called. He reminded the audience of the 5 minute rule although exceptions are granted for persons who are representing a group of people. All remarks should be kept to a minimum written evidence will be received and considered. Speakers are urged to avoid repetition. If the hearing is not completer/ It will be continued to another date. He called Colleen Doan to the microphone. Colleen Doan, 422 N. Gerona Ave., San Gabriel, said she represents the"Neighbors for Arcadia" and other concerned citizens. She addressed the residential density issue. She asked how much housing density is needed to meet the City's fair share housing allocation? What are the ramifications for not meeting that? Can other areas within the City be increased less drastically so that it may not be necessary to increase to 24 or 30 du/ac? Arcadia City Planning Commission 1 4/30/96 In reviewing the numbers she thought that the City should be providing 72 units a year from 1996-2000 for a total of 288 but the Appendices says 290 units. She asked if the City wants to approve density beyond what would be required for that minimal requirement? Does the 24/30 du/ac exceed the minimum requirement? Mr. Zola indicated that the City might get sued by the State if they do not comply. She assumed that some of it might also deal with redevelopment money: i.e. 20%housing set aside and possibly AB 1290. This issue needs to be looked at more carefully. It was noted in the GP that some of the densities that might be required, might not necessarily be met. She thought increasing the density to 24/30 du/ac is drastic. For some communities that density might be average but for Arcadia that is extremely high as compared to what is existing or what is desired. Increasing the density from the present 7 du/ac to 24/30 du/ac is a large adjustment. She said following last night's meeting, she looked in Exhibit 2 of the GP and could not fmd a list of projects with similar densities. and based on that there is no project with a density of 24/30 a/u at the present time. One may not be able to develop a parcel to the full potential of the zoning given the open space, setback and other requirements, which would encourage development on large lots, the document needs to be more specific as far as the mitigation measures for certain areas. It appears that the sizes of land in Transition Area 3 might be too small to accommodate quality development. With the amount of money that was spent on Downtown 2000, it seems reasonable to make every effort to ensure quality developments. Neighborhoods surrounding Transition Area 3 are fairly low-density and established. She did not think enough analysis has been completed to determine the degree of negative impacts to these neighborhoods. She did not think the impact of the increased dwelling du/ac is not sufficiently mitigated by developer fees. She referred to a letter by the Superintendent of School District which indicated that additional schools would be needed. There should be more stringent mitigation measures and possibly less density. With regard to the May 16 meeting she thought staff should be prepared and come to that meeting with a well thought out, strong and committed recommendation for City policy for the next 15 to 25 years. A recommendation that can not be nullified by any last minute efforts to eliminate confusion on the part of Santa Anita property owners. The people she represents are fully aware of the GP requirements and resent the insinuation of their ignorance. She asked why is it that every time Santa Anita hiccups, City Hall jumps 10' in the air and comes down on its head? The GP should represent the City's vision for its future as noted in the Mission Statement, and even large property owners with financial and political clout, should be required to follow. It seems that Santa Anita provides the vision and then changes their mind and provides another vision, and each time, the City follows. Arcadia has an abundance of commercial development and will not blow away for lack of keeping pace with future changes if this does not happen. The mall serves people from all over the San Gabriel Valley. A great deal of money was just put into the Downtown 2000. The marketing study provided for the GP did not sufficiently analyze the impact on the Downtown 2000 area from competition with the high density of commercial development allowed under this land use designation. She stated that there is no obligation related to the future planning health of the City which requires it to include the commercial entertainment land use change under the GP. There is no question that the proposed commercial entertainment land use change, under the GP. has always been directly related to Santa Anita's desire to develop its property in this manner. The financial and procedural responsibility belongs to Santa Anita and not to the citizens of the City. Hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars have been spent by the City because of inclusion of the commercial entertainment land use designation. Far more than the"not to exceed" limitation originally approved for this GP-all because the City chose to include the land use change in the GP rather than letting it be Santa Anita's responsibility. She urged the Commission to move to exclude Transition Area 1 from the GP which would not mean that no change could ever take place. She was certain that they would come back with an application for development and if the proposal responds to the extreme negative impacts on traffic, air, noise, municipal facilities including schools and provides additional information fully noted in the EIR, which would be necessary to sufficiently analyze the negative impacts and the proposed mitigation measures, approval of some type of commercial entertainment land use and development package could be possible. She thought when a commercial entertainment land use designation for the Santa Anita property is considered, the maximum amount of information must be available and provided to allow the maximum capability of analyzing the benefits and pitfalls of what might follow. • Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 2 4/30/96 . . Chairman Daggett read a sentence from letter received from Santa Anita Realty Ent. yesterday, for the benefit of those who were not in attendance the previous night. The statement read "we have decided to withdraw our application and re-assess the circumstances pursuant to which we would be willing to proceed with development of the site". The letter basically says that Santa Anita has re-evaluated their business plan for the conversion of portions of their property to other uses and is withdrawing the paperwork that they had previously filed. He gave a brief summary from last night's meeting and said that no decisions were reached and none would be reached until the public testimony is completed and the public hearing is closed. The purpose for tonight's meeting is to take public testimony from anyone who wishes to speak. Jackie Sayre. 28 W. Longden Ave.. was there to represent "Neighbors for Arcadia" who is in favor of keeping the land use designation as horse racing and not to allow an entertainment center. She read a couple of statistics from a newspaper called the "Santa Anita". The statistics given by Mr. Cliff Goodrich are rather interesting. He states that "Santa Anita's daily average of 11.7 million represents a gain of almost 4% over last season. On-track (those people who are physically there on the track), the average was down 3.6%. On-track attendance dropped 513% to 12,321 people a day. and overall crowds were about 5%. Santa Anita became the fast North American track to exceed the 1 billion mark in total betting for one meet. We still have so much to do. We do not take the reduction in our on-track figures lightly. Although this is a clear trend in American racing, we feel strongly at it can be turned around." Another article in the Star News written by Erik Mandel read: "The expansion of interstate wagering pushed the average daily handle from 4.9% the meet total exceeding 1 billion for the first time ever at a North American track." At a meeting in November, Mr. Goodrich told the audience in a very impassioned tone that the citizens of Arcadia would have to be kind to Santa Anita because they would be closing their doors if the citizens did not help them. She did not think they were being told the truth about what is happening at Santa Anita. She thanked all those people who help get the petition signed and noted that they have reached their goal. She anticipated turning in all the petitions which would enable them to have their vote on November 5 with regard to this item. Arthur Powers, 900 Kingsley Dr.. was concerned about Transition Area 1. He thought that the zone change and eneral plan change of Transition Area 1 should not be considered simultaneously and said they are entirely different subjects. He thought that the GP should use more general terms and not be so specific. so the development of the property could go in more than one direction and'does not necessarily have to be entertainment. He did not think that the GP of the entire site should be changed. The GP for the mall, stables should continue as it is present designation; commercial, general and horse racing. Only the remaining area should be changed. if any. With regard to Transition Area 3, he was concerned with the increased density. John Cafarella, 146 E. Altern, said he is the Principal Engineer with the City of Pasadena, Dept. of Public Works/Transportation and has been employed there since 1964 and a member of the Subdivision Committee. The consultant identified potential traffic problem on Michillinda. Based upon traffic volume projections, this condition will occur on a number of streets, particularly those where the Refined Link Analysis has been done, meaning critical traffic flow will actually occur on those streets even though that is not what the report indicates. Arcadia has fully developed roadway system and to expand the capacity will pose problems. It can result in various kinds of difficulties; i.e. adverse impacts on local residents in parking for example. increased noise,traffic might have to be moved closer to curb, safety concerns, etc. Therefore, it is of prime importance that when a traffic study is conducted. that it thoroughly and carefully exposes all problems in a realistic and practical standpoint and poses solutions in the same manner. He did not think that in this case this has been done. A complete traffic analysis consists of an Intersection Capacity Analysis, a Roadway analysis (sometimes referred to as Link Analysis), and an analysis of local conditions that might limit capacity. In the instance where somebody does an analysis from a single standpoint, it is as an Intersection Capacity analysis, since that is the most restrictive measure of roadway capacity. meaning that the most limited traffic capacity is at the intersections. The document before the Commission, the Traffic Analysis was based only on a Roadway Analysis called a Link Analysis, which has the tendency to overstate the capacity of,a roadway system. With the Refined Link Analysis, this can significantly overstate the traffic capacity since it is a numerical method to Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 3 4/30/96 increase the given traffic capacity on a specific roadway without consideration to other, more limiting methods of analysis and existing field conditions. In comparison to the field conditions at Santa Anita there are numerous driveways in the stretch between Huntington and Colorado; places like restaurants, Goldstein's, In-N-Out Burger, the Car Wash. On occasion, there are cars that are protruding from those driveways which reduces the capacity of the curb lanes - 2 of the 4 lanes. If the capacity of the roadways are overtstated, there will be significant congestion and delay in the ability to handle traffic, pollution, reduced local access, increased noise,safety problems,poor quality o life,deterioration of local businesses. The Vehicular Circulation element of the GP, the stated intent is to maintain a D level of service on roadways and intersections, but intersections are not evaluated. Secondly, level of service D means (based on a chart in the GP), states that the"significant delays",which is not a good scope objective. They should be looking for a"C" level of service which is"acceptable delays" or improved traffic flow. Under the same element, in the category of GP Strategies, there is an indication here that is stated in the GP draft,"to maintain a level of service `D' during non-racing on all roadway links", again that is not where constrictions occur, "and during racing season where feasible,maintain a level of service `E"". A level of service"E"means"substantial delays" and which most Arcadia residents have encountered during racing season what that means. Some points to consider-the analysis was based upon a normal, weekday traffic volume. The GP strategy poses some obvious questions, such as - What happens when motorists come to a signalized intersection...and that is usually where the stack-ups occur? Secondly, what happens on special events such as holidays or Christmas shopping, which does last for some period of time? Especially if you evaluated during your racing season! Some thoughts that I think should be considered from the traffic volumes predicted in the reports, there will definitely be significant increases in traffic volumes to be expected. The significant areas, I believe, are Areas 1 & 2 in the reports that will generate substantial traffic, and I think Area 3 generates some. Therefore, you need to evaluate the real traffic impact on a fully-developed roadway. A thorough, complete Traffic Analysis is needed with considerations on what needs to be done especially when you have increased trafficking,whether it be from the race track, holiday shopping, special events, whatever. Also, I think it merits some consideration of the Goals and Strategy Statements. It seems that without these issues really being properly addressed, that approval at this time is premature. That ends what I have on traffic and probably ends my time. Thank you. In an answer to a question by Chairman Daggett,Mr. Cafarella indicated that he is not representing the City of Pasadena and said he would provide the Commission with a clean copy of his comments. Johanna Hofer, 875 Monte Verde was concerned about the traffic. In her neighborhood a letter was distributed and she agreed with one point in the letter regarding Michillinda Ave. which has very heavy traffic. Regardless of what is done, the situation on Michillinda must be corrected. She was also concerned about the environment. Linda Lucas, 1629 Rodeo Rd., thought the Santa Anita-issue should be put to the voters. She was concerned about the low/moderate income housing and said this will invite problems such as safety,traffic,pollution and crowded schools. Stuart Boss, 934 Paloma, felt the Santa Anita project could have been the greatest that ever happened to Arcadia. He indicated that he was disgusted by many of the half truths, lies and rumors presented at the previous night's meeting. Many of the people that spoke last night indicated that they were speaking on behalf of Arcadia residents but they were certainly not speaking for him because he thought the entertainment complex would be a great idea. He was presented with information tonight that Santa Anita was going to close down and develop the whole parking lot. Having been involved in a social charity organization which has had casino nights with scrip,he would hardly call that hard-core gambling. He went on to say that he grew up in Arcadia and this was the kind of a place that one would get out as soon as they were old enough because there was nothing here. Things have not changed since he left. He hoped that Santa Anita would pursue their plans and thought a theater would be nice. He urged the Commission to approve the GP change because things must either grow or die. He said Santa Anita has always been a good neighbor. He thought the City's.slogan "Community of Homes" should change because Santa Anita was here first. The homes were constructed around it. The schools are here because of the tax collected from Santa Anita. He felt it is now time for Arcadia to look to the future. That area cannot remain as a parking lot forever and certainly low income housing would not be appropriate. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 4 4/30/96 • • Basil Johnson,20 E.Pamela Rd.,was pleased of the withdrawal but thought it would be raised again. He did not thinik that there is a need for an entertainment complex in the City. He did not want Arcadia to be the"Entertainment Center of the an Gabriel Valley". What shocked him most was that they intended to rezone the entire property into commercial entertainment Based on articles presented by previous speakers,it seems that Santa Anita is doing well and would not need to rezone for at least 10 years. They should pursue this when they come back to the City for the rezoning and by that time the community might be in favor of the project. By that time the City might fmd itself with so many crowded schools due to the additional housing units, that they might have to build more schools and what better location than Santa Anita to build them? He thought there are two separate issues;the rezoning of the property and the other is the entertainment center. The voters should vote on these separately. He felt the proposal for Transition Area 2 would be a good thing to do. He was concerned about Transition Area 3. In driving the area most of the residential building on the north/south streets are quite appealing, but the ones on the east/west are in poor condition. In this area most of the properties have more than the 7 du/ac density. The proposed change would be a tremendous density problem. The Planning Section was unable to provide him with an example of a complex with a 30 du/ac density, therefore, it is difficult to envision such a development. Hey stated that multiple-family developments must have decent setbacks with plenty of landscaping to attract the type of residents that the City deserves. He wondered if the reason for increasing the density is to provide sufficient population for the upgrading of the downtown? If that is so,then it isn't smart thinking. With regard to Transition Area 4, he said that this property should be annexed to the City of El Monte. Most Arcadians are not even aware that Transition Area 4 is part of the City. The trucks must be a nuisance for the El Monte residents. Gail Marshall, 2300 Lee Ave., said that some of the employees of Santa Anita are under the impression that if this project is not approved they will be out of a job. She concurred with some of the information by a previous speaker regarding the ttendance. Even though the handle is up more than it has ever been due to off-track wagering, the attendance is greatly down. What most citizens do not know is that the City's revenues are down 34% due to off-track wagering because the City does not get any money from off-track wagering, only from what is bet at the track. Santa Anita is getting rich but the City is losing revenue. Any businessman would want to develop unused land for greater potential. She thought it was inevitable that this land would be developed eventually. Why change the zoning when there are no plans for implementation? The proper time to rezone is when an acceptable plan is in effect and not before. Limitations cannot be placed on the unknown. Chairman Daggett asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to address the Commission? Marguerite Spencer, said in the beginning races only took place during the week, then it was extended to Sunday, then off-site betting and finally people would come all hours of all the nights. Betters are allowed to bet on races in Hong Kong at 2:30 a.m.. All of this is a big change from the beginning. How did this whole thing begin? She asked if Santa Anita was the onn that asked for this process? Did Santa Anita pay for any of this review'or the zone change. Mr.Miller indicated that Santa Anita has paid approximately$520,000 towards this review. Ms. Spencer remarked that she attended the City Council's April 2nd meeting and there seemed to be great co ion and disagreement about the cost of GP closing to $300,000 due to Santa Anita-some of which has not been approved y t. It is the citizens' money that is being used for this and that is why the residents are annoyed but Santa Anita seems to withdra or change its plans continually. Harold Kidd, 416 Magellan Rd., read a letter from Dr. Ellison. Approximately 16,000-17,000 of the City's residents were notified of this meeting - mostly homeowners - apparently in compliance with City Code. No renters seemed to have been notified. It is as if they were second-class citizens with no concern for Arcadia. He thought that was unfair and undemocratic to ignore 9,000 citizens. Section 8 of the report reads"throughout this GP as it pertains to the entertainment center, it is noted that either the changes in the environment will be acceptable under the law or there will be changes that will be totally unacceptable even to this report." There is frequent use of the word "mitigate". Are the citizens expected to live with painful and severe situations that this plan hopes it can make less painful and less severe? The citizens have a right to live without mitigations unless there are overriding reasons why they should. Certainly, the commercial/entertainment does not fulfill an overriding need of this community. Santa Anita has a right to develop its land for motive of profit, however, a business must back off when its Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 5 4/30/96 interest come into great conflict with the best interest of the community. Increased tax dollars are not worthy of the citizen's consideration. When and if this property is built out, they will only be paying 5%of the budget;half built out,2%of the budget. Lael Collins, 409 Fairview, recalled the days when the residents used to have a sticker with"RA" on them on their cars to give them preference on race days during heavy traffic. "I don't know if we are a City of Homes that allows a race track in their city, or if we are a racetrack that allows a city to be here?" She was disturbed that the previous meeting was canceled due to overcrowding because of all the race track employees. She indicated that most of the residents must make plans for childcare or leave work early to make these meetings and the meetings were canceled. She was flabbergasted with the withdrawal letter that was read to the audience and remarked that to withdraw their application at the last minute is disrespectful to all the citizens who are concerned. Chairman Daggett asked for a response from staff and consultants by all the issues raised by interested citizens. Ms. Butler introduced Mr. Lloyd Zola and Mr. Tony Petros, Traffic Consultant from LSA. She indicated that the GP process began almost 2 1/2 years ago, prior to the submittal of Santa Anita's application. The GP was not as a result of Santa Anita's plans. They have filed for a zone change, general plan change and a specific plan and paid for all the applications and documents. Thus'far,they have spent almost$500,000 on the EIR for that project which has been withdrawn. The City was as surprised as the residents that Santa Anita withdrew its application. The City has not been conspiring with them. The general plan is for the City, it addresses all properties and land use within the City. It would have been very careless of the City to ignore Santa Anita during this process. Mr.Zola said that many comments have been received with regard to Transition Area 1. Some are asking the City Council and Planning Commission to update the community vision for the next 20 years by a donut approach -take the outside and change and leave the center for a later date. The GP is to determine Arcadia's future and they will be making a land use decision as part of a community vision. The Commission can make several recommendations to the City Council: • Should there be a change at that site and if so what type of a use should it be? Should it change from the existing horse racing to a designation such as commercial/entertainment or commercial or any use deemed appropriate for the site • To maintain the existing zoning and keep present status The EIR analyzes a"No Project Alternative", the potential of the City being completely built-out. It also addresses the impacts of the existing GP that would allow additional development in the City and what are the comparisons of the impacts that would occur under the existing GP to what is proposed tonight. A noise study was done. It is contained in the EIR along with the Technical Report. It was concluded that the traffic that would be generated by future uses in the City, would not raise existing or projected noise levels even if there was no construction. Even in those areas that would carry the most new traffic, there would be increase in noise and those have been identified, but at and beyond the City limit there will not be increases in noise that would be measurable by the decibel scale used for measuring noise. He briefly summarized why residential use was not considered in Transition Area 4. Any of the schools that could serve the residential uses in the southern portion of the City are overcrowded and to put more residential would continue to worsen an existing overcrowding situation. The El Monte School District indicated verbally that the existing industrial zone would have no impact. He did not think that it would be appropriate for children to go to schools on Lower Azusa Rd. For the abovementioned reasons it is being recommended that the industrial use remain. The City will have to create a total of 290 housing units. It is the consultants and staff's duty to assist the Council and Commission to meet the law in the most palatable way possible. He indicated that the term"moderate income"might be misleading and explained that a moderate income person in the Los Angeles County would be one that earns $48,000 annually such as plumbers, mechanics, electrical engineers, teachers and entry level positions. "Low income"persons would be retired persons and bank tellers. The responsibility of every community is to accept their share of these residents and the program proposed by staff is not to construct public housing or shelters but to provide housing for seniors who do not have incomes and are retired and those working people who can afford to live in a desirable community. Based on conversations and testimony received last night, if the Commission decided not to permit any density in the GP above a maximum of 24 du/ac,they could demonstrate sufficient land for housing to meet the housing goal. It should be noted that the 7 du/ac is the minimum density and there are no maximums in this category and it is being recommended that maximum limits be placed in those areas. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 6 4/30/96 He indicated that the existing GP labels Michillinda Ave. as a secondary arterial and it is being recommended that those designations be eliminated and substituted with more meaningful descriptions. With regard to the gambling issue at Santa Anita. Mr. Miller remarked the night that was mentioned there was a charitable fund raiser being held which is not a typical type of an activity for March of Dimes. The only casino type gambling that is legally permitted in California pertains to what is commonly referred to as"card clubs". As a result of State legislation. the je is a three year moratorium on the establishment of any new card clubs in California. A new card club cannot be approved without a vote of the people. It has to go to an election. If at any time the City felt that card clubs could be a possibility, the City can enact its own zoning law to prohibit the use. Mr. Zola remarked that the EIR has analyzed the number of students generated as a result of working parents in the City and new residents and they feel that there are sufficient requirements in the GP to resolve any potential problems with schools. The GP requires that all new residential development shall be responsible for providing the necessary funding and resources to establish or expand school facilities commensurate with their project impact, and then the required caveat under the law that if schools are already overcrowded, they cannot require the developer to do anything more to make the situation worse. If the City fails to comply with the State's Housing requirements, it can be challenged on any development approval. or to any new development project. The impacts can be severe when dealing with housing. As mentioned last night, if the City's Housing Element was challenged, a court could decide how the City will meet its housing obligations under the law, in affect taking responsibility completely away from the community. If the City does not have a adequate Housing Element and GP, the City can lose control over land use. Tony Petros, Lead Associate with LSA Associates. He gave a brief summary of his qualification which includes over 11 years experience with LSA conducting Traffic Analysis throughout the State of California and abroad. The development of the Traffic Analysis is a volume/capacity ratio analysis. Traffic volumes are forecasted based on the land use that are given, the incremental growth in land use, and compare that forecast volume, to the carrying capacity of the streets throughout the City. Tliis is based on a daily traffic forecast. Traffic volume forecasts are based on the application of trip rates to the land use that are proposed as part of the GP. He explained that they applied the national standard rates to each TA and compared the volume to the capacity of the roadway system. LSA developed representative and theoretical capacity standards that the City did not have. They compared the daily traffic to those daily capacity values. The volume/capacity analysis is done on a screened basis and begins with conservative theoretical capacities. If the volume can be accommodated, no further analysis is needed. A refined analysis will bell conducted where there are trouble spots, based on observed and actual characteristics on the highway. Based on those observations, they refine the capacity and that is discussed in great detail in the analysis, and make the conclusion as to whether or not volume can be accommodated on those roadway links. Based on that analysis, they made the determination that Michillinda Ave. operates at an unsatisfactory level of service. It will be exacerbated in the future by not only the development arouit'd the City, but by the development that would be created as a result of this GP. Furthermore, they concluded that the segment of Holly Ave. south of Huntington Dr. would also be impacted by the development of the GP at the level described in Scenario A. The traffic is assessed throughout a 24-hour period. It is impossible to forecast one hour of traffic, 25-30 years in the future. It is not appropriate to provide that type of analysis in the GP. With regard to consideration of impacts outside the City, they conducted an exhaustive screen line analysis comparing the volumes of traffic leaving and incoming into the City from all directions: In most cases, the influence in growth outside of the City is much greater than from within the City, impacting the other cities. With regard to the notion of analyzing traffic during a regular weekday period, the intent of this analysis is to determine the location and extent of the circulation system and provide for improvements to accommodate average condition. Traffic engineering standards look at those periods where it is the average condition of traffic. While it would be appropriate on a site-specific or particular development approach to look at individual special event times, it is not appropriate in a GP because they are looking at an average condition in the City. The presentation of the trip distribution is at the City limit. Most of the traffic for the commercial/industrial and attractive uses, utilize the freeway for major travel routes. The distribution of traffic on Baldwin is presented at approximately 3% which is at the City limit. Baldwin Ave. carries approximately 40% of the traffic generated by the new GP. With regard to safety' issues on Michillinda Ave. and the ability to mitigate any capacity impacts, it should be noted that more than half of that roadway is within the County of Los Angeles and not within the City's jurisdiction. The portion that is within the City would not provide adequate Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 7 4/30/96 I , capacity and the secondary land use impacts would far outweigh the benefit to mitigate that. While both Santa Anita Ave. and I,ake Ave. have the same number of lanes. intersection spacing. on-street parking. they are quite different in the types of uses fronting each street. The uses fronting Lake Ave. are primarily commercial uses contributing to a traffic condition which is at an "F" level. This is much different than the condition on Santa Anita. Chairman Daggett explained the Planning Commission's responsibility and said they are to make a recommendation to the City Council. They are not the ruling body and only advisory to the Council. He explained the process to the audience. Harold Kidd, 416 Magellan Rd., asked how the cities of San Marino, Beverly Hills, La Canada and Palos Verdes meet with the low-income housing requirements? Mr. Zola responded that the City of Hidden Hills is presently involved in a dispute with the State because they say that servant's quarters provide housing for low income and thought they would lose the case. Many of the mentioned upper-end communities subsidize housing to comply with State regulations. The City of Indian Wells; which is one of the wealthiest cities in the country;built affordable rental housing. Some cities purchased apartments and condominiums from RTC and subsidized low and moderate income households to live in those units. Calabasas is looking at mixed use to comply, and some cities build senior housing,buying multi-family units, subsidizing housing,density bonuses to comply: Mr. Miller cited an experience he had while working in the City of Newport Beach who found itself in court with the State Housing and Community Development Agency. He explained that they are trying to avoid that type of a situation for the City. In response to a question by Chairman Daggett.Mr. Zola said that the City is required to provide the following by the year 2000. with approximate rental range: • 52 very low income units at approximately$500/month • 41 low income units, approximately$700/month • 58 units, approximately$1000/month He indicated that the City allows a maximum 25%density bonus on a R-2 area which would allow up to approximately 27 units. Ms. Butler explained that at the Commission's May 14th meeting, the Commission can focus on all Transition Areas except Transition Area 1. However, testimony can be taking with regard to Transition Area 1. The Commission will discuss Transition Area 1 at their May 16th meeting. Discussion ensued between Commissioner Kovacic and Mr. Miller with regard to the. procedures for public hearing and Commission's options. It was noted by Mr. Miller that the Commission may chose to defer the discussion on Transition.Area 1 to May 16th,because that would be when the Community Center would be available. The Commission may continue to the May 14th meeting but should keep in mind that Council Chambers may not have sufficient space. Commissioner Kovacic remarked that this might be misleading and confusing for the audience. He explained that the Commission seeks input from the citizens, staff and consultants to provide them with information so they can render a decision/recommendation to the City Council. He hoped that by the end of this process, there would be a user friendly summary of the three documents made available to the citizens in an understandable format. He did not blame the consultant or staff because if they do not do it correctly,the City can be sued. He asked that the following information be provided: With regard to Transition Area 1 he asked that staff provide them with a recommendation of what should be done at the Commission's May 16th meeting. He saw certain advantages to staff's original recommendation of deferring any decision on Santa Anita's specific plan until the EIRs were completed;but on the other hand, it might be in the best interest to be pro-active as far as the overall planning of the area as opposed to re-active. He was in favor of a pro-active situation as far as what should be done. Transition Area 2 there seems to be little or no controversy. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 8 4/30/96 • ) Transition Area 3 What is the City's fair share? Why does the City have to significantly increase the zoning in a ce area of town? An idea was presented that it might be better to distribute it city-wide. It seemed to him that there is a signifi t change being made in density in a quest for less than 200 units and he did not understand that process and the radical change order to meet that obligation. Transition Area 4 Rodeffer property he did not understand El Monte's position and their two requests of not filling the pit but providing residential uses seem to be incompatible. He asked the Traffic Consultant to carefully analyze all comments made, especially by the gentlemen from Pasadena and fine- tune their study. Comments were made regarding Michillinda, that currently exist and are anticipated , and he requested strategies for correcting the traffic problems and asked that it be presented at the May 16th meeting. He also wanted to discuss gambling and the possibility of an auditorium and if those issues have been dealt with in the GP and if the existing state law adequately protects the City. The City should decide if an auditorium is needed and put that in the GP. Since the Santa Anita project has been placed on hold, should a portion of that property be designated for an auditorium. He asked for a specific list of developments that are the 12,24 and 30 du/ac. In response to comments by Commissioner Murphy,Mr. Zola said that the GP was done based on average daily traffic, which is the accepted methodology for GPs. The accepted methodology for specific project analysis is intersection analysis. The GP was done on roadway links. Commissioner Murphy commented that the responses received by the audience were excellent. This process requires careful consideration from the Commission, so when a recommendation is made to the Council it includes comments from the public as well as the Commission. He suggested that they move slowly, and if necessary take the time to have study sessions open to the public,and thoroughly flush through every one of the issues. Commissioner Kalemkiarian remarked that the SAEC had impacts on different projects in the City. Some developers might have been waiting to see whether the project would be approved prior to going forward with their plans and some might not move ahead as a result of the withdrawal. He wondered if the City's properties in the downtown area could be utilized for housing or possibly Santa Anita rezoned residential with a horse racing overlay. He asked what the impact of these two would be Chairman Daggett said that he is in favor of a GP that conforms only to those things that are mandated by the State and doesn't make any predetermined suppositions, either by private citizens ahead of time, or by staff, or by the Commission or C8uncil. He read a sentence from Volume I. Section II,Community Development, item"C",which bothered him. It read"Vision Toward the Future. Arcadia recognizes that a static community in which the present is frozen in place is neither possible nor desrable. The GP recognizes that the fmancial demands of continuing to provide the level of services and facilities now enjoyed by Arcadia residents necessitates additional revenue sources. This includes revitalization of the downtown area, the develpment of . commercial entertainment uses in the area between the Santa Anita Race track Grandstands and the Santa Anita Fashion Park Mall, and the development of additional employment-generating uses in the southern-most portion of the City." T him, the above is a concrete plan for the future and it made him nervous. Commissioner Huang was greatly concerned with information received on Transition Area 3. He also wanted to receive a list of projects with the 24/30 density du/ac. Commissioner Sleeter was concerned with the circulation system. Figure 3-1 does not indicate the volume for Colorado Blvd. from the split to Colorado Pl. to the City boundary. If SAEC was to go forward, the GP and the EIR are silent on the impacts. especially in the traffic impact resulting from shifting Race track parking from the southern parking lot to the northern parking lot, which is essentially currently unused. The logical traffic impacts are to dump traffic onto Colorado Blvd. and Pace. This has a major impact regardless of what is.done with Transition Area 1. In answer to questions by Commissioner Bell, Ms. Butler replied that the Commission has the option of changing the GP in any format they would like. The Commission can discuss Transition Area 1 on May 16th as well as what they feel is the appropriate designation for the site. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 9 4/30/96 In response to comments by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, Ms. Butler indicated that Transition Area 1 will be before the Commission on May 16th, however, the Commission could discuss the other areas and continue discussion from other issues from the May 14th meeting to the 16th. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Murphy, seconded by Commissioner Kalemkiarian, to continue discussion of Transition Area 2, 3 and 4 to May 14th and Transition Area 1 to May 16th. Prior to taking roll call some one from the audience asked to approach the microphone and speak to the Commission. Peter Keller, 275 Hacienda Dr., asked to make a statement because they would not be able to attend the next meeting. He thought affordable housing is a very important issue. With regard to Santa Anita's withdrawal, he felt this gave the City an excellent opportunity to be proactive. He thought there are approximately 14-18 schools within a 2 mile radius of the proposed commercial/entertainment center. Arcadia High School has 3,000 students. He asked the Commission to consider the total amount of students who are in all these schools. He did not think that an entertainment center would be to the best interest of these students. He suggested an ordinance prohibiting the construction of any large-size entertainment center within two miles of any school. There are other alternatives for the race track property. He thought it could be utilized as a research or engineering center or other professional enterprises that might like to move to this piece of land. In analyzing the proposed entertainment center,they are being told that 2,300 new jobs would be created. Although, this is a substantial number, one should look at what type of jobs would be created. In order to get an idea, they should look at the type of jobs available in the mall or minimum wage jobs with no benefits,health insurance,401K or pensions. Following Mr. Keller's statements,the Commission decided to adjourn to the May 14th meeting to discuss all Transition Areas 2, 3 and 4 and from there to continue to May 16th to discuss Transition Area 1. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Bell,Huang,Kalemkiarian,Kovacic,Murphy, Sleeter,Daggett NOES:. None ADJOURN TO MAY 14,19% 9:30 . /1"-- / ecretary,Arcadia Planning Commission Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 10 ' 4/30/96 4I. INUTES 4 Arcadia City Planning Commission tI<}' Tuesday, May 14, 1996 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers °Rroauso" Planning Commission proceedings are tape recorded and on file in the office of the Community Development Division. The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday. May 14. 1996 at 7:15 p.m. in e Council Chambers of the Arcadia City Hall. 240 W. Huntington Drive. with Chairman Robert Daggett presiding. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Bell. Huang. Kalemkiarian. Kovacic. Murphy. Daggett ABSENT: Commissioner Sleeter MOTION • It was moved by Commissioner Kovacic. seconded by Commissioner Kalemkiarian to excuse Commissioner Sl eter from tonight's meeting. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS None TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS (5 MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) None NIOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kovacic. seconded by Commissioner Kalemkiarian to read all resolutions by title only and waive reading in full. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. OTHERS ATTENDING: Council Member Chang City Attorney Michael Miller Community Development Administrator Donna Butler Planning Services Manager Corkran Nicholson Secretary Silva Vergel • LSA Consultant. Lloyd Zola 1. MINUTES 4/23/96 MOTION pcminute/51496 s PAGES 2-4 HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN HEARING 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND THE RELATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Chairman Daggett indicated that tonight's discussion is restricted to Transition Areas 2. 3 and 4. Ms. Butler presented the staff report. Mr. Zola explained that the State revised its Housing Element Law and extended it to the period of 1998 to 2003. Th-re are two ways to interpret this new law: • Adopting and essentially completing the process of the old element. Utilizing the numbers in the existing housing element which identifies it as 804 du/ac(300 have already been built). • To adopt the element that would be due in 1998. getting it over with, instead of returning in two years and tarting the process over. If this is the correct interpretation. the City would have to take the 290 units and extend and prorate it to a 7 year period rather than a 4 year period. • Either way. the City will be dealing with a 7-8 year housing period. The housing element addresses a number of parcels in the City that are described in Appendix. page A-22. If the inventory of sites does not identify a sufficient number that can reasonably be delivered. they must go back and make them available. The law states: "shall provide for sufficient sites with zoning that permits owner occupied and rental multi-family residential use by right including density and development standards that could accommodate and facilitate the feasibility of housing for very low and low income households." The City does not have a choice and must make the units available. Transition Area 4 along Lower Azusa Rd. is currently zoned for industrial and the existing General Plan designation is industrial. It is being recommended that the current designation be maintained. El Monte's position seems contradictory in that they do not want the pit to be filled and want the GP to designate it as residential. Commissioner Kovacic asked if the City has to have more than 28%of its households low and very low income? Mr. Zola responded that Los Angeles County has 40% of its households as very low and low income. Based on increased projections. there would be an increase of 300 new households. Based on the current breakdown of very low, low income. if all the new housing matched exactly, the City would have 28% of the new housing affordable to very low and low income households. The State then asks that the increase be broken down. The City is dealing with the difference.between the City's 28%existing very low and low and the County's need for 40%. The way it is applied would be to measure how many very low. low income there are currently in the City. They project the City's new households growth to be exactly the same economic breakdown as today. This number is then compared to the county-wide average. which in Los Angeles County is 40%. The idea is to make up a quarter of the difference between 28%and 40%in new housing. • In(essence the City is penalized for being diverse. The extreme other end would be the City of Compton which probably has 60% very low and low income and they would need to provide a quarter of the difference - approximately 51% of their new housing. A simpler way to look at it would be the more you have. the more you have to provide. Commissioner Kovacic asked what if the City decided that 25% is the City's fair share and ignored the difference between 28% and 40%? Mr. Zola replied that the housing element challenge would be very easy for the plaintiff because the City's housing element would very clearly not be adequate under the law. The law requires that each council of government adopt regionlal housing needs assessment and the methodology provided to the Commission is used by SCAG in providing these numbers. If they identify a need for 290 units and 4 years down the road the State sees that there are 286 upper income units and not a single low or moderate income unit, then there has not been a good faith effort to implement the document. If an element is adopted that is not legally adequate. the penalty could be severe. One would be that any aggrieved residential developer could come to the City, propose a project high in density for low and moderate income housing, the project is denied, the developer can Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 5 5/14/96 • take the City to court and challenge its housing element. the housing element is then overturned, the court approves the project. something that the City denied because it did not meet the standards. • The other issue is that 25%of funds accruing to the Redevelopment Agency are required to go to housing programs. If those are not used and the City is successfully challenged. the State can take the money. give it to the County Housing Authority. who then can override the local GP and zoning and build public housing with City's funds in locations where the City might not like to build low income housing. If anyone can reasonably make the argument that a site could have provided affordable housing and can make a successful housing element challenge and if it is determined the housing element is inadequate, the City's approval of a commercial development can be overturned because the land might have been made available for housing if the housing element was adequate. With an inadequate housing element. the City can lose control of its own land use. Mr. Zola went on to say that the definition of very low. low and moderate income are based on the County-wide median. The discretion the State gives in terms of housing is where and how and not vhether. Commissioner Murphy asked what would happen if no developers build these type of housing units? Is the City obliged to step in and provide it through the Redevelopment funds? Mr. Zola replied that the City is not obligated to build the housing but to make sites and sufficient programs available so that feasible and affordable housing can be built. The State Department of Housing and Community Development is the agency who oversees this exercise. With each housing element. the City is required to review the previous one and look at the success or lack of success with implementing the previous housing element. The State reviews each housing element and as part of this process decides whether the City needs to do more. Ms. Butler further explained that there is senior housing being constructed in Monrovia along Huntington Dr. west of Myrtle on the north side of the street. Sometimes housing is through the assistance of Redevelopment funds. • Mr. Zola indicated that even though the City would comply with its housing requirement if they provided 290 units for senior citizens,the State would ask what the City did for low and moderate income or large families? In the Housing Element there is a description of"special needs groups" such as large families, single parent or single female headed households, etc. shown on page A9. Elderly is one part of disabled as well as homeless persons. Commissioner Koyacic asked what would happen if they drastically rezoned 454 acres of the City to comply with State law and at the end of the 4 years. there are 800 high end condos. Would the City be penalized because they made the good faith effort but the market did not justify it? Mr. Zola said that the City should also make programs and set aside funds from the Redevelopment Agency available. Alternatives may be available, but the property owners might not like them. His recommendation was that it might be more acceptable to increase the density in areas where it has been increasing rather than looking at alternative sites. If everyone built to the maximum density in the subject area, there would be a net increase of 392 units. In order to qualify as affordable housing, an individual unit must qualify as a dwelling unit under the census. which means separate kitchen and bathroom facilities. The typical congregate care facility with a common dining room does not count. Servants quarters would count as housing if there is a separate entry kitchen/bathroom facilities other than the main house and qualify in the census as a second unit on the site. Commissioner Kovacic said that if the current zoning with the density bonuses approximates what is being proposed. why not keep the current zoning with the built-in incentive or the density bonuses instead of opening the whole area up to any type of a development. He felt it would be better to keep the current system with the incentives. Based on the Commission's comments.Mr.Zola said that if the Commission would like to keep the existing density in the GP or make it consistent with the zoning and then allow the density bonus on top of that they can but he suggested leaving the density at 30 du/ac.for a restricted senior project because a senior restricted project will typically have smaller units and can get more units per acre in the same size building and it might be a reasonable approach to senior vs. standard without really increasing the bulk and size of the finished projects. The Commission should ask itself that given the existing zoning is it reasonable to assume that there will be enough projects to get that 290 target? If they cannot in good conscience make that finding, then they need to look at alternatives sites. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 6 5/14/96 • The public hearing was opened. Drew Krynicki. 321 Le Roy, said given the information that the State has extended the time until 1998. it provides the City time to come up with a quality and innovative.solution to the problem. The current document fails to state succinctl what the specifics are that they should be concerned with. He thought the 28% is comprised of many senior citizens who do not earn a lot of money. He felt convalescent homes and nursing facilities might be a good approach to meeting the housing needs. Scott Sayer. 444 W. Huntington Dr. said he is an architect. He discussed Transition Area 2 which is currently zoned for industrial. He did not think that changing the designation to commercial/multi-family would be appropriate because ;the area is between the railroad track.a freeway, flood control channel. Somehow multi-family does not fit there unless it is a hotel but that is already there. Has consideration been given to Metro Rail? This might be a good use for this under-utilized area. With regard to Transition Area 3. he stated that he did not see anything in the documents about minimum 1 t size or consolidating lots, nothing about amenities. creating green space or pedestrian-oriented area. He looked at the different developments there and it appeared to him that most were 24 du/ac. He thought the alternative of guest houses was a good one to meet State's requirements. Colleen Doan. 422 N. Gerona Ave., San Gabriel, said she is a planning consultant representing "Neighbors for Arcadia". She thought it was interesting that the State can get to ask the City if what they're proposing is reasonable. Staff has established three goals based on the State's requirements: to provide areas for a total of either 290 or 500 very low, low and moderate income residential units; to set maximum density limits where none are presently set with a 7+ designation: and to establish s\)here these units can be built. It seemed to her and to the people she is representing that the City should only provide for what is required and not a lot more. The fiscal analysis for the EIR states in one area that if a lot of increased residential growth is proposed. it will have a large negative fiscal impact on the City. For instance alternative 1 discusses 600 units in Transition Area 4 which she thought would have a negative impact. whereas, the other two alternatives don't. She thought the GP should set the maximum density to 12 to 24 du/ac in the R-2 and R-3 zones, respectively instead of the 30 du/ac. She thought additional density should be allowed for senior citizens. subsidized housing or units in the Redevelopment areas and on consolidated lots, especially for the smaller lots in Transition Area 3. She felt the City should allow the GP maximum designation in the R-2 and R-3 zoned areas and in the mixed use commercial and residential zones throughout the City. She did not think it should be limited, especially looking at future increases in housing requirements. She suggested looking at some of the other vacant sites in the City. She wondered if there are any properties within the sphere of influence that could be annexed where some of this housing could be considered? Would guest house type units be considered? Finally. she asked if there is an option to opt out of the State's requirements? Steve Worsley, 348 Norman, owner and operator of a business at 306-310 S. First, was concerned as to how the City would look at developments on First Ave. There is no consistency on First Ave.. there is a funeral home. drive-up restaurant. several hair salons, legal offices. vacant properties and residences. He asked that they consider the area from California to Duarte Rd. as a mixed use a multiple-family overlay, possibly a commercial zone with R-3 overlay and restrictions of square footage on residential as opposed to commercial. This might encourage property owners such as himself to do something a little different with their properties. Because his property is south of California. he made all the improvements such as lighting. sidewalks, planting. signage, landscaping and even obtained an old lamp that is similar to the ones on north First with matching pole to be consistent with what is in the downtown area at his own expense. He wanted to have the option of doing something with his property that would add value to the City, would make him a proud property owner, especially with all the current commercial vacancies blecause he felt his property has out lived its current use. It did not make sense to him to develop his property as commercial due to the high rate of commercial vacancies. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 7 5/14/96 Glenn Watson, 333 S.,Spring St., Los Angeles, attorney for Rodeffer Investments, property owners of Transition Area 4. It seemed to him that the City is trying to search for solutions when they don't even know the questions. If time is available. • perhaps deferring the decision on the hearing which has changed radically would be advisable. With regard to Transition Area 4, he said that with reclamation to take place north of of Lower Azusa Road, the EIR concluded that it is not conducive to residential. To try to put housing on it with no infrastructure, remote from the rest of the City does not seem to be a logical solution. Since there were no other persons wishing to speak, Chairman Daggett explained that on Thursday, they would open the public hearing and take additional testimony from the floor, close the hearing and then discuss it amongst the Commission. • • • Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 8 5/14/96 MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/STATEMENTS None MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS/STATEMENTS None MODIFICATION COMMITTEE MEETING ACTIONS Commissioner Murphy summarized actions taken by the Modification Committee. MATTERS FROM STAFF 1. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Ms. Butler gave a brief summary of the items that were before them for consideration. 2. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butler announced the applications that have been filed and will be before the Commission as public hearings. ADJOURNED TO THURSDAY,MAY 16, 1996 9:30 p.m. ecretary. Arcadia Pl. Commission • Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 9 5/14/96 INUTES kf, vs Arcadia City Planning_Commission . j Thursday,May 16,1996 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center Planning Commission proceedings are tape recorded and on file in the office of the Community Development Division The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Thursday, May 16, 1996 at. 7:00 '.m. at the Community Center of the City of Arcadia, 365 W. Campus Drive, with Chairman Robert Daggett presiding. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Bell,Kalemkiarian,Kovacic,Murphy,Daggett ABSENT: Commissioners Huang and Sleeter MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kovacic, seconded by Commissioner Kalemkiarian to excuse Commissioners Huang and Sleeter from tonight's meeting. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Huang arrived at 7:25 p.m. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Butler announced that they received some maps and information from Mr. Zola regarding the implications of the recent Housing Element laws. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS (5 MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) None • • OTHERS ATTENDING: Council Member Lojeski City Attorney Michael Miller - Community Development Administrator Donna Butler LSA Associates,Lloyd Zola,Consultant to the City PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND THE RELATED DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Chairman Daggett recapped actions of last 4 meetings and advised that comments on Transition Area 1 have been de ayed until tonight's meeting. But if someone would like to comment on the other transition areas they are welcome to do so. If all the public testimony is finished tonight,the Commission will close the public hearing, on a temporary basis, so that they can discuss the GP among themselves. The ultimate goal is to come up with a recommendation, which would then be presented to the City Council for their review. Once the Planning Commission has completed discussion, the public hearing will be re-opened to take Planning Commissionminute/51696min additional testimony on the Planning Commission's action. Once all testimony has been received, the hearing will be closed and staff will forward the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Ms.Butler explained that they can discuss not only Transition Area 1 but the rest of the GP. In focusing on Transition Area 1, it should be noted that this area encompasses the entire race track property including the Santa Anita Fashion Park. The current GP for the property is horse racing and commercial for the mall area. As part of the GP, the City recognized that the horse racing industry has been undergoing significant changes during the past few years,with the advent of off-track betting, and other forms of wagering, and there has beeh a significant decline in on-site attendance at the race track. Because of the reduced attendance, the race track does not need the same area and parking spaces for normal operations as it did in the past. She went on to say that both the race-track and the mall represent the most significant economic and land use resources within the City. Currently,both of these land uses along with the Los Angeles County Arboretum are a regional draw to Arcadia. They are centrally located adjacent to commercial and civic uses, and highly visible from the adjacent roadway system. The opportunity does exist in this area to create a land use which recognizes the unique attributes of the race-track, the mall, and to cultivate a unique mixture of uses. The City Staff is recommending a new GP designation for the entire race track property and the mall from horse racing and commercial to some other land use designation reflective of a new economic land use activity. The purpose of establishing this new land use designation, and applying that designation to the race track and mall, is to assist in planning for an integrated land use pattern in facilitating free market forces to introduce new, compatible uses with complementary market segments. The proposed land use designation is intended to assist in achieving the City's mission and the related economic development and public infrastructure goals that are included in the City's Mission Statement and associate the mall with the new uses. It is important to note that any decision on a proposed GP land use designation for this area and text,is not a decision or approval of any future land use. Specific land use applications are subject to separate and distinct public review in hearing processes. If the GP is ultimately approved, the land use designation and accompanying text will provide a set of policy statements by which future land use decisions related to this area will be judged. A brief synopsis of the draft EIR is included in the April 10th and the May 14th reports that have been submitted to the Planning Commission. The draft EIR identifies one of the following issues to be resolved,which relates to Transition Area 1. There are three development scenarios for the race track/mall use designation which are assessed in the EIR at equal levels of detail. The EIR summarizes the breakdown of land uses within each proposed development scenario for the race track/mall land use designation. As part of adoption of the GP and certification of the EIR, the Planning Commission needs to make'a recommendation for this area to the City Council. The City Council may adopt a maximum development intensity for the race track/mall land use designation. The analysis performed for the three development scenarios in the draft EIR will be used by the City Council in making a determination regarding the ultimate intensity of development within this land use designation. The May 14th report discusses the GP approach and the floor area-ratios. In relation to Transition Area 1, it is important to note that the maximum floor area ratio for the Santa Anita Race Track and Santa Anita Mall land use designation is to be applied by multiplying the maximum floor area ratio by the total square footage of land use to determine the maximum square footage of all new building area permitted throughout this area. The GP text for the track and mall land use designation could be misinterpreted to read that designated off-site parking for the Santa Anita Race Track will no longer be permitted on peak racing days, as now occurs. It is the intent of the GP to recognize that on peak racing day, off-site parking within designated parking areas has and will continue to occur. However, new development with the new land use designation, if it is approved, must not be permitted to exacerbate, or spill- over race track parking into surrounding residential neighborhoods, and the County Arboretum. And Staff does recommend that the GP text be modified to clarify this point. Options have been set forth relating to Transition Area 1,which the Planning Commission may wish to consider. These are: 1. No change. In other words, leave the property as it currently is, i.e.; horse racing for the race track,and commercial for the mall. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 2 5/16/96 • 2. Alternative#2, Scenario C, in the EIR, is commercial entertainment, or it can be changed to another designation such as special commercial. The entire race track property including the mall,proposing a maximum floor area ratio'equivalent to approximately 600,000 square feet of new development. 3. Alternative#2, Scenario B, in the E1R, it is also commercial entertainment, or a special commercial designaion for the entire race track property, including the mall, and proposing a maximum floor area ratio, equivalent to approximately 975,000 square feet of new development. 4. Commercial entertainment for the entire race track property, including the mall, which proposes a maximum floor area ratio equivalent to 1.5 million square feet of new development. 5. Redefine the GP boundaries, maintain the race track area as horse racing, the existing mall as commercial, with an appropriate FAR, and designate the southerly parking lot of the race track as commercial entertainment, or special commercial with the maximum floor area ratio equivalent to 600,000 square feet. 6. Redefine the GP boundaries, maintain the race track areas as horse racing, the existing mall as commercial, with an appropriate FAR and designating the southerly parking lot to commercial entertainment, or special commercial with a maximum floor area ratio of 975,000 square feet for the southerly parking lot only. 7. Redefine the GP boundaries, maintain the race track area as horse racing, the mall as commercial, with an appropriate floor area ratio, and create a new designation for the southerly race track parking lot of special commercial mixed use, which would allow up to 500,000 square feet of commercial entertainment and up to 350 multiple family residential dwelling units, equivalent to an R-3 zoning. This would be similar to alternative#1 in the draft EIR. 8. Redefine the GP boundaries, maintain the race track areas horse racing, create a new area, a new designation for both the mall and the southerly race track parking lot of special commercial mixed use, which allows up to 600,000 square feet of commercial entertainment and up to 350 multiple family residential units similar to 24 du/ac. On May 14th there were questions raised by the Planning Commission and the public regarding exploring additional alternatives to meet the fair housing requirements;the report includes some ideas which are available for discussion tonight. These are: 1. Include allowing second units on single family zoned lots. In 1983, this concept was explored by the City Council and the Planning Commission and the City Council at that time determined that second units in the single family zoned areas were inconsistent with the goals and objectives s set forth in that GP. 2. They could consider a maximum density of multiple family residential of 24 du/ac, on the Alternative School Site, which is on Bonita Avenue, with the option of increasing this density to 30 du/ac for senior citizen housing. The property is currently zoned, R-3, and contains approximately three acres, which would allow up to 90 senior citizen dwelling units on the site. 3. Allow multiple-family dwelling units with the maximum density of 12 du/ac on the 8 acre parcel on the south side of Lower Azusa Road. This could allow up to 96 dwelling units on the site. 4. Consider alternative#1 for Transition Area 1,the race track property which would allow up to 350 dwelling units on the site in conjunction with the commercial entertainment designation. 5. Allow mixed use, commercial, multiple-family residential with the maximum density of 24 du/ac and up to possibly 30 du/ac for senior citizen housing on minimum half-acre size lots along First Ave.between California St. and Duarte Rd. 6. Consider the 4.4 acre Foulger Ford site for multiple-family housing at a maximum density of 24 du/ac, or perhaps 30 du/ac for the senior citizen housing. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 3 5/16/96 7. The Anoakia area which is approximately 20 acres of land. This would provide for upper end housing at approximately 20 to 30 dwelling units based upon the current zoning. Mr. Zola discussed what has happened with the current Housing Element. He said LSA has discussed the issue with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) who is responsible for monitoring compliance of cities and counties with state Housing Element law. ,Until the adoption of the recent law, the City was required to do a comprehensive revision to its Housing Element and have that adopted by June 30th of this year. The City now has until June 30th, 1998 to complete a comprehensive update of the existing Housing Element. However,HCD also said that the City of Arcadia still needs to respond to HCD comments on the existing Housing Element. HCD's comments were received in late 1995 in the midst of the program they were already working on. The determination at that time was to finish the Housing Element update that was due in 1996 and not worry about amending or fixing the old element. However, since they now have two more years, HCD staff is rather insistent that the City complete the process of the old Housing Element. The two major issues that HCD has cited with the existing Housing Element are: 1. That there needs to be additional land shown for residential development. The current Housing Element relies exclusively on the north and south race track parking lots to demonstrate that there is adequate land available. The Housing Element says that there is room for approximately 1,470 units, 1,400 of which are race track parking lots, and HCD says that is not an appropriate identification of land available for housing. 2. HCD is insistent that the Housing Element included in the GP use the housing projection numbers from the existing Housing Element. The existing Housing Element identifies a need for 806 new dwelling units, about 309 of which have already been constructed since 1989. According to HCD staff, they need to provide 497 new dwelling units in the GP. HCD insists that the City finish the process of the old element and then starting in 1997, restart the process over again and update it in 1998. He thought it makes a lot more sense to work with HCD and SCAG to do an update that would essentially take the City through the year 2003. The charge of the Planning Commission is to provide a Housing Element that identifies sufficient residential land for the construction of about 500 units. He noted that there was a comment in the public hearing that the City should look at Transition Area 4, north of Lower Azusa Rd. for potentially meeting Housing Elements requirements. That will not work because there is no way that the existing gravel pit in Transition Area 4 could be made available for housing by the year 2003, therefore, that is really not a consideration in adopting the GP and Housing Element. In response to a question from Commissioner Kalemkiarian, Mr. Zola responded that the Commission and ultimately the City Council needs to ask if it is reasonable that all 456 units required can be built within a reasonable time within the next 2-5 years? In response to a question by Chairman Daggett,Ms.Butler said the zoning for Transition Area 1 is S-1 and R-1. Chairman Daggett opened the public hearing. Fred Jahnke, 11 Hacienda, said he is a 35 year Arcadia resident and 4 of those years he served as a Planning Commissioner and he understands their problem. He asked why the City was considering Transition Area 1 for any change? There are no applications before the Planning Commission. The only thing they have before them is a"Chinese Menu" that staff has dreamt up with so many alternatives that he was surprised they did not have a "Russian submarine base and a launching pit in that thing." He thought there is nothing there and anyone could dream up a number of possibilities for what can go on in Santa Anita. The City is spending in excess of$300,000 to produce a document that the Planning Commission has been asked to vote on. This is an exorbitant amount of money. He failed to see why they are doing this? He also questioned why LSA Assoc. is present at tonight's meeting? It seemed to him at the last City Council meeting it was quite clear the judgment of the City Council was that no more money should be spent on having consultants, attorneys or others from the outside at these meetings trying to hold down the amount of money being spent. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 4 5/16/96 The reason Transition Area 1 has been included in the GP is because Santa Anita came to the City and requested a change and got it incorporated into this process. He did not think that staff, City Council or the Planning Commission decided to change the GP and then Santa Anita came to the City afterwards. He thought that is ludicrous. He urged the Planning Commission not to make any decisions until an application is filed. Floretta Lauber, 1225 Oaklawn Rd. She indicated that not only is she speaking tonight as a concerned citizen but she worked on the City's original GP, approximately 23 years ago. She thought the Planning Commission could do a much more orderly job by visionary thinking in a timely manner right now without pressure or political maneuvering. She remembered the May Co. and all the negative things that came about then that was going to ruin the Lower Rancho area. She also had the ex erience of serving on the City Council with the Santa Anita Mall. Because of her past experience she understood clearly the position that the Planning Commission was in and encouraged them to be bold and be visionaries, because the Planning Commission's recommendations to the City Council are exceedingly important. The City Council is under political pressure but the Planning Commission is not. They enjoy the freedom of being Planning Commissioners,planning for the future and doing it in an orderly manner. She did not know how they can grow and go forward and recommended that they consider a commercial designation for Transition Area 1 so that it does not end up being piece meal which is something they do not want. Monte Lindsey, 428 W. Huntington Dr., a resident for over 30 years, was concerned about the City's tax dollar. She indicated that she has been in various positions and was aware of the business economy in the City. Santa Anita has always been a class act and there for the citizens. She asked that they seriously consider the re-zoning to commercial. Colleen Doan. 422 Gerona Ave., San Gabriel, representing Neighbors for Arcadia, was very happy and impressed about the discussion that took place at the May 14th meeting. She thought the discussion, both from the public and the Planning Commission, the questions and answering of the issues were wonderful. • For Transition Area 1, staff has created and proposed a new land use designation of commercial entertainment which exists no where else in the City and will only exist on a single owned single piece of property. The GP proposes between 600,000 and 1.5 million square feet of a variety of standard commercial office and some specialty entertainment uses. The citizens are suppose to want this proposed vision because they are told that development of the allowed businesses will create revenues for the City, between$315,000 and a couple million dollars, at the maximum. They are told further,that although development in Transition Area 1 will have such a pronounced financial impact, there will be little or no impacts in any other areas to the rest of the City. Looking at that idea she must ask what would bring about this financial windfall they are suppose to receive? Business, customers, employees. In short, in one sense, cars; 68,000 cars a day, compared to 40,000 for Baldwin Avenue,just as an example, according to the EIR. In trying to figure this out, she came up about 25 million more cars a year. "But do not worry, according to the EIR, 25 million cars a year will only affect Holly Avenue and Michillinda Avenue. But very few, if any of these,will be on the road during any peak hour traffic times." So basically, on paper, do not worry. everything is great. The citizens are suppose to accept all of this without a great deal of additional information. She was not suggesting no growth and sticking their heads in the sand but to go forward with such a large change without all of the additional and carefully articulated information is a mistake. The people she represents have two recommendations for the Planning Commission's consideration for Transition Area 1. 1. To exclude the commercial entertainment land use designation in Transition Area 1 from the document and acknowledge that this does not indicate the City's opposition to this land use. The Planning Commission want to wait before any recommendations for specific plan of development and accompanying EIR which is not presently available. That would not be a piece meal or non-proactive statement. She asked that the Commission keep in mind that the recommendation was similar to staff's recommendation of April 29th, when they received the letter that Santa)Anita had withdrawn their application. Up to that point, staff was recommending a concurrent review,because they understood or at least recognized that there were enough people who were interested to see all the additional information.which would not typically be included in the GP. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 5 5/16/96 r-� fry 2. If the Planning Commission wishes to include a designation for commercial entertainment, she recommended to reduce the intensities for Transition Area 1 below the 600,000 sq. ft. analyzed, limit the broad range of uses for the commercial entertainment designation and reduce the land area on the Santa Anita property to exclude the race track grandstands and stable. She proceeded to discuss the traffic analysis because she felt there were a number of flaws. The City of Arcadia has a built-out street system, therefore, analysis must be as precise as possible, because there aren't many expansion alternatives for the next 15-25 years. Traffic analysis is not an exact science. There is often at least a 10-15% error threshold. The capacity analysis presented in the EIR is based on meeting LOS-D, which the City sees as a threshold. However, LOS-D is about a 90%level. So the capacity analysis uses a 90% level as its goal. "That is a not-to-exceed limit, rather than what it probably should be,which is a worst case scenario, so we fall somewhere in between,rather than right at the very height of that,because that sets the capacity analysis from the very beginning up a notch and does not reflect a realistic impact." Ms. Doan discussed the refined link analysis, a capacity analysis,which was done. The directional splits are the cars that turn off rather than going from link to link in a straight row and it is interesting that the set-up'of the percentages of directional splits for each of these commercial uses is exactly what adjusts the impacts all the way down and therefore creates this increased capacity. Now that is not really a fallacy by itself. But there is quite a bit of information that is missing. First of all it is based on a 24 hour traffic count. That sounds reasonable. But it is not based on peak hour traffic analysis. It certainly has nothing to do with race track peak. So, what it assumes is that capacities and levels of service will not exceed capabilities basically because the peak level volumes will not be exceeded. However, it concedes the traffic will be increased throughout the day. This assumption is based on the particular range of specific commercial uses identified in the scenarios. She included in her letter the chart from the EIR, and on the curve it shows that the peak levels are, if anything for a tiny bit of time, a little bit higher,but basically the same. But at all the non-peak times,the traffic is much, much greater. So basically, people will be traveling opposite the times they will be traveling now, they will be spread out very evenly throughout the day and be traveling from midnight to 4:00 in the morning, much more often now than they will be from 5:00 to 7:00. That is what the analysis claims. A closer look at this assumption leads to the following conclusions: Traffic volumes will be greater all day long. Traffic will be much greater during non-peak hours than it is presently. Since traffic will be greater all day long, it makes no sense to assume that it will not also be greater during peak hours. 60,000 additional cars for scenario A, and 25 million more per year, yet they are all going to be traveling at non-peak time, all of a sudden,because these commercial uses are so very different than the existing commercial uses. In fact,they are not. So they do not agree with this assumption that traffic will somehow magically be spread out more evenly.throughout the course of the day, simply because of these special uses identified in the scenarios for Transition Area 1. Certainly this is not true for the residential Transition Areas,which is included in that analysis. After all,these are not drastically different. The only difference really is the proposed increase in density. If they accept this analysis, it simply means they will have more traffic all the time. This would not be a positive situation. It simply is a method used in traffic analysis to keep the peak-hour increases below a 10%increase level, because that would boost the LOS for many of the streets beyond the LOS-D level that the City wishes to accept. Since the anticipated traffic levels as stated in the EIR will be at the very peak of capacity nearly all of the time, the likelihood of unanticipated delays and congestion is much greater than if traffic levels were less. She spoke to several engineers and their analysis was that it would be similar to running water through a pipe at full pressure at all times. The likelihood of springing a leak is much greater than when moderate pressure is used. Increased congestion, such as that already predicted for Holly Avenue,where the LOS F is expected for any of the scenarios studied increases the occurence of CO-2 hot spots. The traffic analysis would have them believe that the occurence of CO-2 hot spots relates only to traffic volumes,when in fact it also relates to congestion situations. Therefore, the analysis only looked at certain areas of Santa Anita Avenue and Huntington Drive,based on volumes. • Given this limited study,the EIR seeks to conclude that no significant impacts are projected for any of the roadways with respect to CO-2 concentrations. And the race track peak level traffic,again,was not analyzed in the EIR,but certainly must be included. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 6 5/16/96 It has been stated that this is not typical to analyze special or occasional events under a GP. But typical examples o special or occasional events are once or perhaps twice a year events. In this case, the traffic analysis has failed to include a rac season at Santa Anita that occurs from October to April with races running approximately five hours per day, five days a week for a six month duration. They disagree that this falls under the usual and typical category of special or occasional events. It is true that much of the major traffic congestion throughout the City is related to race season traffic, and to ignore this analysis. in this City while attempting to study impacts for commercial entertainment land use designation on the Santa Anita property is to leave out an extremely important and essential factor. Given that fact, the traffic analysis already assumes extremely high capacity throughout the street system, they can expect that during race season, Holly, Michillinda, Baldwin, Santa Anita Avenues,and Huntington Drive will all operate at worsened levels. How can any final conclusions be drawn without analysis of this information? With regard to intersection analysis, she said that it has been discussed whether or not just links or intersection analysi should be included. In fact, in their recent research, they found that the City.of Pasadena included intersection analysis in their GP, recently completed,and the reason for this analysis was based on the fact that land use changes rather than mere technical updates were part of that plan. Additionally, the City of Chino Hills included this information as part of a recent GP Analysis, which included changes also in land use designations. The City of Torrance recently concluded a GP where no intersections were included. However the traffic engineer t worked on that element told her that there was a very specific reason for this, and that was that the City was initiating a specific plan for Hawthorne Blvd. after that with no development following on its heels. So, in general, the opinion from the traffidengineers consulted was that it was neither typical nor was it atypical to include such information, but that it was up to the City's discretion. At previous meetings, she presented to the Commission and included in their packet statements, that much of a detailed analysis, which would be necessary to clarify the impacts, has not been included in this GP. It has been further stated by City staff and a consultant that this information is not typical or the detail usually analyzed. It has also been stated that this detail would be available if a project specific EIR from Santa Anita, for instance, were brought forward and analyzed. Staff told her that Santa Anita has already spent some $463 000 of the $500 000 they originally Y sP y expected to spend for their specific plan analysis when they did have an application. That analysis was provided by LSA. The same consultant used for the City's GP. The analysis was for two proposed versions, starting with the 1.5 and then the lesser one, some 900 and some thousand square feet for Transition Area 1 Perhaps some of this analysis is available. Since City Council indicated that they did not want to spend any extra money, perhaps some of that information could be available and could be discussed along with the GP, even if it is decided not to include it in the GP. If the City decides to keep the land use change for Transition Area 1 in the proposed GP, it must then decide to review and perhaps include a multitude of additional information in the EIR, some of which may already be available. All of this information would be provided as part of a specific plan of development and related EIR for the Santa Anita property. • This is why the recommendation to Planning Commission has always been to exclude the land use change and propo ed density for Transition Area 1 from the GP and bring it forward with a GP Amendment,specific plan and project specific EIR N hen and if Santa Anita submits their revised application. Does anyone here believe that Santa Anita is gone for good? It would be reasonable for them to come in with an application, once they get direction from the City. They have indicated thrpugh their spokespeople and in quotes in the paper that they intend to come back with a revised plan that makes more sense for the City and they have also indicated that they still have leases with the AMC Theaters to build a multiplex theater. So obviously, they still want to build. And this is not such a bad idea. But consider the land use change with all the available information. In conclusion, she stated that she provided additional information on traffic impacts, air quality, land use, aesthetics d views. The EIR states it cannot analyze the information properly without additional information. In this case, they do have all chance to look at that additional information. If that information is not available, they cannot look at that additional information and set the intensity levels directed from the GP with the specificity and to the degree that they are proposed.Thanks for your time. Dick Roche, 2320 Sewanee Ln.,resident of 41 years, indicated he had written 6 letters in two months. The last letter went into quite a bit of detail on what he found in the EIR and made comments on it. He tried to be non-controversial, either pro or con Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 7 5/16/96 • I and referred to page numbers. He wanted to discuss whether or not the Planning Commission should approve the zone change at this time before Santa Anita shows what they plan to really do. In four of his letters he stressed the importance of the City maintaining control of negotiations with Santa Anita and felt that approval of the re-zoning of Transition Area 1 prior to approval of specific plans and EIR for proposed development would reduce the City's control. His chief concern was that regardless of the alternative and scenario approved by the City Council. it should be done in a manner that the City has control of, and he thought the control would be lost if the re-zoning of Transition Area 1 was approved prior to receiving a firm written commitment from Santa Anita to proceed with the alternative selected by the City Council. He commented,the City had a good relationship with Santa Anita for many years. He further noted that Santa Anita withdrew its application to reassess the circumstances pursuant to which it would be willing to proceed with development of the site.The first circumstance, apparently, is that the City proceed with the re-zoning of the Santa Anita complex to commercial entertainment, to establish sufficient flexibility to accommodate appropriately designed future uses. In his opinion, this is not a very subtle effort to transfer some of the control in future negotiations from the City to Santa Anita. He urged the City not to make this gratuitous transfer of control to Santa Anita, and to withhold any action on re-zoning Transition Area 1 until Santa Anita submits a new proposal. At that time the re-zoning could be reconsidered. In conclusion, he suggested that the Planning Commission ask how would it benefit the City to approve the zone change at this time? He asked that the Commission withhold any action related to the rezoning of Transition Area 1 until a new specific plan and EIR has been received from Santa Anita and reviewed by the City officials and residents. John Wuo, 135 Alta, Chairman of the Arcadia Board of Realtors, expressed concern regarding the 24 and 30 du/ac. The real estate market has experienced a down market for the last 3-5 years. He asked if San Marino is mandated by the same State Law that the City of Arcadia is? He was concerned about the housing densities proposed in Transition Area 3 and the impact on the downtown area. He did not think that affordable housing is something he wanted to see anywhere in Arcadia. Gino Roncelli, 1250 Ramona Rd., a resident of 35 years. He asked who specifically wants this land use change at Santa Anita? Ms. Butler stated that the City was the one who asked for the change. He thought staff was the one who initiated this and not the City Council. If staff has asked for this change,then maybe they should let the Planning Commission and the citizens know what the advantages of this change could possibly be for the citizens of the City. He asked why City staff was trying to "jam this down the citizens throat"when they know the negative impacts which"shows it is bad for our citizens?"He was concerned about the amount of money being spent on this project. He thought what should be done right now is to shelf this item until such time that whoever wants to develop that land, comes back with an application, and then the applicant can pay for the updating of the GP. Who knows what is going to happen to that land? Maybe it will be sold off or another developer will come along. And he hoped someone would come along with a plan that would be much kinder to "our" community. He did not believe that the entertainment complex is the only path for the City's future and suggested no change in Transition Area 1. Tom Austin, 301 W. Huntington Dr., representing Santa Anita. He requested that the Commission consider a broad commercial application to the south parking lot of the track property, and that they maintain the horse racing designation on the balance of the property. He also suggested that they consider a density for the south parking lot of 975,000 sq.ft. John Teel, 373 Harvard, stated he was standing in for his neighbor as well as himself. He thought it was commendable that each of the Planning Commissioners have kept their opinions private and have not made an effort to campaign for one issue or another. He has lived north of the race track for 25 years. He wanted to make several points with regard to Transition Area 1. The expression"Community of Homes"has been worked so much that it is almost worn out. In many respects, it may even be close to a misnomer: There is no community that is totally dependent on residential income, tax income, and provides the level of service that Arcadia citizens enjoy. There must be commerce to provide for and be convenient to all of those citizens as well as to provide the revenue enhancement that is necessary to support the level of services that all citizens have come to expect. As time passes, changes need to be made to keep this commerce and residential balance. Any rational businessman knows that he must get the maximum return on all of his assets or the stockholders are dissatisfied. He believed that Santa Anita should have the right to take every advantage of all of their tangible assets. He urged the Planning Commission to complete this process as they have made every effort to do,listening to every possible opinion from the populous, make a recommendation to City Council and have them vote on it as they have elected them to do. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 8 5/16/96 .___ , 0 . s._ .i "A local minority professes to be friends of Arcadia and even, in some instances professes to represent me After al sustained drive of some months, they announced recently that they have 5,000 signatures on some sort of petition to bring the question of the land use of Transition Area 1 to a vote. The petition that is meant to prevent such grim warnings as topless bars, card clubs, gambling of all nature, permanent lung damage from emissions, gridlock traffic, violent crime, and so forth. If they represent 5,000 people, and there are in excess of 50,000 in the population, that is 10%. If, in fact, they represent 5,000 voters and there are 26,000 voters, then perhaps they represent 20%. If that is the case, perhaps he represents the non-vocal majority of somewhere between 80% and 90%. But he did not profess to represent them. He represented himself and the proxy that he brought with himself. He believed that they should be proud and thankful that Santa Anita companies continue to do business in their City, and supply and provide the City with tax and other fees that they count on every year. They are an outstanding corporate neighbor , almost never refusing to support any worthy effort with money or gifts in kind through the free-use of some or part of their facilities. Their foundations have provided major gifts to the library, to the hospital, to the Arboretum, and other worth Arcadia institutions. That support is always done quietly with never a great fanfare, but over many years they have shown that they can be counted upon when they are needed. They should be working with them as partners, not as some opposition. He recommended and urged that the Planning Commission consider Transition Area 1 to be zoned commercial entertainment in order to give this company, this partner of the City maximum flexibility to develop that tangible asset for the greatest return to the business. John Cafarella, 146 E. Alters. He distributed copies of his correspondence. He indicated he is a principle engineer with over 30 years experience. He was offering the following testimony as a resident of Arcadia. The documents he distributed were copies of his presentation including some attachments from the actual GP, including Appendices. He was not sure from comments he heard that the real impact from the information presented in the GP is really appreciated and how it is going to affect traffic mobility in Arcadia. He wanted to focus on the traffic issues which impact everyone and many other environmental issues, such as noise, pollution, safety, circulation, quality of life. In the environmental process, it is very important that their evaluations be based on accepted, realistic practices,with a prudent degree of conservatism to allow for unexpected unknowns. Arcadia has a fully-developed, built-out roadway system. With a situation such as that, solutions to traffic problems will cause hardships to residents and businesses that can be severe. An example, in the document, the consultant recommends widening Holly to four lanes to mitigate traffic problems. He was not sure where they would get the land. He was concerned with the mobility statement which states "Arcadia will ensure mobility within and through the City by maintaining LOS D or better along all roadways and intersections". LOS D means utilizing 90% of the roadway capacity. Looking at the traffic chart, that is termed to be significant delays. So this standard would apply to all streets in the City, and there is no intersection analysis in the documents. Intersections have less capacity than roadways, control traffic flow not the lengths. In the beginning of the Appendix,there is a response from L.A. County, which recommends LOS C, or utilizing 80%of the traffic capacity. That is considered to be moderate delays and prudent planning, especially for a City with limited alternatives. With a LOS D 90%,there is almost no margin for error and if anything goes wrong,traffic delays will be p xcessive. traffic The consultant created trac guidelines based on stereotype conditions of the locales but Arcadia has conditions that are not stereotype. Considering all the uses in Scenario A, there will be over 32 million annual roadway trips or vehicles in the City per year. It is understood that progress has to occur,vacant land developed,but with a built-out roadway system in a 90%capacity goal, all the impacts need to be evaluated on the front-end,otherwise consequences could be severe. It is vital that a complete traffic analysis be done now, consisting of an air section, a roadway, a link analysis, and evaluation of any special conditions on th roadway that might result in reducing capacities, such as a roadway with many driveways on it to interfere with traffic ow. But intersections are the controlling factor of traffic. Typically, driving down the street, all traffic is waiting at an intersection. There are letters from Cal-Trans and L.A. County, in the front of the Appendix, both requesting complete traffic analysis, including air section analysis. The consultant says, GP Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 9 5/16/96 Traffic Analysis was done elsewhere only on the basis of link analysis. However, some cities such as Pasadena, Claremont, Ventura, and Ontario include an intersection analysis. How is the significance of a land use proposal impact to be determined with only part of the traffic analysis? The Planning Commission really needs the whole analysis, especially the one that is going to limit the traffic flow. The consultant indicates intersection analysis are usually done where there is a specific project. The Arcadia GP is actually quite specific. There are four areas that the Commission should evaluate. And from that they can actually get very specific values. LSA has indicated this is normal, but again, there are conditions in the City such as the race track and the mall that have heavy impacts throughout the year. In addition to the five to six months that the race track operates and the Christmas season, they are now considering expanding uses with all this additional traffic that will result from the rezoning of Transition Area 1. This is significant. Traffic analysis studies are done typically on an hourly basis, and whether they are examining link analysis or an air section analysis, they are looking at peak hour traffic because that is the time of day that traffic is the heaviest and it is the worst, and typically if there aren't any problems during peak hour traffic, there will not be any problems at other times during the day. If they were to do a 24-hour analysis, they would not know if there are any problems during the peak hour, because they really haven not examined that. Mr. Cafarella questioned the traffic impacts in relation to the different scenarios and the peak hour analysis. He continued his discussion of the information he presented to the Planning Commission. In closing, he commented that traffic engineering is not at exact science. It needs to be based on uniform prudent established practices, with some degree of conservatism, especially in issues of design analysis. This is of the utmost importance to a City like Arcadia, with a built-out roadway system. It does not provide the ability to deal with unforeseen surprises and traffic volumes. Problems could result in severe consequences. If the Commission has not seen Lake Ave. they should go out there and look at that during peak hours, because that street starts out at Walnut with seven lanes,then it increases to eight lanes,and then to nine lanes. This is the volume on it, and the Planning Commission can draw it is own conclusions how traffic flows on it. The City also needs to be able to live with the decisions they make, and with the built-out roadway system, the major generators, such as the race track and the mall, the Planning Commission really needs to examine all significant facts, especially traffic, since it affects everybody. It also needs to be realized that if the roadway system does not provide satisfactory service to those who use it,then the residents, local businesses, city government, and all new development will become victims due to declining property values, declining revenues, and declining business. People go where they can reasonably get to. Thank you. Gail Marshall, 2320 Lee Ave. did not think anybody had a problem with Santa Anita wanting to develop to its maximum. This is what smart businessmen should do. She thought the problem was timing and that they were putting the cart before the horse by rezoning, then submitting plans. She thought a lot of good points have been brought up. The City needs to have control. She felt there are many people who want Santa Anita to be prosperous and utilize their land, but the time to rezone, is when the City has the plans before them. How can the City rezone and put rules on an unknown? She expressed frustration regarding the cancellation of the first public hearing and the cost of another hearing notice and asked who was responsible? Chairman Daggett responded that is irrelevant to this hearing. This is a land use body, but the City has gone on the record that they made a mistake at that hearing, and the City Manager has apologized profusely for the miscalculation that was made. Ms. Marshall can write a letter to the City Manager and he will be glad to respond but that is not part of his hearing tonight. This is a land use hearing. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 10 5/16/96 1 l0 l r Mitchell Sullivan,407 San Luis Rey Rd., said he has been an Arcadia resident for 40 years. He was not against the Santa Anita Entertainment Center,but he did not think this was the time to do it. He thought the City should stall off the Santa Anita deal and give the merchants downtown a chance to re-establish and get their business back again. Judy McKinley, 17 W. Sierra Madre Blvd., addressed the issues of the public hearing notices that were mailed. She understood the City complied with the law and that notices were sent to homeowners in the City. However,she believed the spirit of the law was that all residences of Arcadia should be noticed for public meetings. She asked if they were expanding the old Redevelopment Plan,and creating a new redevelopment project or is the Commission rezoning or changing the existing GP? In response to the gentleman that spoke earlier regarding the registered voters, she felt as though they had about a 70°0 approval rate. She did not think that Neighbors of Arcadia are so very small in that their support is so very small. Randall Kroha, 1000.Paloma Dr., behind the Arboretum said he has lived in Arcadia for 14 years. He thought wh n a public hearing is held, and it is noticed in the newspaper, it could hardly be described as jamming something down the at of the citizens. He thought this was a unique opportunity for the City. The City needs experienced leadership because they are making decisions before they have all the answers. There were concerns when Santa Anita wanted to develop the mall in this community. He has heard all the reasons why they should not approve this. He heard it when they wanted to improve the school system. He is now hearing it again with private enterprise with someone who has proven for over 60 years that they have had a good relationship with the City and have earned their trust in the community. The City does not have an obligation to Santa Anita to give them carte blanche; the City should maintain control. But the way to do is not to push them away and not to jeopardize the future of their business or to change the relationship or create an environment where they will not have the same shareholders or management team. They could be dealing with a completely different management team; a new group that could have a completely different attitude,because they will know they are in an unfriendly business environment. "I think what you.have here is a situation of assessing real pro lems, real opportunities,and real leadership". He went on to say that real problems would be low cost housing and the density and expenses that go along with supporting that. A real problem would be changing the business environment in this community and creating an unfriendly business environment. especially with a known entity who has been a long-term partner with the residents. Those would be real problems. This is a real opportunity which other communities do not have. They do not have years of experience in dealing with traffic like the City of Arcadia does. Other cities have to give away millions of dollars in incentives. They have to give away land and are actively doing that. If the City waits for more data, and does not use leadership in this situation, Monrovia and Pasadena have land opportunities to take some of this potential people away. It would be nice to wait a couple of years to look at this, but it is not that simple. This is much more complex. There will be many things that will not be answered until a project is well underway. _ So, they could have real problems that currently do not exist. They have real opportunities here that is unique and will be taken by other cities and they will lose, if it is delayed. He said the City needs real leadership. If they decide to delay�to go to a community vote, and obtain more assessments, studies and plans to get all the data which will do nothing but hel them feel more secure, they are still making a very loud, very decisive decision to kill this project. This project won't go on tlecause the people who want to anchor this project will not continue. They will take opportunities in other areas here. They have already done the demographic studies. So a decision to delay and wait for the perfect decision and a perfect opportunity ith all the answers is really a decision to kill the project. He recommended that the Planning Commission move ahead with the project. He hoped the Planning Commis ion would commit their capabilities to manage the project and to take the leadership and move ahead with it. Drew Krinicki, 321 Leroy Ave. said in response to the last speaker, Santa Anita was having a management change o der because Messrs. Sterling and Cordova are no longer there, and the Chairman of the Board has been moved aside from the realty side and put into the operating sections, so they have just had that management changeover there. They do not know now what the new people's ideas and visions are. He did not think waiting for all the details would kill the project. He commended the Planning Commission for their behavior during the last few meetings which have been very gratifying to him. As far as the Housing Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 11 5/16/96 • , Element is concerned, he concurred with Mr. Zola's recommendation suggesting to roll back the zoning to where it is currently, making the exception for the senior housing at the level of 30 du/ac. He thought that is terrific and everyone in the room would probably agree with that suggestion. With respect to Transition Area 1, he was happy to see the direction that the Planning Commission is taking especially because staff recommended, as one of the options, a do-nothing option, a stationary option to keep horse racing in its current configuration until the track comes back with their specific proposal. That makes a lot of sense, because Bob Ellison yesterday gave June Alford over 5,000 signatures of people here in town who are demanding that before any land use designation is made the option be submitted to the voters for their approval. Secondly, it seems the Planning Commission would prefer to choose a minimal as the approach to meeting the government requirements,rather than going off on a big visionary-type thing. He commented that the City Council made a very clear statement to the Planning Commission that they want the spending to stop. He did not think the City wanted to spend a whole lot of time analyzing several options. The citizens wanted Santa Anita to have the opportunity to present a specific plan to them. As far as making changes to the GP, California Code is very clear. The City can make changes to the GP four times a year, and incorporate any number of changes at any of the times that a change is made in the GP. So, the opportunity for them to make a change in the GP in the future is there. This year, the City Council adopted an ordinance that any project over five acres be approved on the basis of a specific plan rather than on the basis of a zoning ordinance for that particular area. Once again, the specific plan is a useful tool for putting the City in the right direction, and the California Code gives ample opportunity for applicants to submit their proposals in the form of a specific plan, and at that same time,ask for an amendment to the GP. Keep the option #1, which means, keep the area horse racing for the time being, and welcome Santa Anita to come forward so that they can develop their property as they need to. But invite them to come up with the facts of what they want to do, and then they'll be happy to look at those facts and act expeditiously upon their proposal. Robert Wall, 451 Harvard Dr. stated in an era of minor problems with television and movie educated youth, such as murder, rape, car jacking, drug dealing, armed robbery, gang wars, their friendly neighbors, the Santa Anita companies, their"neighbors from hell",the Santa Anita companies,want to invite thousands from surrounding communities into their immediate streets. The proximity of high schools, junior high schools, and grade schools is no problem to them. They are preparing to build comfy seats in 20 some theaters for the underprivileged teens and pre-teens who are able to get to Arcadia. He was worried, and saw worried faces, and he knew why they were worried. He said he is a graduate of Hollywood High School, went to UCLA and grew up in West Los Angeles. In 1977, his car was stolen and in 1978, a very close friend was killed in an alley. He was quite familiar with entertainment areas and the associated crime. In 1979, he took his wife and moved to a quieter and safer place, Arcadia. They began to acquaint themselves with the workings of local government by attending some City Council meetings and gradually began to notice an authoritarian attitude from the so-called public officials, or civil servants. He wondered, aren't these people elected to represent the people? Why aren't they non-staunch defenders of the people? Why aren't questions answered in a forthright manner? Why does evasiveness pervade the air at meetings? If this is a community of homes, why is Santa Anita's welfare so constant in their everyday decisions? Why is the proposed zone change of the Santa Anita parking lot convoluted in the midst of other zone changes? Why weren't notices sent out about this meeting? On April 10th, they attended the so-called public hearing where much of the public was herded outside. The Chair remanded a resident who made a suggestion so sensible that 20 minutes later it was adopted. They attended again on April 29th and 30`s. The Chair warned the " unruly citizenry" that he had the gavel and would not put up with various outbursts or such behavior as clapping. The City Attorney warned the dangerous throng that meetings in Arcadia were conducted with a certain decorum and none other would be tolerated. The Chair added the citizens may be removed. "A Councilman shook his head as impassioned speakers carefully thought-out speeches were applauded. Where am I? Nazi Germany, I thought? I look around and I see worried homeowners who have invested their lives in Arcadia. I see honest tax paying citizens scurrying through the streets with petitions, getting signatures to try and stop Santa Anita's ghastly plan. Please, ladies and gentlemen, I implore each and every one of you, re-think your priorities. Are you here to run a government for the Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 12 5/16/96 people and by the people? Or are you here for some other purpose? If there is some other purpose, please tell me Otherwise please recommend no change. It is what the people want." Scott Sayer, 444 West Huntington Drive, directly across the street from the track parking lot, born and raised in Arcadia and attended local schools. Also, a licensed California architect employed by a firm which specializes in large commercial projects. After reviewing the EIR and GP amendment for Transition Area 1, the race track property, he asked why is there a need to change the zoning of the north portion of the property—the area, including the grandstands,tracks,stables, and north parking lot? If the track is a viable business and has no plans to leave, they do not need a zone change in this area. It is already allowed under the current zoning. However, if it is rezoned to commercial entertainment, the value of this land would go up enormously. It would actually be a huge inducement for the track to tear down the existing facility and fill this vast space with entertainment. It is important to point out that the current zoning prevents this. Horse racing is only a kind of overlay zone. The underlying zoning of the north portion has always been R-1,single family homes. This is not clearly indicated in any of the EIR documents. However, it is clearly on the City's zoning map. If the track decides to vacate, this portion of land should revert to R-1. There is no reason to rezone this area. Why is there a need to rezone the south portion of the site now, except to allow the entertainment center to go ahead? What is the vision? What does the City want this area to look like in 10 or 20 years?Right now it has the potential to be almost anything. This zoning is not proactive, but merely a reaction to a plan submitted by the track. Any commercial development of over a million square feet will have unmitigable impacts on the City and will entirely change the character of our community of homes. The citizens should have the opportunity to vote directly on this issue of this import. As an architect, he believed that some additional square footage could successfully be tied onto the mall as a kind of entertainment expansion, perhaps even as much as 500,000 square feet to diversify the mall's tenant mix. Let's wait for a specific proposal before proceeding. In summary, retain the land's potential. Just leave it alone. Barbara Cogorno, 365 W. Duarte Rd., three doors east of the intersection of Holly and Duarte. She commented that based on the EIR one of the mitigation measures to increased traffic would be to widen Holly Ave. to 4 lanes. She asked if the Planning Commission owned property on Holly Avenue, lived there, or if their children went to school at Holy Angels or at Holly, or at Baldwin Stocker, or even at Arcadia High School,would they want this? She did not feel that any residents should be sacrificed so that an entertainment center can go up at Santa Anita. There is gridlock already at Holly and Duarte Rd. and she was concerned that there would be gridlock all day, instead of just during racing. She requested that they do not sacrifice the neighborhood just for the entertainment center. Marguerite Spencer, 1008 S. Mayflower bought her home in 1952 and has lived there ever since. The first GP, adopted in 1970, in part stated that this area should be recognized in the GP as an important and continuing part of the City's desirable uses. While it was known that the owners had from time to time evaluated their attitudes toward the future Santa Anita, no important steps were taken by them to indicate that they had a serious proposal for alternate uses for all or part of this property. During the course of the GP studies, there was a change of policy at Santa Anita. The owners of the land suddenly submitted proposals to develop a shopping center. And now the City has Santa Anita Fashion Park. To her, this showed an interesting trend that the City starts off to do a GP and spends a lot of money on consultants and somebody comes along and wants to get on the bandwagon. It disturbed her the failure to recognize the Raymond fault marching right through the center of this area that covers part of the race track. She expressed concern regarding building on this site because they do not know what kind of action can come on this fault. It hasn't moved yet, but after Northridge last year, nobody said it moved either. She complimented the Planning Commission on their courtesy. Nicholas Tomchuk,431 West Naomi Ave., said what disturbed him was the preoccupation with what Santa Anita wants,but not much preoccupation with what the homeowners of Arcadia want. He thought there was no doubt that if Santa Anita puts in an entertainment center, it is going to certainly destroy property values. If they widen Holly, property values will go down. He thought the residents quality of life was going to decline because the City is catering essentially to a money-making organization. Originally, Santa Anita said, let's put in the track and that is all we're going to do. Then they said, let's put in the shopping center and that is all we're going to do. And now they want to put in even more. They are not doing it for the citizens benefit; Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 13 5/16/96 l IC 4 they are a money-making organization that wants to make a return. He thought the person in PIanning and the outside consultant seemed more concerned with Santa Anita than they seemed with the property owners and the people who reside here. These are really the people they should be working for and concerned about, not Santa Anita. He urged everyone to get behind the movement of zero growth. Growth is not going to help the homeowners and people who live in Arcadia. It is not going to help them as a community of homes. The only people it is going to help is to make more profit for the Santa Anita group. He wanted to try to get together and make a zero growth movement for Arcadia. Buzz Spellman, 1236 Oakglen Ave., a registered geologist. He was against changing the zoning on the basis of traffic and air quality and all the other things, but he also thought the Planning Commission should consider using that zoning that is present today for horses,simply because the Raymond fault is an active fault.He noted the fault hazard rupture zone does not go through the proposed development as Santa Anita was proposing it. It does go through the race track, though. If it did move, that would be only 1%of the damage, 99%of the damage is from the ground shaking and the best place to be and the safest place to be during an earthquake is in a wood frame house because it is flexible. A commercial center will concentrate the public in buildings, theaters, and would be more risk and a hazard to the citizens and/or people that come from all around to use those facilities. Therefore, he thought it should be considered a potential seismic hazard for any commercial development, and even though they could design for that,it would perhaps double the cost of the usual buildings. Chairman Daggett said since there is no one else who would like to speak,the Commission will close the public hearing. The Commission will have discussion among themselves. The Commission will then re-open the hearing either tonight or at the next meeting. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Kovacic, seconded by Commissioner Murphy to close the public ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Bell,Huang,Kalemkiarian,Kovacic,Murphy,Daggett NOES: ' None ABSENT: Commissioners Sleeter Chairman Daggett summarized the procedures, noting that at the conclusion of the Planning Commission's discussion, they will formulate a motion that will be put into resolution form. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be fonvarded to the City Council. The City Council has the benefit of the Planning Commission's recommendations, and they can act independently. since the City Council is the governing body. The Planning Commission is an advisory body. Commissioner Kovacic requested a response from staff regarding points raised by the speakers tonight and requested a ten minute recess. There was a 10 minute recess. Ms. Butler explained that it is important to understand that staff was not proposing changing the zoning of anything within any portion of the City. The GP lays the framework for future zoning of the community. However, it is not zoning, If anything is changed in the GP that is not consistent with the current zoning, an application would have to come in for a future zone change. The GP creates a framework,it is the Master Plan for the City, often referred to as a"Constitution"of the City. Zoning gets into specifics on property. It sets forth regulations. The other thing she responded to was a question raised regarding the Redevelopment Plan which has nothing to do with tonight's action because this is not changing the Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Zola proceeded with responding to some of the more technical questions regarding the environmental issues that were brought up. He said one of the questions asked continually and in written commentary is "have the impacts of potential development of Transition Area 1 been addressed in the GP,and EIR." And he said that they have been. Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 14 5/16/96 ? 0 As Ms. Butler stated the GP is the"Constitution for Development" and when writing a Constitution, "you typically o not wait and say give us all the laws first, and then we'll write the Constitution around the laws that we have.". When th Planning Commission makes decisions regarding the GP,and land use map, what they are being asked to do is make a recommendation to the City Council that identifies what are the appropriate land uses throughout.the City. Once the GP is adopted, it can be amended by the City Council in the future. The task of the City is to define appropriate land uses. Within Transition ea 1, the Commission can make the finding that the change in land use would be appropriate, that the long term vision of the City is to have a different land use than today and define what that land use vision is. Or the Planning Commission can ecide that retaining the horse racing designation is appropriate. Whatever they decide to do, staff would need direction as to N1/hat is the appropriate land use within each of the fours Transition Areas. In terms of the housing, several things have been discussed; one is great support for reducing the densities in and around the downtown in Transition Area 3. The Planning Commission also heard a sentiment for zero growth. That is not a choice that is in front of the City in terms of housing and State housinglI law. He went on to say, that once the public hearings have been completed, the Commission needs to have a recommendation on the land uses,housing element and on the text of the plan. Staff will make the changes and revisions which they will decide if they are appropriate. He suggested the Planning Commission consider the EIR first, so that when they are making a decision in terms of land use and the text of the plan, they would be doing that in the context of the impacts that are identified i I the EIR. Depending on the changes that are made of land use and text, staff may come back again at the end of the Planning Commission's discussion and recommend that additional environmental work be done if impacts that were addressed ' the EIR have changed. There was some discussion regarding the procedures and process. Commissioner Kovacic asked if the Planning Commission chooses one of the alternatives and options set forth in the E , would the analysis that has been done so far be adequate? He inquired about the options of the housing? • Mr.Zola replied that it would and stated that he felt confident that any of the eight options would not require additional analysis. He said the housing would depend on what combination they were in. Some would not require analysis. . There are two alternatives related to the race track property;those are already identified in terms of residential numbers. Depending o I how the units are added,it would be fairly easy to identify, an equivalency between the densities that are suggested for housing and what is currently shown in the plan. So the analysis would be done. Commissioner Kovacic asked if these were not analyzed because he did not think they were good alternatives? Mr.Zola explained that the second units was not included in the Housing Elements,since that was something the City, d looked at and rejected several years ago. They looked at alternatives of reducing residential densities to the 24 du/ac and keejling them lower. That would be in combination with, for example, housing on the Santa Anita site. Staff did not look at the Alternative School Site,because that was something that came up very recently and was not known as a possibility. The south sidepf Lower Azusa Rd. was discussed as an alternative,but it was already explained as to the reasons staff looked at that and did n t include that as a recommendation. The idea of 350 dwelling units within the Santa Anita property is included in the alternatives of the EIR. The concept of allowing senior housing at 30 du/ac when the standard family or the standard type of multi-family would only go up to 24 du/ac would not be a problem. Looking at First Avenue between California and Duarte, staff looked at the alternatives at a mixed use category. The Foulger Ford site,was not considered for housing because of the pre-existing commercial use. Chairman Daggett thought the plan should be sent with the Planning Commission's comments to the City Council, but that no changes should be made to it. Commissioner Murphy asked if the Planning Commission would be discussing each of Transition Area and the EIR. Chairman Daggett said he was not an advocate of big extensive GPs. He thought GPs should cover exactly what the minimum is required by the State of California, and that is it. He said at some point in the discussion, he was going to recommend that the Planning Commission give serious thought to throwing out the whole concept of Transition Areas. He thought it was argumentative, restrictive, presumptuous and too specific. The GP was already way too specific. He passed out some of his Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 15 5/16/96 ■ • responses to the first section of Volume 1, and read his comments on the section that says"Introduction". He thought it was too wordy in detail,and if the format is to be followed,is too restrictive in identifying the unique features of the City of Arcadia. Under Section A, which discusses "Overall Goals and Objectives", he objected to the inclusion of phrases such as employment opportunities, educational, cultural, social well-being, and adequate municipal revenue stream included in a GP. He did not think a GP should be so specific that it is going to guarantee that there is going to be an adequate municipal revenue stream. On "Nature and Purpose" of the GP, Item B, he had objections to the reference to the provision for"high levels of public services" and again,the maintenance of long-term economic liability. He did not think a GP should address a high level of public services. That is too subjective. He did not like Sections B(a), titled "Role of the GP". He thought it is too wordy and redundant. He liked the "State Mandated Elements", because it identified those minimum areas to be covered as mandated by the State. In the area that is called"GP Format Organization Structure",he objected to the inclusion of the phrase"municipal facilities and public services" again. Under Interpretation of the GP, "Competing Policies and Priorities" he objected to the beginning reference to "Transition Areas" because that is where they would get themselves in trouble. If the GP wants to address specifically the need for conformance with the Housing Element, then it should address that specifically, and it should say the number of homes and dwelling units that the community needs, the cost and general location instead of being specific as to the location. Commissioner Kalemkiarian agreed with Chairman Daggett. The term"Constitution"was used and it is subject to interpretation, which allows the Planning Commission the flexibility to make some decisions. It allows the staff to make some decisions, and the zoning laws and the municipal code helps define those decisions based on its general acceptance in the GP. He thought there were a lot of things in the text that were very specific, that were redundant and unnecessary, and he thought as a body the Planning Commission should strive to tone the document down to where it is subject to interpretation on a specific job or project, and at the same time,deals with the California Mandated requirements of housing. Commissioner Kovacic disagreed for a couple of reasons. He thought there is a certain amount of faith that is involved in this process and they have to assume that a consultant who is well versed in the law and Planning has proposed something that in his mind is good planning tool and also a legal document. The Planning Commission's job is to look at the big picture and put together a vision for Arcadia. He certainly did not think it was the Planning Commission's job to erase what they felt was surplus,just to make the document shorter. He stated that because the City's"Constitution", which is suppose to be general,but it cannot be so general that one could read into it anything they want to. That would be like saying that the"U.S. Constitution" has one sentence, and it provides for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Someone looking at that will be unable to tell whether an act is legal or illegal. There has got to be more meat to it. He disagreed with a lot of things-in the GP, but one of those is not setting forth goals that the City should have a high LOS. He thought there should be a goal to maintain long-term economic viability and felt that is important. He did not think they would gain anything by deleting those phrases. The GP has to be an accessible document to every resident and property owner in the City. They should be able to look at it and look at their property, and based on what they read in the GP, come up with a proposal that meets the goals and criteria set forth in the GP. If it is too general, they will not have a sense of direction, and they will be debating everything all over again with every proposal that comes before the Planning Commission. He mentioned he has some problems with some of the specifics of the Plan, but he did not have any problems with the overall goals and objectives. Commissioner Murphy thought it was too wordy and difficult to get through. There is a lot of redundancy and nebulous stuff that one would ask why it is there. There has been a lot of time, effort and money spent on behalf of the citizens of this community, putting this document together. He did not think it is prudent for the Planning Commission to try to reinvent the GP at this time. Commissioner Bell thought they all made good points and suggested moving ahead and looking at the different recommendations and look at the general goal and the direction that they want to provide the City and not look or go backwards. Commissioner Huang agreed with Commissioner Kovacic's.comments. He said they should have a certain level of detail in the GP, otherwise they will not have a direction for the City. He concurred with Commissioner Murphy to review the Transition Arcadia City Planning Commission Page 16 5/16/96