Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 21, 2007 (2) .' . . . , MINUTES ARCADIA, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, March 21,2007, 7:00P.M. Arcadia Masonic Center 50 West Duarte Road The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Wednesday, March 21,2007, at 7:00 p.m."at the Arcadia Masonic Center, 50 West Duarte Road, with Chairman Olson presiding. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: PRESENT: ABSENT: Commissioners Badetian, Beranek, Hsu, Parrille and Olson None OTHERS ATTENDING e Community Development Administrator Jason Kruckeberg Planning Services Manager Corkran Nicholson City Attorney Steve Deitsch Senior Administrative Assistant Billie Tone SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS Community Development Administrator Kruckeberg said that comments and letters received since the previous meeting had been distributed to the Commissioners. CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING FROM MONDAY, MARCH 19,2007 . " The transcript of this meeting is available for review at the Development Services Department. L PUBLIC BEARING SP OS-OllGP 05-01/ZC 0S-04 Caruso Property Management The "Shops at Santa Anita" Santa Anita Park Racetrack (285 W. Huntington Drive) The Shops at Santa Anita Project includes a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Architectural Design Review, Design Guidelines, and a DeVelopment Agreement. 'e.> The Project consists of development of an 829,250 square foot (sf) commercial,retail and office development on the southern parking lot of the Santa Anita Park Racetrack (804,250 sf of retail/commercial uses and 25,000 sf of office uses); adaptive reuse of the western portion of the Santa Anita Park grandstand to construct an approximately 98,000 sf Simulcast Center within the grandstand area; a L4acre landscaped open space area .' linking the exi. Paddock Gardens with the propo.new commercial, retail and office center; a 7. 5-acre landscaped open space area, including a 3.5-acre water feature, to be located at the southern end of the property; and improvements to vehicle and pedestrian access, parking, infrastructure. The Planning Commission's recommendation on the project will be forwarded to the City Council. . Note: The Public Hearing has been closed. The purpose of this meeting is responses from staff on new issues raised during public comments, Planning Commission dellberations,anda'potential recommendation. Please see transcript for Planning Commissioners' deliberations. MOTION: It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Parrille, to recommend approval of the project as amended. Without objection the public hearing was closed. Please see transcriptfor details on the Commission's motion. ADJOURNMENT 9:50 p.m. Is/Jason Kruckeberg Secretary, Arcadia Planning Commission e \-e PC MINUTES 3-21-07 Pago 2 . . e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript ARCADIA CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. RE: "THE SHOPS AT SANTA ANITA PARK" WEDNESDAY; MARCH 21. 2007 7:00 P.I4. Arcadia Masonic Lodge 50 west Duarte Road Arcadia, california 91007 o . page 1 1 . . 1 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript COMMISSIONER OLSON: Good evening. welcome to e 2 the Arcadia city planning commission meeting for 3 wednesday, March 21st, 2007, here at the Masonic Center. 4 If everybody would please rise and join me in the pledge 5 of Allegiance. 6 (pledge of Allegiance.) 7 COMMISSIONER OLSON: Thank you. can I have roll 8 call. please. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THE CLERK: Commissioner Baderian? COMMISSIONER BADERIAN: Here. THE CLERK: Beranek? COMMISSIONER BERANEK: Here. THE CLERK: Hsu? COMMISSIONER HSU: Present. THE CLERK: parrille? COMMISIONER PARRILLE: Here. THE CLERK: Olson? COMMISSIONER OLSON: Here. THE CLERK: Thank you. e 20 COMMISSIONER OLSON: Okay. Is there any 21 supplemental information from staff regarding agenda 22 i.tems? 23 MR. KRUCKEBERG: There are two items. One is a 24 letter that was received between our last meeting and 25 tonight that we'll pass out. The second is an amended 2 o 1 resolution that includes the items that were on the 2 errata sheet from the last meeting. 3 COMMISSIONER OLSON: Thank you. Okay. This is a Page 2 e e 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 U 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 v - o e . . 3-21~07 pc meeting transcript continued public meeting from Monday, March 19th, 2007, regarding public Hearing SP05-01/GP05-01/ZC-0504, the caruso Property Management, and it's titled "The shops at Santa Anita" at the santa Anita Park Race Track. We've already heard all the comments from the public. That part of the hearing has been closed, and this will be a discussion with the commissioners and the recommendations 'that we might make, going forward to the city council. okay. well, I'm going to open it up to my fe 11 ow commi ssi oners, if they'd 1 i ke to say anythi ng .Go ahead. MR. KRUCKEBERG; There were comments ralsed in comment letters received both over the past week and at the hearing on Monday. And also of course comments that were made orally at the hearing on Monday. For the benefit of the planning commission, what we're going to do .tonight is respond to all the new comments that were raised in both wri~ten and oral testimony. .As you know, we have an extensive response to comments efforts withi ri the fi na lenvi ronmenta 1 impact report, and many of those comments that were .made both orally and written have been covered in existing 3 1 2 3 4 S responses to comments. so we will be addressing new comments tonight. We have, several of the staff, myself, Don Penman, who is the city manager, development services director, phil wray, our city engineer, as well as Terri Page 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript vital'. lead consultant for EIP consultants on the project to respond to some of the issues that were raised. Also, our consultants, Hamlin, Connor, and Gary Hamrick will deal with historic resources and traffic issues that were raised respectively. But before we get to the staff and consultants' issues, I'd like to turn it over to steve Deitsch, the city attorney, to talk about some of the legal issues that were raised in the comments. MR. DEITSCH: Thank you, Chairman and commi ssioners, I wi 11 1 ead off the response to comments portion of this meeting, and following that the commissioners will have an opportunity to focus on the required findings for the various land use applications that are before you. I will try and help you at that point focus on the findings you have to make, and then you can have a di,scussion 'about whether or not you can make those findings for each land use application involved, and then at some point entertain a motion regarding the resolution that Jason described before you . . ~ 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 tonight. Now, regarding the response to comments received on Monday night and since, I would like to start by making reference to comments raised in the part of the correspondence received from Attorney Douglas P~ Carstens, from the law firm of Chatten-Brown & Carstens dated March 19, 2007. In particular, I'll start by making reference to Page 4 e . 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ,8 9 e 10 . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript page 2 of his letter, Section A-I of his March 19 letter. one of the things he comments on is that the development agreement contains a waiver of the city's future ability to condition development proposals for the specific plan area, and the city's creation of a water well center. In response to his comment, I would point out that the development agreement in Section 6 on page 10 provides to the developer a vested right to complete the project, but only the project with the capital P as described, as a defined term. The specific plan governs any 'future use of the subject property, and 'any future use of the subject property pursuant to the development agreement must conform to the specific Plan and the description of the project as defined and described in the development agreement. section 6 of the development agreement in 5 particular makes reference to what rights the city has in the future to condition development proposals. and what rights the developer has to proceed based on existing development approval so, long as they are not changed, and that's the key, not changed. conditions imposed on current land use applications govern as set forth in the development agreement. so if there are to be any future changes to the specific plan, or ,any proposals to the development of the entire race track property inconsistent with the Page 5 o 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . 3-21-07 pc meetin~ transcrift specific plan, then the developer wil not have the protections for that proposed new development set forth in the development agreement, as long as those new proposals are not consistent with the existing land use approvals, the approvals in effect that are before you tonight. Ie Finally, Section 6-J of the development agreement provides that only if future developer or development approvals are consistent with the development of the project, again with a capital P as defined in the development agreement, then and only then do the current conditions apply with a limited waiver by the city of the ability to impose future new conditions. But, all of that is subject to the term reserved powers as set forth in the development agreement. only 6 e to the extent that new conditions are consistent with the development agreement may the city impose new conditions on any new land use applications by the developer, but otherwise the developer has no protection to change the scope of the development. the definition of the 'word project, or the specific plan in the future subject to waiver by the city of the ability to impose new condi ti ons . So contrary to the concern expressed in Mr. carsten's letter, the development agreement does not, it certainly does not leave open the possibility of amendment with impunity of the specific plan or the use of other areas of the race track property, without the Page 6 e - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0 e, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 - . . 3~21-07 pc meeting transcript ability of the city to 1mpose new conditions. Next I 'would like to speak to the question of a well site which Mr. Carstens refers to again in section A-Ion page 2 of his March 19 letter. The well site is referenced as a possible future property acquisition by the city in the development agreement. In particular Section 8-B of the development agreement deals with the proposed possible use of a well site by the city. However, the development agreement makes it clear that the well site will be dedicated to the city only if and when, if at all the city decides to proceed with development of a well site on the property. AS of 7 now, no such decision has been reached. Even if it were reached. by the way. we have no plans and specifications. no reasonable description of the well site project such that we could make it subject to CEQA at this point in time. Mr. Carstens appears to express a concern that by not making the well site project subject to CEQA at this point in time that it is improper under CEQA, or it's an infirmity based on CEQA, and the city believes that is not so. We will comply with a'l requirements of CEQA if and when, if at all. the city determines to develop a well site within the property, within the subject property, and only once we know what the plans and specifications for the well site will be. We received a comment concerning closed Page 7 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o . . 3~21-07 pc meeting transcript sessions. and whether or 'not the city of Arcadia and in particular the city council properly conducted four closed sessions pertaining to real property negotiations. In particular in his March 19 letter, in Section B-1 on page 4, Mr. carstens reiterates earlier concerns which he expressed in previous correspondence to the city concerning the subject. I would like to make part of the record two letters which were submitted to Mr. Carstens by the city attorney's office, by Best, Best & Krieger. one letter . 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 dated December 13,2006, and the second dated March 6th, 2007, which in effect contain the response to Mr. Carstens' concerns not only as expressed in two of his earlier letters to the city, but also in this March 19 correspondence to the planning commission. In the two letters the city attorney points out ,that the city council convened in closed section in full accord wi~h section 54956.8 of the government code, that's a provision in the Brown Act which allows for real property discussions in c)osed session. It's a provision that doesn't allow negotiations in closed session, but allows the city council to give direction to its negotiators regarding price in terms of payment regarding a property negotiation. And for the record I can once again confirm that the city council limited its discussion in the, foregoing closed sessions to what described on the posted agenda posted in accordance for each of those four occasions Page ,8 e 'e e 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o _. - . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript ~th the Ralph M. Brown Act. And what, the council discussed in closed session was solely price and terms of payment. I would also like to make part of the record a statement which was read by the city attorney at the March 6, 2007 city council meeting regarding this issue. And in that statement. which I read at that the meeting, 9 ,1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 the city attorney spelled out exactly why the specifics of what was discussed in closed session could not be made public, and that primarily is based on provisions in the Brown ACt which make it a criminal offense to release ~thout authorization what is discussed in closed session. Mr. carstens, by the way, was concerned about how the posted agenda listed or described the closed session, and listed the descriptions of the parties ~th whom the city was negotiating. In response to his comment, I can inform the commission that the list of property owner participants included those who own fee interest in the race track property, those who to the best of our knowledge had an interest by agreement or otherwise in possible title, leasehold or fee to a portion of the race track property and the like. Out of ,an abundance of caution the city listed more parties who were actually entities ~thin other parties ~th whom the city was negotiating. It is clear, I believe, as a matter of record that the city listed Page 9 o 21 22 23 24 2S 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 . . 3-21-07 pc meetin9 transcript appropriately the parties wnth whom we were dealing with and complied in all respects with the Brown Act. Another issue has been raised in Mr. carstens' letter on page S regard1ng possible future residential uses. Residential uses are clearly not allowed pursuant . 10 to the specific plan because they're not described in them, or by this development agreement, which is before you for recommendation tonight. The development agreement merely incorporates the specific plan by reference and by description. since residential uses are not allowed, Mr. carstens' concern that they mi,ght be allowed in the future is not justified. Even in other areas of the race track property not covered by the specific plan, any proposal to, include res,idential use in the future would be subject to zoning andpossiple rezoning applications, would not be grandfathered in any way or protected by the development agreement, because any such proposed use is not consistent wit~ the project with the capital P as defined in the development agreement, or with the specific plan. Any future amendment of the specific plan will be subject to all land use provisions in the municipal code, in state law and the like. The same can be said for any future subdivision maps especially to the extent they're i,ncon!;i stent wi th the defi ni ti on of the word project in the development agreement or the specific plan. .- t) Page 10 e 24 25 o e, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript Thus, contrary to concerns raised in Mr. carstens' letter, as long as any future land use 11 application, be it an amendment to the specific plan or a zone change or a subdivision application, as long as any of them might be beyond the scope of the definition of the term project, or beyond the scope of the specific plan before you tonight, then under the development agreement the city would have full authority to impose conditions and consider those applications on their merits. They are not automatically subject to protection under the development agreement. In Mr. Carstens' letter he makes reference to possible future gaming or gambling on the subject property., the race track property. He points to Horse wizard machines are in the facility that might be expanded, and he implies that the city somehow might have control over gambling on the property. The truth is that Horse wizard machines are regulated by the State of california, not by the city. He questions ,whether the city municipal code prohibits gambling. and the answer is there are certain provisions in the Arcadi a Muni ci pal code in Secti.ons 4215.6 and .7 in particular, and by reference in the state penal code, section 319, 320, 330 and 330(a) that restrict or prohibit gambling. If there is to be any future casino gambling, the city can accurately inform the public and I can page 11 a 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S a . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript . 12 inform this commission that the specific plan does not in any way call for or allow casino gambling of any type. Any such casino gambling would require compliance with all state statutes and future city approval. ~t is of no consequence that the land use applications before you tonight may be approved or disapproved vis-a-vfs the possible location of casino gambling on the race track property. There is no such proposal presently, any such proposal would be independent of any land use approval made by thi s city -- the city council or this planning commission by recommendation to the city council, and therefore the concerns that are raised in Mr. Carstens' correspondence again are not founded. A comment has been received by the city regarding level of service goals for traffic at various intersections, and for purposes of responding to this comm~nt, I would note that in city council Resolution NO. 64.93, the city council has done the following: It has determined that the policy found in the general plan of the city of Arcadia pertaining to use of the term "maintain," means that it's an expectation that maintenance of service 1 eve 1 sat various i ntersecti ons within the city are to be governed by the following i nterpretati on. ,e 13 Page 12 e e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 - 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [J e' . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript The word "maintain" is an expectation that active means may be employed to continue ongoing city programs or services. The term "maintain" as used in the general plan does not include any mandatory elements. Instead, the general plan specifically recognizes that there is no moral obligation to undertake the action. Indeed, the level of maintenance or service level described for intersections in the general plan is supposed to be according to the city council's interpretation of the general plan, its reasonable interpretation, that it is the intent of the city that a action. program or project is consistent With the general plan if considering all of its aspects it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan, and it not obstruct the eventual attainment of level of service D. .And unless Jason can remind me of anything I should have addressed that I might not have addressed, that's the conclusion of my comments. Thank you. COMMISSIONER OLSON: Thank you Mr. Deitsch. I appreciate that. MR. KRUCKEBERG: I'm not going to remind Mr. Deitsch, no, but I do have some additional issues that came up in the comments that I'd like to run through for you. 14 1 There's several comments raised about how long Page 13 o . . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript the document, the final EIR had been available for review. Noti.ce of the hearing was provided on February 26th about seven -- two days in advance of the hearing. The final EIR, all the project materials were available .by review to the -- .by the public on February 27th. And because we knew that it would be of interest to Westin Benshoof law firm and chatten-Brown, Carstens, who submitted a number of comments. and they had not requested it be directly delivered to both those firms on March 6th. the final EIR. Additional comments were raised about the size of the project and how large a project could be on this site. As we mentioned in the staff report. the project site under consideration here is 85 acres, which would allow approximately 1.1 million square feet of commercial structures. commercial building area. The FAR on the site, floor area ratio, is .3, which is actually the lowest commercial floor area ratio in the city. And that is what would make up that 1.1 million. This project is proposed at 829,250 square feet, which is about 75 percent of the buildable structure area that would be allowed on the site. Although mentioned in the staff report, there were still a number of comments regarding the issue of e . 15 1 2 3 4 potential residential development on the site, and as we mentioned and we'll just reiterate, the specific plan .zoningon the northern 78 acres of this site would remain R-1, which is residential single family with a specific Page 14 e e - D e . . S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript plan overlay. That residential zoning has been in place since the 1940's. The specific plan very clearly says that no residential development is proposed or allowed as part of this project, and any attempt to place residential would require an amendment to the specific plan and new envi ronmenta 1 revi ew as well. Also to follow up on some of Steve's points on gambling or gaming, there were additional comments made into the record about the possibility of a racino or different types of gambling time allowed such as slot. machines. There are no slot machines proposed as part of the project, and the Simulcast center that is proposed as part of this project is primarily consolidation of existing uses with the existing grandstand of the race track providing food, restaurants and parimutuel wagering with a specific area of the grandstand. And as you know, parimutuel wagering is betting on horse races, and currently exists now, and the Simulcast center would continue that use. Additional comments were raised between raising 16 1 2 3 4 S 6 and inconsistency or some type of problem between the specific plan and our municipal code. One speaker read a quote from the specific plan regarding how the specific plan would supercede the applicable section of the AMC, Arcadia Municipal code, and what language from the specific plan that said that. page lS 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript That's essentially the way a specific plan works. They become the relevant code for a project or property in terms of relevant standards for the property in question. Items such as height, density, landscaping, parking. et cetera are set within the specific plan, and are often, as in ~his case, in some cases more stringent than what the existing code would allow. The specific plan in this case for the shops at Santa Anita project is much more detailed than the underlying zoning in terms of what could be allowed there. It should also be noted that the project has an architectural desi gn revi ew package wi th desi gn guidelines that are more detailed than anything we have in the code along those lines as well. So, again, specific plans are used for just that purpose. They become part of the regulatory process. part of the code, essentially. In terms of design guidelines, there was a comment made that the design guidelines are, quote, a . - 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 mishmash of styles and colors that do compliment or coordinate with the grandstand. We have two, one's a project requirement and one's a mitigation measure, that address this issue. I am not going ~o read them in their entirety, but they are project requirement 4.1(b) and mitigat~on measure 4.4-5, and they discuss the issue. perhaps the most important one is mitigation measure 4.4-5, which is a requirement the developer must retain, the city needs to approve a qualified Page 16 e - 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript preservation architect to evaluate the design of the commercial entertainment zone to ensure that the construction is compatible with the state historic resources located in Santa Anita Park Historic District, and the project requirements that I mentioned also includes some extensive language about how state bui ldings must employ a pallet of details on architectural styles, and to compliment the grandstand as one of the goals of the design guidelines themselves. other comments were raised -- other comments were raised regarding the saddling barn, moving the saddling bar, the existing saddling barn at the race track. And this comment took some issue with a quote or a phrase that was used within our topical response to historic resources or culture resources, and took issue with it in that it felt it was an over statement of what 18 our general plan says on the issue of direct linkages between the race track. this proposed project or a proposed project on this particular site, as well as the mall. The general plan promotes a project in this area that, quote. establishes direct linkages with other projects. The term that was used in the topical response was the removal of the saddling barn would create seamless integration between the race track and the new project. we -- the general plan states as a quote, the intent of such 1 i nkages is to fad 1 i tate each Page 17 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript attraction's ability to draw patronage from as well as contribute patronage to the other attractions. thereby increasing the success of the mall. race track, and new comme rcia 1 deve lopment . The orientation at the main street on this project and the 1.4 acre open space area that we described on Monday night that's adjacent to the existing Paddock Gardens of the race track are visual. physical, and functional linkage between the proposed project and the race track. Leaving the saddling barn in its place would act as more of a barrier and would not create the same synergy and activity between the uses. 'And to add to this. the primary issue in the comment appears to be the saddling bar and the south . 19 e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ticket gates would be demolished and removed, and as we discussed in our presentation, we provided additional environmental analysis that evaluates the impact of relocating the saddling barn rather than demolishing it. so that also should help address that comment. There was an alternative provided by one of the speakers that provided an alternative site plan to the project. That site plan proposed a major roadway extending in an east-west direction that bisected the race track parking lot just south of the grandstand, there were lake features and a second access point from Holly that would extend north and south into the site. and it would have parking and retail. it was a thoughful alternative. e Page 18 e 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o _t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1:!. 12 13 14 15 16 e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript we felt that the new roadway as well the east-west street alignment that were shown on the alternative would create a significant barrier and actually act as a deterrent to creating that linkage to the race track that was mentioned and is listed in the general plan as a goal of the project in this area, felt that the mixing of cars and people is not necessarily a good idea in this particular area, so we didn't feel that that layout met the criteri.a and goals that were set forth in the general plan. Another comment, finally, that addressed a 20 statement of lighting at night. The comment currently reads, and this is part of our project requirement, it's project requirement 4.1(e). night lighting will be directed onto specific locations within the project. and away from adjacent properties when feasible. And after discussions with the applicant, they would prefer to remove the "when feasible" portion, so that would be an amendment to that project requirement. They would simply adhere to that. So with that, I will conclude my comments in response to the comments raised. I'll pass it now over to Don Penman and Phil wray to go through the remainder of the city's comments. COMMISSIONER OLSON: Thank you. ~r. Penman? ~R. PENMAN: Thank you, ~r. chairman. members of. the commission. page 19 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript There have been a number of comments regarding the comparability of the proposed project, the shops at Santa Anita, to the Grove, another caruso project in LOS Angeles. While the design guidelines reflect the same level of quality of architecture and overall development, when staff has used this comparison, it was not used to suggested the volume of business generated by the growth would be matched by the proposed shops at Santa Anita. It was more in the context of the quality . 21 architecture design, amenities, pedestrian areas and things of that sort. And while we are confi.dent that the net sal.es tax generated from the proposed shops at santa Anita wi 11 be strong, the actual esti mates for revenues have not been overly aggressive. In the proposed development agreement, we have listed other strong regional centers as a benchmark for the types of quality tenants that shall be included in the shops. specifically an upscale mix of tenants consistent with a first-class shopping center. This is not to suggest that listing of these centers will result in the same sales volumes or patronage. Again, the context of using those centers and the Grove in particular was meant to show, number one, the quality of the project as developed elsewhere, and what our design items are modeled after, not to say they're going to be the same, because they're not, but in terms of the overall design and amenities and things of that sort would be. e e Page 20 - o e e' . . 20 21 22 23 24 25 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript The planning commission some time ago I believe has asked whether the city would be retaining its own economic consultants to review the project. we have done that. and our consultant is cal Hollis from Keyser, Marston Associates. Mr. Hollis has an extensive background in 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 U 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 economic analysis, in particular for a lot of public agencies, and he has done an analysis of the proposed project that is submitted by the caruso Affiliated Group, as well as he has reviewed the comments by the consultants from the Westfield Group pertaining to the economics, and after all the staff presentations this evening, Mr. Hollis is here this evening and is prepared to respond to any questions you may have regarding the economics of the project. With that, we will have phil address some of the traffic-related items. MR. WRAY: Thank you. Mr. chairman, members of the commission. I would like to address three traffic comments that have come up, and then also later in this presentation, Gary Hamrick from Meyer. Mohaddes Traffic Associates, the city's traffic consultant, will also have some comments on traffic-related items. First of .an, the first comment is several questions were raised regarding the developer's require~ent to construct the traffic improvements in the EIR. The cost of the improvements. IS there a fair Page 21 22 23 24 25 o . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript share or in lieu fee required. and how does all this relate to the city's transportation impact fee program requirements? Let me clarify this issue. The developer has . 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 two key important requirements. The first one is that the developer is required to pay for and construct all the traffic' improvements that are made mitigation measures for the project. That is the 20 intersections that have been mentioned before. and they're actually listed in the EIR. There is no fair share or in lieu allowance for those improvements. They must be constructed. The developer is also required to pay the city's transportation impact fee program for this project. However. there is an overlap of these two that must be taken into consideration. so I'd like to explain them in a little bit more detail. The city's transportation impact fee program is based on the future improvement needs at 20 key arterial intersections within the city. All redevelopment in the city of Arcadia is required to pay this fee. The preliminary transportation impact fee for this project estimated based on the square footage and the. uses proposed in the protect is roughly $5.5 million. The current estimate for all of the developer's traffic improvements at the 20 intersections is approximately $10 million. 'e NoW, of those 20 intersections, 10 of those are Page 22 'e - o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 e 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e . . 25 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript in common with the transportation impact fee program. 24 And those are estimated at roughly $5 million, so they're about half of the, it equates to half of the total cost, Based on the preliminary numbers, the developer would owe the city then a balance of $500,000 because the impact fee is $500,000 greater than the improvements. so they would be required to install. NOW, I would like to note that these costs are based on conceptual estimates that are available at this time. An updated improvement cost estimate will be required just prior to construction of their intersection improvements that will be used to compare the impact fee requirements and determine credits or balances. As I stated, they will be required to construct their improvements as identified in the EIR at $10 million, estimated. second comment I'd like to address is there's a comment letter that claims that the EIRis inconsistent with the general plan with regard to level of service on residential streets. We do not agree with this comment, and we believe that the EIR is consistent with the general plan. The general plan establishes a strategy of level of service C 'or better on residential streets. This is diffi.cult to equate to actual measurements of traffic volumes. In traffic terms, level of service C equates to page 23 o 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S o . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript 25 . 80 percent of capacity on a street. And this is very difficult to measure by general accepted traffic engineering needs, because every residential street is different, has different character and could essentially have different capacities. Because level of service C is diffi.cult and would be relatively, would equate to a relatively high volume, it was determined that this is undesirable to use as a measurement for this particular study, and the traffic consultant established a much more conservative scale of measuring the traffic. What was actually used was a sliding scale that ranges from eight percent to 12 percent of the eXisting volumes on the resi.dential streets. And this is -- this would then equate to what we established as a threshold of significance for this particular project, and this is, this is much more conservative than the level of service c that is established in the general plan, but then would identify where -- where they would need to be watching out for potential mitigation. The last comment I would like to address is another comment which refers to a previous response from the city that stated that where minor intersection widenings are required, in most cases they would not impact the adjacent buildings or properties, and would be 'e 26 Page 24 e e - o e' . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript accomplished bya use of the sidewalk, parkway, or medi ans . The comment that was received asks what does in most cases mean. I would like to clarify that based on this previous comment, that no structures will be affected by the required widenings, From a conceptuai standpoint, where the. widenings will encroach into the existing sidewalks, the sidewalks will be relocated or narrowed slightly to fit within the right-of-way and sti llremai n in comp 1 i ance wi th he ADA standards. NO sidewalks will be removed. And that concludes my responses. I'll turn it back over to Jason. MR. KRUCKEBERG: Thank you. At this time, Mr. chairman and commissioners, we'd like to have Terri Vitar go through any of the CEQA letters or environmental issues that were raised in the comments. MS. VITAR: Thank you, Mr. Kruckeberg. Mr. Chairman and members of the planning commission. A comment was raised as to who would be responsible for implementation of mitigation measures. 'The developer would fully fund all of the mitigation measures and project .requirements. The city would be responsible for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures and the project requirements in some -27 1 2 cases in consultation with other responsible agencies, such as the Regional Water Quality control Board. page 25 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o . . 3-21~07 pc: meeti ng transcri pt As. opposed what one of the commenters had suggested. mitigation monitoring and reporting program is fully enforceable and is required by the california Environmental Quality Ac:t and the Public Resources code. and it does in fac:t ensure that all mitigation measures are both implemented and enforced. A c:omment was raised as to an alternative that reduc:es the proj~c:t by half its size, assuming that that impact would also be half as muc:h. Alternative 3 of the draft DEIR is an alternative that does just that. It is approximately half as muc:h as the proposed project. The c:ommercial and entertainment portion and the simulcast c:enter. That alternative shows that impac:t to air quality, noise and traffic: would still be signific:ant and unavoidable. In fac:t, to reduc:e the significant unavoidable impac:ts to air quality and noise, a project of a maximum of only 10,000 square feet could be developed without exc:eeding the South coast Air Quality Management Distric:t threshold and/or the city's noise threshold. To reduce traffic impact, a projec:t of a maximum of only 44,000 square feet could be developed without exceeding the City's traffic threshold. Further, a projec:t of the size necessary to 1 2 3 4 5 eliminate all of these impac:ts would not be consistent with the di rec:tion of the general plan for the project site. All of the measures suggested by one the c:ommenters to reduce energy demand were evaluated in the final EIR, but for c:larification. trees would be provided Page 26 . e 28 .e e 6 7 8 9 10 11 U 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e o e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript to shade buildings in addition to the low energy glass that would be provided to reduce energy demands. Also, the suggestion was made to insulate all walls and attics. There are no attics proposed in any of the buildings of the project site and insulation is not required and in all of the'walls in the buildings of the project site insulation would be provided. With respect to comments on better qua li ty, the project is fully mitigating its water quality impact as demonstrated in final EIR. The proposed project would comply with all prevailing laws and regulations regarding water quality, including those developed and adopted for the purpose of regulating total maximum daily loads. A standard urban storm water management plan, or SUSMP. will be prepared for the project as required by one of the project's requirements, as well as the requirements of the County of LOS Angeles. In the site specific SUSMP. and as required by mitigation measure 4.7-lA. post construction or operational best management practices will be provided to reduce overall site pollutants .by the 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 reduction percentages identified in the draft EIR. The reduction percentages establish specific standards for which the project must comply. In addition, and as also requi red by a mitigation measure, mitigation measure 4.7-18. a water monitoring program will be prepared to further ensure that proposed project discharges do not contribute to the degradation of water quality in the page 27 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o . . 3-21-07 pc meetin~ transcript Arcadia Wash. The water quality monitoring program would be developed by the developer but in consultation with the city of Arcadia, the county of LOS Angeles and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and it would both monitor dry weather and wet weather water quality conditions in the wash, both above and below the specific plan area discharge points. AS previously mentioned, the developer of the proposed project would also be required to apply for coverage under the Statewide construction Storm Water Permit and accordingly, they would be required to prepare a Storm Water pollution and Prevention plan identifying both structural and nonstructural best management practices to reduce construction-related impacts such as erosion. AS allowed by CEQA, the EIR has established clear standards that must be achieved with respect to water quality as mitigation measures and the standards will therefore be enforced through the Mitigation . e 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Monitoring and Reporting Program. worth noting, storm water control mechanisms have become more stringent over the years and it can reasonably be concluded that this will continue into the future and the project will be required to comply with aJ 1 prevai ling 1 aws and regu 1 ati on. Also, it is perfectly usual and appropriate to prepare both the SUSMP and the Storm water pollution and Prevention plan after the CEQA review process, not only because the laws are constantly changing, but also to Page 28 e e 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 e u . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript ensure that these plans adjust the project in its final state of development. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program specifically requires that the SUSMP and t~e Storm Water pollution and Prevention plan are prepared and that they are prepared prior to the initiation of grading activities. couple of comments were raised regarding senior housing on colorado place and whether it should have been included in the project level analysis. There is no existing senior housing in this location and as such it is not included in the project level analysis; however, senior housing is proposed in this location and a cumulative project list includes this project and as such it was evaluated as part the cumulative conditions, including the cumulative analysis for air quality. 31 ~th regard to alternatives that would eliminate significant and unavoidable cumulative view impacts. the EIR analyzed an alternative, Alternative 5, that would develop the southeastern portion of the site and preserve use of the grandstand from directly south, but this alternative would impact views from the southeast to a greater extent than that proposed project. while a development such as a big box or a power center alternative as suggested by the commenter could conceivably provide some narrow view quarters between building. This type of development would not be consistent with the city's vision for the development of page 29 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 '24 25 D . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript urban intensity linkages and integratlon for the racetrack in Westfield Santa Anita. Further, views of the grandstand would also still be partially blocked from the south as any views that would be provided would be met. . A comment was made regarding orienting the project in a north/south direction for the purposes of energy conservation. This orientation would not provide the same integration with and connectivity to either the grandstand or westfield Santa Anita. Also, views would be impacted to a greater extent, as there would be no view down Main Street nei~her within or outside of the project site. 32 e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Lastly, in terms of the errata section provided in the final EIR, the commenter questioned its length. The errata sec~ion contained only typographical corrections and changes that further clarify the text of the draft DEIR, and they are in direct response to text that the commentator says is inappropriate. In order to provide ~he proper context, full paragraphs of text were provided where only a few words may have changed. The text change~ chapter could have been substantially shorter if only the specific sentence or sentences with text changes were provided. But more text was provided to aSsist the reader in understandi ng the changes. Thank you. MR. KRUCKEBERG: At this point we'd like to ask pam o'connor to give you some comments -- responses to Page 30 e . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [J e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 U 13 14 15 16 17 e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcri pt comments on some of the issues raised regarding historic resources. MS. O'CONNOR: A few comments were. received in letters over the past week, most of which have been addressed in the environmental analyses, including the responses to comments and the additional environmental analysis. Some of the comments are about issues that have already been addressed,.but the comments are framed slightly differently. My responses are to the new framing as well as the new issues regarding historic 33 aspects of the proposed project. One comment states that the FEIR does save the impact of the proposed demolition of the saddling bar. The FEIR analysis of the historic district integrity shows that the .historic district would remain on. the National Register if the saddling bar was demolished or lost at any time. This comment also notes that the secretary of interior's standards for rehabilitation number two states that removal quote, "Removal of historic materials or alterations or features that characterize a property shall be avoided," end of quote. The project modifications proposed have evolved based on an ongoing analyses to find ways to minimize impact to contributing resources and to avoid removal of historic materials in the hi.storic district as evidenced by the proposal for the relocation of the saddling bar. Modifications are analyzed in the document additional Page 31 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript environmental analyses, which identifies a method to relocate the existing 1938 saddling barn, thus avoiding removal of the historic material of the saddling barn and retaining its historic character defining features and structure. Another comment argues that the existing 1938 saddling barn is more significant than the design of the original 1934 saddling barn. This is moot now because . 34 1 the 1938 saddling barn will be relocated to the site of 2 the 1934 saddling barn, so the existing saddling barn is 3 retai ned . Removal of the south ticket gate structure could not be avoided. The relocation study analyzed the form and existing conditions of the south ticket gate structure. In order to relocate the structure an appropriate size site has to be found, would have to be found, and has to be available to hold the structure which is a long narrow barrier structure, specialized structure. There's no such spaceavai 1 ab 1 e wi thin the paddock garden area where it is now located that can accommodate its size in linear configuration. Relocating the structure to the site distant of the contributing resources of the paddock garden and the. historic district will render it an isolated artifact. Without the possibility of a productive use and devoid of any relationship to other contributing resources, relocation of the south ticket gate is unfeasible and remains an impact, e e Page 32 e 21 22 23 24 25 o - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript AS already noted in the responses to comments, the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation do not apply to impacts or elements determined not contributing, that includes surface parking lot and view escapes. The contributing resources 35 were determined by the keeper of the National Register. they're listed in the FEIR, and they do not include surface parki.ng lots and they do not include view scapes. A new comment maintains that the loss of surface parking lots should be considered an impact, but since the keeper of the National Register did not consider the surface parking lot as a contributing resource and because the parking lots don't possess any historic. design elements or features, original features, they're not considered to be contributing resources. The commenter notes that the National Register registration form also stated that: when patrons arrive by automobiles, that's different points in time, they park and proceed into the entry through vast parking lots; however, it was not necessary nor did the registration form discuss all the means of arrival over this race track hiStory. For example, many patrons arrive by rail at a station to the east where they would walk a relatively short distance from the station that did not take their way finding through vast parking lots. It was necessary for the nomination to rule specific, though, about the basis for the Santa Anita Page 33 o 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S . . 23 24 2S 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript Park National Register designation, and as determined by the keeper of the National Register, the Santa Anita Park Historic District is significant for its historic 36 association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history in the area of entertainment/recreation for horse racing and in the area of ethni cheri tage wi th associ ati on wi th the Japanese-American history. The view of the historic district was also not determined to be a historic resource, nor was the view determined to be significant. None of the contributing features of the race track would were determined to be orienting features by the keeper of the National Register. Another comment is that the original designer's creation itself is irrefutable data that uninstructed views of the grandstand was the designer's goals. Every designer and architect strives for their design to be as visible as possible; however, intervening land uses and adaptations within properties occur over time as places urbanize and new uses evolve. These changes, while changing views of historic resources, do not result in historic significance. Another comment claims that the views are relative to the setting in terms of the historic and visual relationship with the streets and city that surrounded along most of its perimeter. with the exception of the southwest quadrant. The setting of the Page 34 . e e e D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 e 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript 37 Santa Anita Historic District again is not contingent on the character of the adjacent land uses. The comment itself acknowledges this in its reference to the southwest quadrant. which is developed. Finally, one comment asks about the impact of replacing wooden seats painted turquoise with the glass and steel building that is not painted turquoise. The wooden seats are not the original seats.. As discussed in responses to comments, the proposed simulcast center is set back behind the main cross aisles of the grandstand, so that it would be recessed, located in the darkest, shadiest area of the grandstand. This area visually receives an individual element such as the .seats are generally not distinguishable. In conclusion, as noted in the additional environmental analysis. impacts from relocation of the saddling barn would be less than the originally proposed project which would have demolished the saddling barn, again, because the existing saddling barn would be retained rather than replicated. Thank you. MR. KRUCKEBERG: Finally, we'd like to ask Gary Hamrick to respond to additional traffic comments. MR. HAMLICK: Good evening. A comment was made regarding project traffic in Temple city. No significant 38 Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript . traffic impacts would occur beyond the edge of the study area. Impacts follow very small levels that are less than significant. NO study intersections were identified in Temple ~ity because all of those locations fall beyond the edge of significant impacts. Three percent or less of project traffic is expected to use the streets mentioned in the comments and the traffic diffuses as the distance from the project increases by the time it reaches the streets mentioned in Temple city is below three percent of project traffic and less than the level of significance as identified with criteria by the city. Another comment was made regarding meeting a 1.5 vehicle occupancy target for employees. First of all, there's not a mitigation measure in the EIR to meet such a target, such a target would likely be unenforceable and the employee trips are generally off peak outside of the peak hours and represent a very small proportion of the overall trip generation of the site so therefore it really wouldn't have that much of an impact in any events. e A comment was made regarding Saturday daily trip analysis and the use of the saturday total daily trips. Peak hour analysis is the most conservative and it's a standard for traffic impact analyses. Peak hour analyses were conducted for saturday as well as for weekdays. 39 1 Daily trip generation is not used for either weekday or Page 36 e e 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e o e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript weekend, that being saturday analysis, only peak hour trip generation, which is more conservative. A comment was made regarding analysis of i ntersecti ons on resi dentia 1 streets. The key type of impacts impact analysis of residential streets is on the street itself, not at the intersection. Typically intersections of residential streets with connecting streets, or arterials, function very well 'with very good levels of service. Thus analysis of them will underestimate traffic impacts in the neighborhood. Therefore, the study used a very strict threshold of significance that phil mentioned earlier for residential streets themselves, the segments of the streets that is consistent with standards applied in the city and throughout southern California. This methodology evaluates the impacts of the street where the residential properties are. located, not at the end of the streets at intersections, which as I mentioned under represent those impacts. This again makes the residential street analysis very conservative. Finally, a comment was made regarding the use of the 4.75 parking spaces per thousand parking ratio. The city standard of 4.75 spaces per thousand square feet inherently takes into account the mix used nature of the 40 1 2 3 center such as the shops at San Anita that include retail, cinema, restaurants and other uses. Thus., there's no need to as mentioned in the comment, Page 37 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 U 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript separately apply Clty code for other uses individually. Furthermore, those codes do not apply since the specific plan in this case governs which is the 4.75. Also, the urban land institute. the Premier National Think Tank on shared Parking for Retail centers, has guidelines for centers over 600,000 square feet, such as this project. usi ng the underlying institute recommendations actually from a document called Recommended parking Ratios for Centers yields the exact same 4.75 spaces per thousand square feet. Thi si s also consi stent wi th the methodology guidelines applied by numerous cities throughout Southern Ca liforni a. That concludes my responses. MR. KRUCKEBERG: Actually, I did forget to mention our final speaker, Mr. Bill Speer on some economic responses for you. MR. SPEER: Yes, this is a response to a comment received on the 14th of March from the city of Temple city relating to anticipated sales and sales tax impacts on that city, The commenter suggests that the cumulative impact of the introduction of existing westfield Santa Anita. the Westfield Santa Anita expansion, and the e e 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 proposed shops at Santa Anita development would be a loss of $300,000 per annum in Temple city sales tax revenues. Based on the latest available data from the State of California Board of Equalization in 2005, this figure represents approximately 22 percent of that city's sales tax revenues currently generated. The commenter Page 38 e e 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e o e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript provides no supporting documentation for its calculation and such an assertion warrants a full disclosure of unre1ying assumptions, especially given that Temple city does not offer significant concentrations of fashion-oriented comparison goods retailers which might compete with the shops at San Anita. As noted in our response and comment 855, the shops at Santa Anita could realize the sales projected for the development while observing only a marginal proportion of the anticipated net access demand identified within the trade area for 2005 to 2011 period 24 to 35 percent, without relying on transfer of sales from any existing area retailers. The worse case analysis contained in the. FEIR anticipated that all the sales transfers would be allocated to retailers within the city limits of Arcadia, where the vast majority of comparison goods retailers are concentrated within the defined trade area. This is where the likely economic impact of the shops Santa Anita project is expected to 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 occur. Further. as discussed in response to the comment 856. the sales impacts associated with the shops at Santa Anita are expected to be one time in nature, not ongoing. The comment acknowledges that, quote, "It is too late to challenge the westfield development," unquote, yet seems to have the Caruso shops at Santa Anita project mitigate for the asserted cumulative impact for all three Page 39 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript developments, westfield Santa Anita and its expansion in the shops at Santa Anita. The developer of 'the shops at Santa Ani ta is not obligated to mi ti gate the economic impacts of Westfield Santa Anita or its expansion and these two projects will generate the vast majority of the sales between the two shopping centers, Westfield santa Anita and the shops at santa Anita. And that's the conclusion is of my comment. Thanks. MR. KRUCKEBERG: And that concludes our responses to the new issues that were raised both as I mentioned orally and in writing over the past week. unless anyone from the staff has any additional comments. MR. PENMAN: I think the only thing to clarify in the parking is that formula 4.75 was developed time in 2000 when Westfield came in for the expansion in their mall and actually initially they requested 4.5 spaces per 43 e e e e 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript earlier in the presentation, will form a question out if it requires a response from a speci a 1 i st from another area to try to answer the questions first. With that, we're certainly available. COMMISSIONER OLSON: Thank you. I'd just like to make a general comment before we all start discussing this, but I do appreciate everything staff has done, the city attorney has done since late Monday night to respond to literally all the comments that were made, all the addi,tional letters that were handed to us and the comments and to provi de us wi th thi s i nformati on. We have spent as -- the planning commissioners have spent a lot of time going through the EIRand carefully reviewing everything here and listening to the 4.4 public's comments. And there's a couple of things that were said from various people on Monday night, some people wanted to be on the fast track, some people wanted us to slow it down. There's no reason to quickly act on sornethi.ng, but I think that. you can see from tonight and what staff has done to respond we're doing neither, we're -- the applicant has given -- submitted their application, it's been a long time. They revised it. we have spent an incredible amount of time going through an incredible amount of material. And I just want to say that we're just following the normal schedule of a time frame and ~fford everybody the opportunity to have their input. And as you can see Page 41 . . 14 15 3-21-07' pc meeting transcript by all the comments that were made by staff and the outside consultants, we've responded to them all, we've e 16 heard them all. So we can go ahead and start 17 de li berating. 18 MR. DEITSCH: Commissioners? 19 COMMISSIONER OLSON: Yes, Mr. City Attorney. 20 MR. DEITSCH: Chairman and commissioners, I'd 21 like to call your attention to Section 2 of the proposed 22 ~esolution, and that's found on Page 2. This is 23 resolution Section 57, which is proposed and before you 24 tonight. In Section 2 you will see the different land 25 use applications mentioned in each subsection, the first o 45 1 2 3 4 one was the specific plan, the second general plan. And in each subsections there are conclusive conclusively findings that have to be made by the commission and ultimately by the council. e 5 The commission for purposes of recommending to 6 the council approval or disapproval and the council would 7 ultimately have to make findings in the affirmative to 8 approve and in the negative to disapprove. so as you 9 discuss or deliberate, it would be helpful if you would 10 focus on these findings for each land use and application 11 and see what facts you might cull from the staff report 12 or you might have ask staff to provide supporting facts 13 14 15 16 to the extent you feel you need some direction or recommendation. And those would be supporting facts for each of the findings and each of these four subsections. Thank you. e page 42 e 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o 1 2 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 e . . 3.21-07 pc meeting transcript MR. OLSON: Thank you, Mr Deitsch. okay. commissioners? COMMISSIONER HSU; I'll go ahead with my comments. I'd like -- first of all, I would like to thank the staff for their tremendous long time and effort expanded on this project and for~elPing us to able)to this stage of a decision making process. I would also like to thank all parties involved for their interest and participation in bringing forward 46 their thoughts and concerns regarding to this project. And we have received inputs and comments on EIR from a member of the committees, state orders, and public offi ci a 1 s from nearby muni ci pa li ti es. And I read the EIR, I attended .all the scoping meeting of this project, I listened a~d read the comments and responses. And based .on all the information submitted and reviewed by this commission, I believe that benefit of this project outweighs any negative impacts. The ultimate outcome of the project hinges on how well the developer executes and carries out the plan with a strong ~1?~~~~~~t by our city .sta.ff. Given the caruso~track record and the high quality of our professional City staff, I am confident that we will have a project that we all can be proud of; however, for a project for this size and magnitude, I Would like to see that we receive LEED certification. lEED stands for leadership in energy and environmental design, green Page 43 o 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript building system. . It is the nationally accep~ed benchmark for design, construction and operation of higher performance green building and many of the performance benchmark to receive LEED certificate overlaps with the mitigation measure in the EIR and, therefore, it is achievable and feasible. If this commission recommends project approval, I would like to state a condition that e 47 the shop at Santa Anita Park project should achieve a LEED certified status prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy. Back to you. COMMISSIONER OLSON: Thank you, commissioner. COMMISSIONER BADERIAN: Thank you, Commissioners. I'll echo commissioner HSU'S comments relative work that the staff and consultants have done. I have some questions and my first question would be relative to. the police chief concerning additional personnel that would be needed to provide the level of safety that you indicated Monday evening. I believe you indicated that there will be a needed additional three officers and a detective in order to -- in your opinion meet any potential and future demands of this proposed project. And if that is the case, what would be the mechanisms to fund these new positions? MR. SANDERSON: The mechanisms that come through our annual budgetary process and the benchmarks would be determined by the calls for service to the proposed site, and as that call for service would demand that additional Page '44 e e e 22 23 24 25 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript staff would be added, it would be requested through the 'budgetary process of the city to fund the extra officers' posi ti ons. COMMISSIONER BADERIAN: Thank you. It's a 48 question. also, for the police chief. There was some comment made that many years ago there was a design for a brief traffic management plan to handle the traffic at the race track. And my sense was that it was designed to accommodate a lot more cars than we"re talking about in this project. I wonder if that's a fair assessment or not?' POLICE CHIEF: Yes. The management plan goes back decades. It includes intersection maps that show how to temporarily redesignate traffic; put up barricades; design any intersections to facilitate ingress, egress of traffic through the intersections; as well as man position with police offi cers at intersection, working them in coordination with the traffic lights and other measures we'd have to take, depending on the size of the crowd and the time of day. In other words, there's a crowd for the race track that comes in, and there's a crowd that goes out, and different streets are utilized at different times for different reasons. so we look at that over the course of years 'and repeating events that happen on a yearly basis, and devise our plans accordingly. COMMISSIONER BERANEK: Just as a follow up for page 45 24 25 o 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript that, is that plan just for special events, big races, or is that something that is used, historically now, on an , . e 49 1 ongoing basis or on just kind of a short-term? 2 POLICE CHIEF: The plan can be used for big 3 days. It can be added to, depending on how big of a day, 4 how much staff is necessary. The plans have been used on 5 a daily and a weekly basis for many decades, particularly 6 before intertrack wagering came about after 1987. 7 COMMISSIONER BERANEK: I think in the traffic 8 plan,. it also talked about the use of technology to 9 monitor streets and intersections and stuff. would that be an aid to use, sort of if I don't know who is going to monitor it, if it's going to be the mall or there's going to be police -- but if all of a sudden you see, at any time, piling up of traffic for one reason or another, is that something you can react to, or is that something that would be hard to respond to? POLICE cHIEF: we can react fairly quickly to any type of a developing traffic problem or situation. The monitoring of the signals is through computers, through city hall traffic engineering, they can get in touch with us. of course, we're a 24-hours-a-day operation, and they can let us know if there's a problem that they're seeing on their side, and we can come up with conti ngency plans that deal wi th them as they come up. e COMMISSIONER BADERIAN: Thank you. I pass to pa,ge 46 e ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript 50 Mr. chai rman. COMMISSIONER PARRILLE: Before I offer any comments, 1 would like to ask some specific questions. One of the aspects that I was unclear about was the south ticket booths, with respect to their not being replaced. And how will this cause a transition, if the booths are not located there, and how will people transit from the project area into the race track? MR. WRAY: If I understand you right, you're saying the people that would access the track from the south, what will they do now in the event of the project? COMMISSIONER PARRILLE: That's correct. If the south ticket booths are gone, is thi s goi ngto be an open area between the project area and the race track so the people will have access to the race track without paying an admission fee? And what will happen if those, you know, as far as people observing the activities in the paddock area? MR. WRAY: The entire site is linked by a major ring road. So actually, entering off of any of the major entry pofnts to the site, they can access parking for the race track, parking for the project itself. They can, if-- COMMISSIONER PARRILLE: I'm not asking specifically about the parking. 51 Page 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript e MR. WRAY: I think you're addressing that we have a situation on racing day versus nonracing days and how you'll segregate the people. And understanding that on racing days, which represents a maximum, I believe, of a 128 possible days out of 365 a year, there would be some sort of a barrier the city would have to approve so that it's aesthetically appropriate, that would prevent, physically, visitors to the shops from just walking into the race track area and the paddock area. when racing is not running, which represents about 65 percent of the time at the race track, then there would be no barrier and the pedestrians would then have access, at least to the paddock garden area. COMMISSIONER PARRILLE: I think that answers that questi on. Question for the city attorney, with respect to the three-acre lake. IS there any protection for the city, in the event of any accidents that occur in the lake area, as far as city liability is concerned? MR. DEITSCH: In my opinion, the city would not be liable for any future accidents for anything having to do with the construction and maintenance of the lake. There is a provision in the California Tort Claims Act that exempts municipalities from liability for the issuance of permits. This lake would be constructed, if e 52 1 2 and when it is, in accordance wi th permi ts issued by the city and in accordance with all municipal code Page 48 e e 3 4 5 6 7 li 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e o e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript requirements, including those pertaining to the construction or installation of pools. COMMISSIONER PARRILLE: There was also a comment yesterday made, but'I don't know if it's pertinent to the issues before us, is that westfield did not complete it's traffic mitigation obligations. Is there any way we can comment on that? MR. KRUCKEBERG: phil is probably the best person to answer that question. MR. WRAV: They're actually working on those. They have completed two -- they're close to completing the second one. And the third one is, they're still working out with tal Trans. So they're actively working towards closing those. COMMISSIONER PARRILLE: We also have a letter from the City of San Marino, the planning director, and his objections to the project. I wonder if we have any comments to that letter. MR. WRAY: We actually offered to meet w1th them to talk about the mitigation measure that was in their jurisdiction. We're going to continue to pursue that to try to get resolution on that one. mitigation. TWo, I'm sorry. 53 1 2 .3 4 MR. PENMAN: In addition to that. there were two mitigation measures in San Marino. I know one was the Huntington Drive and San Gabriel and the other is Huntington Drive and San Marino, and the mitigation Page 49 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript measures would have resolved issues there. The city of San Marino doesn't want the mitigation measures and therefore said we should change the project because they don't want the mitigation measures. So we will continue to work with them. and meet with them and see if we can reach. you know. an appropriate resolution. And I think we're going to try to meet with them in the very near future. we just received a letter from them Thursday, I belive. So there really wasn't an opportunity to meet with them before prior to the hearing here before the commissioners. we will attempt to do that prior to the meeting with the ci ty counci 1 . COMMISSIONER PARRILLE: I do have a couple of e comments I'd like to make as a commissioner, a newer commissioner on this body. I want to thank the staff and everyone who has helped us. It's been a major task reading through all the material but, you know, I think everybody on this commission took that task in hand and did a complete review of everything. In reviewing the EIR and the development e 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agreement, I'm aware of any residents who are concerned with the effect of this project and the city on their lives. In a perfect world we can keep everybody happy and satisfied, but this is not. a perfect world. And we need to all realize' that, as members of the commission and as residents of the city of Arcadia, everybody needs to realize that property owners have a right to use their Page 50 e e 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - o e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript property to the greatest extent possible. And under the municipal code and the laws of the state of california, no project or development will perfectly mitigate all potentia; problems presented by the project, in terms of traffic, population, density, noise, illumination, or any other factor. If the code allows the project and the mitigation factors rationally resolve most issues, then the project should go forward. If a change is needed to the general plan. we should make the change. some people may not want this project or like it"s design or what its proposed, but the owner of the property and its. lessee has the constitutional right to develop. This is especially so when the project meets every condition the municipal code places on the proposed project and the development department has similarly required mitigation of a number of impacts. so I believe that this project under the 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 proposed specific plan as a matter of fact, is consistent with the general plan. And the proposed specific plan will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare or result in any illogical land use. I think this project is a benefit to the city. I think the proposed amendment to the general plan is not a material detriment to the public health and welfare of this community. I think the zone change is proper. It's consistent. And the development agreement that is Page 51 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 '10 11 12 . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcri p"t proposed between the' developer and the city is consistent \Vi th the obj ecti ves i pol ides, general 1 and uses, and programs specified in the general plan and the specific plan. e COMMISSIONER OLSON: Thank you, Commissioner Parrille. Did you want to ~- COMMISSIONER BADERIAN: I just had a couple more questions. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. COMMISSIONER BADERIAN: Relative to, again, to some of the safety mitigation recommendations. In our staff report -- or in the staff report concerning recommendations and conditions of approval, item 5 indicates: "Interior lighting for the parking structures and all exterior lighting throughout the project shall be reviewed and approved by the police chief and development - 56 services director." There was some discussion and comments made Monday evening as to the actual times of the lighting and when those lights would be activafed and again turned off. I wonder if I could have some response, in terms of closed times, in terms of the exterior lighting in particular. MR. WRAY: I believe the context of the comment pertained to the lighting that would emanate from the site, i'n particular, after the site or the Center's activities closed. I think the person that raised that was looking for some condition or proposal that provided Page 52 e e 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript that the lighting, while still necessary all night for security purposes, the same level of lighting would not be necessary once the activities at the center closed. And I think it's a condition actually, that you may recall, came up on the mall as well. where there was a concern about, you know, excessive lighting in the building and where and things, you know, 3:00 in the morning that wouldn't necessarily be needed. And I think in that context we might be able to work out a condition that provides for a reduction in the center lighting after it closes that still provides for security to the satisfaction of the police chief. But at the same time, doesn't serve as an advertising method at 3:00 in the 57 morning that might give off excessive lighting that's not really needed. COMMISSIONER BADERIAN: Thank you. And as we, at. some point, begin deliberations on the conditions set forth in the report, I would like to see some wording to that effect. So we can reach -- the recommendations for this particular item would be clear, as you indicated, in terms of potential times of uses. There were some comments made relative to the 4O-year lease that would be established between the project and Arcadia school District., relative to the facility. That lease or agreement, again, 40 years, was there a particular reason why 40 years was established for that? page 53 . . 15 16 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript MR. WRAY: Quite honestly, we were not a party to the negotiations on the lease. So we don't really e 17 know what was the driving force in terms of how that time 18 was arrived at. 19 COMMISSIONER BADERIAN: Also, in looking at the 20 recommendation for the terms of agreement, what are the 21 actual years involved, in terms of the proposed term of 22 agreement between the project, 5 years, 10 years, 23 15 years, et cetera? 24 MR. PENMAN: under the development agreement, 25 you mean? 58 o 1 2 COMMISSIONER BADERIAN: Yes. MR. PENMAN: It's a 5-year development e 3 agreement, and there's a possibility of a 3-year 4 extension. And there are certain performance clauses 5 that must. be met to get that 3-year extension. Also. the 6 exactions that would be fixed would only be for a 5-year 7 period. So even if the agreement was extended for an 8 additional three years, those numbers would then move to 9 whatever they were at the time. 10 It's also noteworthy, all the processing fees 11 and things of that sort that the city would incur for 12 plan checks, butl di ng permi ts and fi re department 13 permits, things of that sort, those fees would be in the 14 fee amount when they're applied. In other words, the 15 development agreement doesn't regulate those. So it's 16 17 five years plus a possibility of the 3-year extension. COMMISSIONER BADERIAN: Thank you. There was Page 54 e e l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o e e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript also a comment was made, also, I believe, at the onset of the presentation concerning potential employment opportunities if this project was to go forward. what processes would be in place in order to at least provide the residents of the city of Arcadia opportunities for potential employment? And would this be coordinated, in a sense, with the project and the City to provide Arcadia residents, say, a leg up, in terms of potential 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 employment? MS. VITAR: Let me first begin by at least telling you what the numbers are, and then I'll turn it over to Mr. Penman, and he can further clarify. But the project would generate approximately' 1,300 long-term employment positions. And the distribution of those, part-time to full-time, would be approximately 60 percent, or 780 full-time, and about. 40 percent, or approximately 520 part time. There would be also be approximately 1,200 net new employees associated with the -- in total, the commercial entertainment of the proposed project. And 100 net new employees would be associated with the simulcast center. MR. PENMAN: Now, the city attorney may want to jump in here in a minute. I 'know from my experience, oftentimes, developers and communities that. I've worked with have been more than willing to work with the local authorities to set up hiring offices, job fairs, and things of that sort, to try to attract local residents Page 55 20 21 22 23 24 2S o . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript for employment purposes. Tnat's very typical in many communities. And steve, I don't know if there's any legal regulatory issues there that you might see, but I've seen that very typical in projects. This is, of course, not an assisted project, as everyone knows, this is strictly 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 a private market. pri vate in that there' s no ci ty fi nanci a 1 partici pati on i n thi s . Steve, if you have any thoughts in that area? MR. DEITSCH: I think you're correct. perhaps a condition could be added to the effect that the applicants try to use reasonable efforts to make known the possibility of use of contractors from within the City of Arcadia or nearby communities, for purposes of constructing and completing the project. MR. PENMAN: But I think, also, the commissioner began the question in terms of permanent jobs, as well; is that correct? And we could certainly reach an accommodation, I think, with the developer, that we could structure a job fair at the community center. we have a pretty extensive communications program through. our newsletter and other media, that we can work with the developer to make the community aware of job opportunities that might come up. And there are ways that we could write a condition that we participate in that process. obviously, they have a lot of tenants that they have to separate agreements with, which he can't Page 56 e 60 e e e 23 24 25 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript interfere with that. But if we could solicit these other conditions and the developer will cooperate to the extent possible and advertise job opportunities to local 61 residents. I'm confident they would be willing to do that. MR. DIETSCH: That is a problem, that the developer can not easily control tenants. But we could add yet another condition to the effect that the developer shall use reasonable efforts to encourage tenants to advertise employment opportunities within The Shops at santa Anita to residents within the city of Arcadia. MR. PENMAN; Terry just reminded me. statistically, I guess this is obviously a good thing, but Arcadia's unemployment rate is.2.5 percent. So we know we have a healthy economy in terms of work force. But, you know, maybe we can write some language that the commission would be comfortable with that says the developer would try to cooperate with the city and advertise the availabili.ties of jobs, and things of that sort. Maybe conduct a job fair. COMMISSIONER BADERIAN: Mr. chairman, I would like to request that after all the commissioners have had an opportunity to address their questions, that we take the time to go over the, at least, the proposed 24 conditions and recommendations and discuss them. And potentially, add any additional ones that we would feel Page 57 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 . . 25 3-2i-07 pc meeting transcript comfortable making recommendations w;th the guidance of 62 the city attorney, in terms of the appropriate wording. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. COMMISSIONER BADERIAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BERANEK: I have a couple of questions for the fire chief or the fire department, which I think is probably the chief. I'm wondering what the impact of the new mall w; 11 be on the fi re servi ces, and whether you've, along the lines of the police chief, have estimated what your manpower impact would be to support this new venue? MR. LUGO: we have -- to answer the first part of your. questions, we have looked at it extensively, as well, as the police department. we know that there w;ll be an impact. We know that the call volume w;ll increase. We also recognize that the calls, cit~de, have increased over the last several years and will continue to increase. We're right at the tipping point right now. we're -- probably, our resources are close to being maximized to maintain the current service levels that . , we're providing. so with the budgetary process and the continuous monitoring process that we employ, we look at our response -- the major criteria that we look at ;s our response times. And also, in addition to that. is how many personnel we can could get at a scene of some 63 Page 58 e e . e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [] e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript particular nature ~thin the appropriate response time. cityw1de, the calls have increased, and we know that this project ~ll, most li.kely, increase the number of calls as well. But we're prepared, in addressing that, as we monitor the calls, it's a continuous monitoring. It's not something that we do at the end of year. We monitor, pretty much, on a daily basis. And on a quarterly basis, we get quarterly reviews from our dispatch agency, which we can make adjustments relatively quick if we flag or we notice that there is something going on ~th -- an aberration with our response times. If we notice that the project has impacted us as far as -- or we feel that it's impacting us, we will certainly address it at the city council level and in the budgetary process. The budget, as you know,is a reflections of the -- is a policy statement of the priorities of the department, and so staffing is a part of that budgetary process, and we'll address it in that manner. There are a few interventions that we can employ. one of them is adding an additional firefighter on' the truck. That will separate the truck from our ambulance. Right now we're running -- on some calls, we run it as a two piece unit. That ~11 allow us to break 64 page 59 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S o . . 3-21-07 ~c meeting transcript them apart completely and they'll send all units. Also, we know that it wi 11 have an impact on our fi re prevention bureau, and we're prepared to handle that as well. e COMMISSIONER BERANEK: Do you see the need for any new equipment based on the mall? For example, if there's a fire in the underground parking, if there's if it's all pedestrian oriented, how do you fight a fire with a lot of pedestrians that are probably going to be drawn to the fire? when this happens, how will your equipment get in the main area, and has there been mitigation so that can happen? I can envision, you know, 40,000 people there on a Saturday and all of a sudden something blows up, and it's right in the middle of the mall. HOW do you get there and provide for public safety? MR. LUGO: well, as you're already aware, we respond to a number -- we've had a number of large i nci dents or 1 arge events in the communi ty already. There are particularly large days at the race track that we're involved in and we provide the coverage for. There's other community events, too, that draw large crowds. e we -- generally, we address those ahead of time. we pUt together an incident and action plan, and we try 6S 1 2 3 to identify some of the threats or some of the potential problems and then we address those in the -- in a number of ways. . Page 60 e 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e o e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript Now, specifically with the mall, or with the proposed project, I can tell you that our access -- fire department's access to all areas of the project are under close scrutiny by us, and we have listed a number of requirements, height requirements for openings so we can get the apparatus into -- with requirements, also, that we can get the ladder truck, hundred foot aeri.al ladder truck, close enough to the buildings so we can ladder all thebuil di ngs. So we feel very confident that with the codes that we have, that are applicable to a project of this nature, that we will have adequate access, and we will be able to respond and handle an emergency, should it arise. YOU also mentioned in the event of a large crowd. There are some other things that we can do. In the L.A. cities and other areas where there's large croWds, and EMS is an issue, getting access to the patient is' sometimes delayed because of the large crowd, they have resorted to bicycle paramedics. That's. not something that we have instituted here in the Arcadia Fire Department at this point in time, but it's relatively easy to do that, and we certainly have that 66 1 2 3 4 5 potential to do that as well. COMMISSIONER BERANEK: I think there was a comment made and the concern about the ability of the EMS service to get into Methodist because of the orientation of the mall -- and maybe this is a traffic question -- page 61 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript and also, I wondered, along the same lines, if EMS is tied up at the malls, what is, again, I think ~- I would think there's a lot more calls for EMS to the malls than to the residents, especially down at Huntington and Baldwin. e If your teams are over at mall and they have to come from north Arcadia or something like that, what kind of risk or issues do you see that we have? MR. LUGO: well, it wouldn't really be any different than wha~ it is right now. oftentimes, we'll pull other uni ts in from other areas. we'll pun li ke you mentioned specifically Baldwin and Huntington, at that station, that particular ALS unit that's assigned there is RA106. RA106 is a fairly active ambulance. as well as the engi.ne, as well providing the ALS service. It's not uncommon for us to bring RA105s, which will be housed at the new fire station on santa Anita, it's been mOved a little further to the east. It's in a temporary house, a temporary housing. But when that station is completed, it will be reassigned back to that e 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 station. so that's not uncommon. We always have the ability to request -- we have an automatic aid agreement with 11 other agencies in the San Gabriel valley. So if there's a call and all our resources are overwhelmed or we'.re already tied up on calls, we have the abili.ty for -- we don't even have to request it. verdugo dispatches the engines to handle the call automatically. Page 62 . e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 e 10 . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript We respond often -- every day we, practically, we respond to Monrovia. And vice versa, they respond into the city of Arcadia. So we have these reciprocal agreements, they're already established and set up. we worked very hard and long in the last few years to get this in place. We have access to, roughly, about 40 stati ons in thi s valley, and that gives us just a greater extent of coverage and ability to respond to larger number of calls. COMMISSIONER BERANEK: What about the access to Arcadia Methodist? Do you see an impact there again, maybe this is a traffic question, because of the increased volume? with people around there, is it going to clog so that units can't get into Methodist. MR. WRAY: No, we don't anticipate any additional impacts on the westbound Huntington flow. So it will,essentially, be the same access into the 68 emergency section of the hospital. COMMISSIONER BERANEK: I have more questions', but maybe spread it .out? COMMISSIONER OLSON: No. GO ahead. COMMISSIONER BERANEK: on the question on the arrangement between the mall and Magna, is that a forever arrangement or is there a termination -- is that a ground lease of some sort that will go away? some people seem to think is that the whole thing is a 40-year deal? MR. PENMAN: We're not a part of that, but what page 63 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2l 22 23 24 25 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . /. 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript I can tell you, though, is, from the development agreement standpoint, the reason that we're recommending zone agreements because of the developer in particular, based on the track record, it's a quality project, the tenants they bring. so in order -- this developer must be associated with this project through the construction of the project, essentially. I don't know if it's appropriate for the city attorney to have the developer respond more specifically as to what the financial arrangements are or not. But the development agreement provides that the developer must be in this -- Caruso must be associated with the project to construct it. That's the reason why we're recommending zone agreement because we believe that's the type of project that was basically. presented to the 69 community and we didn't want to recommend entitlement of project and a development agreement and have some other developer step in and build it. So beyond that, I don't know what the arrangements are. I believe the developer indicates that they could provide some other arrangement. But we're concerned that it's built by the entity Caruso Affiliated under whatever partnerships they may have. After that, I don't think we have any control over it. COMMISSIONER BERANEK: AS a practical matter, it's hard for me to envision that a mall would shut down after 40 years. somebody would want to renovate it. If they'shut down the mall, then Arcadia is in trouble, Page 64 e e e e 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o e - . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript people don't walk away from malls, I would IS that a fair assumption? MR. PENMAN: Sure. Absolutely. And malls evolve. I mean, if we look at the malls that existed back when they first started developing, malls had a whole different tenant mix. The number of major department stores that occupied malls as anchors have certainly changed over the years. Malls now have everything from a Neiman-Marcus to a Target in the same mall. I think Westfield has one in the Topanga Plaza. So they're attractjng a variety of tenants. They're evolving. Most of the major projects today, from anyway. thi nk. 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 what I understand and I've researched through the Shopping Center ASsociation, are outdoor malls. They're not enclosed malls anymore, they're more lifestyle. So they have evolved over a period of time. COMMISSIONER BERANEK: I was wondering about the construction period and traffic. I was noticing what's going on .with Arcadia Methodist, I know there's a little disruption there. But I'm wondering about the magnitude of the .construction traffic at the mall, during the construction period, what that would impact our ci ti2:ens? MR. PENMAN: let me quickly respond, the developer has up to a 95-year ground lease with the race track, with the property. That includes extensions, I believe. Page 65 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript MR. WRAY: There are mitigatlon measures in the EIR to protect against the construction traffic patterns. They Will be required to follow the truck routes. Heavy duty trucks will be required to follow the truck routes, avoid the peak hours of traffic flow. so we don't anticipate any additional impacts caused by the construction traffic. with our truck routes there are plenty of lanes, access to the freeways and such. COMMISSIONER BERANEK: How big a problem is the cooperation of cal Trans? what are the mitigation e 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 U 13 14 15 16 17 18 issues? I know some have to do with the 210, and I guess other areas that cal Trans has jurisdiction over, and I'm sure we're not necessarily popular with cal Trans, how do we think we can get their attention? MR. WRAY: well, as with westfield, what we've already seen, h's certainly a challenge to work with cal Trans. Their jurisdiction, they control those. They make the call on whether they'll allow us so it initiate these mitigation measures. we'll have to do the best we can. I think it's going to be something we'll have to work with them and exercise every option that we have. COMMISSIONER BERANEK: Another issue on public health, there was a comment that there's the pollution level, in the view of some of the speakers, is a big factor. And yet I'm wondering, it seems to me that the way it was zoned before probably would produce more pollution tl1an is the specific plan, which has a lot of open area. Am I right in that assumption? Page 66 e e e 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o e . . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript MS. VITAR: You are correct. COMMISSIONER BERANEK: I was curious about the plan that was presented on Monday, where the lake was flipped over to the north part in front of the race track. And some of the comments Were, this would make a great reflective pond and they've got the race track. I realize it would probably be, what, a detour to go around ~ 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 the lake to get into the race track, but maybe you could build a bridge over it or something. I didn't hear any comments or response tonight addressing that issue. MR. KRUCKEBERG: one of the things that was mentioned in the brief presentation I gave, was one of the general plan statements was that direct 1 i nkage between the race track, the mall, and then this particular site, which has been earmarked for commercial since '96. It is a key component of this portion of the city, and we felt that that particular alternative, although there was a lot of creativity involved with it, we felt that that alternative didn't provide that type of linkage and synergy that we envisioned between the track and this project. So that was the response that we made to that parti~ular alternative. COMMISSIONER BERANEK: I was wondering, with the Gold line expansion, is there a chance that there. would be a spur line .that would go through the mall and meet up on second or something? MR. PENMAN: No. Page 67 21 22 23 24 2S o 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript MR. KRUCKEBERG: We wish there was,but using the existing right-of-way -- we're battling, quite frankly, just to expand the Gold line along the existing right-of-way and to divert that would require additional acquisition of right-of-way. 73 NoW, there would be -- one of the project's conditions would be to create a trolley or shuttle from the Gold line to the project. And also, the city has a diverting program that would be provided as well. So we will provide a public transportation linkage between the future Gold line and the project that actually would service the race track and the shops and the mall. And the arboretum, for that matter. COMMISSIONER BERANEK: My final question, or maybe it '.s a comment. It seems to me, in the documents that. I've received and looked through and the testimony I've heard, is the bottom line that the specific plan is really more restrictive than somehow you could just go with the Arcadia Municipal code. So really, overlays were put in, I think, to make it a better plan and better suited for our community? IS that a correct assumption? MR. KRUCKEBERG: Yes, we would agree with that. COMMISSIONER OLSON: Thank you, commissioner Beranek.. And commissioner Baderian? COMMISSIONER BADERIAN: Just one question relative to the traffic mitigation and I'm, again. going back to the proposed mitigations and proposed Page 68 e e . e o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 e 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S - . . 24 2S .3-21-07 pc meeting transcript recommendations. I just want to make sure that, as we review the conditions. there's wording in one of the 74 conditions that we are really on top of the $10 million expenditures for the traffic mitigation. I would really hate to see that slip in terms of if the project is approved and it does go forward. So that we have a very precise and open communication and ongoing timeline being established between the city and the developer, and any other entity. to make sure that those mitigation projects are on schedule and that we have a good safe feeling as we go forward. that. we are addressing the comments and concerns of the community relative to traff.ic mitigation. MR. KRUCKEBERG: I'm going to respond to that qUickly, Commiss.ioner Baderian. The condition No.2 addresses the mitigation monitoring program, which includes a number of mitigations relating to traffic. And it also includes timing with which those mitigations Would need to be accomplished, and a responsible party to monitor that mitigation. so that program. as you may have noticed in the, FEIR does address the. traffic mitigations in depth. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. Any further questions of staff? MR. PENMAN: Mr. Chairman. I would just ask one more offer. we do have our economic consultant here, Mr. Hollis, from Keyser Marston. if we have any Page 69 n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 n . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript 75 questions because he did the city an independent economic analysis of the project as well as review the comments submitted by -- the comments from Westfield and their attornies. so he is here if you have any questions regarding an evaluation of the project economically. COMMISSIONER OLSON: Thank you Mr. Penman. You have -- do you have any questions that you'd like to ask of the off-site consultant? COMMISSIONER BERANEK: I'm not sure exactly how his economic review has been done but I know Mr. Caruso's talks and in some of his material he indicates that there is, he believes, a great synergism with projects like his. Does he look at that part of it, or does he look at the generation of Caruso Development by itself? But that is not a good question. okay. MR , HOLLIS: Mr .chai rman, my name is Ca 1 Hollis. I'm managing principal of Keyser Marsten ASsociates, and I've been retained by the City to provide a second set of eyes as the analysis done as part of the EIR and make comments to that analysis, the economic components. I think the question that you're asking deals wi th, in part, wi th the issue of, is thi s -- at the end of the day~ is this. project generating new sales within 76 Page 70 e e . e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 e 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript the community or i.s it really transferring sales from the existing mall to the Caruso project. First. we believe that the methodology that was used in the EIR is a reasonable methodology to look at that question. Fundamentally when we look at a center like this, we believe it's success is based upon it's ability to attract people who are not having their current shopping needs met and those peopie are people within the community who may have a certain type of shop that they're interested in that's not available here as well as people from outside the community who similarly do not have those kinds of shops available. And the Caruso projects have tradltionally attracted a higher-end retailer. They've been successful in attracting certain 'key retailers that may not be a otherwise available within the greater market area. And that a ability.to meet that unmet need is what makes their project successful. And we believe that Arcadia and this part of San Gabriel valley is missing a whole class of merchandiser, and this is .the logical place for it. So as a result of that, we believe that you can expect a significant increase in new sales as a result of this new center. The extent of transfer loss will depend upon the actions of Westfield themselves and their ability and 77 i willingness -- their willingness to reinvest in their Page 71 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript project, keep it current. keep it fresh. go after those key tennants that meet their market segment. And owners of shopping centers respond to changes wnthin the marketplace. And we would expect an organization wnth the strength of Westfield to have that ability to adapt to those changing market conditions. COMMISSIONER BERANEK: Let me ask a question. IS it my understanding then that you believe -- am I correct in believing that the new mall will attract -- will be a synergy to attract new sales rather than be a development that will result in transfer sales. at least in the beginni ng? MR. HOLLIS: e I believe, yes, it wnll attract new who are not attracted to the current sales.. new shoppers westfield Mall. COMMISSIONER PARRILLE: So you're saying that the existing markets in Arcadia would not be affected by a high-end market, is that what you're saying, sir? MR. HOLLIS: As in relating to the grocery e comment. COMMISSIONER PARRILLE: Yes. MR. HOLLIS: My previous comments were reflective of the comparison. with respect to the grocery market, the grocery market has been described as 78 1 2 3 4. a gourmet market. one of the things that we did to evaluate the findings in the EIR and to understand the comments of the EIR was we looked at the spec.ifi c demographics for three gourmet markets wnthin the Page 72 . e 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e D II . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript Pasadena and South Pasadena area. we looked at who their customers were, the characteri,stics of those -- of that trade area for those three markets, the Gelson's Market, a Whole Foods Market, and a -- and the Bristol Farms. And what was found was that by both the numbers of people and the population, the family incomes,' and the per capita incomes, and the percentage of the numbers of families that made -- whose household income was greater than $75,000 was higher in the market area to be served by the Arcadia project than there were -- than there was for those three existing gourmet markets. What that tells us is that this community has a characteristic to support a higher-end grocery and that those market demands, those grocery venues are not available within this market, with the exception of this Whole Foods that is at East Pasadena. So we believe, again, there are people in town, and you're probably among them, who shop at higher-end markets for a specific types of shopping. And you can't have those needs met within this community. 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 And overall the characteristics of the population in Arcadia are such that we believe that's where -- that's where the demand wi 11 come from is from those people who have to leave the community in order to meet those shopping objectives. COMMISSIONER OLSON: Okay thank you. Any other page 73 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o . . 3-21-07 pc meetin9 transcript questions? Any other questlons of staff? We've gone two hours and we probably need a break for, you know, for staff for about ten minutes. . And then we'll start our deliberations among ourselves at that point. we will take a 10-minute break to 9:10. (Recess.) COMMISSIONER OLSON: One last chance to ask questions from staff, and we'll have our comments and d~cide what we're going to do. Any questions of staff? okay. commissioners, what do you think? COMMISSIONER BADERIAN: I would propose that we go through the list of the 24 recommendations and conditions of approval that have been presented by staff and either concur them, amend them, or change them, or add to them or whatever so we can at least have a basis for any future -- further deliberation. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. I guess the first question is A, B, C, and D'S on some of them. I would ask the question, and we'll start with No.1 and any e e 80 1 problems or questions about it. 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 okay. we'll go with that. That is part of the staff repor~, Section 6 recommendations of approval, Item No.1, any issues anyone has in front of them? COMMISSIONER BERANEK: No. COMMISSIONER OLSON: Everybody -- everyone comfortable with them? No.2? COMMISSIONER BADERIAN: No.2, and I appreciate Jason's response on the mitigation monitoring. I would Page 74 e e 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e IJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript like to suggest that if this project does move forward that the commissioners receive periodic updates as to the progress of the mitigation program and how it is coming along. And those updates would be at the discretion of staff. But at least we are kept informed as to how the mitigation program is going so we have a sense that full staff and the developer are working to make it happen. COMMISSIONER OLSON: Yes. MR. DEITSCH: commissioner, again, the question I have is do you wish this to be a requirement of staff so that staff keeps you fully informed? The City does have an obligation to monitor the mitigation plan. Is that what you would like, and if so that wouldn't be a condition but it would be a direction to staff in the futu"e? COMMISSIONER B~ERIAN: I'm comfortable with a 81 direction of staff and not adding any more to Item No.2. But as long as staff at least gets a sense of the commission's desires. COMMISSIONER OLSON: And I would like to note too just for future reference in whatever direction this goes so we know what comes up in the future, this will help. MR. KRUCKEBERG: We'll bring status reports as we feel they're necessary and as you request them. MR. BADERIAN: okay. Thank you. MR. DEITSCH: We can make that part of your Page 75 . . 12 13 14 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript ultimate motion. After you deal with the rest of your moti on. e MR. BADERIAN: okay. 15 COMMISSIONER OLSON: Item No. 3 regarding 16 1 andscapi ng i.rri gati on plans. 17 MR. BADERIAN: I'm comfortable with that. 18 COMMISSIO~ER PARRILLE: I'm okay with that also. 19 COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. No.4, the final 20 plans for the enclosed parki ng structure, ci rculation of 21 parking layout. Any questions, issues, comments? 22 Okay. No.5, interior lighting for parking 23 structures. You have an issue, not on this one. 24 MR. BADERIAN: I just -- commissioner, I would 25 like to see this' particular recommendation developed into 82 e o 1 some times -- or the wording I believe the city attorney 2 added a very. -- I think a thorough comment when we were 3 discussing this in terms of certain types of -- when the 4 lights would be going off after certain business hours or 5 peak times. I think whatever wording that the city 6 attorney and staff are comfortable with. 7 MR. OLSON: We did something essentially for the 8 mall and discussed hours and times, and I think what we 9 dis~ussed at the time would be appropriate for the same 10 reasons. 11 MR. DEITSCH: Chairman and commissioners. the 12 provision we added for westfield, which was their 13 condition 14 was, was the sentence "exterior lighting 14 other than safety and/or security lighting will only be Page 76 e e 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o e e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript in operation until one hour after operating hours, to the extent feasible. " would that be acceptable? We would add that sentence to condition 5. MR. OLSON: And Mr. penman and Mr. Ray, do you think that's acceptable? Employees also have to be safe. MR. PENMAN: I think that would be fine, we can work wi th that. And I thi nkSteve' s caveat for provi di ng that flexibility for ensuring that employees can get to their vehicles, you know, in a safe manner after closing. MR. BADERIAN: That provides consistency with our past recommendations as well. 83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 COMMISSIONER OLSON: we agree. COMMISSIONER PARRILLE: Yes. you'll add that, Steve. MR. DEITSCH: Yes. NO. 6 any problems? MR. BADERIAN: NO. COMMISSIONER OLSON: And 7? MR. BADERIAN: Everything is fine. COMMISSIONER OLSON: And then 8. MR. PENMAN: Mr. chairman, I apologize, I'd like to regress to No.4. For consistency purposes we'd like to have that this read "the city engineer" rather than "City traffic engineer." Traffic engineer works for the city engineer and he's a contract engineer so we'd rather farm these conditions through the City engineer. I apologize for that change but I think it would be more appropriate and consistent with having the city Page 77 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . . 3-21"07 pc meeting transcript engi neer coordinatl ng for diose types of condi tions. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. Ag ree:. No.8, regarding dedication to the city, all the right-of-way necessary street improvements. MR. BERANEK: Mr. chairman, my question, would it be better to just say that we approve by the city and the city attorney in case change of title? would that be a problem, or it should it just be the city and the city could decide it? e 84 MR. PENMAN: usually our philosophy is to have a designated individual there's so there's more accountabili ty and responsi bil i ty. I hope you don't change my ti'tle and get rid of me. But that's kind of the city's informal philosophy rather than saying the City we can assign responsibilities to people and we will know who will be responsible for that. That's our approach. e COMMISSIONER OLSON: We're not naming them by names. So we must say, "or their successors," So it's fine the way it is. MR. OEITSCH: I think that's fine the way it is. Any successors would assume those duties would be, in my opinion, the party automatically to succeed. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. No. 9 is prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy they have to make these various improvements. Any problems? okay. No. 10 is like n-umber 9, various improvements. No. 11? okay. NO._ 12? speak up any time you guys want page 78 e e 20 21 22 23 24 25 o e e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript to add anything to it or change anything. NO. 13? COMMISSIONER BERANEK: Question, Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER OLSON: Yes? COMMISSIONER BERANEK: The MMRP was that defined earlier? Because in another places we spell out like architectural design review. IS MMRP -- has already 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 U 13 14 15 ~ 17 18 19 20 21 been used to clear the definition MR. KRUCKEBERG: It's in conditions here. It is spelled out mitigation monitoring and reporting program. COMMISSIONER OLSON: MMRP. Okay. MR. BADERIAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER OLSON: Okay. NO. 14. MR.: The transportation impact fee, we discussed that. Was there anything else we were going to add to that or are we okay? okay. COMMISSIONER OLSON: NO. IS? COMMISSIONER PARRILLE: With respect to No. 15 I've always been concerned about the westfield cooperating with the developer in creating the vehicular and pedestrian access. And I wonder if this language places any requirement on the develop or whether there is a reasonable way to handle the interface between Westfield and the developer? MR, KRUCKEBERG: I'll take a quick shot at that and then John can add additional information, if he needs. There's two conditions, 15 and 16 that address this issue. condition 15 requires that plans be page 79 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . . 22 23 24 25 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript submitted that show, prior to the issuance of building permits, so we' will see and we will be reviewing them based on plans that show this connection. condition 16 is the one that I think is more to Mr. parrille's question which is, can this particular condition be blocked by a lack of corporation by the adjacent property there. And we do add the sentence at the end of the condition l6, "the city shall not unreasonably withhold the certificate of occupancy for project in the event a dispute over access arises." Mr.' Dietsch, there might be a more artful way to say that, but that's what we have here that addresses that issue. Mr. Penman? MR. PENMAN: And that was the same concern that I expressed because it's very possible the timing of their phase 1B will be ahead of this, and they did not want a condition likewise that said they couldn't pull permits unless the adjacent property owner had a dedication. So we would wrote a condition for Westfield that said something to the effect upon pulling of building permits for the shops at San Anita and Westfield must dedicate. so we worked with both developers to craft conditions that wouldn't allow the other to hold up the construction. But once construction started then that would trigger the dedications and improvements. Because the timing very possibly is not going to coincide with Page 80 e 86 e . e 25 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 e 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript the construction of each of their projects. 87 COMMISSIONER OLSON: Mr. Deitsch, are you happy with this language then? 15 and 16? MR. DEITScH: probably as happy as I'll ever be. We have the language that says the City asks both parties to cooperate with each to the greatest extent possible. MR. PENMAN: We started with that. But I think, you know, that quite frankly the climate that exists today that we had to try and craft conditions so that we didn't give one developer leverage over the other that would stop the pulling of. building permanents. So in essence I think this language says they have to cooperate and here is when you have to start cooperating. Because there is a general plan and conditions and we believe that there's really no dispute that it needs to be done both from the general planners and a practical standpoint. But developing language that works with the timing of both projects became a little tricky. COMMISSIONER OLSON: Thank you Mr. penman. And No. 17? MR. BADERIAN: I just have a question. If in fact there is -_ in the future there's potential changes in parts based upon any ballot, issues or concerns that might come up, would this be amended or -- MR. KRUCKEBERG: Actually in the errata sheet that we had -- and I was going to mention this -- we did Page 81 o 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript 88 e add a sentence to the end of this condition, a proposed sentence, that says that the provisions of Measure Pare appealed this condition would be eliminated. So I think this addresses your concern there. COMMISSIONER OLSON: NO. 18 is A, B, C, D, E, and F of it. And G. Any problems with it? COMMISSIONER PARRILLE: No, it's pretty standard. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. No. 19 regarding dumpster locations, no problems. No. 20? COMMISSIONER BERANEK: Just for clarification, what is an FOC? COMMISSIONER OLSON: what is what? COMMISSIONER BERANEK: An FDC, second line. MR. LUGO: Fire department connection. MR. BERANEK: Is there any reason why they didn't spell it out~ MR. KRUCKEBERG: we'll spell it out instead of using the acronym. COMMISSIONER OLSON: Thank you. No. 21, no problems with that one? okay. No. 22. COMMISSIONER PARRILLE: With respect to the statement made in parenthesis with legal counsel acceptable to the city, I don't know what exactly that means. e 89 Page 82 . e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e o - . . .- , 3-21-07 pc meeti ng transcri pt MR. DEITSCH: In my opinion it means that the developer or legal counsel will review and approve and not unreasonably withhold approval of that council. COMMISSIONER OLSON: Happy with that? COMMISSIONER PARRILLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. TWenty three. And affecting the city and NO. 24, the last item here. COMMISSIONER BERANEK: That last sentence, conditions 23 through 25, there's no 25. COMMISSIONER OLSON: 22 through 24, it seems there will be a condition 25 but that won't be applicable. So it should read "conditions 23 and 24." MR. DEITSCH: oh, Jason points out 22 is applicable as well. I think that is correct. So really condition -- it should read condition 22 through 24. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. Do you agree with that? COMMISSIONER PARRILLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. And we've got some other -- MR. PENMAN: Mr. chairman? COMMISSIONER OLSON: Yes? MR. PENMAN: I apologize, there's a bit of a monkey wrench in this. And to clarify probably miscommunication to staff level, under condition 17, the 90 1 2 new language that's being proposed on Measure P is rescinded, I guess? Is that the language we're talking Page 83 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S o . . about? 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript e MR. KRUCKEBERG: The word is repealed. MR. PENMAN: Repealed. The only problem with that is Measure P does apply to race track parking. So that condition needs to be worded differently in the sense that Measure P, if even if it's not repealed, the conditi.on to have free parki ng at the race track is not affected by Measure P. Measure P only restricted requi red free parking for the shops at San Anita. Right, Mr. Deitsch? MR. DEITSCH: That's correct. It pertains to retail centers as I recall, up to 200,000 square feet or more. MR. PENMAN: So we really need to reword that a little bit because the free parking at the shops could be changed if Measure P is repealed. But the condition which the developers' and the track is indicating would provide free parking at the race track, however that's not regulated by Measure P. So the change with the free parking might be a change in condition and they would have to come back to the City on, but it wouldn't be related to Measure P. Does that make sense? MR. KRUCKEBERG: The way that it reads is that e 91 1 2 3 4 S if Measure P is repealed that the condition would be eliminated so there would be no requirement for free parking for either the track or this project. Because perhaps the need for it would have gone away. I think that waS the purpose for the wording. so we might be Page 84 e e 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e o e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript able to do that but a little bit more clearly. MR. PENMAN: The only thing 1 was confused and I just want to make sure that Measure P does not apply to the race track. COMMISSIONER OLSON: provisi~n 17, there shall be no charge for parking at santa Anita Park or the shops at santa Anita. Is it that first part. of that sentence we need to make take out? MR. PENMAN: NO, that's correct today. That's what's being proposed and that's a condition. COMMISSIONER OLSON: NOW you've confused me now because -- maybe I'm not the only one that's confused, I apologize if I am. If I just go to the race track and park i'n their area, can they charge me for parking? MR. PENMAN: Not on this condition, no. They're going to provide free parking. IS that right, Jason? MR. KRUCKEBERG: That's ri ght, that's the way it's proposed. The reason we wrote the condition to be changed is if Measure P, through whatever reason, was repealed, there was the feeling that the free parking at 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the race track, that this condition would not 'be necessary for anything on the property. So the reason is the whole condition would be eliminated. So that condition appli'es to the race track also. So it's a was to clean up, erase the condition, essentially, if the measure was no longer in effect. MR. PENMAN: I just went on the scenario down Page 85 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript the road the race track came back ~and said, now we want to charge for parking, they could do that as a condition because it's not regulated by Measure P. MR KRUCKEBERG: That's correct. They could do that if this condition was eliminated. MR. DEITSCH: But they can't do it without the elimination of this condition. MR. PENMAN: Correct. I apologize. I'm probably the only one that's confused by that. COMMISSIONER OLSON: I'm going to ask the city Attorney, are you satisfied with the language here? Because I'm still MR. DEITSCH: we will leave condition 17 as is with the additional sentence on the errata sheet. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. MR. DEITSCH: And the additional sentence means if Measure P goes away, if the voters make it go away, the park itself and also the shops at Santa Anita both e e 93 are released from having to provide free parking, it's a trigger. Even though Measure P doesn't apply to the race track, if Measure P goes it will act as a.trigger nonetheless for the race track not to have to live by this free parking condition. COMMISSIONER OLSON: So what this condition is essentially saying is we will allow the shops at Santa Anita to go in, then we're telling Santa Anita they can't charge for parking also. Even though they would have that right today. e Page' 86 e 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript MR. DEITSCH: That's correct. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. MR. PENMAN: Got it. sorry about that. COMMISSIONER OLSON: Thank you, Don. MR. PENMAN: I don't think if you should thank me or blame me. MR. BADERIAN: Mr. chairman? COMMISSIONER OLSON: Yes? MR. BADERIAN: I believe the City attorney -- I. raised a question relative to employment? MR, DEITSCH: Yes. I believe the City attorney has crafted some wording that we .can approve that condition. MR. BADERIAN: I will allow him to make COMMISSIONER OLSON: It's going to be a 94 condition to 25 and anything else we might decide before we decide if we're going to separate all of this or not. MR. DEITSCH: And the other condition could read something like this: "The developer shall use reasonable efforts to u" let me stop a second. DO you want to deal with both job opportunities for construction purposes and also, in addition, opportunities for employment after completion of the project? Or is it really just the 1 atter? MR. BADERIAN: I was referencing more the latter. MR. DEITSCH: okay. Now the conditi.ons read Page 87 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript "The developer should use reasonable efforts to encourage tenants at the. shops at santa Anita to advertise job opportunities to residents within the City of Arcadia after completion of the project." Take away after completion of the project. Let's say to residents Within the'city of Arcadia. will that suffice? COMMISSIONER .OLSON: Yeah, I think that would suffice. okay. Everyone agree with that? COMMISSIONER HSU: commissioner, I know what makes thi s development commerci al project different from any other.one in town is the level of the tenant the developer promises to entice. Is there anything that we can put as a condition e 95 e as to the level -- as we call on the EIR to compare to new tenants -- would be something comparable to somewhere like south Coast Plaza or Newport plaza. Is there something we can provide as a condition? MR. DEITSCH: Actually, that is addressed in the development agreement. That's an inducement for them to obtai n benefi.ts and keep the benefi ts of the development agreement. COMMISSIONER HSU: And how do we monitor that and police that? what shops are qualified as the level of the tenants that we're looking for? MR. DEITSCH: well, it's very difficult, of course, to be exact. You can't just name names because naming names can't include everybody and there will be new names is that you haven't thought of today that will Page 88 e e 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o 1 e 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 e . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript be here tomorrow. So we have done our best to specify in the development agreement to specify the type of shops. we were as descriptive as we felt we could be and we even have examples, including ones you just mentioned. An example of the type of shops that might be at' that 1 ocati on today. COMMISSIONER HSU: Thank you. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. Thank you. So we're satisfied with the wording for condition No. 25; right? MR. DEITSCH: Yes. 96 COMMISSIONER OLSON,: okay. Now, we also have to take care of the lighting with the conditions we talked about earlier. okay. Frank, you brought up about -- I'm not certain that we can talk about that and ask the city attorney if that should be-- maybe we, can recommend that to staff to do further research. COMMISSIONER HSU: And report to City council. COMMISSIONER OLSON: Just do further research and recommend that .- MR. PENMAN: We can research in terms of retail projects, how that's been utilized, and what that might be involved and present that for the city council for the consideration without making it a condition. Because we really haven't researched it. But between now and the council meeting we can provide to the coundl and give them input on that. So it could be a recommendation from the commission that that be considered and staff research Page 89 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 . . 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it. 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript - MR. DEITSCH: I think you could include two things in your ultimate motion, which in itself would be one of the longest motions on record, in the history of the County. The two things the commission recommends that staff' -- well, why don't we say di rect. COMMISSIONER OLSON: We'd be directing staff in this point now to research and consider recommending a 97 requirem~nt to Council that the project achieve lead certified status prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. MR. DEITSCH: I believe that's -- COMMISSIONER OLSON: I think that's pretty much close to what you're looking for. MR. DEITSCH: The second part of the additional part of the motion would be to direct staff to provide to the commission periodically if that's acceptable to you -- periodically a report on the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. COMMISSIONER BERANEK: IS that a new Section 5 or where is that language going to go? COMMISSIONER OLSON: That's not a condition -- COMMISSIONER BERANEK: I'm talking about the resolution. MR. DEITSCH: It actually -- well -- well, Jason was going to walk you through a motion. Why don't I take it here. Here is what the page 90 e . e 21 22 23 24 25 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 e 7 8' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . . . 3~21-07 pc meeting transcript ultimate recommendation -- the recommended actions for you to consider tonight is. That the planning commission move to one, recommend to the City council certification of the final Environmental Impact Report with the ASsociated Mitigation and Monitoring Program, and with 98 ~he adoption of the Statement of overriding considerations set forth in section 7 of the Staff Report as amended, and subject to the conditions of approval. Two, recommend to the City council approval of the following applications which constitute the project, subject to the conditions of approval as amended, a, general plan amendment. That's GP05-01; b, zone change. That's zc0504; C, architectural design review including the santa Anfta park Guidelines and Sign Program; and 0, specific plan. That would be sp0501. Separate and apart from that and in addition to that, staff recommends that the commission recommend to the council approval of the proposed development agreement. Three, adopt resolution No. 1757, recommend an approval to the city council of specific plan 0501. General plan Amendment 0501 -- Are those the correct numbers, Jason? If there's duplicates we'll verify that. Zone change NO. 0504 the development agreement and architectural design review and design guidelines for the shops at Santa Anita park: and four, the Commission directs staff to do the two things that I just recited to Page 91 23 24 25 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript you concerning the leads now and the reporting of the mitigation and monitoring program. And that would be it. MR. BADERIAN: Mr. chairman. 99 MR. OLSON: Yeah. MR. BADERIAN: I think before we conclude our discussions and guarantee whatever motion we want to entertain, I just want to make sure the commission is supportive of comfortable overriding considerations that have been set forth in section 7 of the Staff Report Items 1 through 17. I don't know if there's been any additions, or is that the final list of overriding considerations. MR. KRUCKEBERG: There was an additional comment 11 in the errata sheet within the reso 1 uti on regardi ng 12 the -- just the clarification statement. And also the 13 below NO. 17, it's not a new numbe r but I can readi t if 14 you'd like. There's an additional portion that we added, 15 I'll recite it here. "The city hereby finds that each of 16 the reasons stated above constitutes a separate and 17 independent basis for justification for the statement of 18 overriding considerations and each is able to 19 independently support this statement of overriding 20 considerations and override the unavoidable impacts of 21 the project. In addition each of these is independently 22 23 24 25 supported by substantial evidence contained in the administrative record." COMMISSIONER OLSON; okay. MR. BADERIAN: I am supportive of the page 92 e e . e o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 e 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 - . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript 100 recommended overriding considerations. COMMISSIONER BERANEK: That's fine. COMMISSIONER OLSON: Okay. And we've heard and maintained further comments, we've gone through all the conditions of approval. one thing that we need to look at, and obviously we're all free to make our comments about this proposal whether works, yes, or any other changes, but we need to also look at the resolution. If we get to that point, the Sections 1 through 4 and whatever findings, I guess; is that correct? MR. DEITSCH: That's correct. Commissioner parri lle Ithi nk attempted to take a crack at that when he initially made comments this evening. All the facts that you feel support those findings or which you feel don't support anyone or more of those findings should be laid out'. ,If you wish to recommend approval you'd have to find there are facts to support all of those findings. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. Thank you. And we've all gone through this. Any questions? so you know what? I know we got this earlier. well, I'l,. tell you what, if there's no further comments I will entertain a motion and we can if anyone wants to make a motion piggyback it upon what the city attorney's laid out. You have to remember everything he said. 101 page 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript MR. DEITSCH: If you wish to adopt the motion that I read you can just say motion to approve staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. With the amendments and corrections. MR.. DEITSCH: All of that was included in the recommendations. COMMISSIONER BADERIAN: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve staff's recommendation with the amendments as so stated. COMMISSIONER PARRILLE: seconded. COMMISSIONER HSU: Second. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. I've got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? okay. Roll call, please. THE CLERK: commissioner Baderian? COMMISSIONER BADERIAN: Yes. THE CLERK: Beranek COMMISSIONER BERANEK: Yes. THE CLERK: HSU? COMMISSIONER HSU: Yes. THE CLERK: parrille? COMMISSIONER PARRILLE: Yes. THE CLERK: olson? COMMISSIONER OLSON: Yes. 102 1 NOW, regarding our motion and recommendations page 94 - e . e 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e o - . . 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript will be passed onto the city council. So there's no appeal period for us; is that correct? At this point it will go directly to city council and that will include part of the motion of resolution with all the findings as it's laid out at this point. okay. Thank you. Now is the time reserved for those in ,the audience who wish to address the planning commission on non-public hearing matters. okay. I see none. MR. PENMAN: Mr. Chairman? COMMISSIONER OLSON: Yes? MR. PENMAN: obviously, I'm sure everyone in this room knows that, but just for the record as a reminder the ci ty counci 1 wi 11 be consi deri ng thi s a public hearing on April 11th at 7 P.M. at the same location. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. Here at the Masonic Center. okay. April 11th. We -- final comment, we do have our council member -- do you want to say anything? COUNCIL MEMBER:" No. COMMISSIONER OLSON: okay. I thank you for your comments here l,ast night. Your services in what you do in representing the commission back and forth between being the liaison. And if you didn't get a chance to hear it last night Mayor Roger Chandler (phonetic) gave a 103 1 2 3 nice State of the city Address. And you can catch it on replays, I'm certain, over the last next couple weeks. And with that if there's no other comments from page 95 ~ . . 4 5 3-21-07 pc meeting transcript fellow commissioners we will adjourn to a regular meeting of the planning commission, Tuesday March 27th, 2007 at - 6 7:00 P.M. at Council chambers. Meeting is adjourned. 7 (Meeting adjourned at 9:51 P.M.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 e 104 Page 96 e