HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-24-09°°~"` AGENDA
ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 7:00 P.M
Arcadia City Council Chambers
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
'SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA Tl"EMS
TDKE RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - 5 minute time limit per person.
All interested persons are invited to appear at the Public Hearing and to provide evidence or testimony concerning any of the
proposed items set forth below for consideration. You are hereby advised that should you desire to legally challenge any
action taken by the Planning Commission with respect to the proposed item for consideration, you may be limited to raising
only those issues and objections, which you or sorrreone else raises at or prior to the time of the Public Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING
I. TENTATPJE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 09-02 (70985)
19 Genoa Street
Trinity Genoa, LLC
The applicant is requesting a tentative parcel map for athree-unit residential condominium
RECOMMI?NDATION: Approval
There is a ten day appeal period from the date of the decision. Appeals are to be filed by Apri13, 2009.
2. TEXT AMENDMENT 09-02
Citywide
Text Amendment No. TA 09-02 amends the regulaflons for temporary banners and parking for multiple uses.
RECOIvIl~4ENDATION: Approval
CON5ENTITEMS
2. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 2009
RECOMIvIHNDATION: Approve
3. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2009
RECOMMENDATION: Approve
MATTERS FROM CI1'P COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
MODIFICATION COMMITTEE AGENDA
MATTERS FROM STAFF & UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made .
available for public inspecfian in the Flaming Services office at City Hall, 240 W. HuntingWn Dt., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626)574-5423.
PC AGENDA
3-24-09
PLANNING COM14II5SION
Pursuant to the Americans with DisabilifiesAct, persons with a disability who require a disability related modifrcation or
accommodalion in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or
accommodation from the City Clerk at (626J 574-5423. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to
make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibiltiy to the meeting.
Public Hearine Prrocedure
1. The public hearing is opened by the Chairman of the Planning Commission.
2. The Phuuting report is presented by staff.
3. Commissioners' questions relating to the Pltuming report maybe answered at this time.
4. The applicant is afforded the opportunity to address the Commission.
5. Others in favor of the proposal are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission (LIMITED TO 5
MINUTES).
6. Those in opposition to the proposal are afforded the opportunity to address the Commission (LIMITED TO
5 MINUTES).
7. The applicant maybe afforded the oppomuriry for a brief rebuttal (LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES).
8. The Commission closes the public hearing.
9. The Commission members may discuss the proposal at this time.
10, The Commission then acts on the proposal and either approves, approves with conditions or modifications,
denies the application, or continues it to a certain date.
11. Following the Commission's action on Conditional Use Permits and Variances, a resolution reflecting the
decision of the Planning Commission is prepared for adoption by the Commission. (There is a five working
day appeal period after the adoption of the resolution).
12. Following the Commission's action on Modifications and Design Reviews; there is a five working day
appeal period.
13. Following the Commission's review of Zone Changes, Text Amendments and General PLm
Amendments, the Commission's comments and recommendations aze forwarded to the Ciry Council for the
Council's consideration at a scheduled public hearing.
14. Following the Commission's action on Tentative Tract Maps and Tentative Pazcel Maps (subdivisions) there
is a ten calendar day appeal period.
Any writings or documents pmvided to a majoriTy of the Plamting Commission members regarding any item on this agenda will be made
available for public inspection in the Planni ~ Services otLce at CiTy FIall, 240 W. Hmrtington Dr., Arcadia, CA 91007, (626)574-5423.
PC AGENDA
3-24-09
~~
.rw.. s,iim
,~
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
March 24, 2009
TO: Arcadia Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Thomas Li, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: .Tentative Parcel Map Application No. TPM 09-02 (Map No. 70985)
19 Genoa Street
SUMMARY
Tentative Parcel Map Application, No. TPM 09-02 was submitted by Robert Tong,
representing the property owner, Trinity Genoa, LLC, for athree-unit residential
condominium project at 19 Genoa Street The Development Services Department is
recommending approvalrof TPM 09-02, subject to the conditions of approval in this
report.
GENERAL INFORMATION
APPLICANT: =Robert Tong (Representative of property owner, Trinity Genoa,
...LLC.)
LOCATION: 19 Genoa Street
REQUEST: A tentative parcel map for athree-unit residential condominium.
LOT AREA: 8,450 square feet (0.19 of an acre)
FRONTAGES: 50 feet along Genoa Street
50 feet.along an alley
'1
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The property is currently developed with a 1,153 sq.ft. single-
family residence built in 1947, and is zoned R-3.
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
The surrounding properties are developed with multiple-family
dwellings, and are zoned R-3
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Multiple Family Residential -Max. 24 dwelling units per acre
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Development Services Department approved the applicant's design concept
plans. under Architectural Design Review no. ADR 08-28 on December 29, 2008 for
the three-unit residential project, as shown on the submitted site plan. This approval
was based on staff's determination that the design was in compliance with the City's
zoning and architectural design review regulations. On January 22, 2009, the
applicant submitted plans to Building Services to initiate the plan check process.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a tentative parcel map for residential condominium
purposes. The subject property has 8,450 square feet of land area. The density
factor in the R-3 .zones is 2,000 square feet per unit. This would allow for, a
maximum of four (4) units on the subject property. All development standards have
been met by the project and no modifications were necessary. The requested
subdivision is consistent with the City's .General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and
Subdivision Regulations.
All City requirements shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Building Official,
Community ,Development Administrator, Fire Marshall, and Public Works Services
Director. The proposed plans have been reviewed by these departments and some
special conditions are deemed necessary in addition to the staridard conditions of
approval. These conditions are listed as conditions 1 and 2 of this staff report.
CEQA
This project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act per Section 15315 as a minor land division in an
urbanized area.
TPM 09-02
March 24, 2009
Page 2
,~
RECOMMENDATION
The.Development Services Department recommends approval of TPM 09-02 subject
to the following conditions:
1. The developer will be required to pay the following fees prior to occupancy:
Map Fee: $100.00 + Final Approval Fee: $25.00 =Total $125.00.
2. "Post a $200.00 deposit for a Mylar copy of the recorded map prior to occupancy.
3. All City code requirements shall be complied with to the satisfaction of the Fire
Department, Public Works Services Department, and Development Services
Department.
4. That condominium Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) containing
provisions for property maintenance, shall be submitted for review and approval
by the City Attorney, and shall. be recorded concurrently with the parcel map.
5. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and
its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or
proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officers, employees or agents to attack;
set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of
Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not limited
to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning
Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to
this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim;
action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the
City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right,
at its own option; to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers,
employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
6. Approval of TPM 09-02 shall not take effect until the property owner and"applicant
have executed and filed the Acceptance Form available from the Development
Services Department to indicate acceptance of the conditions of approval.
TPM 09-02
March 24, 2009
Page 3
'~
PLANNING COMMISION ACTION
Approval
The Planning Commission should move to approve TPM 09-02, subject to the
following findings:
A:1. Find that the project and the provisions for its design and improvements are
consistent with the Arcadia General Plan, and that the discharge of sewage
from the project into the public sewer system will not violate any requirements
prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for this
region.
A2. Find that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment; and
that this project is categorically exempt from CEQA per Section 15315.
A.3. Authorize and direct the Development Services Director to approve and
execute, if necessary, a subdivision agreement for this. project.
A.4. Apprdve this project subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff
report, or as modified by the Planning Commission.
Denial
If.the Planning Commission takes action to deny this parcel map, the Commissioh
.should make specific findings based on the evidence presented and move to deny
the project. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the following findings
which must be expanded upon with specific reasons for denial:
D.1. Find that the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general and
specific plans as specified in Section 65451 of the Subdivision Map Act.
D.2. Find that the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with applicable general and spedific plans.
D:3. Find that the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
D.4. Find that the site is not physically suitable for the density of development.
D.5. Find that the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely
to cause substantial environmental damage.
D.6. Find that the design of the subdivision or the types of improvements are likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat:
TPM 09-02
March 24, 2009
Page 4
v
D.7. Find that the design of.the subdivision or the type of improvements are, likely to
cause serious public health problems.
D.8. Find that the requested subdivision injuriously, affects the neighborhood
wherein said lot is located.
D.9. Find that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision. in this connection, the Jegislative ,
body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements for access or for
use, will be provided. and that these will be substantially equivalent to ohes
previously acquired by the public. This subdivision shall apply; only to
easements of record onto easements established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction and' no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body
to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for .access
through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested part has any questions. or
comments regarding this matter, prior to the March_24~ public hearing, please
contact Associate Planner, Thomas Li at (626) 574-5447.
Approved:
~'-`
Ji sama
ommunity Development Administrator
Attachments: Aerial Photo with zoning information
Tentative Parcel Map 09-02 (Parcel No. 70985)
Environmental document
Photos
TPM 09-02
March 24, 2009
Page 5
::.~,:,Po
TPM 09-02
T9 Genoa Street
ewe I~bn vm ro m'"'aminWi w tl
vo •vlav~av
IffiII!"~R7bII9W~Wj0~9 C~{ I9~I~, S@~7C7N101 ~~ ia3ais vorva~e~ ~ ps
IJI~~'~1~~ II I'1 ~~IJl~~I'1 (f'~~~~ I~' ~NOIlYJOl103fOLd ~, {
~ ~° t s
s ~
g ~~~ ~
E ~ ~~_~ ~, ~ ~ ~~
g
~j ~ ~G rn ~ IIiI [~6tlg ~sp~
~ ~~~~~ m ~ g ~~~g91a656~~
.., yM .,,
~, o m ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~
~g~ ~°~ -
~,~,
O ao W .m, M ~~~~s~e~~
Z r// ~wU ~ i
~ Z~ ~ u~1 o TM^ I d ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ 'y 1~y
Q¢ O a o i I! m ~~«8 9
~ ° ~ K ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~
V ~o - ~ ~ m ' i ~ ~~~a~Ei~EE''
U U ~~ V w i I
Q p~pIOI~a Z.~ ~ ~ {p
' ~ 6 F LL ~ a ~ ~ \ III 2
H i ~ ~ II 1 YYYY
yU'F U~? ~ Iii $
W Qh ~QNp~ VIII F<
LL Q f ~' < 5
>O OWE S I ^" III / ~ ~~aw .
~~ ~<Q 3 ~ ~
I '~, 4
= vi ~ ! ~ ~ o
W - °~~ ~, ~~~ ~I ~~~ri I ~®sE
m
~. ~; ~ W ~
ooa ~ ~
~~a
E ~
r s
g I
~~~~ ~ r ~ ~~~ ~4 ~~ .
m u: ~ • j
~wE°5~~~ I ~~~ ~~ ~k~
@@~ ~ ~~~~~I~~g~~~~~
@s~g ,inv., .., eee•a 3 e
~. _ -___
a ~ d '~~~'-'~-~,,, ~ O®00®OB9Bm000m
a
~w..~,,
~` PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
00rap~et W°
(Certificate of Determination when attached to Notice of Exemption)
1. Name or description of project: TPM 09-02
2:
3.
Location: 19 Genoa Street
Entity or person undertaking project:
A.
X B. Other (Private)
(1) Name: Trinity Genoa, LLC
(Property owner)
(2) Address: 255 E. Santa Clara Street. #200
Arcadia, CA 91006
4.
Staff Determination:
The City's Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in
accordance with the City's "Local Guidelines .for Implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require
further environmental assessmerifbecause:
a. The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
b. The project is a Ministerial Project.
c. The project is an Emergency Project.
d. The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e. X The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: 15
f. i The project is statutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption:
g. -The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis:
h. The project involves ,another public agency which constitutes the
Lead Agency: Name of Lead Agency
Date: February 4. 2009 Thomas P: Li
Staff
~~oz
a
0
c.
V
U
~~
ti
N
Y
0
3
m
z
c,
0
a
Y
U
7J
Q~
'~
y
..U
Y
w
0
.~
Y
Q
Y
0.
W
U
b~
Q
z
a.
0
a
Y
U
N
~^
7
h
4J
Y
~.
0
V
y
0
Y
^0
.~.II
N
U
cd
~~
~~ :~
~ <`
March 24, 2009
TO:
FROM
Arcadia Planning Commission
STAFF REPORT
Development Services Department
Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Steven Lee, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: Consideration of Text Amendment No. TA 09-02 to amend the
Arcadia Municipal Code's temporary banner regulations and
commercial/industrial parking standards
SUMMARY
The Development Services Department is proposing to amend. the City's temporary
• banner regulations and parking standards to address recurring issues that staff has
encountered over the past few years. For the banner regulations, staff is proposing to
add a provision that addresses the location of temporary banners and to create a time
limit exception for future tenants and existing tenants without permanent signage. Staff
is also proposing to amend the parking regulations to prohibit the designation of
required parking spaces for a specific business, individual, or group of individuals. The
Development Services Department is recommending approval of the proposed text
amendments as set forth in this staff report.
PROPOSAL AND ANALYSIS
Temporary Banners
Recently, staff has observed a growing number of free-standing banners in some of
the City's major retail centers. Such advertising devices are held up on poles and
typically installed in landscaped areas of surface parking lots. Staff has approved such
banners because the current temporary banner regulations do not address the
location of banners. In staffs opinion, free-standing banners are not only unattractive
(especially when there are multiple banners) but also pose a safety hazard due to their
potential to fall over in the wind. Therefore, staff is proposing to add a provision stating
that banners shall be mounted on a building. Additionally, staff. recommends
prohibiting roof-mounted banners since the Code already prohibits roof-mounted flags,
• balloons, and similar attention-attracting features
.,
Another issue staff has encountered is when a future tenant wishes to display a
banner announcing their imminent arrival (e.g. "Joe's Restaurant Opening Soon") or
when they open for business but have not yet installed a permanent sign. In such
cases, staff finds it appropriate to allow an exception to the banner time' limits since
the banners are not announcing a special promotion or event (e.g. "50% Off' or
"Change in Ownership"), but'are effectively serving as the tenant's primary sign.
Under the current regulations, a business is only permitted to display a banner for up
to 30 continuous days and no more than 60 days per calendar year. The proposed
text amendment would allow future tenants to display a banner advertising the name
of the business for up to 60 continuous days, which would not count toward the 60-day
maximum display period for the year. (Several nearby cities, including Pasadena,
Monrovia, and Temple City, currently allow a time limit exception for future tenant
banners.) Staff also recommends granting this same exception for existing tenants
whose permanent signage is removed for remodeling or maintenance work.
Finally, staff made further revisions to the regulations to improve their organization
and clarity. Please refer to Attachment 1 for the amended regulations. The existing
text to remain appears in black and the new language appears in red, with strikeouts
on the language to be omitted. The amended regulations would apply to all
commercial and industrial zones.
Designation of Required Parking Spaces •
Planning Services has a written policy dating back to 1983 stating that "required
parking spaces are not permitted to be reserved." The reasoning behind this policy is
that reserving required spaces for one business has the net effect of removing such
spaces from use by the general public. Staff is proposing a text amendment to codify
this long-standing policy. The requirement. would appear .in the .commercial/industrial
parking regulations under the Mixed Use section (staff is proposing to re-title it Multiple
Use), and would prohibit designation of required parkirig spaces .for -one particular
business, individual (e.g. Reserved for Bank Manager), or group of individuals (e.g.
Employee Parking Only). Staff would like to clarify. that this would only apply to
required parking, meaning if a property with multiple uses has surplus parking, those
extra parking spaces could be reserved. Please refer to Attachment 2 for the amended
regulations.
CEQA
The proposed text amendments are exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). There is no possibility that the text amendments
will have a significant effect on the environment under Section 15061(b)(3) of the
CEQA Guidelines, and this text amendment does not constitute a "project" under
Section 15378(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines.
TA 09-02
March 24, 2009
Page 2
-.
J~+l:
• RECOMMENDATION
The Development Services Department recommends approval of Text Amendment
No. TA 09-02.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission should direct staff to convey the Commission's
recommendation and comments to the City Council for consideration at a public
hearing.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions regarding
this matter prior to the March 24, 2009 public hearing, please contact Steven Lee,
Assistant Planner, at (626) 574-5444 or via email at slee(o)ci.arcadia.ca.us.
Approved By:
Ji asama
ommunity Development Administrator
• Attachments: 1. Amended Temporary Banner Regulations
2. Amended Parking Regulations
3. Preliminary Exemption Assessment
C~
TA 09-02
March 24, 2009
Page 3
f. •
ATTACHMENT !
9262.4.13. TEMPORARY BANNERS.
The following regulations shall apply to temporary banners:
A. Definition: A temporary banner is a sign containing a message in text form, which is constructed of
pliable materials such as canvas, fabric, vinyl plastic or similar materials which will withstand exposure
to wind and rain without significant deterioration, and which does not require a building permit for its
construction; or installation outside of a building. ''''~ ''^----"-~'•' ^°-"'"°"'°"' ^''^`'^° ^"'
> >
B. Application Process: Requests An application for a temporary banner permit shall be submitted in
writing to the Community Development Division, and requires approval by the Development Services
Director or his/her designee; prior to the display of any banner. and The application shall include a
description of the banner and its materials, its general content, location on'the property, size, barer
the time period that the banner will be displayed, the address of the property, the
name of the business, and the name of the person requesting.the approval of the permit. A fee in an
amount established by resolution of the City Council from time to time shall be submitted at the same
time the application is filed with the City.
C. Number and Size: A maximum of two (2) temporary banners, at any one (1) time, maybe pernritted
for each business. The maximum total surface area of all such temporary banner(s), in the aggregate, for
each business, shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet.
D. Location and Height Clearance: Temporary banners shall be mounted on the building in which the •
business displaying the banners is located. Free-standing or roof-mounted banners are prohibited. No part
of a banner shall have a clearance of less than seven feet (7') over a pedestrian way and fifteen feet (IS')
over a vehicular way.
E. Time Limits: The use of temporary banner(s) for eseb any business shall not exceed ~ sixty
(60) cumulative days in any one (1) calendar year, with any single display period not to exceed a
r~a*imua}e€ thirty (30) continuous days per in any one (1) yeaz~ilk. There shall be a minimum interval
of two (2) weeks ixter~al between tt~xies approved periods during which the a banner(s) is displayed. Each
business shall be allowed a maximum of six (6) display periods in any one (1) calendar year.
Exceptions:
1. Temporary banners for events or activities sponsored bynon-profit organizations may be
authorized for an additional thirty (30) cumulative days in any one (1) calendar year.
2. Future tenants and existing tenants whose permanent lawful signage is removed for remodeling or
maintenance work may display a banner(s) advertising the name of the business for up to sixty
(60) continuous calendar days. Such banners shall be removed prior to installation of a permanent
sign and shall be exempt from the time limits as described in Paragraph E above.
Notwithstanding any other section of the Arcadia Municipal Code, the owner or person ir~essessien-ef
who installs or displays a banner in violation of this Title shall remove the sere banner upon order of the
Development Services Director or designee. Far the purpose of this Section, any portion of any day in
which a banner is or remains installed displayed shall be counted as one (1) full day.
;;
- ;?' .
_;~
• 9269.4. B MULTIPLE USES.
ATTACHMENT 2
In the event that two (2) or more uses occupy the same building, lot, or pazcel of land, the total
requirements for off-streetpazking shall be the sum of the requirements applicable to each and all of the
various uses computed separately. Designation of required parking spaces for exclusive use by one
particular business, individual, or group of individuals is prohibited.
ATTACHMENT 3
~=
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
,.~z::
"•••~.,•~•°°f (CeRificate of Determination When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
1. Name or description of project:
Text Amendment No. TA 09-02 amending the City's temporary banner and parking regulations
2. Project Location -Identify streef address and cross streets or attach a map showing project site (preferably a
USGS 15' or 7%' topographical map identified by quadrangle name):
Citywide
3. Entity or person undertaking project: ® A. City of Arcadia
^ B. Other (Private)
(1) Name:
R
(2) Address:
(3) Phone:
4. ~ - Staff Determination:
The City's Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in accordance with the
City's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that
this project does not require further environmental assessment because:
a. ® The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA. •
b. ^ The project is a Ministerial Project.
c. ^ The project is an Emergency Project.
d. ^ The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e. ® The project is categorically exempt. Applicable Exemption Class: 15061
Section No.: (b)(31
f. ^ The project is statutorily exempt. Applicable Exemption:
Section No.:
g. ^ The project is otherwise exempt on the following basis:
h. ® The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency.
Name of Lead Agency: City of Arcadia
Date: March 24. 2009 Staff: Steven Lee. Assistant Planner •
~-
r
MINUTES
ARCADIA PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 10, 2009, 7:00 P.M.
Arcadia City Council Chambers
The Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia met in regular session on Tuesday, February 10,
2009 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City of Arcadia, at 240 W. Huntington Drive,
with Chairman Beranek presiding.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg, Hsu, Pacrille and Beranek
ABSENT: None
OTHERS ATTENDING
City Councilman Gary Kovacic
City Engineer Phil Wray
Community Development Administrator Jim Kasama
Associate Planner Tom Li
Assistant Pianner Steven Lee
Senior Administrative'Assistant Billie Tone
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Parrille, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to read the
Resolutions by title only and waive reading the full text of the Resolutions: The motion
passed by voice vote with none dissenting.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
None
TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE
PLANNING COMMISSION ON NON-PUBLIC HEARING MATTERS -Five-minute time
limit per person
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
L TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. TPM 07-OS (69775) - REVLSION
An approximately $3-acre property generally located north ofthe terminus of Vista Avenue
and north and northwest of Canyon Road.
Nevis Homes
TPM 07-OS (69775) is a Tentative Parcel Map for a three (3) parcel subdivision. Parcel 1
would be approximately two (2) acres in azea and Parcel 2"would be 0.82 acre in azea. Both
parcels are proposed for residential development.-The remaining parcel, Parcel 3, would be
approximately 80 acres in area and would remain undeveloped.
Assistant Planner Steven Lee presented the staff report.
The proposed subdivision, as described below, was conditionally approved by the Arcadia
Planning Commission in August 2008. The nature of the subdivision is not changing; rather,
the applicant is requesting a revision to Mitigation Measure 1.5 from the approved Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program that requires a nonrefundable $200,000 deposit to the City
to fund the maintenance of the approximately 80 acres of undeveloped land. The applicant is
proposing an alternative measure to create an assessment district that would place the financial
burden of maintaining the open space on the owners of the two proposed residential properties.
Commissioner Baderian asked if Pazcel 3 would be accessible to the public or only to the
owners of Parcels 1 and 2. Mr. Lee said there are no plans for a public trail but that the
applicant must agree to an easement for maintenance.
Commissioner Baderian asked if the city were to apply for funds from an open space
conversancy would the responsibility for maintenance fall to the public or to the owners of
Parcels 1 and 2. Mr. Kasama explained'that would depend on the agreement between the
present and future owners of the property.
Commissioner Baerg asked if this fee would be assessed.to all property owners along this open
space or only to the owners of Parcels 1 and 2. Mr. Lee said it would only apply to the owners
of Parcels 1 and 2.
The public hearing was opened.
Chairman Beranek asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the project.
There were none.
Chairman Beranek asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the project.
There were none.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baderian, seconded by Commissioner Parrille, to close the
public hearing.
Without objection the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Baderian said that he is not comfortable placing the burden of the cost of
maintenance of 80 acres on the future owners of thisproperty. He pointed.out that the original
plan to set aside $200,000 for maintenance seems more reasonable.
Pc Muarri'Ps
2-io-o9
Page 2
~, ...
MOTION:
It was moved by Chairman Beranek, seconded by Commissioner Hsu, to approve the
Revision to Tentative Parcel Map No. TPM 07-OS (59775) subject to the conditions in the
staff report.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Hsu, Parrille and Beranek
NOES: Commissioners Baderian and Baerg
2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. TM 69958
1402, 1406 and 1410 South Eighth Avenue
Dexter 8'" Avenue, LLC
The applicant is requesting a Tentative Tract Map to consolidate three existing lots for afive-lot
subdivision.
Associate Planner Tom Li presented the staff report.
Commissioner Hsu asked for verification on the General Plan designation for this site. Mr.
Li explained that the General Plan will allow a maximum of eight units on the property but
the only way to situate them is on a one-sided cul-de-sac.
The public hearing was opened.
Chauman Beranek asked if anyone else would like to speak in favor of the project.
Mr. Charles Huang, the applicant, said that he retained a designer and an engineer and they
originally laid out six lots in compliance with city code. Later, he decided to reduce it to five
lots. Mr. Huang said they met with city staff many times to make sure the one-sided cul-de-
sac was acceptable and, with the assurances of staff, he decided to proceed with the purchase
of the property. He said that he also asked the owners of neighboring properties if they were
interested in selling but they were never able to reach an agreement. Mr. Huang pointed out
that he made every effort to comply with city regulations and that he believes the project will
be beneficial to the city. He said he is willing to comply with all conditions of approval and
he and his associates offered to answer any questions the Commissioners might have.
Commissioner Baerg asked if there is a technical reason for placing the street side of the cul-
de-sac to the south instead of north. Mr. Hank Jong, EGL, explained that the nature of the
drainage on the property makes this most practical.
Mr. Jong explained that there are no regulations prohibiting one-sided cul-de-sacs. He
poirned out several examples in the handouts distributed earlier to the Commissioners. He
said that the applicant is willing to satisfy the city engineer's requirements, provide
landscaping to cover the wall and hire an arborist to protect the oak tree at the site. He
discussed plans for the width of the street and the size of the lots pointing out that the
applicant is willing to comply with all conditions of approval.
Pc Hm~r~nes
zao-0v•
Page 3
Attorney Patrick Perry represeneed the applicant. He said that it is impossible to make the
Findings necessazy for denial of this application and he reviewed each one. Mr. Perry also
pointed out the existence of one-sided cut-de-sacs in other parts of the city and again stressed
the developer's willingness to comply with all regulations and conditions.
Mr. Bruce Pfeifer represented the sellers. He said the sellers contacted the city to find out
how the property could be developed and they were assuranced that aone-sided cut-de-sac
was acceptable. Mr. Pfeifer stated that the sellers aze anxious to proceed with the project.
Mr. Gordon Maddock said that he met the developer, Mr. Huang, through Bowden
Development. He said that in 2006 Bowden made an offer on these properties and he drew
up a map for asix-lot subdivision on a one-sided cut-de-sac. He discussed these plans with
staff at the time and was assured that they were acceptable. He asked the Commissioners to
approve the project as presented or make a recommendation to widen the street by five feet to
a total of 60 feet.
Mr. Eddie Hsieh, a neighbor, said he supports the project and feels it would be good for the
neighborhood.
Mr. Scott Yang, another neighbor, said he agrees with Mr. Hsieh and supports the project.
Chairman Beranek asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the project.
Mr, David Cheng owns the property to the north of the project site. He said that he had
spoken to the developer about adding his property to the project, but they were never able to
reach an agreement. Mr. Cheng said he feels that without his property the project will be
incomplete and so he is opposed to it.
Mr. David Johnson represented Gwen Johnson and the Johnson family. He said he is
opposed to the project because he feels. the wall on the ono-sided cut-de-sac would be
unattractive and a magnet for trash and debris. He also wanted to be sure that the city's
historic association with the equine culture would be protected and preserved:
Chairman Beranek asked if the applicant would like to speak in rebuttal.
Mr. Jong pointed out that the project site is not designated as horse property in the General
Plan and that six dwellings are allowed per acre.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Parrille, seconded by Commissioner Baderian, to close the
public hearing.
Without objection the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Baerg said that he is inclined to deny the application because of the one-sided
cut-de-sac. He said that he felt the property could be developed without the one-sided cut-de-
sac.
PC MINUTES
2.10-09
Pnga 4
/'
f
'` Commissioner Hsu said that he is in favor of the project because it complies. with. regulations, but
that he would ask the applicant to work with staff to reduce the negative aspects of the wall.
Chairman Beranek said that he cannot see any basis for denial of the application.
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Hsu, seconded by Chairman Beranek, to approve Tentative
Tract Map No. TM 69958.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Hsu and Beranek
NOES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg and Parrille
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Baerg, seconded by Commissioner Parrille, to deny Tentative
Tract Map No. TM 69958.
ROLL CALL;
AYES: Commissioners Baderian, Baerg and Parrille
NOES: Commissioners Hsu and Beranek
CONSENT ITEMS
3. TEXT AMENDMENT 08-05 -REVISION
Citywide
This is a Revision to Text Amendment No. TA 08-05 amending the City's Architectural
Design Review Regulations as set forth in Sections 9295 et seq. of the Arcadia Municipal
Code.
4. RESOLUTION NO. 1789
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. CUP 08-IS and a related Parking Modification to expand an existing 1,006 square-
foot eating establishment into a ],971 square-foot restaurant with beer and wine service and seating
for 33 patrons at 921 S. Baldwin Avenue, Units G & H.
5. RESOLUTION NO. 1790
A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. CUP 08-19 to revise a previously approved Conditional Use Permit and Parking
Modification (GUP 94-01 /Resolution No. 1508) to increase the seating capacity from 8 to 23
persons at an existing 1,376 square-foot eating establishment at 921 S. Baldwin Avenue, Unit A.
Pc Mixvres
z-io-os
Page 5
6. MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2009
MOTION:
It was moved by Commissioner Parrille, seconded by Commissioner Baderian, to approve the
Revision to Text Amendment No. TA 08-05, adopt Resolutions No. 1789 and 1790 and approve
the minutes of January 27, 2009, as presented.
Without objection, the Revision to Text Amendment No.TA O8-OS was approved, Resolutions
1789 and 1790 were adopted, and the minutes were approved by voice vote as presented.
MATTERS FROM CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING
Councilman Gary Kovacic said the Mayor's Community Breakfast will be held on March 27
at the Community Center. The program will include Rose Queen Courtney Chou Lee and Dr.
Laura Schlessinger. He said that the City Council approved a new contract with Waste
Managemem that includes aone-day-a-week collection schedule. He said that the Council
reviewed the mid-year budget and found that sales tax revenue and temporary occupancy
sales tax revenue had been overestimated, resulting in a $2 million deficit, which staff is
working to find ways to reduce. Unfortunately, due to budget constraints, the Fourth of July
event has been cancelled.
MODIFICATION COMMTI'TEE MEETING ACTIONS
Commissioner Parrille said that there was no Modification Committee meeting today.
FURTHER MATTERS FROM STAFF
Mr. Kasama reviewed a memo on the status of current projects and reminded the
Commissioners that the City Council will be joining them for the February 24a' meeting at the
Police Department Community Room: He said that more information will follow.
ADJOURNED to February 24, 2009, at 6:00 pm at the Arcadia Police Department
Community Room
8:25~m
Chairman, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
Pc MuauTes
2-10-09
Page 6
`.
"' _.up~w._ CITY OF ARGADIA
"""~'"' JOINT' MEETING OF THE
,o~,ry ec4°°r ARGADIA CITY COUNCII./REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ANL
PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2009, 6:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Location: Arcadia Police Department, Community Room/Emergency Operation Center
250 W. Huntington Drive
Arcadia, CA 91007
Mayor Harbicht called the meeting to order.
1. ROLL CALL
City Council/Redevelopment Agency Members: Amundson, Chandler,
Kovacic, Wuo and Harbicht
Planning Commission Members: Baderian, Baerg, Hsu, Parrille
and Beranek
OTHERS ATTENDING
City Clerk Jim Battows
City Manager Don Penman
City Attorney Steve Deitsch
Development Services Director Jason Kruckeberg
City Engineer' Phil Wray
Community Development Administrator Jim Kasama
Senior Planner Lisa Flores
Assistant Planner Steven Lee
Senior Administrative Assistant Billie Tone
General Plan Advisory Committee
2. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Kruckeberg pointed out that a copy of the Power Point presentation on the General
Plan Project and a petition from the Highland Homeowners Association were given to
each Councilman and Commissioner.
Any writings or documents provided fo a ma/only o/ the Clty Council regarding any item on this. agenda wiN be made ava0eble for
public inspection in the City Cferk's o1Bce totaled et 240 W Huntington Ddve, Arcadia, CaltPomia, during normal business hours.
Page I of 7
TIME RESERVED FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO ADDRESS
THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT
PER PERSON}
Mr. Phil Consiglio, President of the Highland Homeowners Association,. and Mr. Jeff
Bowen, a past President of the Association, stated that members of their organization are
strongly opposed to the proposed designation of the area east of Highland Oaks Drive as
open space recreation. They feel .this would bring excessive traffic and noise to their
quiet residential neighborhood. Mi•. Consiglio and Mr. Bowen said that their members
want this study area to be removed from consideration in the General Plan update.
4. Discussion and/or direction on
a. Affordable Housing options and strategies.
Ms. Beth Stochl, Principal, Beth Stochl Associates, gave a Power Point
presentation describing affordable housing options for the Redevelopment
Agency and explaining the state mandate to provide housing units at different
levels of affordability.
Councilman Chandler said he understood that the affordable housing funds for
senior housing had been depleted. Mr: Penman explained that the law has
changed, i.e., previously the percentage of seniors in the city was the sole
determining factor. Now, however, the percentage of low-income seniors to the
overall low-income population in Arcadia is the determining factor. He further
noted that some very low-income housing needs can be met through senior
housing.
Councilman Chandler asked if only new construction meets these housing
requirements or if rehabbed units are acceptable. Ms. Stochl saidthat 20-25% of
the low and very low category can be met by previous market units that are
substantially rehabbed and covenanted to provide low-income housing. For
example, a building with a history of code violations and in need of substantial
rehabilitation might be a good candidate for the city to acquire, rehabilitate and
turn into affordable senior housing.
Councilman Chandler asked about the city's obligations to provide shelter for
people and Ms. Stochl explained that the city must designate sites that are zoned
to allow emergency shelters by right; perhaps an industrial site.
Councilman Kovacic asked if the city is required to create these units even after
the designated funds are depleted. Ms. Stochl explained that the city is obligated
to provide the opportunity for these facilities to be built.
Councilman Kovacic said that the largest group of low-income residents is at the
race track and he asked if the city can meet its housing obligations by assisting
this group.
Any wddngs or.documenfs providetl ro e meJonry offhe C!ty Council regaNing any kem on this agenda w!il be made available ror
publk Inspection in fhe CHy Clerkffi office loeeted et 240 W. kuMington Ddve, Arcadia, Califomle, dudng normel6usiness hours.
Page 2 of 7
;~
Councilman Chandler pointed out that the low-income housing .status must be
guaranteed for 55 years and the race track is not in a position to make this
guarantee.
Mayor Harbicht said that should the city fail to meet RHNA requirements the
Housing :Element of the General Plan may not be certified by the state. He asked
what consequences could be expected in this everrt. Mr. Kruckeberg suggested
that state funding might cease, and Mr. Deitsch said that the approval of
subdivision maps could also be an issue.
Mr. Penman pointed out that the city must make an effort to create a General Plan
that will allow affordable housing units to be built. He noted that the RHNA
numbers are based on growth projections that are no longer valid and suggested
that the city might investigate the possibility of asking the state legislature to
redsse their estimates.
Mr. Amundson noted that the city does not have to provide the housing itself but
only the opportunity for development of affordable units. Mr. Deitsch added that
these numbers must be reflected in the Housing Element of the General Plan.
Ms. Stochl said that there needs to be enough sites available to meet low and very
low income level requirements and Mr. Penman pointed out that the city can
fulfill a large portion of the very low income requirements with senior housing.
b. General Plan Update and Land Use Plan 2030.
Mr. Kruckeberg, DSD, Ms. Flores, Senior Planner, and Ms. Laura Stetson, of
Hogle-Ireland, gave a power point presentation on the General Plan Update and
Land Use Plan 2030.
Mayor Harbicht opened the meeting to discussion.
Mr. Henry Nunez, GPAC member, spoke about the wide range of demographics
in the city and suggested that the best way to create a vibrant life style for such a
widely diversified group is through mixed-use development. He said he enjoyed
working with the GPAC and although the GPAC members originally found it
difficult to project thirty to forty years in the future,. he felt that the final product
was very good. Mr, Nunez also commended city staff for their efforts on the
project.
Mr. Scott Hettrick, GPAC member, thanked city staff and the consulting team for
the high quality of the staff report and presentation. He said the GPAC was made
up of a diverse group of residents representing almost all demographics and
geographic areas of the city, yet they were able to set aside their individual needs
and evaluate the options for the city as a whole. Mr. Hettrick noted that the
GPAC recognized that even though the city is "built out" it is important to
develop plans that would encourage new revenue sources and also to address
Any wddrrgs or documents pruvlded M a malorgy of tha Ctty Council regarding any ifem on this agenda wfil be made available for
pubNc Inspection in the City Clark's office located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CaUfomie, during normal business hours.
Page 3 of 7
azeas of the city where change is needed. Mr. Hettrick said the GPAC chose to
endorse the mixed-use option to create adowntown-type area that would provide
revenue potential. In addition, this option would also provide housing
opportunities for people who work in the city but can't afford to live here now,
such as policemen and teachers.
Councilmen Chandler and Kovacic expressed concern that the mixed-use concept
will encourage accelerated growth causing stress to infrastructure. Mr.
Kruckeberg explained that only land use concepts are being explored at this point
and the impact to utilities and schools will be addressed later in the process.
Ms. Mary Dougherty, GPAC member, said she enjoyed working with the group
and noted that they were all very respectful ~of each others' widely varying
opinions. She said they recognized the importance of developing a plan for
adding up to 2100 additional units over the next twenty to thirty years that would
still allow enough flexibility to accommodate any required changes. She noted
that the First Avenue revitalization effort has not'been as successful as hoped and
suggested that one of the main reasons for this is parking. Ms. Dougherty said
that the proposed Gold Line Station will create an area of opportunity and that it
is important to remember to include convenient parking and businesses that attract
people. She stressed the importance of building flexibility into the plan for future
development.
Mr. Rich Dilluvio, GPAC member, stressed the importance of remembering that
the plans being developed today will be implemented over a twenty to thirty year
period. He said it is important to look to the future of transportation in the city,
including the Gold Line, and to take this opportunity to improve Baldwin Avenue
and First Avenue. He stressed the importance of remaining open-minded in
considering the mixed-use option which could attract not only families with
children but also working professionals and retirees, i.e., the types of people who
want a lifestyle that provides the freedom and flexibility to simply lock their door
and leave. Mr. Dilluvio suggested visiting cities where older neighborhoods have
been successfully revitalized such as San Jose. He said the GPAC is a diverse
group that, with the help of a forward looking staff, came up with a wide range of
ideas for consideration in the General Plan Update.
Councilman Amundson asked for the names of other cities besides San Jose that
have successfully revitalized older neighborhoods. Mr. Dilluvio said that Brea
and Fullerton are two examples of cities where businesses aze thriving and
property values are rising.
Mr. David Lee, GPAC member, pointed out that the high property values in
Arcadia make it difficult for young people to purchase homes. He suggested that
mixed-use development would provide affordable housing foc young families and
noted that not all families require a yard, which is usually not available in a
mixed-use development. He also noted that Arcadia has, and will continue to
Any writings or documents provided to a majaAty of the City CouncN regerding any Item on this agenda wiN 6e made aveNable Ior
public inspection in the City Clerk's office located at 240 W Huntington Drive, Arcadia, Celilomia, tluring normal business hours.
Page 4 of 7
{
have, a large Asian community, and that many recent Asian immigrants are
comfortable with the concept ofhigher-density living.
Mr. Robert Lum, GPAC member, said that in the Asian culture, parents
sometimes give their larger homes to the children with growing families and
move to smaller homes. They would like to stay in the city and mixed-use
properties would provide low-maintenance housing options for them.
Mayor Harbicht said that over the last 27 years he has seen a lot of change in
Arcadia, but that the ideas presented in the proposed General Plan Update seem to
be contrary to his vision of the city. He said he often hears residents complain
about new condos being built and that when the Caruso project was first
proposed, it included residential units, which the public opposed. Mayor Harbicht
questioned the necessity of adjusting standards for the sole purpose of allowing
population growth, and said that thousands of condos and apartments is not his
vision of Arcadia.
Councilman Wuo said that his family moved from Alhambra to Arcadia in 1985.
He said. that he is very proud of the city and he disagrees with the GPAC about
changing the city to make it more affordable. He indicated that his children
cannot afford to purchase a home in Arcadia now, but will have to work then way
up just like everyone else. He stressed that he is not against growth or change, but
that he would prefer to see the city continue~to develop at a pace that will not
affect the lifestyle. Councilman Wuo pointed out that many of the comments he
heard at the meeting apply to an individual or a group, but the City Council is
responsible for protecting the entire community as a whole.
Councilman Kovacic thanked the. GPAC for their efforts on the project. He noted
that the GPAC is made up of a diverse group with widely varying interests and
that they were dealing with difficult issues. He also pointed out that it is
important not to implement a policy that favors one group over another.
Councilman Kovacic said that the idea of mixed-use is intriguing, but perhaps the
plan proposes too much of it. He suggested that the group clearly define what it is
they are trying to promote. He said that this was a great discussion and that he
felt the primary concern should be to protect the quality of the single-family
residential neighborhoods and schools. He said he had some concern that the plan
may be too ambitious.
Councilman Amundson agreed that although the Live Oak area needs change and
that the mixed-use concept might be a good option for that area, he is somewhat
concerned with the overuse of the concept in other parts of the city. He said he
does not view the subsequent increase in density and traffic as positive.
Councilman Amundson commended the Architectural Review Boards of the
Homeowners' Associations for their work .in maintaining the flavor of the
neighborhoods-they serve.
Any writings or documents proNded b a majority of the City Council regarding any Ifem on this agenda will be made ava0eble kr
public Inspection In the City Clerk's o16ce located at 24o-W. Huntington fNive, Arcadia, CaliPomla, during norms! buskress hours.
Page 5 of 7
Councilman Chandler said he appreciated the consideration for long-range
planning evident in the proposed plan. He particularly liked the idea of removing
certain uses like paint and mechanic shops from the center of the city. He noted
that RHNA numbers seem to be a major factor in planning and cautioned that
every time commercial land is converted to residential, the city loses an
opportunity to earn revenue. He said that he is not opposed to growth and noted
that he supported the Westfield Mall and Caruso projects and Downtown 2000.
He reminded the group that when the Caruso project was first presented, there
was a lot of opposition to the housing- development that was included in the plans.
He pointed out that "mom and pop" type shops, though charming, are not usually
competitive.
Mayor Harbicht said that it is not likely the county would ever stop using Study
Area `A' for flood' control but if it is designated as a recreation area it means we
are agreeable to this option. He said he envisions this area as an open space area
that should be protected. Mayor Harbicht noted thai if, in the future, the County
no longer needed the area for flood control, the City could adopt a General Plan
Amendment at that time.
Commissioner Parrille asked, will the city stagnate if housing is not increased?
He said he is concerned with the cost of providing services like fue, water,
schools, sewage, etc. as housing is added. He pointed out that parking and traffic
on Huntington and Baldwin are already problematic and asked how these
problems would be addressed when more businesses are added.
Commissioner Baderian noted that the Planning Commission deals with pazking
issues at almost every .meeting and that mixed-use will only create more
problems. He said that parking is a major challenge for most cities. He also
noted thatthere were not a lot of parks and green space proposed in conjunction
with the mixed-use option.
Chairman Beranek, a GPAC member, pointed out that the plan allows only for the
possibility of mixed-use in the city; it does not mean that mixed-use is required.
He noted that most. of the city is not changed on the chart. Chairman Beranek
stressed the importance of planning for the future and being open to possibilities.
He said it is important to think 20 to 30 years ahead and that no.plan is not a good
plan:
Commissioner Hsu thanked the GPAC and staff for their work on the plan. He
said it was well conceived and quite ambitious, but that perhaps something in the
mid-range would be more acceptable.
Commissioner Baerg said that he agrees the Live Oak area needs some change
and perhaps mixed-use is the answer. He said that it seems the plan changes the
chazacter of the city and increases the density to a point where traffic would be
unmagageable.
Any wrltlngs or documents'providad to a majonYy of Me City Council regarding any Item on this agenda wUl be made avefleble for
public inspectlon in the C!ty Clerk's office located at 240 W Huntlngton Dave, Aroedia, Califomla, during normal business hours.
Page 6 of 7
1
I•
Mr. Kmckeberg said that staff had done a lot of public outreach to gather
information before developing the plan, but that they would consider ways to
address the issues raised tonight at the meeting. He said that the land use concept
must be firmed up before staff can proceed.
Mayor Harbicht noted that although the plan leaves most of the city unchanged,
he has concern over the dramatic increase in condos and rentals in the community.
He said that Live Oak may need special attention, but not other parts of the city.
Councilman Kovacic said that all the areas pointed out in the presentation need
attention.
Mr. Nunez, GPAC member, asked if the Council and Commission were opposed
to the mixed-use, transit-oriented development concept in the proposed Gold
Line area.
Mayor Harbicht said that he thought the Gold Line might help to revitalize the
area.
Councilman Kovacic said he would support transit-oriented development around
the Gold Line Station.
Mr. Penman said that downtown is a special area with lots of opportunities and
special requirements.
Mayor Harbicht thanked staff, the GPAC and the Planning Commission for their
work in developing the plan.
ADJOURNMENT
9:00 p.m.
The City CounciURedevelopment Agency adjourned this meeting to March 3, 2009, at 6:00 p.m.
in the City Council Chamber Conference Room.
The Planning Commission adjourned this meeting to March 10, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers.
Robert C. Harbicht, Mayor
R. Edward Beranek, Chairman, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
Any wrdings or documents prowled to a ma/Drily of the City Council regaNfng any item on this agenda wUl be made aveilatile for
public inspection 1n the C!ty Clerk's ollrce located at 240 W. Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CaliPomie, during normal business hours.
Page 7 of 7