HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 2007/09/25 - Regular1
1
1
CITY COUNCIL
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 25, 2007
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Wong called the City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency Adjourned Regular
Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 5938 Kauffman Avenue,
Temple City.
Although referred to in these minutes as the City Council, the City Council also sat as Members of
the Community Redevelopment Agency.
2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Councilmember /Agency Member - Capra, Vizcarra, Wilson, Gillanders, Wong
None
ALSO PRESENT: City Manager /City Attorney Martin, Parks and Recreation Director
Burroughs, City Clerk Flandrick, Assistant to the City Manager Flod,
Community Development Manager Lambert, Financial Services Manager
Molina
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Parks and Recreation Director Cathy Burroughs led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
4. UPDATE FROM CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
A. PIAZZA LAS TUNAS STATUS REPORT FROM A &W BUILDERS AND REVIEW OF
CHANGES TO DEVELOPMENT PLAN
City Manager Martin stated this was the time set for discussion of some eight items of
change requested by the owner /developer of the Piazza development. He made his
recommendations and put those responses in the order shown in the power point
presentation. Council has received these recommendations as well as the materials
supplied by A &W. He suggested Council consider each item in turn. He would outline the
change and give his recommendation, the developer will have the opportunity to provide
comments, and the public will provide comments. Then, Council will discuss each item,
make findings and, when consensus is reached, approve by motion.
1) Change of Name from Piazza to Spectrum
City Manager Martin stated this project started off some years ago as the Temple
City Galleria and later changed its name to Piazza or Piazza Las Tunas. The
owner /developer has requested the name be changed to Spectrum, although
they indicated it would not be an issue. This change would not involve an
environmental impact or substantial change regarding the development.
Louie Aurelio, Project Manager with A &W Builders, stated for a developer, the
project name means a lot, especially a development of this scale in which a
strong and exciting name implies success. The owner is not only selling this
project to the community, but to the retailers as well. Regarding the original
name, the team discovered the word piazza could mistaken be read as plaza or
pizza. The original name may associate this project also with the existing
development on the southwest side of Rosemead Boulevard. In addition, the
name need not represent the architectural design. The project team feels
City Council /CRA Minutes
September 25, 2007
Page 2
strongly in endorsing the name Temple City Spectrum, but has provided a list of
potential project names.
Scott Carwile, Temple City resident, said a lot of residents fought hard for this
project when some residents did not want it, and the name means a lot to those
who fought for it. Promises were made to those people who attended the
meetings regarding this project. The name has been in place for awhile and that
is what is expected and he felt it was too late to change it.
Councilmember Wilson said, from the beginning, Mr. Wang was very pleased
with the Piazza name and she could not buy the story that another name would
bring in tenants, as the previous developer already had 15 tenants under the
Piazza name. There is a large Italian community in Temple City and the
development has been referred to as the Piazza in advertising from the
beginning. Piazza means plaza or a place to shop in Italian and fits the Venetian
style. Spectrum does not fit in with Temple City. This is a very special project
and always was referred to as the Temple City Piazza or Piazza and it should not
be changed. She felt very strongly in the name Piazza remaining.
Mayor Pro Tem Gillanders said he did not feel as strongly, as a name is a name.
It is the same building and the name can change after it is completed without any
interference from the City.
Councilmember Capra agreed with Councilmember Wilson, stating we entered
into an agreement and all agreed the development should be named the Piazza.
It fits the Venetian style design and at the last meeting, the developer said if the
Council wanted the name Piazza, it was no problem. The architecture is
Venetian and the name goes with that. Spectrum is too generic. The name
Piazza was approved and if there were some problem with the name, it should
have been brought up at that time. Someone needs to be held accountable and
that is the owner. Marketability will be an issue no matter what the development
is named. There was agreement for the name Piazza when it was presented and
that name should stay.
Councilmember Vizcarra said he felt closely to Mayor Pro Tem Gillanders'
sentiments. Spectrum sounds like a trendy name and a year and a half from now
no one will be using it. This is not an issue he had a strong feeling about, but
would go with the name Piazza over Spectrum.
Mayor Wong said she felt the same way about Spectrum, in that it sounds too
common and Temple City Piazza sounds more like the Temple City project and
more individual. At the last meeting someone mentioned a contest to find a
better name and that would be all right as long as it fits in with the Venetian style.
City Manager Martin stated there was consensus for the name to remain Piazza.
Councilmember Capra moved to retain the name of Piazza for the development,
seconded by Councilmember Wilson and unanimously carried.
2) Re- orientation of Banquet Hall and New Proximity to Four Condos
City Manager Martin stated, because of certain regulations, the banquet hall had
to be re- oriented from east -west to north -south and is now much closer to four of
the condominium units. Approval for this change has been requested.
Mr. Aurelio asked consideration of re- location of the banquet hall because of
safety regulations. The most noticeable change due to this issue is the
City Council /CRA Minutes
September 25, 2007
Page 3
relocation of the banquet hall from Buildings 7 & 3 to Buildings 7 & 6. The
relocation works out for better accessibility, but visual and noise concerns were
brought up. These have been addressed with a wall divider with green screen
between the pre- function area and the residential area, as recommended by the
team acoustic consultant. The marketing issue for the four condos would be an
owner issue rather than a community issue.
Anonymous Temple City resident questioned the location of the four condos to
the banquet room, saying this will affect the people in the condos and suggested
reducing the amount of condos by two instead of trying to squeeze them into a
smaller area.
Mary Burke, Temple City resident, asked if the latest design was available of
what the whole project would look like after these changes.
The developer replied no.
Bob Welemin, Temple City resident, referred to the Woman's Club leasing to
organizations having late night events and neighbors complained, which resulted
in limiting the Woman's Club hours. What is to prevent homeowners from filing
noise complaints to the City because of the banquet hall proximity.
Mayor Pro Tem Gillanders responded the City does not control the condos or
development. The Council is only agreeing to the design and will not be a
partner to the development once built. The Woman's Club is in a residential
community. The amount of noise from the banquet room can be easily mitigated
by walls and ivy, etc.
Mayor Pro Tem Gillanders added the re- orientation of the banquet hall was
required by the fire department. Only 4 of the 52 condos is involved and may sell
for less money, but the fire department regulations come first. That change is
very specific and no one has the power of returning to the original.
Councilmember Vizcarra stated he did not care about this issue, as this is the
developer's issue, not ours.
Councilmember Wilson said this was changed because originally the project was
concrete and there was not so much worry about fire and the fire department still
had access. When the change was made to wood and steel, they had to come
up with something different because of the chance of fire. She felt those 4
condos will be impacted and she would like to see some other way for this to be
handled.
Councilmember Capra said he didn't have any issue with this change. It is like
someone moving next to a school or tennis court. If an owner buys a condo next
to the banquet hall, it will be the owner's issue to deal with. The price may be
less, but it has no impact to the City.
Mayor Wong said she felt the same as Councilmembers Vizcarra and Capra and
Mayor Pro Tem Gillanders. The developer can handle this issue with whoever
purchases the condo, as they will know the location of the banquet room and can
choose.
City Manager Martin said there was consensus to approve this change together
with the findings voiced by the Councilmembers and included in the Manager's
report.
City Council /CRA Minutes
September 25, 2007
Page 4
Mayor Pro Tem Gillanders moved to approve this change, seconded by
Councilmember Wilson and unanimously carried.
3) Utility Related Landscaping Plan
City Manager Martin explained this change was requested, particularly on the
north side of the parking structure, because of easements for utilities. This was
unexpected at the time of the original agreement and would have been an impact
no matter who owned the property. Trees cannot be planted in that area now as
they would interfere with utility lines, so they will be replaced with vines and
shrubs.
Mr. Aurelio added the project landscape architect has provided adequate soft
and hard scape to compliment the overall development. Any further
consideration of this part of the project could be approved through the planning
submittal and related to the impact on the removal of the planting area. This was
something that should have been addressed during the schematic phase and
was caught before construction or it would have been detrimental to the project.
Councilmember Capra said he had no problem with this change. The renderings
we did see should be sufficient to cover and he did not see this being a problem.
Councilmember Vizcarra said, on a logical basis, this is not a big deal, but on
another one it because this is the first change in direct contradiction to what was
told to residents on Myda and Hermosa. It is way out of the pale from what the
citizens in that area were told would be there. At the time he was a member of
one of the groups opposed to this project who were told it would not change after
approval. This is minor, but based on that, he was not happy with it.
Councilmember Wilson said she did understand this change as it affects utilities,
so you have to take it into consideration; but she understood and agreed with
Councilmember Vizcarra's comments.
Mr. Aurelio stated he believed the issue here was really noise and light, but that
has been mitigated by a solid wall from the ground level to the top. By adding
the greenscreen, it softens up the architecture.
Mayor Pro Tem Gillanders brought up the prospect, if trying to retain the back
property line fences, leaves from the trees would pile up between the property
line fences and the building. Before this project he could not recall public utilities
being brought up and did not realize the Public Utilities Commission had that kind
of leverage over our property designations. He saw no reason to oppose this
change as vines would be a practical substitute.
Mayor Wong said she felt the same as Councilmember Capra, in that it really
didn't matter to her.
City Manager Martin stated there was consensus to approve this change.
Mayor Pro Tem Gillanders moved to approve this change, seconded by
Councilmember Wilson and carried, with Councilmember Vizcarra opposed.
4) Change in Design of the Fabric Membrane
City Manager Martin stated the fabric membrane around the food court is
important in creating a cooling atmosphere and depicting a different aspect for
1
City Council /CRA Minutes
September 25, 2007
Page 5
this mall as opposed to other malls. It is for Council to decide if this is a
significant change.
David Wilson, President /CEO of A &W Builders, said he first would like to redirect
a couple of issues that were brought up. The initial rendering was produced
without the utility plan so they now have utility issues. He said that
Councilmember Wilson was mistaken regarding the rotation of the building being
the result of the concrete separation between buildings as that has nothing to do
with the items requested. This would have been addressed if the initial concept
design was submitted to the fire department for approval. They are going in
reverse trying to resolve issues that should have been corrected to begin with.
These are not new factors, but corrections that had to be done. The rendering of
the membrane did not reflect the project overall and there are some mechanical
and structural issues involved. The manufacturer's representative came up with
that concept change to resolve those issues. There has not been a request from
the owner to downgrade the building. He has tried to upgrade the quality. The
owner did not have 15 leases. Currently there are no leases on the property,
only several proposals. The name change proposal was not intended to offend.
The fact is this project is being solicited to lots of tenants and was turned down
because of the design and we were just trying to put a new name and new
project on the case. There is no other motive than to make this project
successful. The Venetian look will be done and the licensed architect on the
project team can accomplish that. They would not be able to move forward with
the project without meeting the conditions of the Utility Commission, the Fire
Department, Building and Safety, etc. These are items that have to be done.
Now that we are in a near recession, the condominium market is flat, and with
major foreclosures, the banks are taking a second look at financing. Other cities
are trying to get the same tenants. They are trying to get this product to the table
as fast as possible.
Mayor Pro Tem Gillanders asked, if arranged as the original sails, what is the -
highest point of the membrane from the ground.
Mr. Aurelio responded the highest point would be 65 feet. The agreement
approved 45 feet for the roofline and 65 feet for the highest level of the canopy.
Councilmember Vizcarra asked the height of the new membrane proposal.
Mr. Aurelio said those numbers are not yet set. The previous design approval
was posing design challenges to compliment the mechanical units on top of
building No. 5 and obstruction of view of residential units in Building No. 1. The
team addressed this by providing an inverted crown design, starting from the
bottom going up. This limits going as high as 65 feet for the canopy. This will
provide an innovative solution to the mechanical ventilation issue while promoting
an aesthetically pleasing visual interest and shade.
Councilmember Capra moved to consider Item No. 5 before making a decision
on this item, seconded by Councilmember Vizcarra and unanimously carried.
5) Change of Height on Building Nos. 1 & 4 and 6 & 7 from 45 feet to 47.5 feet
City Manager Martin indicated this request is to accommodate higher ceilings for
commercial activities and various reasons. The height limit in the original
agreement was 45 feet which is a 2% foot increase on some buildings. This may
be allowed in part and rejected in part.
City Council /CRA Minutes
September 25, 2007
Page 6
Mr. Aurelio stated the scale change from an exterior prospective would seem
unnoticeable; however, the interior scale would be significant as related to sales.
In response to City Manager Martin, Mr. Aurelio indicated this request is
unrelated to the change from concrete to steel. In response to Councilmember
Vizcarra, Mr. Aurelio stated two feet might seem a large number for the height
request change, but viewing this change exteriorly shows this is not a big impact
and would hardly be noticeable.
Mayor Pro Tem Gillanders noted about one -third of this area has mansard roofs
and another one -third has either hip or pyramid -type roofs and the remainder are
flat. He doubted you could see a 2 foot difference on a mansard, pyramid or hip
roof. An alternative to increasing the height would be to go 2 feet deeper in the
ground, but that presents a problem with water runoff.
Councilmember Capra disagreed, saying subterranean parking is very common
in most cities and sump pumps for example could handle any water issues. Two
foot does make a difference.
According to experts he consulted, Mayor Pro Tem Gillanders stated the only
way undergrounding could be accomplished is with vacuum pumps installed in
each of the runways leading into the ground level buildings, and that would totally
impractical. So he felt this would be one of the major issues. Any major
rainstorm could knock out the whole center.
Councilmember Capra noted this is very common in Southern California and the
contractor can verify there is a cost in excavation, but they can definitely handle
mitigating any water issues.
Mr. Aurelio stated all of the roofing is flat and by increasing the height 2 feet on
building No. 1 will not impact the scale of the mansard. Regarding waterproofing
issue, thresholds on the exterior sides will prevent water coming in.
Councilmember Vizcarra, referred back to his comments on the landscaping
plan, and stated he had a great deal of difficulty with the increase to 47% feet,
especially on the perimeter. Of the four buildings, he would maybe concede an
increase in height to the banquet hall building.
Councilmember Capra said he had a different point of view. He remembered
when there was a request to go to 51 feet in height, there was an outcry from
those opposed and Council settled on 45 feet and that was agreed upon in the
agreement. He would stand firm on the 45 foot limit. There are ways to mitigate
the 2 feet. An increase in height would require a variance. If there is a desire to
request a variance, it would have to go to the Planning Commission to make
findings. We need to push forward. It was known from the first day that 45 feet
was the limit. He added in the Mixed -Use Zone (MUZ) we don't have height
limits, so maybe we should send this back to the Planning Commission to set
limits. This is in the agreement. Findings would have to be made for a variance
to warrant a 21/2 foot increase, and he could not make those findings.
Councilmember Wilson agreed with Councilmember Capra, stating there was so
much opposition to the height and 45 feet_was the height that was settled on to
satisfy people. We have to stay with exactly what was agreed upon from the
very beginning.
Mayor Pro Tem Gillanders pointed out there is no height limit in the Mixed -Use
Zone (MUZ), but it is in the agreement. We cannot always follow the agreement.
City Council /CRA Minutes
September 25, 2007
Page 7
A low ceiling will severely impact the stores and pushing it further underground
could be an engineering disaster. He saw no reason to run the floor line beyond
ground level.
Mr. Aurelio stated floor -to -floor on the residential right now is 9 foot 6 inches.
This imposes an issue with the structure in lowering the ceiling height to 8 feet as
they wanted to have more height on residential for possible duct work.
Councilmember Capra suggested working with the builders to come up with a
solution.
Mr. Aurelio stated, regarding Buildings 6 and 7, 2 feet on the banquet room
would be very advisable to create a grand ballroom effect.
Councilmember Capra stated Council does not have a full set of drawings or
elevations to look at, which makes it hard to make a decision. The outside
elevations have been provided, but it shows nothing on the inside. He believed
mitigating 2 feet was an easy fix. The City would like to work with the
owner /developer to come up with something.
Councilmember Capra said he understood that marketability is one thing, but
third floor retail is very difficult and by chopping this thing up we will end up with
little shops. He believed the City and developer could work together to mitigate 2
feet.
Jane Housden, HTH Group Architect, referring to the information submitted to
Council, pointed out the drawing showing where 45 feet goes up to on the inside
roof. The front of the building will not be raised, only on the inside of the roof.
The facade is not changed and the 21/2 feet is added where it is hidden.
Councilmember Capra stated Council does not have a complete set of drawings
and would like to see a full set of drawings.
Mayor Pro Tem Gillanders suggested leaving this item as unresolved and come
back to it after the developer has had the opportunity to research what they can
do.
Mr. Aurelio stated this issue is very important to resolve this time wise so that
clear direction can be given to the structural engineer.
Councilmember Capra stated at the beginning when Council voted for the
agreement, he said that until he saw a full set of drawings, he would not approve
anything. Council needs a full set of drawings of the architecture and elevations.
He gave the project team a lot of credit for pushing at a furious pace, but felt they
should be able to give Council a full set of drawings within a reasonable amount
of time.
Mr. Aurelio proposed going with the 47% feet to include in the drawings as it is
easier to reduce than increase.
Councilmember Capra stated he knows that this could be dropped 2 feet if it had
to, although it comes at a cost. This can be done. We need to make a decision
on this.
Mr. Wilson added that the height increase is in the center of the building, so
visually looking at it, you will not be able to see it. It is reasonable to ask for a full
City Council /CRA Minutes
September 25, 2007
Page 8
set of drawings. He asked to come back and readdress the height issue with the
drawings and was confident when Council sees 47 feet, it will be approved. In
Building No. 1, looking at the aspect of the retailer, they were trying to bring the
best deal to the table. There has been a lot of commitment on the developer's
side and 45 feet should not have been committed to without drawings. A lot of
things should have been done differently, but can be resolved with a complete
set of drawings. He indicated those could be prepared by the next meeting in
two weeks.
Mayor Wong stated she wanted the developer to know they have done a
wonderful job and have been working very hard, just as Councilmember Capra
said.
City Manager Martin stated there was consensus to continue this item and also
Item 4 until next Tuesday when more information and drawings will be available.
Mayor Pro Tem Gillanders moved to continue this item, seconded by
Councilmember Wilson and unanimously carried.
6) Venetian Architecture
City Manager Martin said this item also requires renderings or drawings. Council
cannot tell by what has been submitted if it is true Venetian design.
Mr. Aurelio stated the project team values the Venetian architecture and the form
it has been approved on. He reiterated the Venetian architecture is what the City
will get. The project team feels this design approval could be addressed on the
Planning submittal level.
Ms. Housden responded that the project team is trying to get into plan check and
are developing drawings as it is progressing. Right now the goal is to get into
plan check. The drawings at this point are not 3- dimensional drawings.
Mayor Pro Tem Gillanders stated he has been to Venice and there are about 8 or
9 design phases that are Venetian and we are probably looking for a little more
embellishment than the earlier phases.
Councilmember Capra stated what has been presented does not indicate
Venetian style. He would like to see what the interior walkways and frontage of
the businesses look like.
Mr. Wilson stated the architectural firm is outstanding and very detail oriented.
The architectural details will be covered and will be acceptable to Council. They
are working to meet milestones. They know what Council wants and have not
been given direction to pull back on costs. They will incorporate the design
agreed to.
Councilmember Capra said he understood that the project team came in late and
is progressing at an astronomical pace, but we need to see something.
Anonymous Temple City resident, said it was difficult for the public to understand
what Council has already seen in their packets. She was disappointed there
were no visuals this evening with motions being addressed, and felt at a
disadvantage based on very little information. She suggested having visuals at
the next meeting to see the comparisons of 45 feet versus 47 feet.
1
City Council /CRA Minutes
September 25, 2007
Page 9
Councilmember Capra, referring to the small amount of attendees at the meeting,
stated this is the number of residents out of 36,000 in attendance and the
decisions that Council is making are landmark. When we went through the
hearings on this project, it was standing room only. This is the support we now
have for this project.
Anonymous Temple City resident continued, stating the same people are here
week after week. She would say to the developer that they inherited a mess and
the public understands that and the TCNA understands that. Council represents
the people and they are tired of driving by looking at a mess. 47 feet does make
a difference to a lot of people. The bottom line is about money for the developer.
She urged to have as much information brought before the public and have
presentations for people to look at.
Councilmember Capra stated, if she had been listening to all of the testimony
tonight, she would understand that he does represent his constituents and has
been speaking on their behalf. He has been saying all along he wants to see
something.
Councilmember Wilson added Council has nothing more this evening than the
power point presentation.
City Manager Martin asked if there were consensus to put this over until next
Tuesday with a full rendering.
Council asked Mr. Aurelio to inform them when these materials would be ready to
present to Council.
Mr. Aurelio said they were pushing for a building submittal of Buildings 1 -8 the
end of next week or two weeks from now. He suggested they could come up
with a more prepared presentation after that.
Mayor Wong suggested this item be scheduled for the second meeting in
October.
Council agreed to continue with the remaining items before making a motion to
re- schedule the presentation on those items.
City Manager Martin stated missing from this list is an item brought up by
Councilmember Capra — the extra commercial on the third floor.
Mr. Aurelio indicated this item would be continued as well.
7) Re- Design of Access to Residential & Commercial Parking
City Manager Martin stated this change is to the access, so the residential and
commercial access is no longer split.
Mr. Aurelio stated this change was due to waterproofing and structural issues.
There is no change in land use as parking does not affect traffic as pr Ragu and
Associates.
Councilmember Capra disagreed, stating only one ingress and egress for the
condominiums would create inconvenience for the condominium owners. When
this was first presented there was separate entries for the residential and
commercial. He felt this would be a major impact for the residents and everyone
around that area.
City Council /CRA Minutes
September 25, 2007
Page 10
Mr Aurelio added that their new proposed layout is more efficient in addressing
structural issues and waterproofing issues as well as blind corners. Having a
common drive will mitigate these issues and there will still be access from
Sultana and Elm.
Mr. Wilson added the previous access would put residents through the loading
dock and where the trash bins were located and that was not practical. There
were also safety issues involved.
RECESS /RECONVENE
The meeting was recessed at 8:39 p.m. and reconvened at 8:44 p.m. with all
Councilmembers present.
8) Reduction of Promised Off - Street Parking from 786 to 731
Mr. Aurelio stated a 7% parking reduction is requested from 786 spaces to 731
spaces. As recommended by Ragu and Associates, the guest parking was
moved into the commercial side, bringing the overall residential parking to 104
spaces, 2 spaces per unit. At the approved parking of 786, we will be
overparked by 183 spaces. At the proposed parking of 731 spaces, we will be
overparked by 128 spaces. As per the new analysis and recommendation by
Raju Associates, the original traffic engineer, the parking reductions will not
impose any significant environmental impact. Should there be future claims or
lack of parking spaces, they could be addressed in the future with a mitigation
plan. As explained previously, parking does not affect traffic. Traffic is
generated by land use and since there is no change in land use, there is no
change in the generation of traffic. The City's parking ordinance was used and
the reduction of the parking still falls within these conditions, and so parking
should still be sufficient. Mr. Raju finds the parking reduction a minor change.
Councilmember Capra stated this City is faced with major parking issues and to
downgrade parking by 7% is a lot. He had numerous phone calls from residents
on Hermosa when the movie theater was there complaining of trash, garbage,
etc. To downsize this by 7% is a major change. One of the conditions of a
Conditional Use Permit is to have so many parking spaces for each business.
There will be a banquet hall there that will be used frequently. This is a major
change and maybe needs to go through the Planning Commission. This would
impact the whole neighborhood and also the Chamber lot across the street with
the Park -n -Ride. We cannot reduce the amount of parking.
In response to Councilmember Vizcarra, Mr. Aurelio stated this change was to
re -lay out the parking for the residential and commercial, and as a result 731 was
the number they ended up with. Guest parking will be shared with the
commercial parking.
Mayor Pro Tenn Gillanders stated if this project is a success, the banquet hall
may add 200 cars or more at a time and will have to have guaranteed parking.
Also, holidays will bring additional shoppers and users of the banquet facilities.
He felt this was a major adjustment and suggested perhaps an additional 100
spaces should be considered because this number will be hopelessly
inadequate.
Mr. Wilson responded that the traffic engineer already accounted for the banquet
facilities. When the project team first came on and questioned a larger parking
structure than required, they were told there was consideration of leasing out the
1
City Council /CRA Minutes
September 25, 2007
Page 11
top floor of the parking structure to an offsite car storage. There is plenty of
parking and even with the reduction, is still tremendously higher than required.
In response to Councilmember Capra, Community Development Manager
Lambert stated in terms of CEQA, he believed this was not a significant change,
and if allowed, would not have to revisit a mitigated negative declaration. The
proposed number of spaces does exceed code requirements. Our residential
parking requirement is 21/2 spaces per unit for 3- bedroom condominiums, so 130
spaces is earmarked for residential. You could provide 1 dedicated and 1 guest
space per unit which would probably be sufficient, so you could shift some
spaces from residential to commercial. Using the rule of 10% as being a
significant change, a 7% reduction is not a major change.
Councilmember Wilson stated she felt Council cannot reduce parking, as we
have promised residents there would be no street parking, and reducing the
number of spaces will not leave enough parking. Also 2 spaces are definitely
needed for the condos. No one wishes to have this project done more than we
do, but we have to listen to the residents. If there is not enough parking, they will
be parking on Sultana and Myda and Hermosa because that is the easiest place
to park if they can't find a space. She asked if there was a way to change the
residential access.
Mr. Wilson said that could be done but it would be too dangerous. At peak times,
it can be mitigated by valet parking for the banquet hall. The issue is that there
was a huge amount of parking spaces allotted and we reduced it and still have
more than needed or required. If an issue comes up, it can be worked out. If
more parking is required, the only alternative is to go down another floor. This
would require additional design and finance, adding additional cost to the project
which would be a huge impact.
Councilmember Capra noted the project went from one cost to another saving a
substantial amount of money, as the owner previously indicated he had $90M in
secured financing. Then Mr. Wilson indicated he had $73M in his proposal. The
residents need that 7% in parking spaces. We have parking problems
everywhere. Council was even thinking about a parking structure in the middle of
town to accommodate parking. Let's plan this right and make sure we have
ample parking. He recommended going with the original number of 786 parking
spaces.
Mr. Wilson stated ultimately all of these decisions could be setting us up for
failure. They have an appraisal of rent at $3 per foot and the increasing cost of
going down another floor would be very expensive. So many promises were
made without thinking forward. Now they may be asked to go deeper to maintain
a parking situation that exceeds the requirements per a parking expert, as
incorporated in the parking study. To some, a reduction seems to mean less
quality, but it does not mean a lesser project.
City Manager Martin asked if, instead of going deeper, the project could go wider.
Mr. Wilson responded the project originally was wider, but the issue was the
buildings were cantilevered over and some were on grade and over the parking
area and there were many problems. So they felt the design they had, supported
by their parking expert, had met all of the conditions.
City Council /CRA Minutes
September 25, 2007
Page 12
City Manager Martin said, as pointed out previously, the developer inherited a
mess — a mess that was not the developer's fault and not the City's fault. It goes
back to the owner and the people he hired or didn't hire at the time.
City Manager Martin stated he had a report from the State dated September 21st
indicating that TCD Corporation had been suspended.
Mr. Wang stated it has been resolved. Mr. Wilson confirmed it has been taken
care of.
City Manager Martin stated Council seems to feel the 7% deviation is
unacceptable and asked if additional time would help to come up with some
mitigation or compromise.
Mr. Wilson stated they will have to get a total cost on the project and see if it is
feasible to move forward, but they are not there yet. If Council is not agreeable
to this, they will have to look for an alternative to go deeper with the parking
structure which will be a tremendous impact on the project. The conditions have
dictated the design.
City Manager Martin asked if Mr. Wilson wished Items 4 -8 be continued.
Mr. Wilson stated they needed to know how to proceed and to have direction, if it
is 731 or 786 spaces, and to figure out what the cost will be. He didn't think they
needed any more time as he didn't know what they would say next week that
would be different.
Councilmember Capra asked if they would like the Planning Commission to hear
this and review it.
Councilmember Vizcarra said he was torn, and referring to a parking expansion
at his workplace, felt you can never have enough parking. Conversely, he
understood building restrictions and, as much as he was against this - project,
would like to get this finished and would like to help do it.
Mr. Wilson said he felt the issues were more emotional. He felt there was plenty
of parking, per the parking expert. This is not a line in the sand. If it takes digger
a bigger hole for parking, they will do it. But time is not on their side and they are
under a lot of pressure, but they are here to work together.
City Manager Martin said it sounds as though the parties want to agree but
cannot agree tonight and suggested continuing these remaining items.
Councilmember Capra stated Council needs to make a decision so Mr. Wilson
knows which direction he is going.
Councilmember Wilson added we don't want to keep going on; we want to get
this done as quickly as we can, but we also want to have what we would like to
see and that was one of the big problems with parking. A lot of it has to do with
the fact that we don't have parking here in the City. We are so short of parking
and we look at this reduction in parking and bells go off, and so our feeling is we
don't want to see any parking reduced.
Councilmember Vizcarra moved to continue Items 4 -7 and to keep the parking
spaces at 786, seconded by Councilmember Capra and unanimously carried.
1
1
1
1
City Council /CRA Minutes
September 25, 2007
Page 13
9) Additional Changes
There were no additional changes
10) Cumulative Total of Changes as to:
a) Major or minor changes compared to original intent and wording
b) Any significant environmental impact resulting from the changes
c) Negotiations to convert any "major changes" to "minor changes"
City Manager Martin stated No. 10 would also be determined at the next meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Gillanders moved to continue items 4 -10, and the issue of extra
commercial space on the third floor, to the meeting of October 16, 2007,
seconded by Councilmember Wilson and unanimously carried.
Jim Law, Temple City resident, said the developer and his consultants are all educated
people who have been handed a mess and doing the best they can. He didn't detect
educated people on Council equal to them in their field. He suggested cutting them some
slack.
Linda Payne, Temple City resident, said she was upset about the whole situation. She
felt when this project first come in they were coerced down to 52 condos. We need to
have faith in the people who made all these changes and kept to the promises by
Council. As the audience said we didn't know what we were talking about so now there
is this huge mess, and now when the developer is trying to tell us what has to be done,
we have them adding a whole other parking structure down below. We have to be
business friendly or we will lose tenants to Monterey Park, who is offering all kinds of
things we are not offering. We have to keep in mind that Temple City is in the middle of
all these other places and have to offer something better or comparable. Nobody in this
town can make a decision on what we want. She would appreciate it if everyone could
stop and think and try to go with these guys because they are professionals.
Councilmember Wilson clarified that Council did not say the developer had to put in
another parking structure.
Ms. Payne stated the developer said they would probably have to put in another parking
structure. She felt we need to help these people and move this through before more
business is lost.
Bob Welemin, Temple City resident, said he found it interesting that initially the project
was approved and everything was fine and now it needs to be changed. We relied on the
first project developer and it didn't work out so why trust these second people. Parking is
critical, especially with high gas prices and circling to find a space. The access in and out
is critical to success. He also brought up concerns of traffic west on Las Tunas with room
for only 2 -3 cars in the turn lane, and the amount of competition the development will
have if it doesn't have good traffic flow and parking.
Anonymous Temple City resident said she was concerned about parking. It is a bad
selling point to mix condo and commercial parking. The huge condos will have 2 cars at
least. Parking is an important part to have successful businesses. The City Council are
experts and know what they are doing. She was disappointed there were no drawings to
see. Council does not need to worry about the developer's money, as he knew what he
was getting into. You have to think what is best for Temple City.
Peggy Miller, Temple City resident, said she agreed with the previous speakers, said the
ball is in Council's court and felt we don't need to put so much confidence in people's
City Council /CRA Minutes
September 25, 2007
Page 14
titles. We have the right to ask questions and request what we want in our city and she
backed the City Council. Do it the right way, even if it takes longer.
Scott Carwile, Temple City resident, stated once you take away parking spaces, you
cannot add them. And for retail it is about parking and location. The owner made those
promises in the beginning and the owner signed the contract. If you have extra parking
spaces, you will get more rent. If you have less parking spaces you will get less rent. If
you have extra, people will pay more. If people go to Monterey Park, they will circle the
block and stand in line. They will come back. Major tenants will come in if told we have
more parking. If there is not enough parking, they will park on the street. As a business
owner, I want parking. The Chamber President knows people complain about no parking
in the city. If the condo owners do not have their own parking level, the price of those
condos will drop. We need all of the parking spaces or will hear from the residents about
parking on the street.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA
Mary Burke, Temple City resident, suggested that handouts be provided at the next meeting.
Decisions do have to be made as the deadline is in 2009 and we are in October of 2007. She
wondered if this was a quick answer because of possible lawsuits. Councilmember Capra
mentioned there were not too many people here, but the publicity is still not out there. She would
not have known about this special meeting if she had not attended last week's meeting. People
want to know what is going on at the Piazza.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency Adjourned Regular Meeting was
adjourned at 9:43 p.m.
M r
ATTEST:
1
1