Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-19 PC MinutesARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION o REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2019 CALL TO ORDER Chair Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the City Council Chamber PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Thompson, Vice -Chair Lewis, and Commissioners Chan, Lin and Wilander ABSENT: None SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Planning & Community Development Administrator, Lisa Flores distributed late correspondences related to Agenda Item No. 2, a table listing the names and addresses (if applicable) of residents that submitted public comments or a letter regarding Agenda Item No. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minute time limit per person) There were none. PUBLIC HEARING All interested persons are invited to appear at a public hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning any of the proposed items set forth below for consideration. Separate and apart from the applicant (who may speak longer in the discretion of the Commission) speakers shall be limited to five (5) minutes per person. The applicant may additionally submit rebuttal comments, at the discretion of the Commission. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge in court any action taken by the Planning Commission regarding any Public Hearing item, you may be limited to raising only those issues and objections you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. 1. Resolution No. 2023 - Approving a Multifamily Architectural Design Review and a Tentative Parcel Map with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for a three -unit residential condominium development at 1028 W. Duarte Road. Applicant: Philip Chan, PDS Studio, Inc. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 2023 Chair Thompson introduced the item and turned it over to Vanessa Quiroz to present the project. Chair Thompson asked if there were any questions of staff by the Commissioners. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to speak on the item. Applicant Philip Chan spoke. Chair Thompson asked if there were any questions for the applicant. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City's Planning Services Office located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, California, during normal business hours. 2. Commissioner Chan asked Mr. Philip Chan if he would install emergency, sensor -based lighting on the stairwells inside the units. Mr. Philip Chan responded stating that he would install the additional lighting requested by Commissioner Chan. Chair Thompson asked Mr. Philip Chan to state the garage dimensions. Mr. Chan discussed the parking requirements and stated that each garage is 19' x 19' in area, which is slightly larger than the minimum requirement of 18' x 19.' Chair Thompson asked if there were anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the proposal. No one responded. Chair Thompson asked if there were anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the proposal. No one responded. MOTION- PUBLIC HEARING It was moved by Commissioner Chan, seconded by Commissioner Lin to close the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved. DISCUSSION Chair Thompson and Commissioner Wilander thanked the applicant for exceeding the garage parking minimum width dimensions required per Code by a foot, with a width of 19 feet instead of 18 feet. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Lewis to adopt Resolution No. 2023 - Approving Multifamily Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 17-09 and Tentative Parcel Map No TPM 18-03 with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQK) for a three -unit residential condominium development at 1028 W. Duarte Road. ROLL CALL AYES: Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Lewis, and Commissioners Chan, Lin and Wilander NOES: None ABSENT: None There is a ten day appeal period after the approval/denial of the Appeal. If adopted, appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Monday, January 21, 2019. Text Amendment to the City's Development Code, Article IX of the Arcadia Municipal Code, adopting a Citywide Historic Preservation Ordinance, including an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Recommended Action: Forward a Recommendation of approval to the City Council 1-8-19 Planning & Community Development Administrator, Lisa Flores, presented the project. And Ms. Flores informed the Commission that Katie Horak and Evanne St. Charles from ARG were both present tonight, as well as Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director, Jason Kruckeberg should the Commission has any questions. Chair Thompson asked if there were any questions of staff from the Commissioners. Commissioner Lin stated that it would be helpful if some clarification was provided on the designation process and asked Ms. Flores to address two scenarios: Firstly, if the owner provides consent to designation and secondly, if the owner does not consent to designation. Ms. Flores explained the designation procedures as outlined in the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. Commissioner Chan asked the representatives of Architectural Review Group ("ARG') to please explain the process of developing a draft ordinance. Ms. Horak of ARG explained the process, which consisted of the development of a Historic Context Statement, a preliminary analysis of properties based on the information gleaned from the Statement, and then a submittal of that information to City staff. Following this, the properties were evaluated against state and federal evaluation criteria, and a suggestion for local criteria was developed based on those findings. She then stated that the four (4) criteria for designation as a historic property are outlined in the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. Chair Thompson asked how robust is this ordinance compared to other cities? Ms. Horak stated each City is different, with different resources, and with different goals. Some cities have more stringent historic preservation ordinances. This may be considered lenient compared to neighboring cities because of the owner consent provisions. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing and notified speakers of a three-minute time limit to speak due to the high number of speaker cards that were submitted: The following residents/representatives spoke: Elizabeth Herron, Architect, 420 S. First Avenue: Stated that the subject property is listed as a potential historic resource. Would like to demolish existing structure in order to build a mixed-use development. A historic consultant evaluated the property and determined alterations have affected the historic nature of property. Posed the question that if a qualified historian has evaluated a property and has deemed that it does not meet the four criteria which identify the property as potentially historic, what is the appeal process and how does this Ordinance address that? She supports historic preservation but does not think this particular project meets the criteria. Issa Malki, Part-owner, 118 El Dorado Street: Stated that the historic list contains inaccuracies regarding the subject property including the classification of the property as single-family rather than multi -family, the property has two addresses rather than one, which are 118 and 120 EI Dorado Street. The 120 structure is more California Bungalow rather than Craftsman -style architecture, the property has been altered as described in historical report, etc. He hired a consultant who said the City report is inaccurate including the 5S3 designation which should be changed to 6Z, and determined the property is ineligible for recognition at 3 1-8-19 state, federal, and at the local level. Mr. Malki referenced the staff report and Historic Preservation Fact Sheet page No. 8. He asked to please remove the property from the list. Further, he stated the email he sent to the Planning Division was not attached to the staff report. Hani Malki, Part-owner,118 EI Dorado Street: He would like the subject property removed from the potential Historic Resources list. He added to Mr. Issa Malki's previous comments regarding the inaccurate information on the historic list such as the single-family designation and Craftsman architectural style which was disputed in the historic report provided by his hired historic consultant. Based upon that report, the property would be ineligible for historic designation. City staff stated that only the City council has the authority to remove the property from the list and he added that the Historic Preservation Fact Sheet does not make this clear. He requested that prior to the Planning Commission making a recommendation, City staff insure the accuracy of property information on the list and then distribute that information to residents so that they do not have to spend their own time and money disputing or subject the City to unnecessary legal action. Jeffrey Hunt, Son of property owner, 230 E. Laurel Avenue: He is not opposed to Historic Preservation, however he is against this proposed ordinance. He stated that his neighbors have restored their homes well without City interference. He would like to know about cost and added that he did not feel as though they have received as many notices as stated and he would like the City to share that information. Terence Klein, Trustee of 749, 749A, 747, 747A and 741 W. Longden Avenue: Stated that he has not marketed the property due to the potential Historic Preservation Ordinance. He was informed by a real estate broker that it would decrease his property value. He discussed that upon direction of Ms. Flores, he had his property evaluated by a qualified, historic consultant (LSA) who determined that property has several architectural styles and is considered single-family, not multi -family as the list has determined. He then was told his property could be removed from the list but then subsequently told the list was frozen and that no properties would be removed from the list. He stated that property owner rights would be taken away with the adoption of this Ordinance. He listed several concerns with the Ordinance including the inaccurate property information on the Potential Historic Resources list and added it would result in a reduction of property value and is unconstitutional, and is excessive control by the City. Asked Planning Commission and City Council to please stop supporting the ordinance as written. H.K. Su, Owner of property on Laurel Avenue: He stated that he is opposed to the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance and he believes that the Ordinance takes away rights and it is a waste. • Randy Wright, Owner, 234 Laurel Avenue: Stated that he is opposed to the proposed ordinance. His house is listed as a potential historic resource. He does not want to be bullied into changing the value of his home and thus his future. He would like to contribute to the history of Arcadia but does not want interference into what he can do with his home. Asked to please help build a future in this City and not destroy it. Kristen Sindeband, Associated with 741, 747, 747A, 749, and 749A W. Longden Avenue: She noted that many here do not consent to the preservation of their homes. She does not oppose history but she opposes this ordinance. She questioned whether many of the homes listed are indeed historically significant. She knows someone in addition to herself who elected to go through the evaluation process that determined that the homes should not be on the Potential Historic Resources list, but not the list is frozen. This ordinance violates property 1-8-19 rights. She supports voluntary action as opposed to mandatory regulations. This ordinance is too little, too late and a gross misappropriation of funds. This will devalue properties which are an investment and thus will affect the City. She stated that the majority of properties listed do not contribute to Arcadia's history. She requested that the City spend the money on more worthy causes. Nathan Gordon, 26 E. Newman Avenue: He stated that he has lived at the property for one year and it is on the Potential Historic Resources list. Stated that he objects to the Ordinance and will seek legal action. He stated that he cannot take advantage of Mills Act to deal with the offset of the increased property prices. He listed financial concerns and stated that it would be unreasonable with a fixed income to have increased maintenance costs, which would prevent him from staying in his home. He stated that there due process issues and that the Ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution. Steve Byrne, Attorney on behalf of the owner, 1020 S. Baldwin Avenue: He is here on behalf of the owner of 1020 S. Baldwin Avenue. He stated that he supports an ordinance, done rationally, to protect historic resources but that this proposed ordinance is not necessary. If the Ordinance was written with criteria mirroring state and federal guidelines, residents can go through that process instead. Further, this Ordinance patterns state and federal guidelines but reverses the process, designating properties prior to the adoption of an Ordinance. He stated that most of the attendees at the meeting oppose this ordinance and he finds it disturbing that City is using this list prior to the adoption of the Ordinance. This ordinance needs to be radically revised. Even if the criteria were reasonable, it was not correctly applied to the property at 1020 S. Baldwin Avenue. Joann Dodson, Owner, 224 Laurel Avenue: Her property is listed as a potential historic resource. She stated that she is worried about the ordinance and its implications. She believes the Ordinance violates property rights under the Due Process Clause. It takes away a homeowner's ability to repair, modify or change property without City interference. It will make it difficult to sell a home if someone wants to make a major renovation, expand square footage, etc. Their home is their primary investment and it will have a decreased value. Decreased value equals decreased property taxes. Her property was selected without property owner participation and the registry list was over -inclusive and not objective in terms of inclusion on the list. She stated that the City has not told anyone how it will benefit owners or the community. Further, there are no reasonable guidelines for the 180 -day building delay. She opposes the Ordinance as written but she is in favor of preservation. However, this ordinance increases costs for property repair and takes away rights to alter a property. City should share costs and reimburse residents for costs incurred due to this ordinance. Steve Lewis: Stated that he likes historic preservation, however he is concerned for his neighbors and those on the list. They are concerned with their homes being de -valued and that homes are their primary investment. He stated that going to the City Council with the Ordinance as -is seems premature. This fist is causing difficulties. He urged the Commission to go back and do a more significant process as there are issues that need to be resolved prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. He supports voluntary historic preservation but the list needs revision. Further, some people will not be able to take advantage of the Mills Act and there needs to be a process to help compensate people. He asked that the Commission please improve the Ordinance with input from residents. Rodney Williamson: He stated that he is against the proposed Ordinance. He listed issues with the Ordinance including the inability to repeal the designation of a historic district and/or the designation of an individual property and stated that it is not democratic. He also had issues with the Certificate of Economic Hardship process, which only allows for "extreme" 1-8-19 hardship. Additionally, the language: "In order to establish economic hardship for a non- income -producing property, it must be demonstrated that, without approval of the proposed demolition or remodel, the property owner would be deprived of all reasonable use of or return from the property' seems like an over -reach to him. Cathy Kim, on behalf of Kay & Kwang Kim, 1150 and 1160 W. Orange Grove Avenue: Stated that they oppose the Ordinance along with many of the owners present at this meeting. She urged the Commission and/or City to revise the Ordinance in order to achieve purpose of what property owners want prior to recommendation to the City Council. She stated that there are due process issues such as the notification period during the appeals process including the ten (10) day period, which is too short. She commented on financial hardships and stated that her parents have not saved for financial burden that this places on them and that the ordinance will create a loss of equity for them. She stated concerns such as the City not balancing costs, concern with the proposed Mills Act program (she felt that if an owner's objection gets overruled, the Mills Act program should be automatically granted to the homeowner), and the noticing process which notified residents during the holidays was not done properly. She stated this should be done with the right incentives and with owner consent or in concert with the City Council for something that meets federal and state guidelines for historic designation. Caroline Tokarsky, on behalf of Bill Barton, 516 Fairview Avenue: She requests the removal of their property from the potential Historic Resources list. The property does not meet any of the "Criteria for Designation" as outlined in the draft Ordinance. The property is zoned R-3, which is the highest and best use for this property. Her father also owns the adjacent property at 518 Fairview Avenue, which will be sold in conjunction with 516 Fairview Avenue. The house located at 516 is in between the two parcels and is not significant to the history of Arcadia. She stated that their property rights would be infringed upon if the properties were designated. A new, multi -family development situated around the 516 structure would be ridiculous and the loss of the both properties to a new, R-3 development without the historic house would be a loss of property and sales taxes to the City. It is the last R-3 development of its kind in the City. Bessy Politis, 1014 S. Second Avenue: She stated she is opposed to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. She stated that her home was included based upon a visual of the fagade and no one visited her home internally. By creating the Potential Historic Resources list, her property value has been diminished, which was confirmed by a real estate agent. The list should not have been published or developed prior to the hearing process. She stated that only she should have the right to designate her property if chooses to do so, as an owner. Nicholas Politis, 1014 S. Second Avenue: He stated that there has not been one speaker that has expressed adamant support of the proposed Ordinance. He criticized the analysis of the properties from the street without proper research. He stated that fifty (50) percent of his home was added on later however his property is described as unaltered. He wants the properties to be properly vetted before including them on a list. Danny Shieh, on behalf of owner, 2431 Florence Avenue: He stated the value of the property will decrease due to property restrictions, by approximately thirty (30) to fifty (50) percent. He expressed confusion with the guidelines/inspection by ARG and noted that the architecture of the subject property has been changed, and he distributed photographs. The Ordinance takes away property rights without compensation. It will have a negative effect on the housing market as buyers would be discouraged to buy and current property owners may move out of the City. 1-8-19 Dean Radle: He is concerned with government interference. The City is trying to pass this ordinance in the midst of a financial crisis. The ordinance would reduce property tax revenue yet he noted that the City is reducing some fees and will likely propose a sales tax increase soon. He believes the flyer he received to be fear mongering and if you don't conform and then City will say it can't provide patrols, etc. This is not the Arcadia he knew and this will cause people to lose revenue when selling their property or no one will want to buy it. He asked that the Commission please listen to residents and clean up the Ordinance. Jerry Yeo 905 Singingwood Drive: He stated that he found out about the list in December, spoke to Planning department requesting that his property be removed from the Potential Historic Resources list. He was informed that if a qualified historian evaluated the property, then it could be removed. The historian informed him that the property is not historic. Subsequently, Planning staff told him that the property could not be removed from list and he is asking now that the property be removed from the list. The only person who should decide whether their property should be designated as historic is the property owner. Chad & Janet Betts, 737 W. Longden Avenue: Stated that they previously submitted a letter. They oppose the Ordinance and do not believe their property should be on the list. The description of their property by ARG is inaccurate and he listed alterations that have been made to the property, including an addition added in 1986. He questioned the validly of the survey and how many of the other homes were misidentified as none of the four (4) "Criteria for Designation" apply to his home. He also questioned the need for the list in general, as it places a person in limbo until/if someone nominates the property. He and his wife are opposed to the Ordinance and recommends that it not be adopted unless it is clearly written that an owner must consent to the designation of the property as a historic resource. Gail Marshall, 2320 Lee Avenue: She stated that she was shocked by the undemocratic nature of the Ordinance and challenges the inclusion of her property as a potential historic resource. She stated that she was informed that the City of Pasadena has a Historic Preservation Ordinance however only for properties at least one -hundred (100) years old; fifty (50) years is not long enough. She is against the force aspect of the Ordinance and wonders if staff has surveyed those on the list to see how many are for and against it. If an owner would like their property listed as a potential historic resource that is one thing but it should not be forced. This affects the sale value of the home and will reduce the number of clients willing to purchase the property. Additionally, if at any time her family needed to move in, she could not alter/expand the home to accommodate their needs which creates a hardship for them. She asked if anyone actually viewed the properties on the list? She was shocked by some of the resources listed. Lastly, she asked the Commission to please consider their decision carefully. • Alanna Scanlon, owner, 461 Palm Drive: She stated that the fact that someone had the audacity to claim some architect designed her home is a lie. Her father worked hard to provide property and land to her. If she doesn't pay for modifications, then it will be taken away from her but is her land. Lynda Hartman, owner, 420 S. First Avenue: She stated that she was starting to redevelop the property for a new, mixed-use project. They began the application process to have the property demolished, but now that is on hold because of the inclusion of their property on the list. They oppose the Ordinance and hired a historian (McKenna) to do an extensive evaluation which determined that the property is not eligible as individual resource and should be designated 6Z. She asked for clarification on the process now, specifically how can they move forward with their project? 7 1-8-19 Daniel Kwok, 2322 S. Baldwin Avenue: His property is on the Potential Historic Resources list. He stated that he received no formal notice about the proposed Ordnance or the list prior to a letter he received from his Neighborhood Watch group this past fall. He was not formally informed and not involved in the process. He opposes the inclusion of his property on the list, especially prior to any formal/full evaluation of the property. He challenged the description of his property on the list. Further, this hinders the ability to modify or sell a property. He stated that his home should not be added to a list without the due diligence of determining if it is historically significant first. The ordinance places a financial hardship on those required to maintain a historic structure and the language in the proposed Ordinance regarding financial hardship is vague and funds are limited. He asked who will pay for a historic evaluation required in the Ordinance, as it should not be the property owner. He asked that if the City choose to establish an Ordinance, then set up criteria without listing specific properties. Lastly, he opposes the Ordinance and stated that it is not in the best interest of the City or the homeowners, in cost or in legitimacy. • Nirmak Kuriar: Not present. Shirely Yang, 439 W Palm Drive: She is concerned about property rights. She asked to please remove all properties from the Historic Preservation Ordinance. She may need to remodel and how can she raise a family in such a small house? She does not want decreased property value or reduced buyer interest, and thus a negative impact on the community. She does not oppose voluntary designation but property owners should have the right and control to enjoy their homes. She asked please vote no on the Ordinance. • Agnes Yeh, 739 W. Duarte Road: She wanted to remodel and sell the property but found out building is on the Potential Historic Resources list. She is worried about decreased property value and questioned why should they continue to remodel property if it will be hard to sell? Andrew Yeh, 45 W. Norman Avenue: He would like house removed from list due to the inaccuracies on the list. The draft Ordinance seeks to take away his rights as a citizen. If the ordinance is approved, then the City Council has the ability to supersede an owner's objection to historic designation and a small group of individuals should not have control over his choices with subjective reasoning. Urged that the Planning Commission not recommend approval, and also make significant changes with property owner rights in mind. Marcie Gladson, 2801 Longley Way: She stated her property is on the Potential Historic Resources list. She purchased a historic, Mid-century Modern home with preservation in mind. She does not oppose the Ordinance however she is concerned with the cost for owners. It would be beneficial to offer owners more financial incentives such as cost sharing for research or loans to make improvements to help preserve the few historic properties we have left. She would like to apply for designation if there were financial assistance to pay for the research required. She would also like to participate in the Mills Act program and the tax rebate is an incentive. John Uniack, 1220 Highland Oaks Drive: He is in favor of citywide historic preservation. He purchased his home for the architecture and has made few modifications. In both historic districts he has lived in previously, there has been remarkable real estate value due to the historic district designation. The Highlands has many significant ranch style homes which are continually being purchased for land value only and subsequently torn down. He stated that historic preservation is the only way to prevent the tear -down of homes due to loosened development standards. He recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and supports the inclusion of his property on the Potential Historic Resources list. 8 1-8-19 • Maggie (Last name not provided), on behalf of owner, 2001 Wilson Avenue: She stated that the notification of the hearings was too close to Thanksgiving and the City Council meeting was scheduled too close to the Chinese New Year. She asked that the City please postpone the City Council hearing. • Sophia Hung, 659 W. Norman Avenue: She stated that historic preservation process should be purely voluntary with mandatory owner consent. She asked to please respect her rights and remove her home from list. • Brenda Chen, 2218 S. Baldwin Avenue: She stated that owner consent should be mandatory. She asked to please respect her rights and the freedom to private property. • Bina Bhatia, 220 Genoa Street: She asked why there are no properties from North Arcadia on the list? She stated that she never received a single notice from the City that her property is on the Potential Historic Resources list and that she was informed by a friend. The subject property is not historic. She wanted to sell or develop the property. The City is trying to reduce the value of their properties. The City is trying to curb mansionization by trying to pass this Ordinance. Silvia Horlacher, Agent on behalf of owner, 720 & 722 S. Third Avenue: Stated that this ordinance will affect property values. She stated that her clients looking to purchase property in Arcadia are typically not looking for historic homes but rather seeking to buy a property to redevelop. She does know how the subject property could be included on the list and it would take a lot of money and work to bring to its original glory. On behalf of her client, they oppose the proposed Ordinance and she asked to please remove the property from the list. Bao Qiong Li on behalf of Mo King, 720 & 722 S. Third Avenue: She asked to please reconsider the proposal and that they oppose this ordinance. This is not fair to the owner. Kwang Kim, 1160 W. Orange Grove Avenue: He stated that the City's consultants did a poor job of researching the properties. His home could not have been seen through the fence and trees so he does not know how it got on the list. If the City would like to follow through with this Ordinance, they need to make a new list with proper research and with owner consent. Cristi Oster, 481 W. Palm Drive: She stated that she and her family are in favor of history and the property may have been associated with Lucky Baldwin but why wasn't the ordinance adopted years ago if the City cares about preservation? She stated that the Ordinance is ambiguous and questions its benefit to her mother. If the City would like to offer a grant for people to fix their home to make it historical if they so choose, but do not make them or place them on a list so that they cannot sell their home. She stated that instead there should have been an ordinance years ago to prevent mansions from being built on small properties. • Robert McClellan, represents architectural firm, 1020 S. Baldwin Avenue: Stated that they have a project in progress at the bowling alley site on Baldwin Avenue. They have been refining the design and now the project is at a standstill. He stated that historical ordinances will work but the list should not be included. He does not want a long delay on project he is working on, considering its magnitude. • Gary Pine, 248 W. Palm Drive: He is concerned about not receiving notices. Had the notices been received, he would have taken action sooner. He is opposed to the ordinance because of the financial impact it will have on his family. The likelihood of selling this home due to this ordinance will be slim. 1-8-19 • Jens Roynlid, on behalf of owner, 55 W. Longden Avenue: He does not understand why the subject property is on the list. It is surrounded by mcmansions. The ordinance is 20 years too late to preserve Arcadia's heritage. He supports a voluntary ordinance without force. John Rigas, on behalf of owner, 1110 EI Norte Ave: He stated that he is heartened by those who have spoken. He listed his experience in land use development law and planning. A solution is to take a harder look at the zoning ordinance and get additional comments and feedback from professionals and get rid of the list because it is the biggest cause of concern for the public. He questions who benefits from this ordinance and the list? Tax credits are small and insignificant compared to the devaluation of the property. He does not consider there to be historic value to the subject property as modifications have been made. He questioned the thoroughness of the survey and he thinks the City should be responsible for the historic evaluation of a potential historic property rather than the property owner. Overall, the City should not adopt the Potential Historic Resources list and there needs to be a revised, stronger and less vague ordinance. • Henry Kwong: He stated that if the Ordinance is adopted, the citizens will lose billions collectively and the City will lose development fees and sales tax which will negatively affect the Police Department and Fire Department. He asked that if the Commissioner's houses are not on the list, then they are taking advantage of the owners. MOTION- PUBLIC HEARING It was moved by Commission Wilander, seconded by Vice Chair Lewis to close the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved. DISCUSSION Commissioner Lin addressed several remarks made by speakers and stated that he understands the issues raised by those opposing the Ordinance but he also understands the need for historic preservation. He stated that one alternative to the proposed ordinance is a purely consensual ordinance. He posed the question to the ARG consultants: Has a voluntary ordinance been adopted by other cities and have any studies been done as to how effective they are at preserving historic residences and structures? Katie Horak of ARG responded stating that the City of Beverly Hills has a consensual/voluntary ordinance, however she is not aware of studies addressing the effectiveness of voluntary ordinances. She noted that the City of Beverly Hills has had several landmarks designated voluntarily. Commissioner Wilander clarified that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to designate individual properties. She expressed concern with the process of evaluating properties from the street (the preliminary analysis of potentially historic resources). She also expressed concern with the fifty (50) year requirement which may not be a long enough period to deem a property historic. She is not prepared to say it is too late to preserve Arcadia's resources, but the City needs to decide whether it is a worthwhile cause. Commissioner Chan commended those who attended the Planning Commission meeting. He stated that he has concerns with the study, Potential Historic Resources list, and with the order the process was completed. He understands the frustration from those who wished to have their property removed from the List and acknowledged that there may have been miscommunication between staff and the residents 10 1-8-19 seeking to remove their property from the Potential Historic Resources list. He is concerned with the inclusion of some of the school properties on the Individually Eligible Resources list. If the number of students increases and/or the needs of the school change, the existing buildings may be too small to accommodate, thus the ability to expand/alter the structure is affected. In his view, if a house/building has been altered, it loses its historic integrity. As he understands it, alterations such as changing a window could affect the historic status of the structure. Vice Chair Lewis stated she is in favor of historic preservation. Arcadia has some wonderful historic properties such as the Baldwin Estate located on Foothill Boulevard. However, Arcadia experienced subdivision later than many neighboring cities and the fifty (50) year threshold may be too short a period to consider a property historic- one hundred (100) years or more may be a more appropriate threshold. She acknowledged that there may be faults with some of the properties on the Potential Historic Resources list. Some properties appear to be difficult to bring to code and it would not be financially feasible to do so. If the Ordinance is not voluntary, what happens if properties deteriorate because people cannot keep them up? She mentioned concerns with cost and whether some properties listed are indeed historic as some speakers have challenged this. She also mentioned concerns with potential cost to the City as well as concerns with potential litigation. It would be cost effective to the City and would preserve property rights to make historic preservation voluntary. She does not feel comfortable recommending the Ordinance as is, therefore she recommends a voluntary historic preservation program and that the City Council not adopt the Potential Historic Resources survey list. Commissioner Lin stated that a consensual ordinance seems like the best option and that further study should be done. He cannot recommend the draft Ordinance presently without knowing if a consensual ordinance would be more effective. He understands the frustration from speakers but does think that historic preservation is a worthwhile cause. He recommends that the City study and review consensual historic preservation ordinances. Chair Thompson acknowledged that there has been a great deal of effort and outreach by City staff as well as community input on this item. Many historic resources in Arcadia have already been depleted and the adoption of the Ordinance may be too late to reap the greatest benefit. The Los Angeles Conservancy Historic Preservation Report Card issued the City of Arcadia an "F" in historic preservation efforts meanwhile neighboring cities scored higher. He stated that it is not too late to preserve some of Arcadia's heritage. He stated that historic districts have had success in increasing property values and he referenced several studies which found an increase to property values for homes located within historic districts. Further analysis would be needed to determine the impact of historic preservation on individual properties. Chair Thompson stated that in regards to properties zoned multi -family and/or commercial, there may be instances where the preservation and development to highest and best use may not be compatible. Therefore, he recommended that multifamily and commercially zoned properties that are eligible only for local designation not be subject to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Secondly, in order to enable pocket and/or micro historic districts to form, he recommended to amend the Historic Preservation Ordinance to require that 60% of the property owners within the proposed district consent to historic district designation. Lastly, if multi -family and commercially zoned properties eligible only for local designation are removed, then he recommends that the City Council amend the Historic Preservation Ordinance to require a majority (3-2) vote to overturn an owner's lack of consent to nominate an individual property. He added that of the properties on the list, 77 are potentially eligible at the state and/or federal level while 85 or more appear to be eligible at only the local level. The City Council may want to consider differentiating the approval process between local only versus state and/or federal, as state and federal rise to a higher level. He is in favor of approving an Ordinance conditionally with his aforementioned recommendations. 11 1-8-19 Commissioner Chan stated that he can understand Chair Thompson's comments regarding districts. He stated that part of him would like to throw away what has been done and start the process over. He addressed a comment made by a speaker who stated that the Ordinance would not be necessary if there are already existing state and federal guidelines for historic preservation. Therefore, additional regulation at the local level may not be necessary. He expressed concern with the City Council's ability to supersede an owner's objection to nomination by a supermajority vote which takes away some rights of homeowners. He acknowledged Chair Thompson's comments regarding multi -family and commercial properties, but he felt there also needs to be an appeal process. He expressed concerned with reducing the percentage of owners who would need to consent to district designation to 60%, as it is not a super - majority. He stated that he supports a voluntary program and recommends that the City Council not adopt the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance and not adopt the list of Potential Historic Resources. He further recommended that the City set aside public land to be used for historically -designated structures that need relocation. A property owner of a historic structure they would like relocated is required to pay the relocation fees, and the property would be moved to the chosen area that would be similar to a public park. This would prevent the demolition of a historic structure. He noted that there are mismatched architectural styles in Arcadia. He posed a question to the City Council some time ago: What do you want the City to look like in 20 years? He is inclined to not recommend the Ordinance as is because it has faults. He agreed with a recommendation by Commissioner Lin to study the City of Beverly Hills (study voluntary ordinances) and possibly adopt a similar historic preservation program. Commissioner Wilander added that she agreed with Chair Thompson's recommendation that the City Council require 60% of property owners within a proposed district to consent to its historic designation, rather than the proposed 75%. Following some discussion regarding potential motions, Chair Thompson asked if there was a recommendation to the City Council? MOTIONS 1) It was moved by Commissioner Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Lewis to recommend that the City Council amend the Historic Preservation Ordinance to become a voluntary program. ROLL CALL AYES: Vice Chair Lewis, and Commissioners Chan, Lin, and Wilander NOES: Chair Thompson ABSENT: None 2) It was moved by Commissioner Lin, seconded by Vice Chair Lewis to recommend that the City Council not adopt the Historic Preservation Survey List. ROLL CALL AYES: Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Lewis, Commissioners Chan, Lin, and Wilander NOES: None ABSENT: None 3) It was moved by Chair Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Wilander to recommend that if City Council does not convert the Historic Preservation Ordinance to a Voluntary Program for the 12 1-8-19 individual properties, then the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council delete the multifamily and commercial zoned properties that are eligible only for local designation. ROLL CALL AYES: Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Lewis, and Commissioners Lin, and Wilander NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Chan ABSENT: None 4) It was moved by Chair Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Wilander to recommend that If the Historic Preservation Ordinance is adopted, then the City Council amend the district approval threshold percentage for those wishing to form a district from 75% to 60%. ROLL CALL AYES: Chair Thompson, and Commissioner Wilander NOES: Vice Chair Lewis, and Commissioners Chan and Lin ABSENT: None This motion failed on a 2-3 vote. 5) It was moved by Commissioner Lin, seconded by Vice Chair Lewis to recommend that Staff forward all individual recommendations by Commissioners to the City Council as reflected in the draft meeting minutes. ROLL CALL AYES: Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Lewis, and Commissioners Chan, Lin, and Wilander NOES: None ABSENT: None In summary, the result of the Planning Commission's five (5) individual motions were to recommend approval of a voluntary Historic Preservation Ordinance, to eliminate the existing list of eligible properties, to remove multi -family and commercial properties from consideration if the City Council does not opt for a voluntary Ordinance, and to pass on all of their individual comments to the City Council. Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director, Jason Kruckeberg added that the City Council meeting for the Historic Preservation item is tentatively scheduled for February 19, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and can be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the Commission, staff, or the public request that specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion and action. 3. Minutes of the November 27, 2018, Arcadia Planning Commission Regular Meeting Recommended Action: Approve MOTION 13 1-8-19 It was moved by Commissioner Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Lewis to approve Consent Calendar Item 2, approving the November 27, 2018 Arcadia Planning Commission Regular Meeting minutes. ROLL CALL AYES: Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Lewis, and Commissioners Chan, Lin, and Wilander NOES: None ABSENT: None MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL LIAISON City Council Liaison Amundson provided an update on the Citizens Financial Advisory Committee findings which will be presented to the City Council on February 5, 2019. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSONERS There were none. MATTERS FROM CITY ATTORNEY Marco Martinez had nothing to report. MATTERS FROM STAFF INCLUDING UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Flores announced that there are no items pending at this time for the next meeting, therefore it will most likely be cancelled. There are two items pending for the February 12, 2019 Planning Commission meeting: A mixed-use project on First Avenue and a new medical office building at 288 N. Santa Anita Avenue. She added that the review and discussion of parking stall dimensions for multi -family projects and parking space requirements for single-family homes as requested by Chair Thompson and Commissioner Chan would be on an upcoming agenda. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned this meeting at 10:57 p.m. to Tuesday, January 22, 2019 in the City Council Chamber at 240 W. Huntington Dr., Arcadia. ATTEST: Lisa Flores Secretary, Pla ning Commission Brad Thompson Chair, Planning Commission 14 1-8-19