Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - Part 1 of 3 - PC Agenda and Item No. 6 (5-26-20 Minutes)CITY OF ARCADIA Arcadia Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Tuesday, July 14, 2020, 3:00 p.m. COVID-19 NOTICE As part of the City of Arcadia’s COVID-19 transmission mitigation efforts, this meeting of the Arcadia Planning Commission will be conducted virtually and the public is discouraged from attending. Per the Brown Act, the public will still be provided the ability to make public comments. For members of the public who would like to participate virtually, the meeting will be streamed live on the City’s website ArcadiaCA.gov/liveplanning and on ACTV. How to Submit Public Comment: 1. Email: Please submit your comments via email to planning@ArcadiaCA.gov. 2. Phone: A conference line has been established for public comment. Your call will be recognized in the order it was received. Please keep your phone on MUTE until you are recognized for public comment. Conference Line: (786) 535-3211 Access Code: 524-582-021# Please contact the Planning Division at planning@ArcadiaCA.gov or at (626) 574-5423 for more information. 新型冠状病毒（COVID-19）通知 作为阿凯迪亚市政府缓解 COVID-19 传播工作的一部分，本次阿凯迪亚市议会会议将以虚拟方式举行，不鼓励公众参 加。根据《布朗法案》，仍将向公众提供发表评论意见的机会。对于希望以虚拟方式参加会议的公众，会议将在本市 网站 ArcadiaCA.gov/liveplanning 和 ACTV 上进行现场直播。 如何提交公众评论意见： 1. 电子邮件：请通过向 planning@ArcadiaCA.gov 发电子邮件的方式提交您的评论意见，须在公布的会议时间至少提 前 30 分钟收到提交的评论意见。您的电子邮件不得超过 300 个字。 2. 电话：已经为公众提交评论意见设立一条会议专线。公众打来的电话按先后顺序接听。您应当将您的电话设为“静 音”，直至轮到您提出评论意见。 会议专线： (786) 535-3211 接入代码： 524-582-021# 详情请洽规划部，电子邮件 planning@ArcadiaCA.gov，电话号码 (626) 574-5423。 Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from Planning Services at (626) 574-5423. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting. 根据《美国残障人法案》的规定，需要提供残障相关调整或便利设施才能参加会议的残障人士（包括辅助器材或服务），可向规划服务部 请求获得此类调整或便利设施，电话号码 (626) 574-5423。请在会前 48 小时通知规划服务部，以便作出合理安排，确保顺利参加会议。 Pursuant to the City of Arcadia’s Language Access Services Policy, limited-English proficient speakers who require translation services in order to participate in a meeting may request the use of a volunteer or professional translator by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (626) 574-5455 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. 根据阿凯迪亚市的语言便利服务政策，英语能力有限并需要翻译服务才能参加会议的人可与市书记官办公室联系（电话：626-574-5455 ），请求提供志愿或专业翻译服务，请至少在会前 72 小时提出请求。 CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Deborah Lewis, Chair Marilynne Wilander, Vice Chair Kenneth Chan, Commissioner Zi Lin, Commissioner Brad Thompson, Commissioner SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minute time limit per person) Each speaker is limited to three (5) minutes per person, unless waived by the Planning Commission. Under the Brown Act, the Commission or Board Members are prohibited from discussing or taking action on any item not listed on the posted agenda. 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 or in an administrative proceeding any action taken by the City Council 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 City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. 1. Resolution No. 2058 – Approving a Zone Change No. ZC 19-01, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 18-22, Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 19-03, Administrative Modification No. AM Minor 19-22, and Protected Tree Encroachment No. TRE 20-04 with a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a new senior assisted living care facility with memory care at 1150 W. Colorado Boulevard Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2058 and Recommend Approval to the City Council Applicant: Artis Senior Living, LLC. There is a ten day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. If adopted, appeals are to be filed by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, July 24, 2020. 2. Resolution No. 2057 – Approving a Minor Use Permit No. MUP 20-04, Architectural Design Review No. ADR 18-05, Vesting Tentative Map No. TTM 19-01 (82734), Development Agreement, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the development of a mixed-use project with 139 residential units and commercial area along Huntington drive located at 117-129 E. Huntington Drive and 124-134 Wheeler Avenue. Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2057 and Recommend Approval to the City Council Applicant: New World International, LLC There is a ten day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. If adopted, appeals are to be filed by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, July 24, 2020. 3. Resolution No. 2059 – Approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 20-08 with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to allow the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for off-site consumption and extended hours of operation for a new grocery store (dba: Grocery Outlet) at 140 E. Live Oak Avenue Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2059 Applicant: Grocery Outlet There is a ten day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. If adopted, appeals are to be filed by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, July 24, 2020. 4. Resolution No. 2061 – Approving an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 11-11 with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to add whisky to the existing wine tasting room, and expand the hours of operation at 16 N. 1st Avenue Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2061 Applicant: Lenore Jiao There is a ten day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. If adopted, appeals are to be filed by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, July 24, 2020. 5. Resolution No. 2060 – Approving Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 20-04 with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to allow the sale of beer and wine for on-site consumption within an existing restaurant (dba: Let’s Go Kebab) at 643 W. Duarte Avenue, Unit B within the Arcadia Center Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2060 Applicant: Dou Zhang There is a ten day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. If adopted, appeals are to be filed by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, July 24, 2020. 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. 6. Minutes of the May 26, 2020 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL LIASION MATTERS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS MATTERS FROM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY MATTERS FROM STAFF INCLUDING UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission will adjourn this meeting to Tuesday, July 28, 2020, at 7:00 p.m. ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES TUESDAY, MAY 26, 2020 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. CALL TO ORDER Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber. In order to comply with social distancing guidelines due to COVID-19, the meeting was televised and streamed live and Vice Chair Wilander, and Commissioners Chan, Lin, and Thompson participated by telephone. Assistant City Attorney Maurer, Assistant City Manager/Development Services Director Jason Kruckeberg, and Deputy Development Services Director/City Engineer Philip Wray were also on the line. Lastly, she welcomed new City Council Liaison Paul Cheng. She also informed the public of a call-in number that was established for public comments. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Lewis PRESENT (Via telephone): Vice Chair Wilander, Chan, Lin, and Thompson, ABSENT: None SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Planning & Community Development Administrator Lisa Flores announced that the City received 26 emails related to Agenda Item No. 1 that she would read into the record during the public hearing. PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minute time limit per person) There were none. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Homeowners’ Association Appeal No. HOA 20-01 and Minor Administrative Modification No. Minor AM 20-09 with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) appealing the Highlands Homeowners’ Association Architectural Review Board’s denial of a proposed first and second story addition to an existing one story residence at 2011 Highland Oaks Drive Recommendation: Approve with Recommended Changes Appellant and Property Owner: Julie Wu Chair Lewis introduced the item and turned it over to Associate Planner Christine Song to present the staff report. Chair Lewis opened the public hearing and asked if the Appellant would like to speak on the item. 2 5-26-20 Appellant Julie Wu responded and provided a history of her proposal which has gone through several iterations and four (4) Highlands Homeowners Association Architectural Review Board (ARB) public hearings. She stated that she did not agree to install story poles because she felt the ARB provided insufficient justification for this request. She discussed the characteristics of the elevated lot and hillside properties and how this affects visual massing. She provided an overview of the changes/compromises that have been made throughout the process to reduce the impact of the project and provided justification as to how the proposed project complies with the City’s Design Guidelines, and how the existing landscaping protects the privacy of the neighbors to the south, north, and west. In summary, her desire is to create a functional home for her family, and she is open to hearing the Planning Commission recommendations and is invested in the community. Commissioner Chan inquired as to how the roof pitch affects the usable space in the attic. Ms. Wu responded that by reducing the roof pitch from 4:12 to 3:12, the attic clearance becomes essentially a crawl space. This was further explained by Ms. Wu’s Architect, Ben Wu later in the hearing. Commissioner Lin asked for clarification from the Appellant that would she prefer the 4:12 roof pitch? Ms. Wu stated that she would prefer a 4:12 roof pitch and she would agree with the other three (3) recommendations. Commissioner Thompson inquired about the difference in height of the proposed roofline of the subject property in comparison to the property to the south (2001 Highland Oaks Drive). Ms. Wu stated that she believes it is approximately 10 feet but would defer the question to her architect (She later clarified this height as 7 feet 9 inches). Chair Lewis asked Dean Obst, Chair of the Highlands ARB, if he would like to respond on behalf of the ARB. Mr. Obst responded and stated that the project has improved throughout the iterations, but it has been a difficult project due to the natural contours of the lot. He discussed the massing and scale of the project which did not meet the design guidelines criteria with regard to the plate heights within the immediate neighborhood, at approximately 8.5 feet (which was proposed in earlier iterations but was 9 feet in the most recent proposal), the second-floor massing, etc. He discussed the differences between this site and the property to the north, including that the latter is tiered into the hillside. If the plate height and roof pitch of the subject property were reduced, it would reduce the overall height of the subject property by approximately 1.5 feet. As proposed, the close adherence to the guidelines was needed to mitigate the overall mass and scale as viewed from the street. Commissioner Lin asked Mr. Obst for clarification as to why the neighboring property at 2017 Highland Oaks Drive which appears to be closer to the street and more of a massing issue was deemed to be compliant with the ARB guidelines? Mr. Obst stated that to his understanding the basic structure of that home was already existing when the home was remodeled, though he was not an ARB member at that time. Commissioner Thompson asked if the four (4) staff recommendations would be consistent with something the ARB would approve. 3 5-26-20 Mr. Obst responded that these items were discussed at the hearings, with slight variation. These recommendations do help mitigate mass and they would be consistent with something the ARB would approve. Commissioner Thompson announced that he participated in two (2) of the Highlands Homeowners Association ARB public hearings pertaining to this item and he stated that provided no public comment at either of those hearings. Chair Lewis asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in favor of the item. There were three (3) callers in support of the item: 1. Michelle Wu: The height is normal, and the proposal looks nice; she strongly supports the project. 2. Gang Sun: In support of the project; improves the appearance of the neighborhood; height of proposed is not higher than the property to the north; this house actually balances out the look of the property to the north (which now is overwhelming the subject property); square footage is modest and within the FAR and height limit; discussed ARB findings and questioned the height stated in their denial 3. Lila Montano: Project will improve appearance of the neighborhood; does not appear out of scope with other homes as there are other 2-story homes in the area; Ms. Flores also read 26 emails received prior to the meeting which were in support of the item. Chair Lewis asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in opposition of the item. There were nine (9) callers in opposition of the item: 1. Lee Marshall: The mass of the project makes it appear like a castle on a hill; it is out of character with the neighborhood; 2. John Karumanantham: The design for this particular hillside lot makes it appear as a 3-story home; inappropriate for this location; will be an unsightly addition to the neighborhood; story poles would help to see what the project will actually look like; 3. Collen Sartinsky: Ample land space on the lot, can’t a home with the square footage they want be built without blocking views; listed privacy concerns with the second story windows; there should be a compromise that works for everyone; why can’t poles be installed to see what the height will look like; 4. Henry Huey: Privacy issues with the project that were raised at all four (4) ARB hearings; occupants have a direct view into neighboring properties; west facing windows still are privacy concern; requested to remove the north and south facing windows on 2nd story; trees shown in photos are not accurate because the trees have been trimmed; story poles would benefit all to see true impact of the project; reduce size of 2nd story; listed other recommendations; 5. Jasna Tomic: Proposal not compatible with homes in neighborhood; bulky design; worries about setting a precedent; concerned with views obstructed; applicant should work within the square footage in the back; offended with size and scope of the project; 6. Mareny Lagbao: Mass, height, and scale with overwhelm adjacent properties; referenced Resolution No. 7272 with regard to height, size, scale, and preserved style in the neighborhood; 4 5-26-20 7. Bertha Saleh: Listed privacy concerns and concerns with obstructed views; slope causes it to look like a 3-story home; use land they have to add on without adding to the 2nd floor; will not fit in with the character of the neighborhood; 8. Olga Hassler: The height will cause it to look like a 3-story home; will interfere with views; the project is not compatible with the neighborhood; some slight differences could make this acceptable; opposed to the project; 9. Ms. Perkins (first name inaudible): House sits on steep slope, would not be an issue on a flat lot; compared this proposal the house to the north, which is a split-level and sits on a lower foundation; will not be harmonious or compatible; prefers a first story addition; Chair Lewis asked if the Applicant would like to respond to any of the calls in opposition. Ms. Wu thanked those that provided comments and addressed the concerns of the callers against the project. Ben Wu responded to a question posed earlier in the hearing with regard to what would be the useable space in the attic as compared to the roof pitch height. The 4:12 roof pitch would leave 4 feet, 6 in. of head room at the high point; the 3:12 roof pitch would leave 3 feet 5 inches of headroom which would make maintenance of the heating system a challenge. MOTION- PUBLIC HEARING It was moved by Commissioner Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Wilander to close the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved. DISCUSSION Commissioner Chan compared the subject site to nearby properties. With regard to comments made in favor of a greater setback on the second floor, he referenced a property at 2025 Elkins Place with a second-story addition where no setback was required; two neighbors spoke in favor of that project at that time. The ARB representative stated that the ARB was not opposed to staff’s four (4) recommended changes and Ms. Wu was in favor of the remaining three (3) recommended changes except for reducing the second story roof pitch from 4:12 to 3:12. He discussed the characteristics of the hillside site and noted that the setback of the proposed property causes the home to appear taller; however, from the street level it appears smaller. Reducing the setback would cause the house to be more prominent. With regard to public comment that a one-story addition is preferable, extending the first floor into the backyard would result in there not being enough room to accommodate their swimming pool and many of the surrounding homes on the block have pools which would not be fair to the Applicant. He is in favor of the project with all four (4) of staff’s recommended changes, and he is open to reducing the roof pitch if his fellow commissioners are in favor of that; however, if the roof pitch is reduced there may be a service issue in the future due to the location of the heating system. Commissioner Lin noted the consistency of the project with nearby properties; there were several indicated in the staff report to be of similar size or larger in square footage, and the property at 2001 Elkins Place is two stories, of identical square footage, and it appears to be closer to the street. The proposed project, while it is situated in a neighborhood with single-story homes, is not so far out of character in size and massing, to be denied on those grounds. In addition, the architectural style of the project is consistent with the neighborhood, and the City in general. He understands the concerns regarding the roof pitch, and he would be open to either recommendation. Commissioner Thompson commended the ARB for their efforts to protect compatibility and market values for properties within their jurisdiction; he referenced the City’s Single-Family Residential Design 5 5-26-20 Guidelines which discusses neighborhood and city-wide compatibility. The property to the north of the subject site (2017 Highland Oaks Drive) was correctly identified to have massing issues and appears larger due to the reduced setback; however, it is an anomality and should therefore not be considered the standard nor set a precedent for future development. The Development Code specifies that each permit is evaluated on a case by case basis, and the approval of one permit does not create a precedent or justification for a separate permit under current review. The height of the proposed structure, while taking into account the elevation of the street and finished elevation of the slab, is consistent with the view of a three (3) story structure. He also was concerned with the privacy of the neighbor to the south, whose home is at a lower elevation than the subject property. The existing trees offer a privacy screening, if they are properly maintained. The proposed Floor Area Ratio exceeds the average of the surrounding properties. Lastly, he is concerned that the mass and scale of the proposed project may not be compatible with the lot. He requested that, if approved, a condition of approval should be added to require the maintenance of the existing landscape screening along the southern property line to protect the privacy of the neighbor to the south of the subject site (2001 Highland Oaks Drive). Vice Chair Wilander stated that there are other two-story homes in the area and there are no requirements that the height be adjusted merely because the subject property is located on a hill- which is the topography of the Highland Oaks area. In addition, the home to the north is higher than the proposed (even though it is not as high from the base of the house). The Applicant has gone through several iterations and responded to the ARB guidelines. The project appears balanced with its second story setback; the scale and massing does not appear to be disproportionate to the neighborhood. She is inclined to support the project, with a 4:12 roof pitch to allow for usable attic space. She also agrees with Commissioner Thompson’s suggestion to maintain the existing landscaping on the south property line. Chair Lewis discussed the unique challenges of the hillside properties in the Highlands area. She finds the project to be relatedly modest in comparison to what could be proposed and will not overwhelm the lot. The architectural style is compatible with the neighborhood. The property to the north is an anomaly, however the proposed project will soften the appearance of that property given its position on the lot. There are similar two-story homes in the area. The project will improve the appearance of the neighborhood and promote compatibility between the subject and the property to the north. She recommends lowering the second-floor plate height to 8.5 feet, decreasing the second story windows and modify the dormers to accommodate the windows, and maintaining the existing 4:12 roof pitch as lowering it may cause issues. She also agrees with Commissioner Thompson’s suggestion to maintain the existing landscaping on the south property line. Commissioner Thompson suggested that the item be continued so enable staff, the public, the Applicant, ARB, and the Planning Commission to review revised plans with the recommend changes, if the Commission is inclined to recommend some or all of them. After some discussion, the Commission did not move forward with a continuance. Commissioner Chan stated that several of the recommendations have already been outlined as the four (4) recommended changes that included in the staff report as a part of this approval. Three (3) of the four (4) Commissioners were in favor of the following staff recommended changes: to lower the second floor plate height to 8.5 feet, reduce the window sizes on the second floor front elevation, and adjust the second floor dormers to accommodate the new windows. Based on the Commissioners comments, and support of Commissioner Thompson’s recommendation, Assistant City Attorney Maurer clarified that the motion would include the above recommendations and the following new condition of approval: 6 5-26-20 Condition No. 2: Landscape screening shall be installed along the southern property line between the homes at the project site and 2001 Highland Oaks Drive. This condition shall be met by the existing trees on the project site. If such trees are proposed to be removed, mitigation measures for replacement screening shall be a condition of issuance of a permit to remove these trees, unless the design review authority determines replacement screening is unnecessary. MOTION It was moved by Vice Chair Wilander, seconded by Commissioner Lin to approve Homeowners’ Association Appeal No. HOA 20-01 and Minor Administrative Modification No. Minor AM 20-09 with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) appealing the Highlands Homeowners’ Association Architectural Review Board’s denial of a proposed first and second story addition to an existing one story residence at 2011 Highland Oaks Drive, subject to the amended conditions of approval as read into the record by Assistant City Attorney Maurer. ROLL CALL AYES: Chair Lewis, Vice Chair Wilander, Chan, and Lin NOES: Commissioner Thompson ABSENT: None There is a ten day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. If adopted, appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 8, 2020. Please send Appeal applications to Planning@ArcadiaCA.gov or contact the Planning Division at (626) 574-5423. All decision letters are posted on the City’s website. 2. Resolution No. 2055 – Approving Multiple Family Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 19- 05 and Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 20-01 (83012) with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a three-unit multi-family residential condominium development at 125 California Street Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2055 Applicant: Eric Tsang, on behalf of the property owner, 125 California Home, LLC. Chair Lewis introduced the item and turned it over to Associate Planner Vanessa Quiroz to present the staff report. Chair Lewis opened the public hearing and asked if the Applicant would like to speak on the item. Applicant Eric Tsang responded. Chair Lewis asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in favor of the proposal. There were no calls received in support of the proposal. Chair Lewis asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in opposition of the proposal. There were no calls received in opposition to the proposal. MOTION - PUBLIC HEARING It was moved by Commissioner Chan, seconded by Chair Lewis to close the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved. 7 5-26-20 DISCUSSION The Commission was in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Thompson added that he appreciates that the proposed garage sizes exceed the Code minimum, although the 4-bedroom condominium units may contribute to on street parking. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Chan, seconded by Commissioner Vice Chair Wilander to adopt Resolution No. 2055 – Approving Multiple Family Architectural Design Review No. MFADR 19-05 and Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 20-01 (83012) with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for a three-unit multi-family residential condominium development at 125 California Street ROLL CALL AYES: Chair Lewis, Vice Chair Wilander, Chan, Lin, and Thompson NOES: None ABSENT: None There is a ten day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. If adopted, appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 8, 2020. Please send Appeal applications to Planning@ArcadiaCA.gov or contact the Planning Division at (626) 574-5423. All decision letters are posted on the City’s website. 3. Resolution No. 2056 – Approving a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the 3.12 acre lot into two legal lots for the approved mixed use development and Le Meridien hotel site (Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan) with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) at 180 W. Huntington Drive Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 2056 Applicant: Jonathan Tseng on behalf of SAICP, LLC Chair Lewis introduced the item and turned it over to Ms. Flores to present the staff report. Chair Lewis opened the public hearing and asked if the Applicant would like to speak on the item. Eric Chen responded on behalf of the SAICP, LLC. Chair Lewis asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in favor of the proposal. There were no calls received in support of the proposal. Chair Lewis asked if there was anyone who would like to speak in opposition of the proposal. There were no calls received in opposition to the proposal. MOTION- PUBLIC HEARING It was moved by Chair Lewis, seconded by Commissioner Chan to close the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was approved. 8 5-26-20 DISCUSSION The Commission was in favor of the proposal; Commissioner Thompson stated that the facts to support the findings are thorough and support approval of the project. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Vice Chair Wilander to adopt Resolution No. 2056 – Approving a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the 3.12 acre lot into two legal lots for the approved mixed use development and Le Meridien hotel site (Seabiscuit Pacifica Specific Plan) with a Categorical Exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) at 180 W. Huntington Drive ROLL CALL AYES: Chair Lewis, Vice Chair Wilander, Chan, Lin, and Thompson NOES: None ABSENT: None There is a ten day appeal period after the adoption of the Resolution. If adopted, appeals are to be filed by 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 8, 2020. Please send Appeal applications to Planning@ArcadiaCA.gov or contact the Planning Division at (626) 574-5423. All decision letters are posted on the City’s website. CONSENT CALENDAR 4. General Plan Conformity Finding for Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2020- 21. Recommendation: Find the CIP Program is Consistent with the City’s General Plan It was moved by Commissioner Thompson to pull Consent Calendar Item. No. 4 for separate discussion. Commissioner Thompson provided comments on the items below: 1. Page 22 – Chilled water bottle chilling station for $8,000: These are available from commercial supply stores for around $1,500. Unless there is substantial plumbing involved, this cost seems high. 2. Page 56- Replacement or maintenance of carpet at fire stations: He wondered why we are replacing carpet in spite of the City’s fiscal issues. Carpet should be replaced with a more durable/permanent flooring. Especially because this is a recurring item on the CIP schedule. 3. Page 58- Arcadia High School track ($600,000-700,000 in City contribution): Of this total, $150,000, is allotted for “plans, specs and engineering” – these companies replace tracks nationwide, so this cost seems high when all tracks are replaced to the same standard. Further, he noted that in the past proceeds from the Derby Day 5K have gone to AHS for installation of a new track. 4. Page 202 – Minivan replaced with 29,000 miles: The mileage seems low for replacement. 9 5-26-20 5. Page 116 - $25,000 for an electrical panel at Longden Park: To his understanding, this property isn’t in City limits/district. Commissioner Chan agreed that the Arcadia High School track plans and specs cost seems high, and it would be nice if the school district also contributed. Commissioner Thompson clarified that this is a shared cost, but the plans and specs cost still seems high. Vice Chair Wilander added that an alternative flooring at the fire station seems wise considering the impact of work boots on the floor. City Engineer/Deputy Development Services Director Phil Wray noted that due to COVID-19 pandemic, several of the projects were not completed this year and were carried over to next fiscal year. He also noted that the budgeted amount is a comprehensive total which includes prevailing wages, engineering, and inspection. Additionally, any unused funds will be carried over into the next fiscal year. He also clarified the various agreements the City has with regard to several of the items. The Commission that Capital Improvement Program for FY 20-21 is consistent with the General Plan, and the Commissioners comments will be forwarded to the City Council. 5. Minutes of the April 28, 2020 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve . It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Vice Chair Wilander to approve the Consent Calendar in its entirety (Agenda Items No. 4 and 5). ROLL CALL AYES: Chair Lewis, Vice Chair Wilander, Chan, Lin, and Thompson NOES: None ABSENT: None MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL LIAISON Council Liaison Cheng introduced himself to the Planning Commission. He discussed the upcoming City Council study session and stressed the importance of public input in the budget process. He invited the Planning Commissioners to attend the budget session and he stated that he would forward their comments regarding the Capital Improvement Program to the City Council. He thanked the Commission and he is happy to serve in his new role as liaison. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSONERS Commissioner Chan said that he received the environmental documents for the two upcoming projects. and asked if he needs to read those for the June 23, 2020 meeting. He also welcomed Council Liaison Cheng. Ms. Flores confirmed that the documents were for the Artis Senior Living and Huntington Plaza projects for the June 23, 2020 meeting. MATTERS FROM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY Assistant City Attorney Maurer welcomed Council Liaison Cheng, and he thanked the Planning Commissioners and staff for a well-organized meeting. He announced a new set of bills that would impact 10 5-26-20 single-family zoning in the State that he will continue to monitor and he would update the Commission accordingly. MATTERS FROM STAFF INCLUDING UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Ms. Flores announced there are no items pending for the June 9, 2020 meeting, therefore it will most likely be cancelled. There are two items pending for the June 23, 2020 meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission adjourned the meeting at 5:58 p.m. to Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber for the next virtual meeting. Deborah Lewis Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Lisa Flores Secretary, Planning Commission