HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 2008/04/15 - RegularCOMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
APRIL 15, 2008
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilson called the Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting to order at
8:25 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 5938 Kauffman Avenue, Temple City.
2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Member - Gillanders, Vizcarra, Wong, Capra, Wilson
Member -None
ALSO PRESENT: Executive Director /Agency Counsel Martin, Assistant Executive
Director Lambert, Agency Secretary Flandrick
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
Ms. Wong moved to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by Mr. Gillanders and
unanimously carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Member - Gillanders, Vizcarra, Wong, Capra, Wilson
NOES: Member -None
ABSENT: Member -None
ABSTAIN: Member -None
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 1, 2008, as presented.
B. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. CRA 08 -937 — APPROVAL OF PAYMENT OF
BILLS
Adopted Resolution No. CRA 08 -937, a RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY authorizing payment of bills.
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS — None
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. FA ?ADE IMPROVEMENT AT THE TEMPLE CITY MARKETPLACE (BLOCK A)
Executive Director Martin stated that Susan Lew, the property manager for the
Temple City Marketplace located at the northwest corner of Rosemead and Las
Tunas (Block A) has applied for a Facade Improvement Program grant. Her plan is
to repaint the entire shopping center, and the low bid would be approximately
$70,000 to do so.
Susan Lew, Property Manager for Temple City Marketplace, addressed the Agency
concerning proposed improvements to the Center including painting of the whole
center, stonework at the base of columns, repaving of the entire parking lot and
landscaping. She stated she applied for a facade improvement grant for the
improvements and asked the Agency for consideration of helping with some of the
expense. She submitted renderings of the color scheme and indicated she had
submitted quotes for the painting.
Ms. Lew answered questions from the Agency Members, stating she planned to do
the painting and stonework first.
Agency Minutes
April 15, 2008
Page 2
Vice Chairman Capra stated the facade improvements seem to be only the painting
and stonework, and painting is considered to be maintenance, not an improvement to
the facade.
Mr. Gillanders agreed, stating painting has traditionally been considered as
maintenance. A facade improvement would involve a change in the outside shape.
Only the stonework could be considered as a facade improvement.
In response to Ms. Wong, Assistant Executive Director Lambert stated ninety percent
of grant applications involve major facade improvements, sometimes signs and
awnings. The City did approve one center repainting, but that was an exception.
Chairman Wilson agreed with Mr. Gillanders' comments that possibly the stonework
is a change for improvement, but the painting is not really a change to the
appearance. The improvement should be a major changeover.
Ms. Lew stated it would take approximately $1 -2M to do a major facade improvement
and the budget is a challenge. She submitted the painting quotes, but did not submit
the bids on the stonework which is approximately $28,000. She planned to repave
the parking lot in within the next 6 months, but wished to start the painting and
stonework right away and then the paving this summer.
Mr. Vizcarra said, considering the location and the way it looks now, it might be worth
investing a little to get this center looking more like the 21st century. He felt the
painting and the stonework would help and he thought the Agency should help out.
Vice Chairman Capra agreed that the center definitely needs improvement, but he
would like to see a good faith agreement in writing that something will be done to the
parking lot this summer.
Ms. Lew stated it was not necessary to put it in writing; she was committed to getting
the work done. In response to Chairman Wilson, she indicated she would bring
conceptual drawings of the landscaping back to the agency for feedback.
Executive Director Martin stated the consensus is that painting does not qualify, but
the stonework will, and if improvements are made to the parking area by written
agreement, the Agency will give consideration.
Agency Members continued discussing the request.
Jerry Jambasian, Temple City businessman, reminded the Agency that the previous
Council gave Ms. Lew over $100,000 for sign improvements and it was over 6
months to 1 year before it was completed. The clock included in the improvements is
not showing the correct time and maintenance has not been ongoing. He would be
in favor of the stonework qualifying for the grant, but would ask for a bond, as Ms.
Lew has a habit of not following through.
Chairman Wilson concurred, adding that not too long ago, Ms. Lew promised she
would put $100,000 toward fixing up the center.
Ms. Lew stated the monument sign and pylon sign work was delayed by the
contractor selected by the former City Manager. She almost had to sue the
contractor who overcharged and was very unprofessional. She did mention she
wanted to put $100,000 in the center last year when she came before the Council to
ask for a variance for use of space for restaurant use, but it was not approved.
1
1
1
Agency Minutes
April 15, 2008
Page 3
Executive Director Martin reiterated the consensus to be that ordinary painting is not
considered a facade improvement, but if the painting and the stonework were done
and a written agreement submitted to repave the parking lot, then the Agency /City
would consider an appropriate contribution.
Ms. Lew indicated she would sign the painting contract tomorrow to start right away
to be completed within 8 weeks and would start selecting for a paving contract. She
submitted 4 bids for the painting contract, with $70,000 being the lowest bid.
Vice Chairman Capra summarized the Agency Member's consensus that painting is
considered maintenance. Ms. Lew is proceeding at her own risk and once she gets
all of the improvements completed, she may bring this matter back and the Agency
will consider any appropriate contribution at that time.
6. COMMUNICATIONS — None
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS — None
8. UPDATE FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
9. MATTERS FROM AGENCY MEMBERS — None
10. CLOSED SESSION — None
11. ADJOURNMENT
The Community Redevelopment Agency meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m.
ATTEST:
Agency Sectary
1
Chairman