HomeMy WebLinkAboutDECEMBER 27, 1960
.
..
r'
~~,
~
,-..0
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 27, 1960
The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met 'in regular session
in the Council Chamber of the City Hall' at 8,: 00 0 I clock P.M;, DecelDber
27, 1960, with Chairman Acker presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Commissioners Acker, Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Michler,
Norton and Rutherford
ABSENT:
None
OTHERS
PRESENT:
City Attorney James A. Nicklin
Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz
Planning Secretary L. M. Talley
MINUTES
The minutes of the regular meeting of December 13, 1960 were approved
as written and mailed.
The Chairman announced to the commission that he had received a note
from the City Manager explaining that City Councilman Butterworth was
unable to attend the meeting due to previous business commitments in
another city.
ZONING
Sycamore
The Planning' Commission held a public hearing on the appl'ication of D.
C. Wheeler, Jr., and others for a change of zone from Zone R-l to Zone
R-3 on property on the south side of. Sycamore Avenue, east of Second
Avenue.
The Planning Secretary explained from the board the location of the pro-
perty on the map and explained that there were four lots which were
not represented by signature on the petition, and by resolution the
Planning Commission instituted proceedings to include the four lots.
He advised that the area shown in red on the map represented those pro-
perty owners who protested the granting of the zone change.
The Planning Secretary read from the application which stated that the
erection of apartments in this area would act as, a buffer strip, and
suggested that school teachers would be provided with housing close
to the new school. The application made reference to the grading
which allegedly had dumped a flood of dirty water and mud onto the
property during the last rain.
'The Planning Secretary read a communication from Sarah E. Klenhard,
1131 Valencia Way, which indicated opposition to the granting of the
proposed change.
The Planning Secretary then read from a petition submitted in oppos-
ition to the granting of the change, signed by petitioners living in
the surrounding area. The document outlined several reasons for
:Page One
December 27, 1960
"
/~~ ,
-.
, "
opposing the zone change; among them, that the area is presently de-
veloped with single family residences of good quality and architectural
appeal. The lot sizes are generally inadequate for proper residential
income development.
The improvement value of most properties is too high to warrant their
removal or demolition.
The proposed change of zone would adversely affect the majority of
properties being considered. The petition contained 33 signatures and
exhibits.
The ~lanning Secretary continued by reading the staff report which
stated this is the application of. D. C. Wheeler, )r., and others for
a change of zone from Zone R-1 to Zone R-3 on cer~ain property on the
south side of Sycamore Avenue, east of Second Avenue.
By Resolution No. 397 the commission included four other parcels for
consideration.
Property on Foothill Boulevard is zoned C-2 and PR-1. Ralph's Grocery
is under construction at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Second Avenue.
West of Second Avenue is property owned by the Foothill Jewish Community
Center. It is zoned C-2, PR-1 and R-1. In 1959 a variance was granted
to allow the construction of a temple and religious school. This im-
provement was not made and the variance has expired.
North of Sycamore a Junior High School is under construction. East of
the subject property is zoned R-1.
The subject property iS,extensive1y developed with desirable type single
family houses, at least some of which are practically new. The only
property available for building without moving the single dwellings
would be on the rear of the lots.
Three parcels have no access except by way of a narrow private easement
off of Foothill .Bou1evard.
The Chairman declared the public hearing opened and asked for those who
wished to speak in favor of the change to please come forward.
Mr. David H. Crane, 234 E. Sycamore Avenue, addressed the commission
and asked if the applicants would have an opportunity for rebuttal.
The Chairman explained that normally a rebuttal is not allowed; it is
a case of hearing both sides; when new information or light can be
thrown on the matter, either side would have additional opportunity to
speak.
Mr. Crane stated that in the past the area now under consideration was
undeveloped to the point that deer were often seen in the vicinity; but
now, as progress advanced the properties ~ave developed into commercial,
school and residential lots. In the interest of continued development
the granting of R-3 to the applicants would seem logical. He felt that
those who were opposing the zone change would regret it in a year or
so when the school is completed and Ralph I S operation is more extensive.
With these developments the area is n010nger desirable for R-1 living.
He made reference to a proposed 70 foot street in the vicinity of
Oakhaven Lane to handle the increased traffic which may result from
the school activity. The view of the property owners on the south side
Page Two
December 27, 1960
,r--,
"
of Sycamore Avenue has been cut off by a 19 foot wall of dirt which
is the grade' of the proposed new school. He stated that Mr. Murphy,
one of the chief objectors, did not 'build his house, and it is common
knowledge that he buys homes, improves them and then sells them for
a profit.
Mr. D. C. Wheeler, stated that they had not prepared anything like the
opposition had in the way of documents'; he has been building apartments
for many years, and he could say that most apartments he has built have
not remained vacant for very long. He couldn't understand how anyone
would complain about having an apartment house in back of him when he
has to look at the high concrete wall that Ralph's market has produced.
Those most opposed to the application are the most recent residences of
the area. In reference to the traffic mentioned in the petition; the
increase would not come from the proposed apartments, but from the
school. The apartment he would build would be a beautiful one and
would hide the bareness of Ralph's Market.
Mr. Mike Stoyanovich, 210 E. Sycamore Avenue, spoke in favor of granting
this zone change because it would help him obtain the best use of a
large lot. He didn't believe the R-3 development would be injurious to
surrounding property owners, but would rather enhance the area, since
some of it has deteriorated already.
The Chairman asked for those opposed to the granting of the zone change
request to please come forward and give their names.
Mr. Sonnenfeld, 246 E. Sycamore Avenue, described himself as the newest
resident in the area. He stated that he has gone to a lot of pains to
make a very beautiful home out of the home which he moved in on the pro-
perty. He stated that he moved into this area after the school was
already in progress; after Ralph's Market was anticipating building,
after the west side was granted a variance for the Jewish Center. He
believed that Sycamore Avenue was desirable for a residential area.
He continued that he owns a number of lots on Hunti~gton Drive which
are zoned R-3, and if he had any desire to raise his children in an R-3
area, he could have moved his house into a half an acre (which is still
vacan~and live in R-3 zoning on Huntington Drive. He desired his chil-
dren to be brought up in a nice neighborhood of single resident homes
close to schools and all. He didn't think that the buffer point was
very well taken, because eventually there wouldn't be any R-1 to buffer.
Mr. John Murphy, 202 E. Sycamore, said he would take most of the blame
for the document which was presented to the commission, primarily be-
cause he is an appraiser, and has been for about 15 years. The house
he was now living in has never been for sale; none of the neighbors
have ever seen a for sale sign in front of the property. He cited the
case of Mr. Novak who paid something around $35,000.00 for his home;
his lot is about 12,000 square feet. The State of California probably
sells more houses than any organization in the world; they are in the
path of the freeway; the state gets a pittance for these housEls; some
of them sell for as low as $1500.00 to $1700.00 to be moved off the
lot. Assuming that property in order to be developed as R-3, that the
improvements would have to be removed or demolished; a person like Mr.
Novak, forinstance; assume that he could get about $1.50 a square foot
(which is about the top dollar that any R-3 lot is worth in the City
of Arcadia today); Mr. Novak would then recover $18,000.00 in land
value and perhaps a few thousand dollars more. Assuming that he wants
to stay there; he is going to suffer loss. It is a known fact that the
typical home owner is not looking for a mixed neighborhood. The school
at the moment appears to be an adverse influence; but he stated no one
could be sure what the outcome will be. However, they have been assured
Page Three
December 27, 1960
,
VARIANCE
Fairview
(
"-
-
that the school with the landscaping will result in an attractive
improvement to the neighborhood.
He believed there would be found duplication of names on both peti-
tions, both for and against, which would mean that some of the people
who signed it in the first instance Were not fully aware of what they
were signing. He stated .thst he completed the document and presented
the facts both for himself and the benefit of his neighbors.
Mr. Novak, 220 E. Sycamore Avenue, asked if they consider this proposed
change a bUFfer zone; what is to stop the zoning from moving up in all
directions thereby surrounding his home with R-3 dwellings. He came
from Glendora to this community a short time ago, mainly because he
liked the school system. He is a professional educator, and could tes-
tify that teachers do not like to live immediately adjacent to the schools
at which they are employed.
Mr. Burr Blanchard, 136 E. Sycamore, stated that he has been a resident
of Arcadia for many years. He wishes Arcadia to remain an R-l community,
no.t a community of R-3. Granting this zone change would only encourage
the spreading of R-3 in the area; he was strongly opposed to the grant-
ing of this change.
Motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman and
unanimously carried to continue the public hearing on this application
for zone change, pending report from the Zoning Committee and staff for
decision at the next regular meeting, January 10, 1961.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application of G.
M. Shumaker for a zone variance to allow a public parking lot at 652-
Fairview Avenue.
The Planning Secretary explained the location of the property under con-
sideration; Arcadia Avenue is proposed to be opened between the bowli.ng
alley and the medical center; to the north of the bowling alley is Mr.
Goddard's lot; the lot .in red was where they proposed to put the parking
lot; and the lots in green indicate those who have signed their consent
to the zone change. If this is allowed it would provide access through
parking lots all the way from Fairview to Duarte Road.
The Planning Secretary read from the application and then read the staff
report which stated this is the application of G. tl. Shumaker for a zone
variance to permit the property at 652 Fairview Avenue to be used as a
public parking lot.
The property is presently zoned R-3 and developed with a single family
residence and garage. The adjacent property to the west is zoned PR-3
and developed with a single family house. To the east is a large lot
zoned R-3 with an old single family house. We are told that this large
lot is to be developed with apartments.
Across the street on the north side of Fairview Avenue the key lot is
zoned PR-3 and is vacant. The next lot east is zoned R-3 with a single
family house. The third lot on the north side of Fairview is zoned R-3
with an apartment under construction.
Owners of four surrounding lots, including the ones adjoining on each
side, have signed consent to the granting of the application.
If this proper,ty is developed for parking, full circulation between
Page Four
December 27, 1960
f'.
'''--- ~
Fairview Avenue and Duarte Road will be provided through the various
parking lots.
If this application is approved the commission should. consider land-
scaping that might be required along the Fairview Avenue frontage.
A masonry wall will be required along the east line.
The Planning S~cretary read a communication from Anthony Piscitelli
Whicbstated briefly, that in his judgement the granting of this vari-
ance would eliminate a great deal of street parking congestion, and the
signer was in favor of granting of this request.
The Chairman questioned the statement in the staff report dealing with
full access from Fairvie~ to Duarte; he expressed concern about the pos-
sibility of barriers being constructed on the parking lot at any time,
thereby obstructing the access between the two streets.
The Chairman declared the public hearing opened; and asked for those
who wished to speak in support of the ;'ariance request to please come
forward and give their names.
Mr. G. M. Shumaker, owner of the lot, and applicant, stated that they
wished to provide as much parking as possible for the activities sur-
rounding the lot. As to the question of barriers. to the access of the
two streets, he stated that they have an agreement with Mr. Goddard and
Dr. McBane. He stated that if the city wants an easement over the pr~
posed access he would be glad to grant it to them.
Mr. Anthony Piscitelli, 618 Fairview Avenue, the owner of property on
the northeast corner of Fairview Avenue and Baldwin Avenue, wished to
go on record as favoring the granting of this. variance request.
The Chairman requested those who wished to speak in opposition to this
variance to please come forward. No one responded.
Commissioner Forman asked if the apartment tenants would be permitted
to .use the parking lot for overnightparking1
Mr. Shumaker stated that the parking was being provided for the bene-
fit of the customers of the various surrounding commercial establish-
ments, and any night parkers would have to be off by 6:00 A.M., ~len
the bowling alley opened.
Commissioner Norton asked if it would not be advantageous for the city
to accept Mr. Shumaker's offer. of an easement to the city for an alley.
The Director of Public Works stated tha.t he believed sometimes alleys
are rather expensive to maintain; he felt that the same purpose could
be accomplished if covenants were granted over the property, providing
there were no objection from Mr. Shumaker and Mr. Goddard. An alley
pavement is normally designed 3 inches thick with a concrete drain down
the center of it, and would not be a particularly advantageous instal-
lation in S parking lot.
Mr. Shumaker stated he would be in favor of the covenants; they would
maintain the parking lot; he cou1dn I t. .speak for Mr. Goddard, however.
Motion by Commissioner Michler, seconded by Commissioner Norton to
recommend the granting of. the variance for parking at 652 Fairview Ave-
nue and to instruct the City Attorney to draw up a resolution in accord
with the staff report with the condition that covenants be recorded to
~ssure continued access from Fairview Avenue through to Duarte Road and
Page Five
December 27, 1960
c
-
and with the addition of' the words '''approved by the City Engineer"
in relation to the landscaping mentioned in the report.
ROU. CALL
AYES: Acker, Golisch, Michler, Norton and Rutherford
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners Ferguson and' Forman
ABSENT: None
LOT SPLIT
No. 329 - Henry L. Harris and others -, 824-840 Arcadia Avenue, referred
to Commissioners Forman and Ferguson
The Planning Secretary pointed out on the map, the two lots are identi-
cal with an apartment house on each one.
The Planning Secretary read the report' which stated this property is
owned by a partnership consisting of Mr. & Mrs. Henry L. Harris, Mr. &
Mrs. Mike T. Vallone and Mr. & Mrs. William Cesario.
It consists of two lots, each being 140 feet by 240 feet, and each lot
is developed with a 28 unit apartment house.
The apartment at 840 Arcadia Avenue was constructed in 1948 and the one
at 824 Arcadia Avenue in 1959. The original plot plan called for a drive-
way along each side of Number 840 and another along the east side of Num-
ber 824.
The driveway along the east side of, the lot at Number 824 was never
installed. Instead, a community driyeway was constructed between the
two buildings, being partly on each lot.
The owners now propose to dissolve the partnership. In order to pro-
viae a legal drive for Number 824 they have requested, thrllugh the lot
split procedure, that they be allowed to grant an exclusive easement
covering the easterly 5 feet of Number 840 for the exclusive use of
Number 824.
These buildings ware constructed before the last amendment to the R-3
regulations, and are now non-conforming in that they do not conform
to lot area, parking or driveway requ~rements. Any reduction in usable
lot area would result in a greater degree of non-conformity.
The original plot plan for 824 Arcadia Avenue provided for 7 open park-
ing spaces along the driveway. When this driveway was not constructed
five of these spaces were not constructed. Consequently, the building
not only does not comply with present regulations, but' does not comply
with the regulations applicable at the time of construction.
If the driveway along the east side of Number 824 and the open parking
spaces were installed as shown on the original plot plan there would
be no need for the easement, and each parcel would conform with the
requirements in effect at the time of construction. This construction
would eliminate some patio and planting area.
It is recommended that this request for an easement be disapproved and
that the driveway and parking spaces at 824 Arcadia be required to be
installed.
Page Six
December 27, 1960
c
Commissioner Forman asked why t~e five open parking spaces were de-
leted; how was this accomplished, since it is contrary to the zoning
regulations and building code.
The Planning Secretary explained that he could not be sure how it
happened; it must have been an oversight.
Mr. Alfred Testa, representative of Mr. Vallone and Mr. & Mrs. Cesario,
stated that he had expected Mr. & Mrs. Harris and their representing
attorney to be present tonight, and since they do not appear to be in
the audience, he would respectively request that the hearing be postponed
to the next meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and
carried unanimously to continue the lot split for decision and further
consideration at the next regular meeting.
TRACT
26295
The Planning Commission was to consider a decision on Tract No. 26295
located south of Foothill Boulevard and west of San Carlos. The Plan-
ning Secretary read a communication signed by the owners of property
involved in the tentative application for this tract. The letter requested
that consideration of the tentative map be set for the first meeting of
the Planning Commission in May of 1961 in order to give the State High-
way Department ample time to show evidence of their good faith in acquir-
ing this land.
Motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Rutherford and
carried unanimously to continue the hearing on Tentative tract map No.
26295 until May 9, 1961..
Mr. TreadWell of Treadwell Engineering requested that a letter be for-
warded to the State Division of Highways notifying them of the Planning
Commission action.
BUILDING
APPROVAL
The cOlIDDission considered approval of the plot plan for a medical build-
ing at 623 W. Duarte Road.
The Planning Secretary explained that this matter was before the commis-
sion four weeks ago, and approval was held up on account of the 9'4"
width of the driveway to the rear parking lot.
The applicants were asking approval of this on thepresumption that Arcadia
Avenue will come through to provide access to the rear. He stated that
there is possibly one other solution; there was some discussion of ob-
taining an easement over the driveway along the weS.t side of the property
and at the rear of the stores on market square; and if this were approved,
subject to the opening of Arcadia Avenue, or if subject to the procuring
of this easement to the west it might be a .solution.
The Director of Public Works explained that the majority of parking lots
are not developed over 2" pavement, because the impact factors are not
present with heavy traffic constantly traveling over it.
Considerable discussion ensued. The Architect, Mr.. Jacobson, explained
that he was unable to alter the floor plan in order to gain the extra
width needed in the driveway,because each doctor was firm in maintaining
the footage devoted to his particular office.
In the course of the d~scussion the City Attorney explained that he dic-
tated the contents of the proposed easement, and among other clauses
Page Seven
December 27,.1960
c
that are contained in it is the fact that the easement cannot be re-
leased without the c'onsentof the city, expressed by the minutes of the
City Council. And there .is also a proviso that such consent shall be
given if Arcadia Avenue is opened and improved to the easterly line of
the subject property.
Motion by Commissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Michler for
the approval of the plans at 623 W.. Duarte' Road, subject to the record-
ing of an easement in a form to be approved by the City Attorney.
ROLL CALL
AYES: Commissioners Acker, Forman, Golisch, Michler, Norton and
Rutherford
NOES: none
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Ferguson
ABSENT: None
ANNEXATION
The commission considered a report of the Community Development Commit-
tee regarding proposed annexation south of Live Oak Avenue. The Chair-
man stated tpat this report is quite involved, and a very important
annexation to be considered, and he advised that he thought it would
be wise to have a meeting between both the Subdivision and Zoning
Committees to review the report in detail.
The City Attorney explained the report that is requested of them is the
report pursuant to the provisions of the Government Code contained in
the Annexation Act of 1913 (Inhabited Annexation). This is not the
last time the matter will be before the Planning Commission. Assuming
that the annexation progresses, the commission will then be asked in
all probability to make a recommendation concerning the zoning to be
placed on the property concurrently with the annexation. This is a re-
port required by the Government Code; the scope of the report should
include the nature of the subdivision and the conformancy of the sub-
division and the improvements with the regulations that will become
applicable after the annexation.
It should be a factual type of report; much of the information that
you would report upon has been completed already by the committee;
there is a jurisdictional deadline on the making of this report,
approximately 40 days after the matter has been referred to you; the
penalty for failure to do so is that the City Council may then proceed
without the report.
The matter was referred to the full commission for a review and a
report at the meeting of January ~O, 1961.
RESOLllrIONS
No. 398 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 398, entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CLASSI-
FICATION OF CERTAIN CITY OWNED PROPERTY LYING WEST
OF PECK ROAD IN ZONE M-l AND ALSO IN ZONE D (ARCHI-
TECTURAL OVERLAY)."
Motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and
carried unanimously to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution
No. 398.
Page Eight
December 27, 1960
.'. . ..
(
,,-.
Motion by Commissioner Norton; sec~nded by Commissioner Ferguson for
thE! adoption of Resolution No.' 398. The motion was carried unanimOUsly.
. L
No. 399 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 399, entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF ARCADIA,CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING INTERIM
EMERGENCY ZONING OF M-1, CONCURRENT WITH ITS ANNEXA-
TION TO THE CITY OF ARCADIA, OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
KNOWN AS ANNEXATION NO. 22. SOUTH ARCADIA (UNINHABITED)."
Motion by Commiss.ionerForman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and
cai-ried unanimously to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution
No. 3~9.
Motion by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson and
cauied unanimously for the adoption of Resolution No. 399.
No. 400 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 400, entitled:
"i.. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CAI.:IFORNIA, INSTITUTING PROOEEDINGS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF CONS IDERING AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS CON-
CERNING THE RECLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY
ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF DUARTE ROAD BETWEEN FIRST
AND SECOND AVENUES IN SAID CITY TO ZONE C-1 AND FIXING
THE DATE, HOUR AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SUCH
PURPOSE."
Motion by CODDDissioner Michler, seconded by Commissione.rNorton
and carried unanimously to waive the reading of the full body of
Resolution No. 400.
Motion by CODDDissionerMich1er, seconded by CODDDissionerNorton for
thE! adoption of Resolution No. 400.
ROLL CALL
AYES: CODDDissioners Acker; Ferguson, Golisch, Michler, Norton and
Rutherford.
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Forman
ABSENT: None
No. 401 - The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 401, entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE GRANTING OF A
VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE USE OF PROPERTY AT 652 FAIRVIEW
AVENUE AS A PUBLIC PARKING LOT UPON SPECIFIED CoNDITIONS."
Motion by CODDDissioner Golisch, seconded by Commissioner Michler and
unanimously carried to waive the reading of the full body of Resolution
No. 401.
Motion by CODDDissioner Go1isch, seconded by CODDDissioner Michler for
the ~doption of Resolution No. 401
ROLL CALL
AYES: CODDDissioners Acker, Golisch, Michler, Norton and Rutherford
Page Nine
December 27, 1960
.. . "
MATTERS FROM
AUDIENCE
COUNCIL LIAISON
ADJOURN
,~
~
NOES: NOne
ABSTAIN: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman
ABSENT: None
Mrs. Charlotte Sutton, stated that she had received tentative
approval of Tract No. 24144. and was requesting a modification to the
approved plan.
She wishe.d to move the house on Lot 2 to the east to clear the street,
rather than remove it as required by the approved conditions.
The Chairman declared that the rnattersho.uld be held for consideration at
the next regular Planning Commission meeting January 10, 1961.
Commissioner Golisch, Liaison to the City Council, explained some of
the council action on matters relating to planning.
Regarding the Arlinic Properties rezone matter, the only .change from the
Planning Commission recommendation. was that with the Arlinic Properties
dedicatio.n for street purposes,. so that the city can develop Arcadia
Avenue, ;the city will put in the street improvement. Mr. Shumaker on
the bowling alley side is also going to give up 30 feet, so that will
assist in the opening of Arcadia Avenue. The dedication of the sidewalk
in front of the building is on a covenant basis.
The Director of Public Works stated ,that Arlinic is dedicating for a
7 foot sidewalk, with a covenant that the additional 6 fee~ will be
dedicated at such time as the use of the building is changed from a
medical building.
Commissioner Golisch stated that the Schoof variance, 1218 S. Second
Avenue was granted in accordance with the Planning Commission recommend-
ation.
Commissioner Golisch continued that the only other item of interest to
the Planning Commission was the statement from a member of the audience
at the City Council meeting of his intention to construct a 44 unit
apartment building on Fairview Avenue, which might conflict with the
plans for opening Arcadia Avenue. He stated that he believed the
party subsequently consulted with the staff at city hall.
The Director of Public Works advised that the party under discussion had
come in and spoken to City Manager on one occasion; they talked with
Planning Secretary this afternoon (12/27/60) for about 2 hours; they are
going to be in again the next day and talk with the City Manager at
9:00 A.M. As of this moment the problem is that there will be insuf-
ficient parking if the 30 foot dedication for Arcadia Avenue is made.
What the ultimate resolution to the problem he could not say at this
time.
There being
the meeting
no further business to come
adjourned at 10:40 P.M.
t~.
L, M; .TALLEY
Planning Secretary
before the Planning Commission
Page Ten
December 27, 1960