Loading...
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