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