No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 16, 1996~,___. ~ A G E N D A~ ^ 0^ Arcadia City Council .,, and ,~'*POR~t~9 , Redevelopment Agency Meeting AGENDA July 16, 1996 7:00 a.m. Arcadia Council Chamber PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1) ROLL CALL: Council/Redevelopment Agency Members Chang, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Kuhn 2) TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. (FIVE-MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON) 3) MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS Reports/AnnouncementslStatementslFuture agenda items 4) CLOSED SESSION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) to confer with legal counsel concerning the case of Sully-Miller vs. Arcadia and Arcadia vs. Sully-Miller & Seaboard Surety Company 5) Report and recommendation on the Downtown 2000 Streetscape and Public Improvement Project (A) Explanation of final project costs and request for approval of contract amounts to various contractors and consultants (B) Request for appropriation and reimbursement of $93,575 from Lighting Maintenance District Zone C for conversion of certain street lights from series to multiple circuit (C) Request for loan of $1.2 million to Agency from City Equipment Replacement Fund, and approval of Debt Repayment Plan Loan Agreement (Attachment 1- City Council and Redevelopment Agency Debt Repayment Plan) (D) Request to accept completion of the Downtown 2000 Streetscape and Public Improvement Project and authorize release of the 10°~ retention in accordance with contact documents 6) ADJOURN City Council and Redevelopment Agency to 5:30 p.m. July 16, 1996 in the Council Chamber. /% ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ANNOTATED • A G E N D A A Arcadia City Council and rHCOR>onsxca~~~o^ Redevelopment Agency Meeting July 16, 1996 5:30 p.m. Arcadia Council Chamber , ~ , ,.;, ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Kuhn CA TION Dr. ChanQ Excused 1. Discussion with Chamber of Commerce representatives regarding New Los Ms. Marko Brown Angeles Marketing Partnership (NLAMP) NLnr[P ripeese°ta- 7:00 p.m. INVOCATION Rev. Ron Fraker, Victory Chapel, Church of the Foursquare Gospel PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Patrick Malloy, Maintenance Services Director ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and Kuhn 2. PRESENTATION to the City by ~~ B~i~#&~Sfi~~~tof New Los Angeles Marketing Partnership (NLAMP) PRESENTATION of plaque to outgoing Arcadia Beautiful Commission Member Roland Kelly - Arcadia Beautiful Commission PRESENTATION of plaque to outgoing Parking District Commission Member William Wong - Parking District Commission PRESENTATION of plaques to outgoing Senior Citizens' Commission Members Hilda Henderson - Senior Citizens' Commission cvoc present Peggy Leatherman - Senior Citizens' Commission Lois Patnou - Senior Citizens' Commission PRESENTATION of Proclamation to Heidi M. Iseda, East San Gabriel Valley Parents' Day Coalition Coordinator PRESENTATION of CPR certificate to Mayor Kuhn by , D~~~i, Chamber of Commerce, Emergency Preparedness Committee All Present Ms: Marko Brown A1 Little Chamber/Commerce 1 . ~ ~ 3. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS MOTION: Read all Ordinances and Resolutions by title only and waive reading in fUll. 4. PUBLIC HEARING CA TION B.Kelly, Mtg re Downtown 2000 coscs & sully- Miller litigation Adopted 5-0 Public Hearing a. Report and recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 5933, A resolution Closed. Adopted of the City Council of the City of Arcadia,'California ordering the placement Res. 5933 5-0 of liens upon real property for the settlement of delinquent rubbish, sewer and property related fees 5. TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE'AUD~ENCE WHO WISH TO M. Spencer ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL F. Goddard G. Roncelli (NON-PUBLIC HEARING/FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT PER PERSON C. Doan 6. MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS City Council Reports/Announcements/Statements/Future Agenda Items see Minutes 7. CITY MANAGER 8 a. Report and recommendation to authorize the Maintenance Services Approved 5-0 co Department to fill various vacancies within the Department ~non-manag- ment positons b. Status report regarding pending Exclusive Agreement with NEWCO Waste Systems for the collection of residential refuse and o e Finalize year rec clables Y contract tor formal Council action c. Continued consideration of the Draft General Plan Update and the related ~proved 5-o to Draft Environmental Impact Report continue ais- cussion at 8-6-96 CITY ATTORNEY Council meeting a. ORDINANCE NO. 2053 - ADOPTION - An Ordinance of the City Council Adopted 5-0 of the City of Arcadia, California amending Section 6439 (17) of the Arcadia Municipal Code regarding newsrack mounting requirements. b. ORDINANCE NO 2055, - INTRODUCTION - An Ordinance of the City Introduced 5-0 Council of the City of Arcadia, California, amending various Sections of Part 9, Article III of the Arcadia Municipal Code relating to the Voluntary Emergency Medical Subscription Program 2 .. ~ ~ = ACTION 9. CLOSED SESSION a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) to confer regarding existing Workers Compensation case involving Andrew Ballantyne b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 - Annual performance Entered Closed evaluation of City Attomey position' ~ session ar 9:54 p.m. ADJOURN CITY COUNCIL to July 24,1996 at 7:30 a.m. ADJOURNED in memory of Dr. Antone 'Tone' Willard Nisson and 10:30 p.m. Albert Corr'i_gan ~ 3 r.\\.) ( � *WI" -0. (-) I z _ 411111111%if ;, ti . t .! . t 3$. STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT July 8, 1996 `' C. 1 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: Draft General Plan Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report REPORT OVERVIEW In March, 1995 the City Council authorized the Development Services Department to proceed with a General Plan Update. The City contracted with LSA Associates, Inc., an independent consulting firm, to prepare both the General Plan Update and the related Environmental Impact Report (EIR), with Agajanian & Associates to prepare a fiscal impact analysis and with Freilich, Kaufman Fox& Sohagi for supplemental legal services regarding environmental issues. Tonight is the beginning of the formal public hearing process before the City Council. In order to proceed through the hearing process, the staff report has been organized into the five sections: ♦ The Draft General Plan Update (hereinafter referred to as GPU) • Transition Areas ♦. Planning Commission Recommendations • The Draft General Plan Update EIR(hereinafter referred to as the DEIR) ♦ The Fiscal Impact Report ♦ City Council Action PROCESS BACKGROUND On May 17, 1995 a General Plan Community Workshop was held at the Arcadia Community Center. The notice for this public hearing was published on May 4 and 11 in the Hometown Section of the "Star"newspaper. In addition a quarter-page ad was planed in the same paper. LASER IMAGED CC Report-GP Update • Page 1 July 8, 1996 ofn lc , " J The purpose of the meeting was to assist the community in the identification and refinement of the City's vision of its future and choices that are made in achieving that future. An Initial Study was prepared to identify the potential environmental effects of the proposed revisions to the General Plan. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the DEIR was distributed on December 26, 1995, indicating that an EIR was required and inviting comments on the proposed General Plan Update project from Responsible Agencies, other public and state agencies and other interested parties. A public notice of the availability of the NOP was published in the Pasadena Star News on December 28, 1995. A revised NOP was distributed on January 8, 1996 documenting revisions to the project description. Persons wishing to respond to the NOP could do so in writing not later than 30 days after receipt of the notice. Comments that were received during the NOP period have been addressed as part of the Program EIR. On July 13, 1995, a public hearing notice was published in the Hometown section of the "Star" newspaper regarding a joint public meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council which was held on July 19, 1995, to discuss the formulation of alternatives to be addressed in the EIR for the General Plan Update. At this meeting, potential General Plan alternatives were presented to the Planning Commission and City Council, whose comments were considered in formulating the recommended General Plan Land Use Map and the alternatives that are presented in the DEIR. The Notice of Completion for the Draft General Plan Update EIR and General Plan • Update was distributed to all adjacent cities, agencies and interested persons on February 21, 1996. The public review period for the EIR was,February 21, 1996 through April 5, 1996 and was extended through April 10 to coincide with the Planning Commission's request for comments on the General Plan Update. On February 27, 1996, Lloyd Zola of LSA Associates, Inc. conducted a presentation to the Planning Commission on the General Plan Update, explaining how to review the documents (the General Plan Update and DEIR). • The Planning Commission held public hearings on the DEIR and the GPU on April 29, April 30, May 14, May 16, May 30 and June 25, 1996. On, June 25, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 1535 recommending to the City Council approval of the General Plan Update with specific changes which are outlined in this report. Notification of tonight's meeting was mailed on June 11, 1996, to approximately 1,500 interested persons and agencies. Notification of the hearing was published on June 13, in the Hometown section of the Star newspaper, noted in the City's June water billing and posted on the City Community Bulletin Board. e, ,.a ° t • CC Report- GP Update Page 2 July 8, 1996 The General Plan Update adopted by the City will serve as a comprehensive management plan for the future of the City, enabling land use and policy determinations to be made by City decision makers within a formal framework. This General Plan Update would replace the City's current General Plan adopted in December, 1990. • CC Report- GP Update Page 3 • July 8, 1996 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Purpose A General Plan is a statement by the City and its citizenry relative to the long range plan for Arcadia, and provides a comprehensive strategy for managing the City's future. The General Plan sets forth goals, policies and objectives which serve to function as a guide to the type of community desired for the future, and provide the means by which this desired future can be achieved. The Arcadia General Plan Update expresses, in the form of text, maps, and illustrations, the organization of physical, economic, and social activities that are needed to preserve Arcadia as a functional, healthy, and desirable place in which to live and conduct business. To provide for logical and orderly land use development, the General Plan Update addresses the following: • Immediate, mid-term, and long-term issues concerning the attributes that make Arcadia a desirable place to live • . Provision of the level of public services that is expected by the community • Maintenance of the community's long-term economic vitality • Protection of the public health and safety • Management of the use of environmental resources, such as water and air quality. According to State guidelines, the role of the General Plan is to. "...act as a 'constitution' for development, the foundation upon which all land use decisions are to be based. It ex- presses community development goals and embodies ;ublic policy relative to the distribution of future land use. both public and private." The General Plan: • Identifies land use, circulation, environmental, economic, and social goals and policies for the City and its sphere of influence as they relate to land use and development; • provides a framework within which the City Council can make land use decisions and provides residents the opportunity to participate in the planning and decision making process affecting the City and its sphere of influence; • informs residents, developers, decision,makers, and other agencies, as appropriate, of the basic rules that will guide development within the City and its sphere of influence; and CC Report- GP Update Page 4 July 8, 1996 • informs residents, developers, decision makers and other agencies, as appropriate, as to how the City envisions development in the surrounding unincorporated portions of the General Plan study area. The General Plan thus serves as a comprehensive management plan for the future, enabling land use and policy determinations to be made within a framework that incorporates all public health and safety and "quality of life" considerations in a manner that reflects community values. To be useful in managing a community's future, the General Plan addresses issues concerning protection of community lifestyles, public services, environmental protection and hazards, and the community's economic vitality. The General Plan defines whit is meant by "quality of life," and translates that definition into a working document that is intended to reflect the values of the community. The General Plan Update uses the year 2015 as the basis for its planning vision. However, because attitudes, social values, and physical opportunities and constr.ints change over time, the General Plan should be reviewed annually to ensure that the policies and programs contained in the plan are consistent with what residents envision as - the future for their community. Under State law; the Housing Element presents a short-term program that is to be reevaluated every five (5) years. When the City commenced preparation of the General Plan Update, the City was required to submit a Housing Element to the State by J.ily, 1996. On May 10 the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) announced that the State Legislature has approved a two year extension on the June 10, 1996 deadline for Housing Element revisions to June 30, 1998. The City, with the concurrence of HCD is pursing the third revision to the Housing Element earlier than is required (by July, 1998), rather than completing the second revision and beginning the revision process over again in 1 to 1 1/2 years. The City is preparing a seven (7) ear housing program (1996-2003) which would not need a comprehensive revision until 2003. To complete a Housing Element under this provisions entails working with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) who is legally responsible for preparing the Regional Housing Needs Assessment which provides each City with is "'air share" housing numbers to gain concurrence on 1996-2003 housing numbers that would be used in the Housing Element. The General Plan Update Goal and Objectives Arcadia's goal in preparing the General Plan Update is to establish a management plan for its future as a stable, mature community. In implementing this goal, it is the objective of the City to: CC Report- GP Update Page 5 July 8, 1996 • 4. • define and preserve the specific attributes which comprise Arcadia's identity as a "Community of Homes" and which, contribute to the high. quality of life of its residents; • . accommodate a diversity of residential housing types; employment opportunities; and commercial, recreational, educational, civic, and cultural activities which provide for the physical and social well-being of existing and future residents; and • ensure an adequate municipal revenue stream which furnishes the City with the long-term ability to continue providing a high level of services to its residents and businesses by promoting land uses which complement rather than compete with existing uses, and which generate greater municipal revenues to expend on the added cost of City service needed to support them. Proposed General Plan_Land Use Chanees as set forth in the OriginaLDraft GPU The following describes the land use proposals in the Draft General Plan Update: • Identifies goals, policies and objectives. • Identifies maximum intensity limits for each land use designation. • Replaces the existing multiple family residential (7+ du/ac) land use category with three (3) multiple family residential designations, establishing maximum densities of 12 du/ac, 24 du/ac and 30 du/ac in various portions of the City. • Identifies four(4) transition areas where existing land uses may change over time. • Identifies land use designations for its sphere of influence. Areas within the spheres of influence are currently unincorporated and under the jurisdiction of the County of Los Angeles. Designations identified for the sphere of influence correspond to and are consistent with existing land uses and the existing General Plan designations of the County of Los Angeles. State Mandated Elements of the General Plan - State law identifies the following seven mandatory General Plan "elements" but allows a great deal of flexibility as to how each local jurisdiction structures these elements into a comprehensive General Plan. • • Land Use • Circulation • Housing • Conservation • Open Space • Noise • • Safety CC Report- GP Update Page 6 July 8, 1996 In order to eliminate repetitive discussions of issues required by the State to be discussed in two (2) or more elements, the General Plan Update is organized into six (6) chapters: Community Development, Municipal Facilities and Services, Environmental Management, Environmental Hazards and Implementation and Monitoring Programs. • The seven State Mandated Elements are included within these chapters 'along with optional local and regional issues. The following is a summary of the six (6) chapters of the General Plan Update: • Chapter 1. Introduction This chapter provides an introduction to the City and to the Arcadia General Plan Up ate. Chapter 2. Community Development The Community_ Development chapter addresses the physical and urban lesign components to support the type of community Arcadia residents desire. It contains policies relating to three (3) mandatory General Plan elements: land use,housing and open space. This portion of.the General Plan Update focuses on the organization of the City's physical environment into a logical, functional, and aesthetically pleasing pattern of`land. uses that is consistent with local values, and includes a summary of the manner in which other General Plan issues will affect the arrangement and design of development. This chapter also provides the plans and programs necessary for the provision of housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. Included in the discussion are issues related to the provision of housing for'.,low, moderate, and upper income households, as well as individuals or families with\special needs (elderly, handicapped, large families, and homeless). Finally, this chapter includes housing programs to be undertaken over the next seven (7) years to meet the needs of each of these groups. With the exception of the four (4) transition areas identified below (see attached m p - Figure 2-4, page 2-15 in the General Plan Update), the General Plan Update does not examine any significant changes in the City's land use. The four (4) areas which are currently undergoing transition or possess opportunities for transition in the future are • 1. Santa Anita Race Track(referred to as either the Santa Anita Race Track or Race Track throughout this report means the entire property; i.e.; the race track, stables and all parking lots)/Santa Anita Fashion Park 2. Mixed use area along Santa Clara Street and Huntington Drive 3. Downtown Residential District (between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road and Santa Anita Avenue and Fifth Avenue) 4. Industrial area along the north and south side of Lower Azusa Road • • CC Report- GP Update Page 7 • July 8, 1996 A summary of the Transition Areas along with the original recommendation and the recommendations by the Planning Commission are included in the special section on Transition Areas. Chapter 3. Municipal Facilities and Services The primary focus of this chapter is to identify the services and facilities that will be needed to support existing and future residential, commercial, and industrial development within the study area. Topics addressed include transportation; infrastructure; educational facilities; parks and recreational facilities; police, fire and emergency response services; and general City services. This chapter provides a linkage between land use and the provision of public services, and provides policies that achieve consistency between the Arcadia General Plan Update and the provisions of the County's Congestion Management Plan, the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, and SCAG's Regional Mobility Plan. This chapter is intended to ensure that adequate levels of facilities and services are provided to Arcadia residents and businesses, and that new development pays its own way and does not impact the services and facilities enjoyed by present residents and businesses. Chapter 4, Environmental Management This chapter focuses on the management'of natural resources and open space lands. Topics addressed include air quality, biological resources, energy resources, water, mineral resources, historic resources, and open space. This chapter establishes appropriate levels of resource conservation and preservation in\light of the demands that will be placed on these resources by existing and future residents and businesses. Chapter 5. Environmental Hazards The Environmental Hazards chapter includes an evaluation of natural and man-made hazards faced by Arcadia residents and businesses, determines appropriate levels of protection from various hazards, and provides programs for achieving these levels of protection. Topics addressed in this chapter include geology and seismicity, stormwater management and flooding, noise, hazardous materials management and wildland fire • management. Chapter 6. Implementation and Monitoring Program The Implementation and Monitoring Program is the City's blueprint for action, presenting a specific set of actions to implement the City's goals and strategies. For each action program, the City department, individual,.or agency responsible for implementing the action is identified, along with the funding source and the necessary timing of the action. The Implementation and Monitoring Program is organized as follows: CC Report- GP Update Page 8 July 8, 1996 The Introduction presents a brief overview of the purpose and structure of the program. The Development Review Program lists specific actions that will be implemented part of of the City's development project review process. An introductory p that identifies the agency or department responsible for implementing then action programs and the funding sources. The Development Review Program includes perfor- mance standards for new development, and also outlines the site specific studies tha will be required of development projects. These performance standards are to be us d to determine the consistency of a proposed development project with the General Plan Update. The Intergovernmental Coordination and Community Involvement Program out ines programs to maintain open lines of communication with outside agencies whose acti ities affect, and are affected by, the City of Arcadia. Special Studies and Programs represent long-range implementation measures tha the community will undertake at various times over the life of the General Plan Update. The Program assigns priorities, which will be coordinated over time with the City's budget and capital improvement program. The General Plan Review and Update Program is an annual review and evaluation of how well the General Plan is actually working. It provides decision makers with the chance to reprioritize General Plan strategies, eliminating those that have been compl ted or have proven ineffective, arid directing staff to explore new techniques for implementing General Plan policy•directives should they so chose. The Implementation and Monitoring Program describes the specific actions necess to implement the community's vision as set forth in the General Plan goals, approach and strategies. The Implementation and Monitoring Program is organized into five (5) separate components: Development review, Housing Improvement, Intergovernme tal Coordination, General Plan Review..and Update, and Implementation Monitorin . It contains an index of the General Plan Strategies and how they are related to implementation programs. The Implementation Monitoring Program also incl des responsibility, funding, and timing mechanisms which'are necessary to implement the General Plan. Chapters 2 through 5, provide the General Plan's policy directions and include gol s, general plan approach and strategies. The General Plan Strategies in each Cha ter (attached) include actions or activities that detail how each goal is to be accomplished. • CC Report- GP Update Page 9 July 8, 1996 General Plan Approach and FAR (floor area ratios ions Throughout the General Plan Update, "Approach" sections are presented for each issue addressed by the General Plan. Update. Questions have arisen as to the extent to which these sections are to be used in determining General Plan consistency for subsequent development projects., The Development Review Program in Chapter 6 states that individual development projects are to be reviewed for consistency with the Approach sections contained in the General Plan Update. However, these Approach sections are meant to be statements of General Plan intent and vision, and are not meant to provide the type of regulations found in General Plan strategies or in the Development Review Program. The Approach Sections are thus a General Plan equivalent of the "legislative intent." Staff recommends that language be added to the General Plan Update to clarify this intent. Questions have also been raised as to how the maximum Floor Area Ratios (FARs) outlined in the Community Development Chapter of the General Plan Update are to be applied. Subsequent to adoption of the existing General Plan, State law was modified to require that General Plans identify the maximum development intensity permitted for non-residential lands. This is done through the use of maximum floor area ratios, which is a measure of the ratio of total lot area that can be devoted to building area. Thus a maximum FAR of 0.50 translates into a maximum building area equal to 50% of the total lot area. On a 100,000 square foot lot, this would mean a maximum of 50,000 square feet of building area, which could be configured as a 50,000 square foot single-story building, a 25,000 square foot two-story building, or any other combination not exceeding 50,000 square feet which is consistent with zoning ordinance setback and building height requirements. The maximum FARs outlined in the General Plan Update are to be applied on a project- by-project basis, multiplying the maximum FAR by the square footage of the project's land area to determine the maximum permitted square footage for the project. Thus, no individual development project may be permitted to exceed the maximum FAR outlined in the General Plan Update' . It is important to note that the maximum FAR as originally proposed in the Draft GPU for the Santa Anita Race Track/Santa Anita Mall land use designation would be applied by multiplying the maximum FAR by the total square footage of the land use designation to determine the maximum square footage of new building area permitted throughout this area. Another issue is that, the Draft General Plan Update text as originally proposed 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 General Plan Update to recognize that on these As in the case for maximum density within residential areas,there is no guarantee in the General Plan that the maximum density would be approved for any individual development project. CC Report- GP Update Page 10 July 8; 1996 • peak racing days, off-site parking within designated parking areas has and will con inue to occur. However, new development within the new land use designation must n t be permitted to exacerbate spillover of race track parking into surrounding reside tial neighborhoods and the County Arboretum. Staff recommends that the General 'Ian Update text be modified to clarify this point. • CC Report- GP Update Page 11 • July 8, 1996 • TRANSITION AREAS • The following is a summary of Transition Areas One through Four along with the original recommendation as set forth in the Draft General Plan _Update and the recommendations by the Planning Commission. (See attached maps). Transition Area 1 -SanlaAnita Race Track/SantaAnita Fashion Park The City recognizes that the horse racing industry is undergoing a significant change. With the advent of off-track betting and other forms of wagering, there has been 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 number of parking spaces for normal operations as it did in the past. Both the race track and the mall represent the most significant economic and land use resources for the City. Currently, both of these land uses along with the Los Angeles County Arboretum are a"regional" draw. They are centrally located, adjacent to commercial and civic uses and highly visible from the adjacent roadway system. The opportunity exists in this area to create a development which recognizes the unique attributes of the race track and mall and to cultivate a unique mixture of commercial and entertainment uses into a cohesive center. Recommendation Set forth in the Draft General Plan The original recommendation described in .the Draft General Plan was for a new designation for the entire race track property and,,the mall from "Horse-racing" and "Commercial" to "Commercial Entertainment" or 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 both was to assist in planning for an integrated land use pattern and facilitating-free market forces to introduce new, compatible uses with complementary• segments. The proposed land use designation was 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. Any decision on the proposed General Plan land use designation and text is no/ approval for any project. Specific land use applications are subject to separate and distinct public review and hearing processes. If the General Plan Update 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. In recommending the new land use concept, staff and the General Plan consultant are recommending a particular vision for the future • CC Report- GP Update Page 12 July 8, 1996 n • of the Santa Anita race track and Santa Anita Fashion Park area. This vision was formulated independently of the Specific Plan which was submitted by Santa Anita Realty Enterprises, Inc. and then withdrawn. Any future plans for this site are subject to review of both the specific applications and environmental analysis by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended that the current general plan designation of "Horse Racing" be maintained on the entire race track property and that the Santa Anita Fashion Park property maintain the designation of commercial with an appropriate maximum floor area ratio (FAR) compatible with the.existing development of the Fashion Park Mall. The Planning Commission reviewed the alternatives set forth in the DEIR and ther options described in the May 16 staff report including redefining the boundaries and maintaining the race track as horse racing and the existing mall as commercial and designating the southerly parking lot as commercial with choices on the maximum oor area ratios ranging from 600,000 sq. ft. to 1.5 million sq. ft. for new development. The. Planning Commission in its consideration recognized that the Santa Anita Race Track property is underutilized and the owners have the right to increased utilization of - their land. The Planning Commission felt, however, that because of the property's significant size, strategic location and its varied potential uses beyond horse racing, a change in the General Plan land use designation without a comprehensive project speeific EIR to support such a change would be inappropriate. In addition, the Commission recommended the following Vision Statement for the future of the Santa Anita Race Track: "The Santa Anita Race Track is a key community feature, and an imporant component of Arcadia's character. The retention of horse racing at this.facility and the ongoing economic vitality of the race track are also critical to Arcadia's future fiscal health. Over the past ten (10) years, there has been a reductio in attendance at the Santa Anita Race Track, largely due to the advent of off-tr ck wagering facilities and a long-term downturn in the racing industry. The po ion of the race track's large open parking areas that needs to be reserved exclusi lely for race track event parking has thus been reduced. As a result, there has been much community discussion regarding the positives and negatives of permitting additional-uses within the race track's parking areas. It is Arcadia's long-term vision to retain horse racing and to preserve the existing grandstand structure. Although the Planning Commission supports carefully conceived development of the underutilized areas of the race track property, such development has the potential for impacting the community. Thus,-any future CC Report- GP Update Page 13 July 8, 1996 • proposal for non-horse racing development within the race track property needs to address the following needs: • Achieve land use compatibility with, and a logical physical relationship to, the adjacent Santa Anita Fashion Park mall and residential uses. • Retain the ability of area roadways to maintain Level of Service D, as outlined in the Municipal Services and Facilities Chapter of the General Plan. • Provide sufficient on-site parking so as not to exacerbate existing problems of race track patrons parking off site within nearby residential neighborhoods. • Maintain architectural compatibility with the existing race track grandstands. • Preserve important community views of the existing racetrack grandstands. • Provide sufficient on-site security so as not to impact the Arcadia Police Department." Other Alternatives The following are alternatives which the City Council may wish to consider: 1. No change - Do not change the General Plan designations on the mall or the race track; leave the race track "Horse Racing" and the mall "Commercial". This is similar to the "No Project" alternative identified in the DEIR and is the recommendation of the Planning Commission with the"caveat"set forth above. 2. Commercial Entertainment (or "Special Commercial") for the entire race track property. including the mall; a) proposing a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.12 which is equivalent to 650,000 sq. ft. of new development. (Alternative 2, Scenario C) b) proposing a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.15 which is equivalent to 975,000 sq. ft. of new development. (Alternative 2, Scenario B) c) proposing a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.18 which is equivalent to 1.5 million sq. ft. of new development. (Alternative 2, Scenario A) 3. Redefine the General Plan boundaries and maintain the race track area as "Horse Racing", maintain the existing mall as "Commercial" with a maximum 0.40 FAR and designating the southerly parking lot (approximately 123 acres) "Commercial Entertainment", "Special Commercial"or"Commercial"with: a) a maximum 0.10 FAR(535,000±sq. ft.) for the southerly parking lot only. b) a maximum 0.12 FAR(650,000±sq. ft.) for the southerly parking lot only. CC Report-GP Update Page 14 July.8, 1996 c) a maximum 0.18 FAR(965,000±sq. ft.) for the southerly parking lot nly. d) a maximum 0.25 FAR (1,350,0001: sq. ft.) for the southerly parking lot only. 4. Redefine the General Plan boundaries and maintain the race track area as "Horse Racing", maintain the mall as "Commercial" with an appropriate FAR, and create a new designation for the southerly race track parking lot of "Spl cial Commercial/Mixed Use" which allows up to 500,000 square feet of commercial entertainment and up to 350 multifamily residential dwellings units (maximum 24 units per acre). This is similar to Alternative 1 in the DEIR. 5. Redefine the General Plan boundaries and maintain the race track area as "Horse Racing", and create a new designation for 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 multifamily residential dwellings units (maximum 24 units per acre), which could be split between the mall and race track properties. This also is similar to Alternative 1 in the DEIR. Transition Area 2-Mixed Use Area alone Santa Clara Street andHuntinon Drive This area includes a number of underutilized or vacant industrial parcels designated in the existing General Plan as "Planned Development" and "Industrial". Interest has been shown for commercial or mixed use projects in keeping with other commercial land uses in the area. Many of the parcels are odd in configuration and lot sizes. Uses proposed in this area reflect the commercial, hotel and restaurant development that has already occurred in the area. 'N Recommendation Set Forth in the Draft General Play Parcels located north of Santa Clara Street and east of Second Avenue are currently designated as "Planned Development" and are proposed to be changed to "Mixed Use Commercial/Multiple-Family Residential" (C/MFR). The remainder of the area woul be designated as "Commercial". The General Plan Update includes incentives for e development of senior citizen housing, other affordable housing, commer ial development or a combination of these uses. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission is recommending that properties on the north side of Huntington Drive from the Metro Railroad east to Fifth Avenue (including the properties fronting on Huntington Drive) be mixed use commercial/residential with a maximum of 24 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) (30 [du/ac] per acre for senior citizen housing • CC Report- GP Update Page 15 July 8, 1996 • developed on minimum half-acre parcels) and the remainder of Transition Area Two be "Commercial". Transition Area 3 -Downtown Residential District Located south of the City's downtown, this area is designated as Multiple-Family Residential 7+ dwelling units per acre (du/ac) in the existing General Plan and contains a mix of residential densities which are in a state of transition from single-family and low intensity multiple family buildings to higher density projects. Downtown studies have concluded that an increase in density near the downtown would be beneficial to both residential and commercial uses in the area. This area also provides the greatest opportunity for meeting housing element objectives for the provision of housing for all economic segments of the community. Recommendation set forth in the Draft General Plan Three (3) new maximum residential densities are being proposed as part of the General Plan Update: 12 dwelling units per acre, 24 dwelling units per acre and 30 dwelling units per acre. 'These designations will replace the current 7+ du/ac. The 30 du/ac designation is proposed for parcels bounded by Santa Anita Avenue on the west and Second Avenue • on the east, between Huntington Drive and Duarte Road. The. 24 du/ac designation is proposed for some land use parcels bounded by Second Avenue on the west and Fifth Avenue on the east. (See Figure 2-4) The General Plan Update for Transition Area 3 is intended to: (1) assist in the orderly completion of the area's existing transition from single-family to multiple family development; (2) support downtown redevelopment'efforts; and (3) provide additional opportunities for the development of'affordable housing to meet the City's fair share housing allocation as determined by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. ' • Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends: • that the existing R-3 zoned properties be designated as Multiple-Family Residential with a maximum of 24 du/ac; that senior citizen housing within this area be permitted on minimum half-acre parcels at a maximum allowable density of 30 du/ac., • that the existing R-2 zoned properties be designated as Multiple-Family.Residential with a maximum of 12 du/ac; that senior citizen housing within this area be permitted on minimum half-acre parcels at a maximum allowable density of'18 du/ac., • CC Report- GP Update • Page 16 July 8, 1996 7---- U • that the properties fronting on the east and west side of First Avenue between California Street and Duarte Road be designated as "Mixed U e ' - Commercial/Multiple Family" at a maximum density of 24 du/ac on minimumlhalf- acre lots and that senior citizen housing within this area be permitted on min.mum half-acre parcels at a maximum allowable density of 30 du/ac. Transition Area 4-,Industrial areas along Lower Azusa Road • The southernmost portion of the City is designated as "Industrial" in the existing G neral Plan. Future development is anticipated to occur on three (3) properties in the area the first property is located on the north side of Clark Street and is part of an operating sand and gravel quarrying operation to the north in the City of Irwindale. There is no current quarrying operations in this area, however, the General Plan Update provides fo the reactivating of mineral extraction subject to the City's code requirements. Along Lower Azusa Road there are two (2) vacant parcels. On the south side of Lower Azusa Road is a vacant eight (8) acre parcel. On the north side of Lower Azusa Road is the site or the abandoned 85 acre Rodeffer quarry. The existing General Plan designation for the properties on the north and south side of Lower Azusa Road is "Industrial". Recommendation set forth in the Draft General Plan The proposed designation in the General Plan Update is "Industrial" consistent wi the existing General Plan. It is the intent of the General Plan Update that should the 85 acre Site be reclaimed, it should be developed with light industrial uses. The General Plan Update analyzes filling the abandoned Rodeffer quarry pursuant to the approved project for an inert landfill, as well as the land use after reclamation. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission in its consideration of this area reviewed the alternatives set forth in the DEIR including the concept of residential. The Commission noted that the. proposed "Industrial" designation is consistent with the adjoining industrial uses within the City of Arcadia to the northwest and the sand and gravel extraction activities at the Livingston-Graham Quarry within the City of Irwindale to the north, the San Gabriel River to the northeast and the Southern California Edison power lines and the 605 Freeway to the east. In addition, the proposed landfill operation approved by the City of Arcadia for the 85 acre parcel on the north side of Lower Azusa Road is compatible %frith the proposed "Industrial" designation. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the properties on the north and south side of Lower Azusa Road should remain "Industrial".as set forth in the existing General Plan and recommended in the proposed General Plan Update. CC Report- GP Update Page 17 • July 8, 1 996 • • • Angeles National Forest Los Angela County `_ City / Sierra Ma 7" • 3 . t \ 1ti / © • z • % •c`' ��y • La Angeles o y.r, i i Flood Cana! • i ELKA ' \ AVE. // • GRANDVIEW AVE. • • • • ? s' IERRA i ' ; :\!I j City of - ? StADRE ! pt/ Monrovia �� 3 p •BLVD. /or ,,\01, ORANGE iec•Udre \ C9� UaC i \ v I F GROVE AVE. W • a / • v_ • <v p City of !-`- -H © \I i 4 • 1 rr FOOTHILL L-..-.. _ � S�` ' i I I I _ ;=�� FOOTHILL BLVD. FRWY --;- -- =�T' ""_...,__ _.. -� �`--� ©._ 11!• i COLORADO T �.� .�...i . ...1-1771• . . I - -� I p�•BLVD. I ''4: 1 -r / ;���� �� I-- �'`- -��' r�. , -_- ; --1 —� • \-j. ' l r t(♦ ��� COLORADO BLVD.••Los An elq I �\ \ •� .. ••, j COIYI Los Amrys41 -:�i- g..��yy •y. . • ! !` f�-. --`./ ti' T _ ❑rt cmr= 7a.• HUNTINGTON DR. CALIFORNIA BLVD. '-..- �� • -s,' • 1/ �Rrs -,- \ —t • /— -1 , = �� it r- "�z• a • -I 1,l — ��` gar: _;� i fT - / 1 �,� IiiiMiz�p �� _-�-A CAMPUS DR. IJ _1 r rn< DUARTE HUNN���. ; .3 ' S�� City or. I_i_______ p I -,--i s ® ; - i 1 I I • i RD.t .1- i 1 I i , . I • II hill ±- I_. �_ _- -+•- ' I: ,-- Angela • ?III County •DUARTE RD. ........ --t I Ir° °-? I r ill • { o��gI , . MI CAMLVO L Coma --l ' 1� .f 1 F- 1 REAL AVE. lc City_ ©© (i Ir i Temp lc - ' _ — / LEGEND: ---- , F1■1•■i City of Arcadia ' --_ , ligliR 7 - I• I LONGDEN AVE. -- Sphere of Influence L- I_ I 1 IVE OAK AVE. - E .Commercial Entertainment —- ��``�- I I _P3 as 5 LAS IIJIIAS I ElSanta Clara Street DR 1 in Downtown Residential Tempe a > mot ' �f� co Quarry Site n 8� >> F C l . % 7' r__ jr i '1 Inhadak 4 Rodeffer sa 8 ›G > >• 0920111.1...t..41 - PUBLIC FACILITIES: rd ' �—.7- © ` • E Public Facility `Pl v itrn El Police Station ..`� ^ 4• r� ® Fire Station City ® Hospital � �etf Se.wr. o �,• 0 City Hall < EM Z. 4 Cover ® Community Center c m Library o '�� ® Elementary School y as4 • ® Middle School • 0 High School ,4�• ®4 ® Park Source: City of Arcadia, Development Services Department, 1995. 2/l ti/96(CTA 502) 0 LSA . i— c Land Use Transition Areas Figure 2-4 0' 1200' 2400' ��-`i .-� 0.ti4.1 . d 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS • The Planning Commission at its June 25 meeting adopted Resolution 1535 recommending to the City Council approval of the General Plan Update with the sp-cific recommendations relating to the transition areas as set forth in the text on transition areas and with the following additional recommendations: The Planning Commission recommended that the following goals/polices be incorporated in the General Plan Update: 1. The major commercial centers that currently exist in the City include: • Downtown • Duarte Road(Santa Anita to Second Avenue) • Fashion Park • Foothill Boulevard(Santa Anita to easterly City limits) • Hughes Market Center(Huntington Drive) • Live Oak/Las Tunas (El Monte Avenue to easterly City limits) • West Arcadia The City shall adopt policies and procedures that will promote the econ9�mic viability of these existing commercial centers and encourage complementary Uses and development to attract new business, particularly on City-owned property and on key vacant properties such as the Foulger Ford, Arcadia Lumber-and.Baler's Square sites. 2. Both Santa Anita Race Track and live horse racing are culturally, historically and • commercial important to the City. The City shall adopt policies and procedures that will promote and encourage continued live horse racing and the economic viability of Santa Anita Race Track. The City shall also adopt policies and procedures that will promote and encourage the preservation of the significant architecture and viewscapes of Santa Anita Race Track. 3. The City will benefit greatly from the construction of an auditorium and Metrorail train station. The City shall adopt policies and procedures that will encourage the construction of these two facilities. , 4. The City's excellent public school system is one of its most important assets. The City shall adopt policies and procedures that will promote the continued excellence of that school system. These policies and procedures shall include land use designations and decisions that will discourage (a) over-crowding of existing or planned school facilities; (b) incompatible structures or uses in the immediate traffic vicinity of existing or planned school facilities, and/or (c) unsafe trac volumes and conditions at or near existing or planned school facilities. CC Report- GP Update Page 18 July 8, 1996 • 5. The City shall adopt policies and procedures that will maintain the City's reputation as a "Community of Homes" including, but not limited to, land use designations and decisions that promote and encourage structures and uses that are complementary to and compatible with existing residential areas. 6. The City shall adopt policies and procedures that will promote a city-wide threshold of acceptability for roadway levels of service not to exceed LOS D (LOS C on local residential streets). The Planning Commission recommended, that the Anoakia property be included in addressing the housing goals of the City. If each available property in the City is built to its maximum residential density, a total of 552 units would be developed. This compares to the City's housing goal of approximately 500 units through the year 2003. Although the majority of the Planning Commission, did not concur; the Commission requested that Chairman Daggett's concerns as set forth below regarding the General Plan Update be passed on to the City Council: • the concept of transition areas should be deleted • the General Plan was too wordy, too specific and too restrictive • the General Plan should cover exactly the minimum required by State law and no'more • the General Plan should not address a "high level" of public services because it is too subjective Attached is a letter from Commissioner Kalemkiarian expressing his opinion about Transition Area 1 in which he states,that the City of Arcadia should "take a pro-active stance on the Santa Anita Property." CC Report- GP Update . • Page 19 July 8, 1996 • • 0 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR Purpose The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA", Public Resources Code §2000 et.seq.) is California's basic environmental disclosure and mitigation law. CEQA ensures that the environmental effects of both public and private projects have been examined before a decision is made to approve or deny a project. An EIR does not recomrnend • approval or denial of a project, but describes and analyzes the significant environm ntal effects of a project and discusses means by which those effects can be mitigated. The purpose of CEQA is: • to inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed projects; • to identify the ways that environmental impacts can be avoided or signific tly reduced; • prevent significant, avoidable impacts to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be.feasible; and • disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project if significant environmental effects are involved. This EIR complies with the procedures for implementation of CEQA as set forth in the Public Resources Code, the State CEQA Guideline and the CEQA Administrative regulations as adopted by the City of Arcadia. The adoption of an updated General Plan may result in environmental impacts that eed to be addressed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Basel on the scope of the General Plan Update it was determined that an Environmental Im act Report be prepared to: • assess the updated General Plan's effects on the environment, • identify mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially signify ant environmental impacts; and • discuss alternatives that may accomplish General Plan objectives. The following is a list of the mandatory contents of a Draft EIR: • Tables of contents • a brief summary CC Report- GP Update • Pag9 20 July 8, 1996 • Pau(Ka(emkiarian • 128 East Wheeler Arcadia, CA 51006 R cF1W 6/25/96 .,:. • Dear Planning Commission/City Council, • [ am writing this note put formalize my opinion of the stated "Transition Area I" of the Arcadia General Plan Update. After hearing hours of public testimony and much of the same in commissioners discussion, I have come to a pro-business, pro-active conclusion. I believe that the City of Arcadia should take a pro-active stance on the Santa Anita property. • As I said after we closed the public hearings, it is my opinion that the 100-acre parcel of land that now serves as a parking lot will not remain a parking lot forever. Something will be built there eventually. This being the case, why not let the city (via commissions, council and the public) decide what they want? Let's put together our thoughts and tell Santa Anita Realty "Here is what you can build!" A vote to leave the designation as is. should be a vote to say "we want a parking lot there, so don't bother to bring us any new projects." It should not be a vote to do nothing and wait for their latest proposal so.we can yeah or nay it. Would it not be more efficient and selfish to say "we are designating this XYZ. which means you can submit plans for this and that and only this or that"? This way the city gets what is wants. At one time, city staff was even entertaining doing the specific plan themselves (on S.A.R's dime, of course). This makes complete sense to nee. The city would be in complete control of the .development and would get exactly what it wants. We know that S.A.R. is going to come back with a project. We either tell them to stop, because we don't want anything, or we tell them to bring us one we want. My opinion is to tell them to bring us.a plan that we want. • Thank you for listening. • Sincerely, • Piul Kalemkiarian Arcadia Planning Commissioner • �- J( ^-% • project location • a description of the environmental setting, both local and regional • a discussion of any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general and or regional plans • a description of the significant environmental effects of the proposed pr.'ect, explaining which; if any, can be mitigated • a statement of the measures, if any proposed to mitigate the environm ntal impacts • an analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project • an analysis of the proposed project's "growth-inducing impacts" • a statement explaining why impacts identified as insignificant were determined to be such • a list of all federal, state and local agencies, other organizations and private individuals consulted in preparing the DEIR • a list of the persons, fifm or agency preparing the document, by contrast or other authorization • an analysis of the proposed project's cumulative impacts • an analysis of any economic or social effects related to or caused by the proposed project's environmental effects. • the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the - maintenance and enhance of long-term productivity • any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented. Effects found not to be significant Based on the Initial Study it was determined that the General Plan Update would not have significant effects on certain environmental components and these topics are not addressed in the DEIR. The following summarizes the conclusions of the Initial Sthd Y for the topics which the proposed project will have no impact: Conflict with General Plan designation or_zoning: Due to the developed nature of the study area and the stable nature of the community, the existing General Plan and zoning designations of the majority of the City, including the single family residential neighborhoods, are not proposed to be modified as part of the General Plan Update. Affect agricultural resources or operations: There are no known agricultural resources within the City of Arcadia. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update will not ect any agricultural resource or related operation. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements: Water bodies that exist within the proposed General Plan study area consist mainly of regional flood control facilities, the majority of which have been channeled. No changes to these facilities or alterations to currents or water movement in these facilities are anticipated as a result)of CC Report- GP Update Page 21 - July 8, 1996 the proposed General Plan Update. Standing water within the existing quarry pit adjacent to Lower Azusa Road will be eliminated with reclamation of the quarry. Alteration of existing runoff flow patterns on this site will be accommodated through an on-site channel system. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause change in climate: No uses outlined in the proposed General Plan Update would alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or cause a change climatic conditions. No uses to be allowed under the proposed General Plan Update would allow building heights that would affect air movement patterns. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area: Known existing religious or sacred uses within the proposed General Plan study area will not be affected by implementation of the proposed General Plan Update. Potentially significant effects Potentially significant effects determined to be addressed in the EIR that require mitigation include impacts to the following environmental issues: • • Land Use and planning considerations • Earth resources • Water resources • Mineral resources • Aesthetics • Traffic and circulation • Air Quality • Noise • Public Health(Hazards) • Public Services and Utilities For each of these potential impacts, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the extent of the environmental impacts. Table 1-A (attached) is a "Summary of Project Specific Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Level of Significance." With the following exceptions, mitigation measures will reduce the extent of the impact to below a level of significance. The impacts identified below are considered significant unavoidable adverse impacts of implementing the proposed General Plan Update: • Primary and secondary hazards resulting from regional seismic activity (Section 4.3, Earth Resources; Chapter 6.0, Cumulative Impacts). • Loss of access to significant mineral resources underlying the vacant parcel adjacent to the Livingston-Graham quarry (Section 4.6, Mineral resources: Chapter 6.0, Cumulative Impacts). CC Report- GP Update Page 22 • July 8, 1996. ',h• ( ) , • • Existing and projected traffic volumes on Michillinda Avenue between Sunset and Colorado Boulevards will exceed the City-wide Criteria of LOS D (Section 4.9, Traffic and Circulation). • Air pollutant emissions exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds (Section 4.10, Air Quality; Chapter 6.0, Cumulative Imp.cts). • Significant localized visual impacts to land uses adjacent to the Transition Area One and existing views from Huntington Drive (Section 4.8,Aesthetics). • Availability of water supply to accommodate projected growth within the Ci and region, since the City cannot control implementation of all mitigation strat-gies outlined in the Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District and MWD rban Water Management Plans (Chapter 6.0, Cumulative Impacts). EIR Alternatives CEQA Guidelines specify that an EIR must "describe a range of ._ . . . ,o. - to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most o the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternativ-s." Section 15126, subsection (d) (2) states that "the range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the b. is purposes of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects." Section 15126, subsection (d)(3)`states that, "if an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed but in ess detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed." Utilizing the CEQA Guidelines "rule of reason," the Guidelines specify that only ose alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project should be considered. Of those, the EIR need examine only the ones the L ad Agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the propo ed project. Regarding CEQA's requirement that an EIR evaluate alternative locations for the proj ct, a General Plan by nature is specific to its jurisdiction. Since State law requires that e preparation of a General Plan be specific to the defined boundaries of a City, the discussion of an alternative site in this EIR would be inappropriate. The General Plan Update Alternatives are based on different views of how to manage the community's future. These different views represent a menu of potentially feasible CC Report- GP Update Page 23 • July 8, 1996 alternatives the City could employ when making decisions about future growth, land use changes, circulation improvements, infrastructure improvements or housing programs. The three (3) alternatives provide a reasonable range of alternatives, formulated to address concerns identified in community workshops and meetings with the City staff, and to address opportunities, constraints and issues identified during initial General Plan research and issues identification. The initial formulation of General Plan alternatives was described in a report entitled Alternatives Assessment Report, dated July 18, 1995, incorporated by reference and was presented to the Arcadia Planning Commission and City Council at a workshop. Based on comments that were received from the Planning Commission and City Council, as well as on initial results of the environmental analysis of the proposed General Plan Update, the initial alternatives were refined to achieve the basic. objectives of the General Plan Update, while offering opportunities to reduce the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update. The refined alternatives are analyzed below as Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative is defined as build out of the land uses as specified in the existing City of Arcadia General Plan within the City and build out of land in unincorporated areas within the City's sphere of influence according to the Los Angeles County General Plan. No Project/No Build Alternative The No Project/No Build Alternative is a subset'of the No Project Alternative and assumes that no development beyond that which currently would occur within the City and its sphere of influence. This alternative assumes no growth or change from existing conditions and reflects conditions essentially the same as the existing conditions in both the City and its sphere of influence. Alternative I - This alternative emphasizes residential land uses within each of the transition areas. Outside of the transition areas, the remainder of the study area is built out consistent with the land use designations identified in Figure 3.3 in the EIR (Page 3-9). In Figure 3.3, land use designations within the City boundaries are the same as the existing General Plan. Transition Area No. 1 Mixed Use (Commercial/Multiple Family Residential) with 350 dwelling units (du) Transition Area No. 2 Commercial and Mixed Use (Commercial/industrial) Transition Area No. 3 Multiple Family Residential (MFR 24 and MFR 30) Transition Area No. 4 Multiple Family Residential (600 du) CC Report- GP Update Page 24 July 8, 1996 • Alternative 2 This alternative emphasizes Commercial entertainment, Commercial and industrial ses within Transition Areas Nos. 1 and 2 and multiple family residential in Transition - ea Nos. 3 and 4. In Figure 3.3, land use designations within the City boundaries are the same as the existing General Plan. Transition Area No. 1 Commercial/Entertainment(1.5 million square feet) Transition Area No. 2 Commercial and Industrial Transition Area No..3 Multiple Family Residential (MFR-24 and MFR-30) Transition Area No. 4 Multiple Family Residential (300 du)and Public Facility/Par Alternative 3 This alternative emphasizes Commercial entertainment and Commercial uses wihih Transition Areas Nos. 1 and 2, multiple family residential in Transition Area No. 3, and Single Family Residential and a park in Transition Area No. 4. In Figure 3.3, land e designations within the City boundaries are the same as the existing General Plan. Transition Area No. 1 Commercial/Entertainment(1.5 million square feet) Transition Area No. 2 Commercial Transition Area No. 3 Multiple Family Residential (MFR-24 and MFR-30) Transition Area No. 4 Single Family Residential (35 du)and Public Facility/Park Areas of Controversy Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines also requires that the EIR Summary identify . eas of controversy, including issues raised by other agencies and the public. The following outstanding issues have been identified: • Adoption of maximum intensity limit for the proposed Race Track/Mall land e designation. • Request from the City of El Monte to designate the portion of the Lower Transition Area, north of Lower Azusa Road, for residential and recreational uses. Before approving the General Plan Update, the City Council (lead agency) must make written findings related to certification of the EIR for each significant environmental effect. Pursuant to the Policy stated in Sections 21002 and 21002.1 of the Public Resources Code, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environme tal CC Report- GP Update Page 25 • July 8, 1996 • • • I impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant effects unless such public agency makes one, or more of the following findings: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such other agency have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified'in the environmental impact report. If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, a written Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared. The statement must set forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency's decision and must be based on substantial evidence in the Final EIR or elsewhere in the record. If 'the social, economic, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable environmental effects, those effects may be considered"acceptable". Mitigation Monitoring When an agency makes findings on significant effects identified in an EIR, it must also adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of a project approval to mitigate significant effects. The reporting or monitoring program must ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program will be prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6 (see attached Table 9-A). It will describe the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City of Arcadia to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of the proposed General plan Update will be carried out as described in this EIR. Issues To Be Resolved . Three (3) development scenarios for the Race Track/Mall land use designation are assessed at an equal level of detail in the EIR in conjunction with the remainder of the proposed General Plan Update land uses. 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 General Plan Update and certification of this EIR, if the City Council determines a designation other than horse-racing is appropriate for the Race Track/Mall area, the City Council must adopt a maximum development intensity for CC Report- GP Update Page 26 July 8, 1996 • the Race Track/Mall land use designation. The analyses performed for the thr a (3) development scenarios in this EIR may be used by the City Council in mating a . . determination regarding the ultimate intensity of development within this land use designation. Final Environmental Impact Report Before approving the General Plan Update, the City must prepare a final EIR ("FEIR"). The FEIR incorporates by reference the contents of the DEIR, and, in addition, includes the following: the comments received, either verbatim or in summary; the lead agency's responses to significant environmental concerns; and a list of persons, organizations and public agencies that submitted comments. The lead agency under CEQA may, but need not, provide an opportunity for the public and responsible agencies to review a FEIR. Before approving the project analyzed in the EIR, the lead agency must"certify" the final EIR. "Certification" consists of two separate steps. The agency's decision making body must conclude first that the document "has been completed in compliance with CEQA"; second, that the body has reviewed and considered the information within the EIR prior to approving the project; and the lead agency must find that the final EIR reflects its "independent judgment". CC Report- GP Update Page 27 • „July 8, 1996 FISCAL IMPACT REPORT In addition to preparation of an environmental impact report, the City contracted with Agajanian & Associates, an independent consulting firm to prepare a "General Plan Fiscal Impact Report". The purpose of the report is to assess the fiscal impact of the General Plan Update on the City of Arcadia Municipal Budget. The report estimates the municipal revenue and service cost associated with the development of new residential, commercial and industrial uses within the City and its "sphere of influence" as envisioned in the General Plan Update. In summary, the report notes that implementation of the General Plan Update as set forth in the Draft General Plan Update would produce a net positive annual fiscal impact upon the City's operating budget ranging from $315,092 to $1,550,912 with the annexation of the "sphere of influence" areas. The City would realize a net positive fiscal impact ranging from $811,077 to $2,046,897 if the sphere of influence areas are not annexed to the City. The report illustrates that future annexation without fiscal mitigation"carries a heavy fiscal burden for the city budget".2 A separate fiscal impact analysis was conducted for each of the alternatives analyzed in the General Plan Update and DEIR. The report findings further indicate: • All of the scenarios and alternatives analyzed with a 1.5 million square foot project at the commercial entertainment site produced the highest net positive budget impact.3 • Alternative 1 (allowing up to 500,000 sq. ft. of commercial/entertainment uses and 350 residential dwelling units in the southerly parking lot of the Santa Anita Race Track), produced the only negative fiscal impact among the alternatives analyzed largely due to the amount of increased residential growth. The City budget would do better with buildout assumed in the existing General Plan, than with Alternative 1.4 • Municipal facility capital improvement costs are expected to be high with all the alternatives analyzed due to the capacity limitations of existing municipal facilities. Depending upon the alternative, the amount of facility expansion needed to accommodate an increased municipal labor force will range between 9%and 25%.5 2 Arcadia Draft General Plan Fiscal Impact Report, March 18, 1996,page 1, 3 Op.cit., Page 16 °Ibid. ' Ibid. CC Report-GP Update Page 28 July 8, 1996. ( ) The report also identifies several means to enhance the performance of the budget and funding for potential municipal facility expansion including: • To annex only those sphere of influence areas which demonstrate a net neutral or positive fiscal impact. • Limiting the amount of new residential growth. • To enhance the City's budget performance, the City could require each development project to cover any excessive municipal service use and cost as a condition of pr sect approval. • In regard to capital funding for municipal facility expansion, it could be mitigate •by conditioning the provision (or funding) of needed facilities directly to new development which generates the need. CC Report- GP Update Pa029 • July 8, 1996 • • CITY COUNCIL ACTION In reviewing the General Plan Update and DEIR for the General Plan Update, the City Council must first consider the environmental analysis prior'to making any decision on the General Plan Update. At tonight's meeting the City Council should open the public hearing and receive testimony. The City Council should continue the meeting for further testimony, if necessary, and review the FEIR which will reflect staff's response to comments. Attached to this report for the City Council's review and consideration are letters from various agencies and interested citizens. Some letters address specific concerns regarding the text of the General Plan. Update, including letters from Santa Anita Realty Enterprises, Inc. and Mark McCaslin representing the Anoakia Property. All the letters have been organized in chronological order with the most recent letters placed in the beginning. 4 Approved by C257)- -.1"'"-e- Ge ald Gardner, Assistant ity Manager/Fire Chief Attachments: Table 1-A, Summary - DEIR Mitigation Monitoring Table 9-A- DEIR General Plan Strategies from each chapter Planning Commission Resolution 1535 Public Comments (in chronological order with the most recently received comments first) CC Report- GP Update Page 30 July 8, 1996 • RESOLUTION NO. 1535 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WITH THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED CHANGES AS SET FORTH IN THIS RESOLUTION. WHEREAS, updating the City's General Plan has been a long-range goal of the Development Services Department. The last General Plan Update was completed in 1990 and the last major technical studies were done in the 1970's and do not adequately reflect current land uses, noise issues and circulation patterns. In addition, since 1990 there h ve been changes in State law relating to required information which have been incorpora ed in the new General Plan Update. The City Council in March, 1995, authorized the Development Services Department to proceed with a General Plan Update and enter into a professional services agreement with LSA Associates, Inc. for the preparation of he General Plan and related Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and WHEREAS, on May 17, 1995, a General Plan Community Workshop was held at the Arcadia Community Center. The purpose of the meeting was to assist the community in the identification and refinement of the City's vision of its future and choices that are made in achieving that future; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared to identify the potential environmental effects of the proposed revisions to the General Plan. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was distributed on December 26, 1995, indicating that an EIR was required and inviting comments on the proposed General Plan Update project from Responsible Agencies, other public, and state agencies and other interested parties. A revised NOP was distributed on January 8, 1996 documenting revisions to the project description. Comments that were received during the NOP perinod have been addressed as part of the Draft EIR; and WHEREAS, on July 19, 1995, a joint public meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council was held to discuss the formulation of alternatives to be addressed in the EIR for the General Plan Update. At this meeting, potential General -1- 1535 Plan alternatives were presented to the Planning Commission and City Council, whose comments were considered in formulating the recommended General Plan Land Use Map and the alternatives that are presented in the DEIR; and WHEREAS, the Notice of Completion for the Draft General Plan Update EIR and General Plan Update was distributed to all adjacent cities, agencies and interested persons on February 21, 1996. The public review period for the EIR was February 21, 1996 through April 10; and WHEREAS, notification of the Planning Commission's April 29, 1996 meeting was mailed to approximately 14,000 property owners, and another 1,500 notices were mailed to interested persons and agencies. Notification of the hearing was also published in "The Star" newspaper, the Hometown section, a newspaper of general,circulation; and WHEREAS, public hearings were held on April 29, April 30, May 14, May 16, May 30 and June 25, 1996, before the Planning Commission at which time all interested persons were given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, as part of the record of these hearings, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered: a. All staff reports and related attachments and exhibits submitted by the Development Services Department staff to the Planning Commission; and b. All oral and written testimony submitted by the public and other interested parties; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is to make recommendations to the City Council on the proposed General Plan; and - WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to reflect the determinations of the Planning Commission based on Planning Commission deliberations and actions and to transmit to the City Council the Commission's advice and recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Planning Commission after reviewing the Draft EIR and the Draft General Plan Update recommends adoption with the following revisions: -2 1535 • a. For that area identified as Transition Area One - Santa Anita Race Track/Sarta Anita Fashion Park: The entire Santa Anita Park racetrack property and the Santa Anita Fashion Park mall were proposed in the Draft General Plan Update to be designated as Commercial Entertainment. The Planning Commission in its consideration recogniz d that the Santa Anita Race Track property is significantly underutilized and the owners have the right to utilize the land. The Planning Commission felt, however, that because of the property's significant size, strategic location and its varied potential uses beyond horse racing, a change in the General Plan land use designation without a comprehensive project specific EIR to support such a change would be inappropriate. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the current general plan designation of "Hose Racing" be maintained on the race track property and that the Santa Anita Fashion Park property maintain the designation of commercial with an appropriate maximum floor area ratio(FAR) compatible with the existing development of the Fashion Park Mall. The Planning Commission in its consideration of Transition Area One recommended the following Vision Statement for the future of the Santa Anita Race Track: "The Santa Anita Race Track is a key community 'feature, and an important component of Arcadia's character. The retention of horse racing at this facility and the ongoing economic vitality of the race track are also critical to Arcadia's future fiscal health. Over the past ten (10) years,there has been a reduction in attendance at the Santa Anita Race Track, largely due to the advent of off-track wagering facilities and a long- term downturn in the racing industry. The portion of the race track's large open parking areas that needs to be reserved exclusively for race track event parking has thus been reduced. As a result, there has been much community discussion regarding the positi\es and negatives of permitting additional uses within the race track's parking areas. It is Arcadia's long-term vision to retain horse racing and to preserve the existing grandstand structure. Although the Planning Commission supports carefully conceived development of the underutilized areas of the race track property„ such development has the potential for impacting the community. Thus, any future proposal for non-horse racing development within the race track:property needs to address the following needs: -3- 1535 • Achieve land use compatibility with, and a logical physical relationship to, the adjacent Santa Anita Fashion Park mall and residential uses. • Retain the ability of area roadways to maintain Level of Service D, as outlined in the Municipal Services and Facilities Chapter of the General Plan. • Provide sufficient on-site parking so as not to exacerbate existing problems of race track patrons parking off site within nearby residential neighborhoods. • Maintain architectural compatibility with the existing race track grandstands. • Preserve important community views of the existing race track grandstands. • Provide sufficient on-site security so as not.to impact the Arcadia Police Department." b. For that area identified as Transition Area Two- Mixed Use along Santa Clara Street and Huntington Drive: This area includes a number of underutilized or vacant industrial parcels designated in the existing General Plan as "Planned Development" and "Industrial". The proposed General Plan Update designated parcels located north of Santa Clara Street and east of Second Avenue as Mixed Use Commercial/Multiple Family Residential (C/MFR) with the remainder of the transition area designated Commercial. The Planning Commission recommends that properties on the north side of Huntington Drive from the Metro Railroad east to Fifthi•Avenue (including the properties fronting on Huntington Drive) be mixed use commercial/residential with a maximum of 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) for senior citizen housing developed on minimum half- acre parcels and the remainder of Transition Area Two be "Commercial". c. For that area identified as Transition Area Three - Downtown Residential District: This transition area contains a mix of residential densities in a state of transition from single family and low intensity multiple-family dwellings to higher density apartment and condominium projects. The Draft General Plan Update recommended Multiple-Family Residential with a maximum of 30 du/ac for the area between Santa Anita Avenue and Second Avenue and Multiple-Family Residential with a maximum density of 24 du/ac between Second Avenue and Fifth Avenue. The Commission recommends that the existing R-3 zoned properties be designated as Multiple-Family Residential with a maximum of 24 du/ac and that senior citizen housing within this area -4- 1535 ( \1 ,r • be permitted on minimum half-acre parcels at a maximum allowable density of 30 du/ac; that the existing R-2 zoned properties be designated as Multiple-Family Residential with a maximum of 12 du/ac and that senior citizen housing within this area be permitted on minimum half-acre parcels at a maximum allowable density of 18 du/ac; and that t e properties fronting on the east and west side of First Avenue between California Street and Duarte Road be designated as "Mixed Use - Commercial/Multiple Family" at a maximum allowable density of 24 du/ac on minimum half-acre lots. d. For that area identified as Transition Area Four - the Industrial area along Lower Azusa Road: This Transition Area is in the southernmost portion of the City d is currently designated for Industrial. Within this transition area future development is anticipated to occur on two properties, consistent with the existing General Plan designation of Industrial and the historical land use pattern. The Planning Commission in its consideration noted that the proposed "Industrial" designation is consistent with t e adjoining industrial uses within the City of Arcadia to the northwest and the sand d gravel extraction activities at the Livingston-Graham Quarry within the City of Irwindale to the north, the San Gabriel River to the northeast and the Southern California Edison power lines and the 605 Freeway to the east. In addition, the proposed landfill operation approved by the City of Arcadia for the 85 acre parcel 'on the north side of Lower Azusa Road is compatible with the proposed "Industrial" designation. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the properties on the north and south side of Lower Azusa Road should remain "Industrial" as set forth in the existing General Plan and recommended in the proposed General Plan Update. Section 2. That the General Plan Update as recommended by the Planning Commission will meet the City's Housing fair share goals of 552 units through the year 2003. Section 3. The Planning Commission further recommends that the following goals/polices be incorporated in the General Plan Update: 1. The major commercial centers that currently exist in the City include: Downtown Duarte Road (Santa Anita to Second Avenue) Fashion Park -5- 1535 • Foothill Boulevard (Santa Anita to easterly City limits) Hughes Market Center(Huntington Drive) Live Oak/Las Tunas (El Monte Avenue to easterly City limits) West Arcadia The City shall adopt policies and procedures that will promote the economic viability of these existing commercial centers and encourage complementary uses and development to attract new business, particularly on City-owned property and on key vacant properties such as the Foulger Ford, Arcadia Lumber and Baker's Square sites. 2. Both Santa Anita Race Track and live horse racing are culturally, historically and commercial important to the City. The City shall adopt policies and procedures that will promote and encourage continued live horse racing and the economic viability of Santa Anita Race Track. The City shall also adopt policies and procedures that will promote and encourage the preservation of the significant architecture and viewscapes of Santa Anita Race Track. 3. The City will benefit greatly from the construction of an auditorium and Metrorail train station. The City shall adopt policies and procedures that will encourage the construction of these two facilities. 4. The City's excellent public school system is one of its most important assets. The City shall adopt policies and procedures that will promote the continued excellence of that school system. These policies and procedures shall include land use designations and decisions that will discourage (a) over-crowding of existing or planned school facilities; (b) incompatible structures or uses in the immediate vicinity of existing or planned school facilities, and/or (c) unsafe traffic volumes and conditions at or near existing or planned school facilities: 5. The City shall adopt policies and procedures that will maintain the City's reputation as a "Community of Homes" including, but not limited to, land use designations and decisions that promote and encourage structures and uses that are complementary to and compatible with existing residential areas. 6. The City shall promote_ a city-wide threshold of acceptability for roadway levels of service not to exceed LOS D (LOS C on local residential streets). -6- 1535 t Section 4. That the Planning Commission, before making the ab ve recommendations to the City Council, reviewed the entire Draft EIR (DEIR), includ ng but not limited to impacts, mitigation measures, alternatives as well as the development scenarios and cumulative impacts. Section 5, The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and hall cause a copy to be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted .t a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of June, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Bell, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Kovacic, Murphy, Sleeter, Daggett NOES: None ABSENT: None Chairman, Planning Commission City of Arcadia ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia Approved as to form: Michael H. Miller City Attorney -7- 1535 �, { _ / � c • rN\3 •°R"°AAT$°- STAFF] REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEP.' 'TMENT July 16, 1996 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Donna Butler, Community Development Administrator SUBJECT: Summary of Actions of July 10 Meeting on the Draft General Plan Update and Draft Environmental Impact Report and Suggestions for further Review at the July 16, 1996 Meeting The following is a summary of the City Council's comments at the July 10 meeting. Transition Area 1 - Santa Anita Race Track/Santa Anita Fashion Park Maintain the race track area as "Horse Racing", maintain the existing mall site (approximately 81 acres) as "Commercial" with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.40 (approximately 1,400,000 sq. ft.) and designate the southerly parking lot (approximately 85 acres) as "Commercial" with a maximum FAR of 0.30 (approximately 1,111,000 sq. ft.) Transition Area 2 - 'Mixed Use Area along Santa Clara Street and Huntington Drive The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation that properties on the north side of Huntington Drive from the Metro Railroad east to Fifth Avenue (including the properties fronting on Huntington Drive) be mixed use commercial/residential with a maximum of 24 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) (30 du/ac per acre for senior citizen housing developed on minimum half- acre parcels) and the remainder of Transition Area Two be "Commercial". Transition Area 3 - Downtown Residential District The City Council concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation: GP and EIR July 16, 1996 Page 1 ✓� -1. 1. I. • that the existing R-3 zoned properties be designated as Multiple-Family Residential with a maximum of 24 du/ac; that senior citizen housing within this area be permitted on minimum half-acre parcels at a maximum allowable density of.30 du/ac., • that the existing R-2 zoned properties be designated as Multiple-Family Residential with a maximum. of 12 du/ac; that senior citizen housing within this area be permitted on minimum half-acre parcels at a maximum allowable density of 18 du/ac., • that the properties fronting on the east and west side of First Avenue between California Street and Duarte Road be designated as "Mixed Use - Commercial/Multiple Family" at a maximum density of 24 du/ac on minimum half-acre lots and that senior citizen housing within this area be permitted on minimum half-acre parcels at a maximum allowable density of 30 du/ac. Transition Area 4- Industrial areas along Lower Azusa Road It was the consensus of the City Council that the properties on the north and south side of Lower Azusa Road should remain "Industrial" as set forth in the existing General Plan and recommended in the proposed General Plan Update. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW The Development Services Department recommends that the City Council proceed with their review of the General Plan Update and General Plan EIR as follows: 1. Proceed with discussion on the General Plan Text, including, but not limited to: ' a) overall goals and objectives outlined on page 1-7 and at the beginning of each chapter b) goals and policies recommended, by the Planning Commission in Resolution 1535 c) text pertaining to the Land use Transition Areas (especially Transition Area 1) beginning on page 2-14 - see April 1.0 letter from • Santa Anita Realty. d) General Plan strategies outlined at the end of each chapter and included in your notebook - . e) review.Chapter 6 on Implementation and Monitoring. This chapter sets forth standards and actions necessary for implementation of any project. , • GP and EIR July 16, 1996 Page 2 f) review General Plan text in relation to letters received from the public, e.g., Mark McCaslin .(Anoakia property); Santa Anita Realty (TA1), Colleen Doan (general text comments), etc. 2. Review the Draft EIR. This can be done concurrent with the review of the General Plan or separately. CITY COUNCIL ACTION Upon completion of the Draft General Plan Update and Draft EIR, the Ciy• Council should direct staff to: 1. Finalize the response to comments on the Draft EIR and circulate the response to comments to the commenting agencies. • 2. Revise the wording on the General Plan per the recommendations of the City Council. Both the response to comments on the Draft EIR and the revised wording will be brought back to the City Council for review. Based upon the Council's review of the Final EIR, the Planning Commission's review and recommendations and testimony presented at the various public hearings and all other information provided during the decision making process, the City Council should direct staff to prepare the .appropriate resolution setting forth the Council's findings and decisions. Approved by: Cangq William R. Kelly, City Manager GP and EIR July 16, 1996 Page 3 ' o DSO - o � } Jwyo z�o si s��e li • /-Pg L it . .iii , ., I ARCyAD °"P°A�Tg STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DATE: July 16, 1996 TO: City Council and Arcadia Redevelopment Agency FROM: iz. Peter Kinnahan, Economic Development Administrator Asi Mohammad Mostahkami, Acting City Engineer SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE DOWNTOWN 2000 STREETSCAPE AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: (A) Explanation of final project costs and request for approval of contract amounts to various contractors and consultants. (B) Request for appropriation and reimbursement of$93,575 from Lighting Maintenance District Zone C for conversion of certain street lights from series to multiple circuit. (C) Request for loan of$1.2 million to Agency from City Equipment Replacement Fund,and approval of Debt Repayment Plan Loan Agreement (Attachment 1 - City Council and Redevelopment Agency Debt Repayment Plan). (D) Request to accept completion of the Downtown 2000 Streetscape and Public Improvement Project and authorize release of the 10% retention in accordance with contract documents. (A) . EXPLANATION OF FINAL PROJECT COSTS • The Downtown 2000 Project was one of-the largest and most complicated projects in the City's recent history. i The construction zone was 1.4 miles long. • Curb/gutter/sidewalk/landscaping areas were constructed along 2.3 miles of City street. • 7/10's of a mile of main water line was installed. • 6/10's of a mile of storm drain pipe was installed. • The City worked with nine (9) utilities or service providers, three (3) general contractors, fifteen (15) subcontractors, five (5) major consultants, eight (8) subconsultants, and the City of Monrovia using seven (7) funding sources. • Project costs include two (2) Streetscape design costs (Freedman, Tung and Bottomley and Lawrence R. Moss &Associates). -1- LASER Al ASER 9; AGED • The work was aggressively "fast tracked"from the initial 1994 Freedman plan throughout the /. project (an 8 month design project was finished in 5 months). • The opening and staffing of a project office in downtown helped significantly in handling merchant and public concerns, but added cost. • Unforeseen problems with both Huntington Drive and First Avenue pavement added significant extra cost (approximately $300,000 net) and time (1+ month) to the job (to be explained later in this report). • Change orders on a reconstruction project of this magnitude can be 15%. If the pavement reconstruction cost is deducted, the net change order cost for Sequel and Moore is 13.8%. • The delays by Sully-Miller at the start of construction, Sully's default, and the rebidding of the final work added almost 3 months of"down time" to the project. Despite that, a construction project which would normally take one year was completed in eleven months, even with the delays. • Sully-Miller's termination caused significant extra costs since work was split into emergency and remaining work; the emergency work was further split into six distinct steps to permit Sully to return to the job. • Deficiencies by a lighting subconsultant added approximately $100,000 to the cost (explained later in the report). SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST BY CATEGORY Preliminary Design/Engineering Project Work (1993-1994) $ 362,000 (Freedman/ASL, etc.) Administrative/Misc. $ 114,000 (Superior Signal, private security for construction yard, blueprint reproduction/photocopy, legal, environmental) Design/Engineering/Inspection/Survey $1,690,000 (LMA &Associates, ASL Consulting Engineers, Inc., Willdan Associates) Contractors - • $6,431,000 (`Sully-Miller, Sequel Contractors, Moore Electric) Total: $8,597,000 *Note: No monies have been paid to Sully-Miller PAYMENT BY FUNDING SOURCE Redevelopment Agency: 76% L.A. County: 5% Gas Tax: 13% Other: 1% Water Fund: 5% (Lighting Maintenance District Zone C, SB 821, Parking District 2) -2- • �d (. ) . SUMMARY OF COSTS BY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (C.I.P.)VS. REVITALIZATION City Capital Improvement Projects which also needed to be done: Storm Drain $1,270,000 Main Water Line. $ 689,000 Street Reconstruction/Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk $2,484,000 Subtotal: $4,443,000 (52%) Agency Downtown Revitalization/Urban Design Improvements: Ornamental lights, traffic signals $1,827,000 Sidewalk, landscaping, pedestrian seating areas, crosswalks $2,327,000 Subtotal: $4,154,000 (48%) Total: $8,597,000 SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT COST INCREASES Date/Event Construction Consultant Total Project Adm./Misc. October 11, 1994 $4,760,000 N/A N/A Initial Estimate April 18, 1995 $4,932,000 $1,526,000 $6,458,000 Award of Sully-Miller & Consultant Contracts November21, 1995 $5,993,000 $2,047,000 $8,040,000 Estimate of Sully-Miller costs, plus award of Sequel, Moore, and consultant contracts June 10, 1996 $6,431,000 $2,166,000 Total: $8,597,000 Final Less - $ 528,000) Reimbursements/payments from others Note: No funds have been Net Cost: paid to Sully-Miller $8,069,000 -3- During the cold milling of Huntington Drive in March, 1996, the street surface "delaminated", i.e., degraded. Work was halted while borings were made, and pavement experts brought in to assess the situation. Based upon their recommendations, significant portions of Huntington Drive, between Santa Anita and Fifth Avenues were completely reconstructed. Other major pavement work was done on Santa Anita at the Huntington Drive intersection. This took approximately four weeks to complete and added a net cost of$250,000. Staff is reviewing this work to determine whether the problem could have been identified earlier or handled more efficiently when it occurred. First Avenue was completely resurfaced due to the deteriorated condition of the street after the numerous storm drain, electrical, and cross walk cuts were made. This cost approximately $44,000. The City retained an electrical engineering subconsultant who was responsible for design and engineering of the lighting system, i.e., ornamental lights, cobra head lights, uplights, meters, conduit, electrical outlets, lighting levels, etc. The plans submitted were incomplete and of such poor quality that significant increases in costs were incurred. Staff and the City Attorney are reviewing options and will seek direction from the City Council when the issue has been fully researched. SUMMARY;OF CHANGE ORDERS FOR SEQUEL AND MOORE ELECTRIC Sequel Contractors: $854,000 Gross Total - Change Orders Less Offset: ($395,000) Huntington Drive Pavement Sequel Net Cost: $459,000 Moore Electric: $ 47,000 Gross Total - Change Orders Total Net Cost: $506,000 Sequel and Moore Change Orders (13.5% above contract price) Less non-standard Change Orders $ 19,000 Sully-Miller related corrections $ 21,000 Lighting subcontractor corrections $ 5,000 Outback related changes $ 44,000 First Ave. pavement reconstruction Subtotal: $ 89,000 Net Change Orders: $417,000 11.1% above contract cost REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF INCREASE IN CONTRACT AMOUNTS TO VARIOUS CONTRACTORS AND CONSULTANTS Due to the deteriorated condition of the pavement on Huntington Drive and Santa Anita Avenue, significant additional costs were incurred. Because of the importance of Huntington Drive to the movement of public and commercial traffic, as well as for emergency traffic to the Police Station and Methodist Hospital, the previous extended disruption to downtown businesses, and consistent with the authority granted in City Council Resolution No. 5882, the City Manager authorized the necessary work to be completed, subject to ratification by the City Council. -4- J , . These increases are: Company Previously Approved Additional Request New Total Sequel Contractors $3,240,600 $550,000 $3,790,000 Moore Electric $702,506 $70,000 $772,506 ASL Consulting - $98,475 . $30,000 $128,475 Engineers - Survey/Staking ASL Consulting $504,177 $60,000 $564,177 Engineers - Construction Adm. Wlldan Associates $226,065 $20,000 $246,065 (Inspection) Total: $4,771,223 $730,000 $5,501,223 Staff requests that Council approve the contract increases set forth above. (B) REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF $93,575 FROM LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ZONE C FOR CONVERSION OF CERTAIN STREET LIGHTS FROM SERIES TO MULTIPLE CIRCUITS Several City Capital Improvement projects were aggregated into the Downtown 2000 Infrastructure Project. One of these was the conversion of 14 cobra head lights on First Avenue and 16 cobra head lights on Huntington Drive from series to multiple circuits. (In a multiple circuit, all the lights do not go out in the event a light is knocked down; only the affected light goes out. Also, the voltage is reduced, facilitating maintenance and reducing energy costs). This work included installation of new heads, service cabinets, pull boxes, conduit, fees, engineering and inspection. The original staff estimate for this work approved by the City Council on March 7, 1995 was $85,000. The estimated actual cost for the conversion is $93,575. Staff requests City Council authorize Lighting Maintenance District Zone C to appropriate the funds for and reimburse the Redevelopment Agency $93,575 for the Agency's costs for the conversion project. (C) REQUEST FOR LOAN OF $1.2 MILLION TO AGENCY FROM THE CITY EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND, AND APPROVAL OF DEBT REPAYMENT PLAN LOAN AGREEMENT The Agency currently has a short term cash flow problem. Approximately$1.2 million is needed to provide sufficient revenue to meet Agency cash flow needs pending receipt of scheduled tax increment payments and the receipt of land sale proceeds (est. $1,550,000) from the sale of 3.2 acres of the 4 acre Northwest Corner site early in 1997 for a new hotel. -5- The Agency's cash flow situation has been caused by several factors: 1) The increase in costs due to the Sully-Miller contract termination. 2) The significant loss of anticipated tax increment to the Agency as a result of successful property tax appeals. HdL Coren & Cone, the Agency's financial consultant has advised staff that the Agency has lost $500,000 cumulatively in tax increment since 1990-91. In addition, we were recently informed by Los Angeles County,that our August 1996 payment will be $88,000 less than anticipated due to a successful appeal and that the Agency, given historical trends applied to still pending appeals, could lose an additional $70,000 in tax increment. 3) The unanticipated change orders during the completion of the remaining work, particularly Huntington Drive and First Avenue reconstruction and the lighting changes. 4) The bulk of the Agency's tax increment receipts occur in April and December annually ($600,000 - $850,000 each). There will be a payment of approximately $115,000 in August, but the agency must rely on available cash reserves or short term loans from the City to meet project and operating expenses during the April to December gap, which we are now in. 5) Beginning in FY 1996-97, the Agency is required to set aside 20% of its annual tax increment into a Low Moderate Income Housing Fund (LMHF). This will be approximately $377,000 in FY 1996-97. When deposited in the LMHF, these monies are not available to pay back the City or to pay for any projects other than Low Moderate Income Housing. The Agency's 20% Housing funds are an integral part of the City's General Plan Housing Element Implementation Program. The$1.2 million short term loan can be repaid with interest from the estimated $1.5+ million land sale proceeds from the Northwest Corner site, anticipated to occur early in 1997. Interest shall be calculated at the State Local Agency Investment Fund rate. The repayment of the Agency's debt to the City has been set forth in the "Repayment Plan", Attachment 1. The Administrative Services Director and City Attorney have reviewed the agreement. To the extent that additional funds are available from the NWC land sale after repayment of the $1.2 million gap loan, or there is surplus tax increment, staff recommends that these funds be set aside for Sully-Miller litigation expenses. Once the litigation is resolved, these funds could be used to pay the legal costs, or to meet other Agency needs. The Agency also owes the City $5 Million from previous loans and owes the Low Moderate Income Housing Fund $3.6 million. Staff recommends that the Agency schedule a Study Session to review the Agency's long term financial status. Staff recommends approval of the Debt Repayment Plan, Attachment 1. -6- (D) REQUEST TO ACCEPT COMPLETION OF THE DOWNTOWN 2000 STREETSCAPE AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF THE 10% RETENTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ASL, the Agency's Construction Administrator recommends that Sequel Contractors provide a $50,000 bond for one year because of ASL's concerns about the quality of some of the cross walks. Sequel has agreed. Therefore, staff recommends acceptance of the project and release of the 10% retention to Moore Electric (approximately $76,725) and Sequel Contractors (approximately $378,314), subject to receipt of a performance and materials bond in the amount of$50,000 approved as to form by the City Attorney. FISCAL IMPACT See detail above. RECOMMENDATION 1. That the City Council approve the following increase in contract amounts: Sequel Contractors: $550,000 Moore Electric: $ 70,000 ASL Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Survey): $ 30,000 ASL Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Construction Adm.): $ 60,000 Willdan Associates (Inspection): $ 20,000 Total: $730,000 2. That the City Council appropriate $93,575 in Lighting Maintenance District Zone C funds and reimburse the Redevelopment Agency $93,575 for costs for the conversion project. 3. That the City Council and Redevelopment Agency approve the Debt Repayment Plan (Attachment 1) and authorize the City Attorney and Executive Director to execute the Loan Agreement subject to approval by the City Attorney as to form. 4. That the City accept completion of the Downtown 2000 Streetscape and Public Improvement Project and authorize release of the 10% retention to Moore Electric and to Sequel Contractors, subject to the receipt of a $50,000 performance and materials bond from Sequel, approved as to form by the City Attorney. 5. That the Redevelopment Agency schedule a Study Session to review the Agency's long term financial status. Approved: T-14 '"""'t William R. Kelly, City Manager/Executive Director -7- - " DEBT REPAYMENT PLAN f, , LOAN AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into this 16th day of July, 1996 by and between the City of Arcadia ("City") and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency ("Agency"). The City and Agency hereby agree as follows: SECTION 1. The City hereby agrees to lend to the Agency the sum of$1.2 million (the "Loan") which shall be disbursed to the Agency from time to time upon receipt by the Finance Director of written notice from the Executive Director that any portion or all of the remainder is needed from time to time. Any and all portions of the Loan shall bear interest calculated at the highest prevailing rate of interest being drawn on the City of Arcadia investments, in the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) calculated quarterly commencing at the date of disbursement of each loan as applicable. SECTION 2. The Agency hereby agrees to repay the loan, plus interest, referred to in Section 1 above, within 10 working days of receipt of the land sale proceeds from the sale of the Agency-owned 4-acre Northwest Corner property located at East Huntington Drive and North Second Avenue. SECTION 3. The repayment obligation of the Agency hereunder is subordinate to the 1989 tax allocation bond financing of the Agency. Executed this 16th day of July, 1996. Mayor, City of Arcadia ATTEST: Chairman, Arcadia Redevelopment Agency City Clerk of the City of Arcadia/ Secretary, Arcadia Redevelopment Agency APPROVED AS TO FORM: • Michael H. Miller, City Attorney and Agency General Counsel