Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPRIL 11, 1961 ... . - ROLL CALL MINUTES: ZONE CHANGE Naomi Ave. . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA REGULAR MEETING April 11, 1961 The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session in the Council Chamber of the City Hall at 8:00 o\clock P.M., April II, 1961, with Chairman Acker presiding. PRESENT: Commissioners Ferguson, Forman, Golisch, Michler, Norton, Rutherford and Acker. ABSENT: Nene,. OTHERS PRESENT Director of Public Works C. E. Lortz, and Planning Secretary ,L, M. Talley. The Planning Commission approved the minutes of the regular meeting of March 28, 1961, as written and mailed. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application of Ellen Miller and others, for a change of zone from Zones R-l and R-2 to Zones C-3 and D on property located at 645 to 671, inclusive, Naomi Avenue. The proposed area to be changed consists of six lots on the ,north side of Naomi Avenue. The application stated there was a need for the type zoning requested because the property to the north and to the west is commercial and the east side is a public parking lot serving the Professional Square. There is a demand for additional stores and commercial buildings in this area, and this would be a means of completing the north-south alley serving the block. All of the lots are occupied by small single family residences. Occupants of surrounding lots are almost all, without exception, agreeable to the change of zone and feel it would improve the neighborhood. The Planning Secretary read the staff report stating that the property to the west is now zoned C-2" and, except for the small lot at 673 Naomi Avenue, is now developed and used for C-2 purposes. The property to the north is zoned C-2 and C-3 and is developed and used for those uses. Lo.t 11, adjoining the subject property on the east is zoned R-l, but is developed and used as a public parking lot by reason of a zone variance granted December IS, 1959, by Resolution No. 3204. The property across the street on the south side of Naomi Avenue is zoned R-l and R-2 'and is being used for residential purposes. The subject property is now developed and used for residential purposes. All of the houses are old, the latest having been constructed in 1936. This subject property is a part of the larger area that was rezoned to Zones C-3 and D by Ordinance No. 1071, adopted January 5, 1960, which was defeated by the referendum election in April, 1960. If this requested rezoning is granted, it is the opinion of the staff that the development of the area should follow the general plan purposed for the larger area. This will insure that when the property is de- veloped it will have adequate access, parking area and landscaping to present a pleasing appearance. Page One April 11, 1961 . . J /---, The following requirements for the Zone D regulations are recommended. These requirements are taken fr,om Ordinance No. 10.71 and Resolution No. 3206 and are identical with the requirements imposed on the larger area: 1. The southerly 12 feet of lots 5 to 10, inclusive, Tract No. 4611, shall, be dedicated or offered for dedication to the City of Arcadia for the widening Naomi Avenue. 2. That either the easterly 15 feet of lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the westerly 15 feet of lot 5 of Tract No. 4611, or the westerly 30 feet of said' lot 5 be dedicated or offered for dedication to the City of Arcadia for aliey purposes. 3. All properties required by items 1 and 2 hereinabove to be offered or dedicated for street or alley purposes be improved to City standards,or that a cash or surety bond tn the estimated amount of the cost of such im- provements, as determined by the City Engineer, be deposited with the City of Arcadia. 4. No building shall be erected or maintained on the southerly 27 feet of lots 5 to 10, inclusive. At least 9 feet of the northerly is feet of the southerly 27 feet of said lots shall be suitably landscaped and maintained. S. Signs shall be limited to one square foot of area for each foot of building frontage. All signs to be mounted flat against the building and no flashing or roof signs to be allowed. 6. All lighting of the above described areas and the buildings thereon shall be directed away from adjoining residential property. 7. All plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval as to plot plan, architectural treatment, wall, landscaping and signs before issuance of a building permit. 8. The Planning Commission or City Council may modify any of the foregoing conditions if such modification will not adversely affect property or improvements in the vicinity and if such modification will equally accomplish substan- tially the same results as will the adherence to the fore- going conditions. 9. All of the dedications or offers of dedication required in items 1 and 2 above, and the improvement of such dedications or the deposit of the bond required by item 3 above shall be complied with prior.'to the rezoning becoming effective and operative. One communication had been received by the Planning Secretary from' Maurice Scanlon, ,President of the West Arcadia Home Owner I s Association, wherein they stated that after careful consideration they were not ' inclined at this time to object to the proposal ofa change of zone; provided, however, it was not the first of a series of steps anticipated wherein a massive land use change would result. The organization, a year Page Two April 11, 1961 , o ago, was opposed co che huge commercialization of .che WesC Arcadia area and Che. major purpose of che organization is Co oppose Chis Crend. Any major rezoning in chis area, if such is in mind, should be carefully prepared by Che Planning COlIDDission, Chus enabling all incerested property owners to review the entire picture. 'The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for hearing the application.for the zone change and requested those in favor to present their case. Mrs, Ellen Miller, 630 Naomi Avenue, stated Chat her property was not within the area being considered, but she was in favor of the change. She stated there were seven pieces of property buC one had already been rezoned. Originally these properties were cbicken ranches- as bUSinesses - and people lived tbere until they desired more up to date homes, etc. As a result, most of the houses have been rented and sbe felt most of the homes were substandard. While there is business to che north and ,to tbe west, a parking lot to the east. it seems necessary for some assistance to improve the property. Only two of the residences are occupied by owners, the others are rentals. Many of tbem have evidences of baving been chicken ranches witb feed houses still remaining. Mrs. Genevieve Espinoza. owner of 665 E. Naomi Avenue, was very much in favor of the change. Mrs. Mary Leupold of 663 Naomi Avenue, stated that she was not in favor of zoning that would benefit a few. but this would be far- reacbing and would increase tbe value of the neighborhood as well. Mr. Michael Blake, ofl245 Lovell Avenue. stated be was witbin the 300 feet and had no objections to the rezoning. Mrs. Howard Mallougb, of 653 Naomi Avenue. stated sbe was very com~ fortable in her bome, but was not opposed to the rezoning. She requested further information as to the dedication of the alley and whether or not this bad to be done prior to the actual rezoning. She was informed tbat this would be a part of the rezoning and might be required prior to its becoming effective and operative, Mr. James O. warner, of 1225 Lovell Avenue requested information as to the D overlay. He stated when the referendum was voted on the zoning was considered as a unit. The D overlay was appropriate for the entire neighborhood at the time of the referendum. He was concerned about the alley. One property owner Should not have to stand the expense of the improvement nor of the dedication. It should be handled as a unit. The property owners are in general agreement but it is 'a matter to be determined. The last requirement of the report. if adopted. would almost require the property owners to join and dedicate the alley and make the improvements befOre the rezoning became effective. Mr. Nicklin. City Attorney, felt it was well for the public to raise these problems before a final report and decision is to be,made. Chairmen Acker requested those who desired to oppose the request to so state. No one responded. Moved by Commissioner Michler, seconded by COlIDDissiorier Forman, and carried, that the matter be referred to the Zoning Committee and the Subdivision Committee for a review and report on April 25, 1961. The City Attorney advised that he felt i,t would be helpful to the Page Three April 11, 1961 VARIANCE 918 w. Huntington Drive ,,-- () Committee 'before the adjourning of the meeting to have a discussion on this matter as he had a few suggestions to make that each of the Commissioners might find helpful and would assist in the Committees' making their report. He suggested that the balance of the agenda be completed before the discussion. The Commissioners concurred in this rec~endation. The Pl~nning C~ission held a public hearing on the application of J. Ray Risser for a zone variance to erect additional apartment units and to continue the use, without modification, of existing driveway and covered carports at 918 West Huntington Drive. The Planning Secretary read from the application which stated that the property was purchased in 1938. There are, including the four units under consideration, more than ample parking spaces for cars, covered and uncovered, and more ample driveway facilities than any apartment on Huntington Drive. No cars of tenants or guests are parked in the street at any time, day or night. Guests are invited to park on the property. Cars and trucks, including garbage and United Parcel can drive to the rear of the lot to make deliveries and service. The driveway is open on both sides. The added four units would not be detrimental and would add to the appearance of the general planning as it was anticipated at the time of building the present units to increase the number of apart- ments. The sewer and water have been constructed to the rear anticipating this construction. Carports and spaces are more than adequate for the present buildings and more convenient than anyone Huntington Drive. The driveway width is from 16.2 feet to over 45 feet with an average width of over 3D feet. Carports average 10-1/2 feet in width. The present carports could be respaced and room made for eight more cars spaced 7-1/2 feet per car. As to car spaces, there are seven regular and eight more special parking, This area has been reserved for the building of this four unit building, so it would be a great loss to the owner to maintain this lot and pay taxes and continue to have vacant and uncovered parking spaces for this apartment. The sewer and water were constructed at the time the building was constructed in 1954. The building of these units would be the finishing of the original plan for the improvement of this lot. This would be an asset to the surrounding areas. The Planning Secretary read the staff report which recited that this is the application 'of J. Ray Risser for a zone variance to permit the erection of four additional apartment units at the rear of the property and to COntinue the use, without modification, of the existing driveway and covered carports. In 1954, this property was developed with 16 apartment units. At that time 1-1/4 parking spaces were required, which would be a total of 20 spaces. 21 carports were provided. In addition, there are 6 open spaces, 5 of which are in the front yard and cannot be counted as required spaces, The driveway is 16 feet wide, There is open space on each side of the drive which would allow for its widening except at three places where turns are made between the apartments and the carports. These spots vary slightly, but are approximately 18 feet wide. At the rear of the property there is approximately 72 feet' by 78 feet vacant except for a small storage shed which is proposed to be removed. Page Four April n, 1961 ,/---\ If the four additional units were constructed according to the plan submitted, it would make a total of 20 units on the property, with 21 covered carports and 4 legal open parking spaces, plus 5 others now in the front yard. If the entire property were to conform with present requirements, the 20 units would require 30 parking spaces. If the original improvement continues as a non-conforming use and the new addition meets the present code, a total of 26 spaces will be required. In addition to the shortage of parking spaces, the driveway does not conform with present requirements. The Planning Secretary pointed out the property under discussion and showed the driveway and parking spaces, together with the area provided for the new units. Commissioner Norton asked if the variance were granted what effect it would have for the fire equipment to handle a fire should one occur at the rear of the lot. There is a distance of 16.2 feet between the carports and the apartment buildings where in two places the truck would have to make a jog. The applicant felt this could be done with no handicap as the City Refuse Co. picks up trash from the rear of the lot, using large trucks. A communication was received supporting the application from Mr. Risser, requesting permission to continue to use the present driveways, parking areas and carports to accommodate the four additional units to complete the development of the 'architectural plan designed in 1954. There was also other information to support the' application, The Chairman announced that this was the time and place 'for hearing the appl'ication for the zone change and requested those in favor to present supporting data. Mr. J, Ray Risser, 918 West Huntirigton Drive, stated that in planning his apartments ample room had been allowed both for living and for con- venience in service. United Parcel and delivery trucks could easily reach each apartment; also lIIoving vans are able to discharga loads to individual apartments rather than service from the streets. Mr. Risser produced a projector and slides showing the various eleva- tions and also in detail the driveways and parking areas of adjoining apartments. Be requested permission to present these to the Commission as they would more accurately show the spaciousness of the driveway and the parking spaces and easy accessibility to each of the apart- ments. He stated that the plan was filed with the Building Department at the time the original units were built; but due to finances the entire project could, not be completed, He stated that he has since retired and now needs to supplement his income. He felt the pictures were more grephic than any other presentation he could make. The first picture showed the front of the lot, showing the parking spaces provided in the front of the building. This can be used not only for five cars but when necessity arises, it can accommodate five additional cars. Pictures of an adjoining apartment showed a "nine foot" drive with an overhang which would prevent high trucks from entering. He pointed out that en angle iron had been placed on the building because of cars hitting it. He also showed pictures of another new apartment with an extremely long driveway, Another was viewed on Duarte Road where water hydrants were on the building next to the driveway and projected out so that a wide car could eaaily hit them. Page Five April 11, 1961 ) Another picture showed a long driveway to an apartment that is just being completed on Huntington Drive. He then showed his driveway w~th an Oldsmobile and a Chevrolet parked side by side in the front ,driveway with ample room for each. He stated that the barbage truck had come in and a car was parked in the driveway, but there was ample room for both. Several other pictures were viewed showing each aparbnent with a patio and easy access to garages and, parking spaces. HI!. Risser felt he had more than lived up to the code with his buildings and he should be allowed to build the additional units. Each of the present apartments average more than the required 750 square feet. The plans for the new units would average over 1000 square feet'. Mr. 'Caldwell, a tenant of Mr. Risser for over five years, stated that he concurred with the statements made by Mr. Risser. He has never had difficulty because of parking" even though a car had been parked in the driveway. It was of great value to the tenants to have ~il service and garhage service to the rear of the property, and he ~eartily approved of Mr. Risser's plan. Mr. Hugh Connelly, 913 Fairview Avenue, stated his property backed up to Mr. Risser's property. He felt the property was an asset to the neighborhood and a thing of beauty. He was in favor of the granting of the application. He has been a resident at this, address for 38 years and he hoped that when he sold his place units would be erected as beautiful and lend the aesthetic value to the area as Mr. Risser's property, Discussion followed. The width of the parking stalls was satisfactory. The question was the number of stalls, not counting the spaces provided in the front yard, and the width of the driveway, The driveway is not 20 feet wide; there are wider turning areas between the carports, but the paved driveway is. 16 feet wide and the area between the apartments and the carports iS,approximately 18 feet. CommiSSioner Norton asked if there would be any problem with fire equipment being able to enter in case of fire. Commissi'oner Fol'tllSn stated an attempt had been made by the Planning Commission to assist in bringing non-conforming buildings and yard requirements, etc. up to code. The Planning Secretary stated that according to hhe report, if these four units are added there will be a total of 20 units on the property with 21 covered carports and 4 open spaces, not counting the front yard spaces, because the ordinance does not allow these to be counted as part of the required parking. Also, this does not include the tandem parking shown on the pictures which is not allowed under the present Ordinance, The 20 units to conform with present requirements, would require 30 spaces and would have 25; therefore, would be short 5 spaces.tClIf<llllie/:'original improve- ment is considered as non-conforming and the new addition meets the present code, a total of 26 spaces would be required with 25 provided, not counting the spaces in the front yard. Commissioner Michler complimented Mr. Risser on his development and stated if all buildings had been constructed with this long range planning, probably restrictive ordinances would not have had to be made, Commissioner Forman was in favor of leaving the front apartments as they are presently developed, provided the rear buildings and parking is made to conf9rm to the. present code. Page Six April 11, 1961 CODE CHANGE Driveways /~~, , \~-~/' . Commissioner Norton stated this should be considered in the light of the ordinances that have been adopted; but at the same time there must be a- realistic approach to the existent property,. and wher,e an individual has acted in good faith and developed his property with the maximum requirements, and more land is 'available for further development, even though it does not meet all of the necessary requirements, parti- cularly with the code changes, there should be a flexibility in the ordinances to permit certain variances. Moved by Commissioner Rutherford, seconded by Commissioner Norton and carried, that the hearing on the application fora zone variance at 918 West Huntington Drive be continued, and that the. matter be referred to the Zoning Committee and Fire Department for a report. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal to alter the present driveway regulations. A report was read by the Planning Secretary from the Zoning Committee and the staff., dated March 9, 1961, before the proceedings were commenced which related to Zones R-3-R and R-3. At the time the proceedings were commenced Zone R-2 was also included. The report refers to Zones R-3-R and R-3 only. 'The Zoning Committee and staff ,have studied the matter of driveway widths in relation to the recommendation of the Fire Chief for sufficient clearance to allow the placement of apparatus at fires. The Fire Chief has stated that the Fire Department equipment requires a minimum of 12 feet horizontal clearance and 13 feet vertical clearance. In order to afford the best fire protection to the occupants of the buildings, the committee recommends that the Municipal Code be amended to require that driveways in Zones R-3-R andR-3 be 12 feet 6 inches wide, with a minimum of 12 feet horizontal clearance and 13 feet verncal clearance. If the driveway serves more than 12 required parking spaces or is more than 125 feet in length, then two such driveways should be required. In lieu of the two driveways, one 20 foot driveway in accordance with present requirements should be allowed. The committee also recommends that the code, be amended to authorize the Modification Committee to make minor modifications in driveway requirements. They also recommend that the commission consider the advisability of requiring that signs be posted to prohibit automobile parking in required driveways." The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for hearing the proposed code change and requested that those deSiring to comment on the proposed change should do so at this time. No one desired to be heard, Inasmuch as the proceedings were instituted by the Commission itself., and the driveways in Zone 'R-2 have never been considered, it was moved by Commissioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Golisch, and carried, that the public hearing on the proposed code change for driveways be continued and that the matter be referred to the Zoning Committee ,fora report to be submitted at the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission of April 25, 1961. Page Seven April 11, 1961 LOT SPLIT No. 330 . The application of Albert O. Knutsen, 2519 Holly Avenue, which had been referred to Commissioners Forman and Ferguson was considered. The report of to the effect be required: the City Engineer was read by the Planning Secretary that if this' split were granted the following should 1. 2. 3. 4. A f~nal map should be filed, Provide a sewer lateral, for Parcel No.3, Recreation fee of $25.00, Disconnect the water from Woodruff Avenue lot and install a new water service when the lot is improved, this to meet the Uniform Plumbing Code, The applicant should furnish ev'ide'nce that, the proposed split was not made, contrary to any existing Tract restrictions. 5. The Planning Secretary advised that the rearportton of the lot is only 62 feet wide. The tract restrictions were produced showing that one of the conditions "1s that no residential structure shall be erected or constructed on any building Rlot which plot has an area of less than 10,800 square feet, or a width of less than 60 feet at the front build- ing line. The restrictions run until January 1, 1967. The lot, as proposed, would have an area of 10,004 square feet. The remaining portions of" the old .lots would have an area of 8223 square feet and 9835 square feet. All three lots would have an area of less than 10,800 square feet as required by deed restriction. If this split is approved, the owners propose to get all of the residents to lift the restrictions. Commissioner Forman advised that be had checked the area and that the lot is considered to be a reasonable building site; there are a number of lot splits on Holly Avenue and this is a type very similar to that which already exists. There are within two blocks other houses facing Holly Avenue so that this would not establish a precedent. The lot area exceeds that of R-l zones as developed in new subdivisions. Commissioner Ferguson also viewed the lot and objected to the irregular side lot line; He could understand a lot split where the intention was to'straighten a property line, but this would create an. irregular line. The rear yard of Lot 41 would be cut. The area could not possibly be subdivided. Commissioner Goliscb stated thst be could see no advantage to the future development of Arcadia as a whole. Most lots face side streets from Holly Avenue. Tbis is a major s.treet and there are no bouses within two blocks tbat face Holly Avenue. One reason a fine city has been developed is due to the fact that the restrictions have been kept up; the more the lots are cut up for this type of development the mor.e the long range I'lanning and development will be hurt. If this is allowed there will be more requests of a simiar nature. He felt that this did not make for good planning, Commissioner Norton concurred with Commissioner Ferguson, and in keeping with the evaluation heretofore made, moved that Lot Split No. 330 be denied. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Golisch and carried by tbe following vote: Page Eight April 11, 19&1 COUNCIL LIAISON ZONE CHANGE Naomi Avenue Continued . AYES: COMMISSIONERS FERGUSON, GOLISCH, MICHLER, NORTON, RUTHERFORD AND ACKER, NOES: COMMISSIONER FORMAN. ABSENT: NONE Commissioner G01isch, Council liaison, reported that the only matter under consideration at the present time was the zone variance of Mr. Henry Cordelius for an R-3 zoning on property on West Camino Real that had been considered at the last Planning C01IIIIIission meeting. This request had been denied and Mr. Cordelius had appealed this decision to the City Council, City Attorney Nicklin pointed out that the rec01lllllendation of this Commission and the decision of the Council at the time Ordinance No. 1071 was adopted was that this area, included in the original application, should be developed area by area, and be a joint venture. It has not been too successful where a restriction was imposed upon all properties in a given area before the zoning became effective. Cases were cited where such a restriction was placed against certain areas and the property still remains undeveloped. He did not feel that the same restrictions should not apply to the entire area, but that .it is a problem for the Committee to handle such a development, other than with a joint venture. To require one lot to be dedicated for the full 30 feet would place the entire burden on one owner. The lots facing Baldwin Avenue, to which the alternative is granted to deed 15 feet from the rear and IS feet from the lot adjoining on Naomi Avenue. are not a part of these particular proceedings so as such could not be considered at this time. But, from the standpoint of the benefit to be derived from the construction of the alley, the lots on Baldwin Avenue would receive equal benefits. With respect to the requirement that an amount be deposited or a bond be submitted to insure the completion of the alley.. t'he City Attorney suggested that the alley in this location could be improved under the 1911 Improvement Act proceedings and the costs spread equally over the properties benefitted. Other properties then would share in the cost of the improvement and would share in the benefits. The entire area would be benefitted by the construction of such an alley. The requirement should be that the alley be improved by any appropriate proceeding rather than by requiring cash or bond deposit. This would tend to foster the development of the area, possibly more quickly than if improvements were assessed against certain lots; whereas, other lots would also benefit. The requirement of the dedication alone will have an effect on a joint venture becoming effective. From the practicality of the situation one lot will not dedicate the entire 30 feet; therefore, it must be handled as a joint venture. Mr. 'Nicklin pointed out that where a measure is adopted and then submit~ed to referendum and the referendum is successful to defeat the measure, the same measure cannot be again adopted for a period of one year. The date starts from the canvass of the votes on the referendum. This particular portion could have been considered and an ordinance adopted any time within the one year period because it is not substantially the same measure that was voted on. The area under consideration represents approximately one-tenth of the area'formerly considered. This poses no problem on the present case for the reason the year will have expired before this variance would reach the ordinance stage. Page Nine April Ii, 1961 TRACT NO. 26295. . It was the concensus of opinion that the area should be developed as a unit and not individual stores so that the same condition that now exists on South. First Avenue would not prevail. If the six lots could be developed as a unit it would probably be advantageous. Conuniss,ioner Norton' stated'the,'same principle should be adhered to in this case as in previous cases where the Commission worked closely with the property owners, with the Home Owners Association and the Business Men's Association to re-evaluate the area from a business approach. Conunissioner Golisch stated that one of the problems the Conunission faced when Ordinance No. 1071 was adopted was the largeness of the particular program that defeated it in the minds of the voters. On the other hand, he felt that to start down one side of a side st,reet with conunercial buildings was not condusive to good planning. The problem here is to properly develop this area, not on a small scale, but with the thought that not just one side of the street would be developed. There must be some type of compromise between the small single development and the large program originally considered. Commissioner Michler stated that if the north side of Naomi Avenue were to be considered at this time, it was very evident that the other side of the street would apply for a variance. He felt that the matter should be referred to the Zoning Committee. Mr. Norton stated the whole area should be considered in the light of the construction of the freeway and its effect upon the property abutting it; also the entire length of Baldwin Avenue should be studied, taking into consideration the development of the freeway and its effect upon this area. Discussion followed. The City Attorney advised that the only consider- ation is that a decision must be made within 35 days after the close of the hearing. So long as the hearing is not closed there is no particular dead line involved. Moved by CommisSioner Forman, seconded by Commissioner Golisch, and unanimously carried, that the hearing on the proposed zone change on Naomi Avenue be continued: that a meeting be scheduled by the Plann- ing Secretary with the Zoning and Subdivision committees for the purpose of studying the proposal and rendering a report to the Commission at its next meeting. The Planning Secretary advised that a conununication had been received from Mr. George A. Hill of the State Division of Highways, addressed to Mr. Lortz, advising that on November 9, 1960, the owners of certain property lying in the path of the Foothill Freeway through Arcadia, filed a tentative map for Tract No. 26295 with the City of Arcadia. A copy of' this map was forwarded to the State with a request for a decision as to the effect of the tract map and what properties would be required for freeway purposes. On November 22, 1960, the City of Arcadia Planning Conunission consdered the Tentative Tract map and continued the hearing until November 27, 1960. At this time the City Planning. Commission in open hearing discussed this tract and with full knowledge of the owners of the tract continued the hearing until May 9, 1961. At this time the Division of Highways further indicated that' an appraisal wOuld be made and an offer made to the owners by May 9, 1961. Page Ten April 11, 1961 .. . ' .. LIBRARY DEDICATION ADJOURNMENT c Since the receipt of the first correspondence fro~ the City of Arcadia, th~ District has been ~ade every effort to prepare proper certification, maps, and to proceed with the appraisal of the properties in connection with the Foothill Freeway. Since the design had not and haa not been finalized for the Baldwin Avenue undercrossing and certain rampa, the District has been unable to start an appraisal at this time. It is the feeling of the District that complete certification of all of the maximum amount of the freeway to be acquired, including the Baldwin Avenue undercrossing and other ramps is now just a matter of a few months. It is the desire of the Diatrict that an appraisal be with- held until such time as all of the right of way can be appraised rather than limiting the appraisal to just the area involved in the subdivision. The District solicits the cooperation of the City of Arcadia to the end that final approval of the said map be withheld pending final certification of the freeway agreement. It is felt that this action would have considerable benefit, not only to the City of Arcadia, but in the long run to the proper.ty owner themselves, since it is generally understood ~hat the right of way will be appraised and will be acquired just as expedidously as will be consistent with proper planning. By reason of the above statements, the Division of Highways requests the City contact the affected owners to advise them that the State anticipates appraising and purchasing all of the necessary rights of way from them, depending on the acquisition of the freeway 'agreement. Motion by Commissioner Norton, seconded by Commissioner Forman, and carried, that the Secretary be instructed to inform the property owners involved in Tract No. 26295, of tbe action of the State Division of Highways and request an extention of time so that the' Division of Highways can properly appraise the property in question. The Secretary called attention to the dedication of the new library which wil,l be held Sunday, April- 16, at 2:00 o'clock P.M, Invitations had been mailed to the public and to all city personnel. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:,10 o'clock P.M. Page Eleven April 11, 1961