HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 2006/05/02 - Regular1
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
MAY 2, 2006
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Capra called the Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting to, order at.
7:34 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 5938 Kauffman Avenue, Temple City.
2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Member - Arrighi, Gillanders, Wong, Wilson, Capra
Member -None
ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director /Agency Counsel Martin, Assistant Executive
Director Dawson, Agency Secretary Flandrick
3. CEREMONIAL MATTERS — None
4. NEW BUSINESS
The City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency conducted the following public
hearing.
A. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING: ZONE CHANGE 06 -1651 & A RELATED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MIXED USE PROJECT
KNOWN AS "PIAZZA LAS TUNAS ", LOCATED AT 9021 LAS TUNAS DRIVE & 5770
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD (THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ROSEMEAD
BOULEVARD & LAS TUNAS DRIVE)
On March 14, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
consider the granting of a Zone Change and approval of a related Development
Agreement to allow a proposed mixed -use project (Piazza Las Tunas) at this
location. On March 28, 2006, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution
recommending that the City Council approve the requested Zone Change, the
accompanying Development Agreement No. 05 -1, and recommending adoption of
the Mitigated Negative Declaration. At this time, the City Council and Community.
Redevelopment Agency will conduct a public hearing and consider the Zone Change,
Development Agreement, and Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The proposed project involves a Zone Change from C -2 (General Commercial) to
MUZ (Mixed -Use). In addition, pursuant to the provisions of the mixed -use zone, a
Development Agreement will be considered for the proposed development, which
consists of approximately 32,000 square feet of retail space, 65,600 square feet of
"specialty" retail space, of which 11,700 square feet would be devoted to food court
uses, 19,000 square feet of quality restaurant space, and an 8,000 square foot
banquet hall, for a total commercial square footage of 124,600 square feet. In
addition, the mixed -use development as proposed contains 58 one - bedroom
residential units. The project will have a total of 786 parking spaces, 653 of which will
be located in a multi - leveled parking structure that will be 45 -feet tall with a 3 -foot
parapet wall (48 feet tall) at its highest point. The site is designated as Commercial
on the City's General Plan Land Use Map.
City Manager Martin stated this is the final hearing on the Piazza development, which
started over the past 8 -9 months and slowly evolved to this final joint meeting. The
applicant will first make his presentation, then the public hearing will open to hear
those in opposition for the same amount of time given the applicant and then the
same for those in favor. There is a new timer system in place which times each
Agency Minutes
May 2, 2006
Page 2
speaker for their allotted five minutes. He asked that all speakers conduct themselves
in a dignified manner and avoid overages and tacking on their time to another
speaker.
Mike Hennessey, on behalf of applicant TCD Enterprises, presented the project plan
with the aid of a power point presentation depicting the site as it appears now and the
actual project plan. Mr. Hennessey stated the City Clerk would be given the power
point presentation as part of the record. He provided details on the parcel location
and commercial and residential uses and a project overview of the types of
restaurant and specialty retail uses envisioned for the project, including a banquet
facility and food court. A total of 58 residential units were planned, all one - bedroom
units, with two parking spaces each on the subterranean parking level. There are
two subterranean parking levels, with the parking structure ascending to 45 feet. The
total number of parking spaces exceeds what is required by the City. He reiterated
the three major items expressed by residents at the public forums: a desire for a
unique destination retail location with a high quality and attractive tenant mix; limited
or no residential with no eminent domain involved; and concerns of traffic incursions
into the neighborhood. In response to comments heard at the Planning Commission
public hearing, the height of the garage was reduced and 24 -hour security was
incorporated into the plan.
Mr. Hennessey stated a couple of modifications: a more accurate representation of
the parking garage of 45 feet was submitted and a change in the size of the reader
board from 5 feet by 5 feet to 10 feet by 10 feet.
The benefits of the project include high quality goods and services to benefit all
residents, enhanced economic development which benefits the surrounding area,
and a huge improvement to the site and the surrounding areas resulting in increased
retail tax dollars and school fees.
Srinath Ralu, of Raju and Associates Traffic Consultants, reviewed the access to the
parking structure via ingress and egress at two driveways at Elm and Sultana. He
conducted a detailed comprehensive traffic study per the guidelines of the
Congestion Management Program, employing state of the art technology. The
project study area consisted of critical intersections at Longden, Broadway, Muscatel,
and Encinita. The net additional peak traffic based on the CMP guidelines will not
cause significant traffic impacts. In addition, the project will advance three sets of
improvements: traffic signal improvements at Las Tunas /Sultana with a ten foot
dedication along the western edge of Sultana and additional lane; a raised concrete
barrier preventing exiting and turning left onto Sultana, which by design will prevent
neighborhood traffic; and safety improvements along Elm Street on the west side.
The project will provide safety measures and provide a better turning radius at Elm.
Laura Stetson of P & D Consultants, said her company was under contract with the
City for this project to assess the environmental assessment initial study. A whole
range of issues were looked at and the impacts were fully assessed and addressed
in the mitigation measures. Approximately sixteen different issues were thoroughly
reviewed and based on this analysis, concluded the project would not have
significant impacts, as all could be mitigated or conditioned in some way. Regarding
aesthetics, the parking structure wall mitigation measure detailed an architectural
treatment to look like part of the building and amply landscaped to buffer the setback
of about twenty feet from the north property line. Air quality impacts were not as
much concern as were the restaurant uses and odor mitigation measures of odor
control devices were installed. Regarding noise, the parking structure is completely
enclosed and the parapet wall prevents car noise from spilling over. Grading is a
1
1
1
Agency Minutes
May 2, 2006
Page 3
minor concern and can be addressed. Mitigation measures regarding traffic have just
been pointed out and quite a few measures have been built into this project for traffic
intrusion. A review by the City's Traffic Engineer ensured that the City's concerns
were addressed.
Mayor Capra opened the public hearing and invited all those in opposition to speak.
Rachel Barbosa, 9132 Hermosa Drive, felt the pictures in the power point
presentation were deceiving and did not give a true sense of the site. It has been
said no eminent domain, but 21 feet of encroachment on Myda means residents are
having property taken away from them. Another false point — we have been told that
the MUZ had nothing to do with this project and Council had seen no plans, but now
we are told that the Planning Department has been working hand in hand with the
developer. Traffic statistics from MTA indicate an "F" grade and this project will
further impact traffic issues. The loading dock is positioned so everything is coming
off of Elm which will affect high traffic times. She hoped Council will listen to their
issues.
Gina Onq, 6167 Sultana Avenue, said she lived 2 blocks north of this project and the
parking structure ingress and egress is through Sultana which is a very narrow street.
This will affect a lot of people north of this area and limit their ability to get to Las
Tunas and Rosemead. The 58 units will mean 116 cars with trips in and out. She
was for development because property will go up in value. At this point is seems like
traffic is really bad and will become worse. She asked Council to keep in mind that
approval of the proposal asks for the development agreement to become immediately
effective so grading can be started even before plans are approved by the City.
Neighboring property will be affected.
Matthew Wonq, 9015 Hermosa Drive, said he was against this development as it will
bring more high school students to the district which is currently overcrowded.
Textbooks are old and need to be updated. Excess students will make it longer to
get lunch and will not allow time to enjoy other opportunities. Also there is no place
for pets of condo owners to walk and use the facilities. Also he felt the security
personnel should be increased. This project is not right for Temple City; it will create
a domino effect and increase school population. He urged Council to vote against
this project and not allow this oversized project to create a problem for residents and
kids.
Mary Burke, 5114 N. Sultana Avenue, said she is against condos. She knows a
business will have to be built on that land, but not condos. Traffic will not get any
better and Saturdays and Sundays will be worse. There is not enough land for
everything this project plans to build.
Gerald Hughes, 8927 Garibaldi Avenue, questioned if everyone knew that the traffic
count grade of Las Tunas /Rosemead intersection is an E -F. The impact report said it
is now at grade C, which it is not. The MTA report is on the Internet. The numbers
from the City report have changed. Everyone will be cutting around Rosemead.
People will be parking on the street. At rush hour traffic is now backed up to Valley
Boulevard and Colorado Boulevard. It will add an extra 20 -30 minutes on time travel.
He is not against the project but the traffic reports are false.
Mary Kokayko, 6149 N. Camellia Avenue, said she talked to about 15 people to
come here tonight but they felt why bother if Council's minds are made up. She felt
there should have been town hall meetings regarding this project. Only
Commissioner Yu on the Planning Commission had good sense and did not want to
Agency Minutes
May 2, 2006
Page 4
rush this through. The parking structure is too high and massive. This parcel is only
3.7 acres. If you have to dig underground, that should tell you this is too big. She is
against condos, not residential or retail. There is construction all over the City. She
urged Council to slow down and really think what they are doing.
Wayne Edinoton, 5816 Myda Avenue, said we do need to see some development
here, but this development is too large. It was tamed down and then pumped back
up again, originally 52 condos and now 58 condos. Most of the trucks servicing the
restaurant and shops will come from the south of Rosemead or Las Tunas and when
turning out, can only go right up Rosemead and will cheat by turning around in his
neighborhood. This needs to be addressed with a stop light.
Edward Sun, 9818 Val Street, stated he was against this project because of
overpopulation and traffic. Temple City is overcrowded and classes are full and the
quality of instruction decreases. Lockers are limited. He can only support this project
if the condos are removed. Larger cities need mixed use. If this were only retail, it
would be a success and the developer would not need condos.
Chino -Di Tarn, 5946 Sultana Avenue, stated the 51 foot high parking garage was too
large and expressed his concerns of increased crime and noise and traffic impacts.
All of his family members are against this project.
Joan Vizcarra, 5632 Golden West, asked procedural questions of City Manager
Martin regarding the inability of the public to comment on the draft resolution for the
project that was revised between the March 14th and March 28th Planning
Commission meeting and the public did not have an opportunity to comment on the
draft resolutions because the public comment period had closed. They had to wait
for this Council meeting to ask that request.
City Manager Martin responded that the Planning Commission is an advisory board
and the City Council will have final approval over the project.
Ms. Vizcarra also asked about a referendum action on the adoptive ordinance.
City Manager Martin stated the action of approval will be by ordinance and that is
subject to a referendum.
Ms. Vizcarra continued, stating Temple City is very small, only 4 square miles and
this kind of large presence will have a negative impact. She was shocked to see that
the EIR document showed no significant impact. The Council is not using eminent
domain, but incursion into residential property is the same.
Gilbert Schmuff, 9123 Blackley Street, said he was against condos in this project.
The City does need some development and the stores that were mentioned sounded
good. Condos are all over the place and there are more than enough vacant condos
waiting to be sold, with over 30 vacant on Sereno. On the west side of Rosemead, a
lot of stores are going out of business. Part of the proposal should show how to
bridge those two centers together with a bridge over top.
Charles Mountain, 6106 Reno Avenue, said the area is near gridlock and now adding
all of these condos and the development will cause gridlock at that intersection.
Getting rid of the condos would be the number one thing. Every drawing of the
project looks a little different. The City doesn't need more people to overcrowd the
schools. He would like to see something that makes sense.
1
1
1
1
Agency Minutes
May 2, 2006
Page 5
Rachel Barbosa, on behalf of 10 residents on Myda Avenue, read aloud a statement
signed by them requesting approximately 8 uniform street lights (antique style) to be
place on Myda Avenue for safety purposes due to the high elevation of the new
building.
Mayor Capra asked if the applicant wished to rebut.
Mike Hennessey, representing the applicant — TCD Enterprises, first asked the Traffic
Engineer to respond to the traffic issues.
Srinath Raju, Traffic Engineer for the Project, stated the level of service and
procedures used involved state of the art planning practices. Traffic counts used
were collected from specific locations. There are two components of the Congestion
Management Program — the highway system and the level of service and the major
arterials. The average value of traffic volumes is in terms of the actual level of
service. In the report, it states the existing level of service is "E ". This has been
gone through with the City 's Traffic Engineer to bring forth a plan that will be
operationally adequate. The project does not cause significant traffic impacts on any
key intersections. Regarding the parking structure egress, traffic turning out of the
structure has to yield to traffic along Sultana. Traffic from the parking structure has to
stop before making a right turn. Southbound traffic on Sultana has the right of way,
so southbound traffic is not an issue.
Mike Hennessey, in rebuttal to the public comments stated the following. Regarding
the size of the parking structure, he stated the applicant is bound to provide adequate
parking for the site. The garage is integrated to look like part of the building. Cities
used to be built using mixed use, retail and residential together, and it is not coming
back again. The size of the project is needed to make it work. Trucks will have to
travel north to Longden and make a left or right or go to a major arterial. There is a
lot of articulation and detail which is very expensive to build. Experience shows that
residential with high quality retail pays for itself and brings people and life in to the
project. This is not a place to live with a lot of pets. The only changes made since the
Planning Commission meeting are the reduction of structure height to 45 feet and the
larger reader board.
City Manager asked the City's Traffic Engineer to comment if there is a real conflict
regarding traffic flows and the grade the applicant gives the intersection.
Pat Lang, City Traffic Engineer, stated all through the report, it states an existing level
of service "E" for the intersection of Rosemead /Las Tunas. The "F" referred to by Mr.
Hughes in the 2003 report relates to the fact that the City is required by MTA to do
traffic counts every other year during the months of May and June. The counts are
done by City traffic counters and the report is prepared by Southland Traffic
Company. Counts fluctuate day by day and can be influenced by any other traffic
work going on. The level of service counts must be done manually of all traffic going
through the intersection, making turns, etc. Consideration is given for the amount of
time needed to go through the intersection and adding up the times to come up with
the number. It is not due strictly to volume, but turning movements and ability of all
moves through the intersection in a given amount of time. He stated he was in
agreement with the applicant's Traffic Engineer in advising Council that traffic is not a
significant impact.
Mr. Hennessey stated, regarding the issue of security, the situation will be studied
when open and whatever amount of security is needed will be furnished.
Agency Minutes
May 2, 2006
Page 6
Mayor Capra asked all those in favor to speak.
Tom O'Leary, 5823 Agnes Avenue, said he was in favor of this project because he
does not believe it will affect the whole City in such a drastic measure. He believes
the team of professionals did the necessary studies and he thought it was a good
idea that they worked with the City. Looking at the pictures and the proposal, he
thought it was a great project. A lot of people were not give the right information and
he felt this project will be a great asset to our City.
Cecelia Rudar, 9716 Olive Street, stated having lived in this City since 1972 and
raised four sons, she experienced long lines at the school lunch counter and books
too old and not enough lockers. She was involved in the PTA at that time trying to
solve these issues, so this is not a new thing. The reason for mixed use is so that the
condo residents will come down and use the facility and shop at the retail stores.
Mixed use is not new; it is all over California. We do not have enough housing. A
52 -unit 3 -story senior citizen complex went up across the street from her office in this
City and people have seen no traffic problem at all. She thought this will be good for
the City and bring in residents who are downsizing.
Loraine Lefler, 9157 Wedgewood Lane, said she lived here since 1964 and was in
favor of the project. People have to have an open mind about anything new. Mixed
use is not new and 1 bedroom condos are also needed for young adults who want to
live in a community. Everyone gets afraid of change, but she asked everyone to
keep an open mind. Although she has no interest in selling or leasing this project,
she is a realtor representing about 10,000 realtors in her district who feel mixed use
is a good thing.
Bill Roush, 8603 Garibaldi Avenue, asked how many people are allowed to live in a
one bedroom condo. He felt there were not enough cops for this project and they
cannot have security guys running around with mace. This will not work. There will
be more condo residents than 116.
Scott Carwile, 5112 Kauffman Avenue, said many comments were against the
condos, but if not condos, how many more businesses would be there, and condos
create less traffic than businesses. A lot of the reasons against this project are
because of wrong information or misinformation and tonight both sides were heard
and corrections made. This will bring jobs to the community and that is a positive
thing and will provide balance. This project will be the cornerstone of the community
and a place to go and have fun and meet neighbors. He thought it was a great
project.
Mukesh Luhar, 9023 E. Ardendale Avenue, speaking for himself and not as a
representative of the School Board, shared his experience in attending school in
another country and then in America with a similar situation of an old city and no new
money for schools. Temple City has an excellent school system and world class
schools, but the State has the say about major cutbacks. A project like this is needed
to make sure our property values are top notch and our schools stay excellent. He
supported the project.
Michael Palmer, 9215 Roseglen Street, stated he was in support of the project. He
went to the meetings at the theater and to the Planning Commission and heard
everyone. He felt the merits of the project were the income the City will take in with
zero risk. The risk lies all on the developer who wants an excellent project. The City
is putting up no money and will receive sales tax revenue. It fills a void in this town
and will provide jobs. Residents want to spend money in Temple City. If anyone has
1
Agency Minutes
May 2, 2006
Page 7
a better project, bring it forth and say how it will be paid for. He believed the number
of condos first proposed — 52 units — is what should be approved. There are
legitimate concerns of parking, but there are no concerns that will override the benefit
of this project. All can be worked out. The City Council is elected to represent the
whole community and he asked them to do what is right for this community
regardless of the political consequences.
Jim Clift, 6012 Encinita Avenue, said there are a lot of pros and cons, but wondered if
anyone took the time to read the Initial Study. He read most of it and wondered if
anyone really looked into a lot of the issues and how they would be enforced, like air
quality mitigation. Who will determine if that equipment is in compliance? Does the
City have an emergency evacuation program? How is noise abatement determined?
Do we have sufficient fire equipment to handle a 3 -story building? His concern was
that the Initial Study was reviewed.
Veena Sheen, 5606 Golden West, said she graduated from Temple City High School
and lived here all her life and was very aware of the proposed development. There
are a lot of issues. She asked the City Manager what recourse residents have if they
disagree with approving this project, and what that would involve.
City Manager Martin explained that voters have four rights: a tax payer suit in court,
a referendum on an ordinance, bringing their own rule by way of initiative, and by
ousting Council. If a citizen disagrees with an ordinance when it is adopted, there is
a period of 30 days after adoption before it becomes effective in which they can get a
petition for a referendum and circulate it and if it conforms to all rules and contains
10% signatures of registered voters, then the ordinance would be suspended until it
went on the ballot for vote. A lawyer is not required, but a referendum is a very
technical procedure. There is also an open question about required languages as
the Circuit Court has voted to re -hear that issue.
Ms. Sheen said she hoped everyone understood that Council does not have the last
word on this issue and that she hoped more citizens would get involved whether they
opposed it or not.
Hearing no other requests to speak, either for or against this issue, Councilmember
Arrighi moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wilson and
unanimously carried.
City Manager Martin stated his recommendation to Council, now that the public
hearing was closed, was to think about this issue, review their notes and materials
and continue deliberation of this matter to either May 10th or May 16tH
Councilmember Gillanders moved to continue this matter to the City Council Meeting
of May 10, 2006 at 7:00 p.m., seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Wilson and unanimously
carried.
RECESS/RECONVEN E
The Community Redevelopment Agency recessed at 9:34 p.m. and reconvened at
9:43 p.m. with all Members present.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mr. Arrighi moved to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by Mr. Gillanders and
unanimously carried by the following roll call vote:
Agency Minutes
May 2, 2006
Page 8
AYES: Member - Arrighi, Gillanders, Wong, Wilson, Capra
NOES: Member -None
ABSENT: Member -None
ABSTAIN: Member -None
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 18, 2006, as presented.
B. THIRD QUARTER TREASURER'S REPORT, REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE
SUMMARY REPORTS
Received and filed the March 2006 Treasurer's Report and Third Quarter Revenue
and Expenditure Reports.
C. THIRD QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Approved the third quarter budget amendments and amended the adopted budget
accordingly.
D. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. CRA 06 -883 — APPROVAL OF PAYMENT OF
BILLS
Adopted Resolution No. CRA 06 -883, a RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY ALLOWING CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN
THE SUM OF $39,200.00 DEMAND NOS. 3301 THROUGH 3302.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS — None
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS — None
8. COMMUNICATIONS — None
9. UPDATE FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — None
10. MATTERS FROM AGENCY MEMBERS — None
11. CLOSED SESSION — None
12. ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
ATTEST:
Agency sec etary