Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 2008/12/02 - RegularCOMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA REGULAR MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 2, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilson called the Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting to order at 7:55 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 Vice Chairman Capra 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 November 18, 2008, as presented. B. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. CRA 08 -955 — APPROVAL OF PAYMENT OF BILLS Adopted Resolution No. CRA 08 -955, a RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY ALLOWING CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $69,007.40 DEMAND NOS. 3592 THROUGH 3595. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. UPDATE AND STATUS REPORT ON THE PIAZZA LAS TUNAS PROJECT, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD AND LAS TUNAS DRIVE Chairman Wilson stated on November 17th, staff met with members of the latest development team retained by Piazza developer Randy Wang. The development team presented a revised conceptual plan which includes approximate figures for the redesigned project. Executive director Martin stated tonight was the date set by the Agency to determine whether and in what way.the Agency will continue its negotiations with Mr. Wang and the development of the Piazza property. There are a number of issues that will come up before any final decision is made. One is the pending lawsuit; the other is whether this is a major or minor change that will have to go back to the Planning Commission. Thirdly is California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or environmental acts pertaining to the changes. Vice Chairman Capra said he came back from vacation to some very disturbing accusations. He was bothered by the document and said there is only one person who could clear up the discrepancy and that would be Ms. Wong. Regarding alleged Agency Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 2 comments, he asked Ms. Wong if she indeed made those comments regarding him wanting to accept a sum of money from the developer. Ms. Wong stated the accusation is false. Vice Chairman Capra reiterated that Ms. Wong stated the accusations are false; therefore, he is cleared of any wrongdoings. Ms. Wong knows what she is talking about. It hasn't come out, but he wanted his name cleared, and it is false, and it bothers him deeply that this City is going through what it is. Chairman Wilson said she would also like to bring up the same thing and asked Ms. Wong if there was any truth in what she brought up in allegations. Ms. Wong responded it is the same answer — the accusation is false. Chairman Wilson asked if the Agency Members wished to proceed with this. She had a big problem with it in a lot of ways. We want to continue and build this project, as we have looked forward to it for all these years and finally thought we were going to get there. But, she was having a difficult time trusting a person that makes false accusations. She didn't know how the rest of the Agency Members felt, but she just had to have her feelings out there on how disturbing it is and how can we trust somebody that makes false accusations. Mr. Gillanders said he thought it was probably appropriate to clear the air before continuing, and would give a good idea whether or not their veracity is such that it can be trusted. He suggested giving them 30 days to resolve their allegations. He wouldn't want to conduct any business with somebody that was maintaining that type of situation. He would give them 30 days to solve it, and if they can't resolve it in 30 days, they have no business here. Obviously a dropped suit has no merit. We had originally fled the action to clarify the words so that our understanding was the same as the courts understanding. There was no elective plaintiff as such. All we were asking for was for a clearing of it. However, subsequently, we get a lawsuit that apparently doesn't have any merit to it whatsoever. And that's very poor circumstances to continue on with business while that's still hanging over their head. So, if they want to continue with it, give them 30 days to resolve it or forget about it. Mr. Vizcarra said he just didn't know where to go with this. It's confusing, plus he wasn't sure the public knows exactly what we're talking about. Das Sheenh, Temple City resident, said he didn't know what this was all about and he thought those in the audience and people who are not here were entitled to know what this thing is all about. Mr. Capra said something about money. What money are we talking about and what are the accusations? He thought the public was entitled to know the whole story. Who is accusing who and why. Chairman Wilson said she could give a little bit of a brief, because right now the Agency can't go into it because it's in the hands of our lawyer. But it was out in the newspaper that the City and members of the Council saying that we were trying to bribe the developer. And we feel falsely accused. Mr. Vizcarra clarified the accusation had been made. Chairman Wilson said, to us it was a false accusation and did we want to deal with somebody falsely accuses you, and this is what it has come to tonight. 1 Agency Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 3 Mr. Sheenh suggested that the Agency look into this thing very seriously as it is a very serious charge. Just don't trust them. Mary Kokayko, Temple City resident, said she hadn't had time to digest the information on the proposed changes, but was very upset about what is going on concerning Mr. Wang. He is suing the City, but wants you to deal with him, which kind of falls in with what was being said. These are major changes, not minor. You gave him a second chance with the minor and he's had all this time. It's his fault, not the City, for being accused. She said she attended all the Planning Commission and Council meetings and you have tapes and minutes to back up everything that he's accusing you of, which is false. If the citizens have to, they will get another referendum, because these are major changes. We should know what's going. She didn't think the Agency should deal with him. You've got a lawsuit coming up in July of 2009. You should do nothing until this lawsuit comes up. She didn't think any court could really back Randy Wang. You have all the proof. A couple of weeks ago, the first time they came up here they said he's ready to go, he's got the money. The last time they were here, he doesn't have the money. It's the same old story. She wouldn't trust him at all. He's accusing you and he sits here and wants to deal with you. That doesn't make sense. You can't trust who he deals with. Gino Bernango, Temple City resident, stated he attended the project presentation made to the community at the Temple City theater and adamantly stated that he didn't think the business plan, the economic justification for that project, with over 51 bedroom condominiums with a mixed use made any sense. Look at what's going on in the valley. Two weeks ago, I think a lot of us read in the paper — there was a large fire over in Alhambra. What it was — 35 single bedroom condominiums, mixed use. The developer decided that he had to convert about 20 units to 2- bedrooms to make sense of it, which would have required a variance because they wouldn't have had the appropriate square footage. You've got another issue down in Monterrey Park where you've got a developer that bought a lot that was too narrow for the scope of his project, but what he did, he went in there and now he's litigating Monterrey Park because culturally, from where he comes from, he stating Monterrey Park should give him variances and increase density and setbacks. So what I'm saying is, is you've got a lot of developers coming into the small communities and they're going to sell you a bill of goods. He didn't know what the options are because it sounds like there is a major conceptual change on what Mr. Wang is proposing. He asked if the City made a needs assessment and what is wanted on that primary corner that is a main entrance into our town and what kind of business do we want. Valley Boulevard, and west of San Gabriel Boulevard, or Garvey, all they've got is a bunch of strip malls, so he really wanted to caution the Council tonight about Mr. Wang. We ought to step back because he never came forward and had a sound business plan, economic justification to build what he was proposing over there, so he hoped we didn't get into this because we're threatened litigation. If it's unfounded, take him to court. If you lose on the first judicial, appeal it. To me, the City should stand up and say, if the community wants this to maintain our standards, then you guys should stand up and we'll support you. Chairman Wilson clarified that at this time, there are no condos. It's to be all retail and we definitely do not want a strip mall. Mr. Bruenengo stated it never made sense with 50 one - bedroom condominiums. They already had it eighty percent finished when they came in to make that major conceptual change to their plan. He thought there were some developers that are not really studying the projects. They get into it and then step back and threaten litigation against the cities. Agency Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 4 Executive Director Martin stated the Agency must decide whether to proceed tonight in whole or in part — the part being that we would hear from Howard and Mr. Wang as to what their new proposal is and then decide whether it's major or minor, and if major, refer it back to the Planning Commission. Vice Chairman Capra asked if Assistant Executive Director Lambert and Executive Director /Agency Counsel Martin reviewed the plans and, in their opinion, considered the changes to be minor or major. Assistant Executive Director Lambert stated he did review the plans and considered the changes to be major. Executive Director /Agency Counsel Martin stated he considered the changes to be major. Vice Chairman Capra asked, at this point, why is it up to the Agency. Why not just refer it to the Planning commission and let them make the ruling. Executive Director Martin responded if the Agency finds the changes are minor, they may proceed. If the Agency accepts the recommendation of the Assistant Executive Director and himself that the changes are major, it goes back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Vizcarra stated there's no doubt that the changes are major, but he was just in a quandary as to how to proceed here. Months ago when we decided to go to court, he stated that he had absolutely no confidence in this owner and developer and that he thought we needed to finalize this in court. Now since then we've bounced around and we're back here waiting to get another presentation on what this mall is going to look like and everybody seems to have backtracked and said, yeah, let's go ahead and build it. We're totally confused. In the meantime, all this emotion is rising because of the charges that have been made. He is out of that, so he's not feeling that same and can be more objective. What he's seeing is that we have a very confused situation. We all have questions about Mr. Wang's ability to fund this thing and the other thing he sees happening now with what Vice Chairman Capra has brought up — if we're going back to the Planning Commission, then we're talking about a lot more time and a further exhaustion of Mr. Wang's resources for any of the follow up that will have to be done. We're starting to look kind of foolish because we don't set a direction and stay with it. We're all over the map and bouncing around. He thought the Agency needs to decide whether or not we're going to court, forget the project, or whether we're actually going to let the man proceed. Ms. Wong concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Capra's suggestion. This is a major change and should go to the Planning Commission. Mr. Gillanders stated he tended to agree with Mr. Vizcarra, largely by virtue of the fact that they just cannot seem to get a single idea and proceed forward with it. There's always going to be a half dozen subordinate ideas, problems, projects that stick out from it in every which direction. Now we got it originally as an all commercial unit. Shortly thereafter, they came in and they wanted to change from concrete to metal and plaster. And we went along with that. And then shortly thereafter the next little change was they wanted these 52 condo units and after much gaggling around, we agreed to that also. Then they wanted to change them from residential units to commercial units, meaning doctors' offices and things of that order. And, as it was still dragging on as it had been for a number of years, we agreed to that also. Then they hit us with the idea of selling outside vending kiosks and we went along with that. At that point — the recommendation to our attorney from our attorneys was we need to find out now from a judge what our contract says. So a declaratory relief action was filed, not necessarily against Mr. Wang; 1 1 Agency Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 5 however, it was to set forth the conditions under which we would continue and make payment. Within two weeks, we get the strangest allegation he has ever seen about violations of contract and a whole bunch of things that as far as he saw, never existed. When Mr. Wang decides where he wants to go, and if he decides how he wants to handle it, we'll look upon it seriously. Secondly, then suddenly, out of nowhere, another contractor appears, the first contractor is gone, the second one appears and he is operating as though there is no lawsuit. And yet we have the lawsuit and this thing going and we are going ahead on two different fronts with totally different aims. We've got to get to the point where we're dealing with one aim and one purpose. So far we've let virtually the entire time limit run on this place. We're down to about roughly eight months and his contract is gone. He can't build it eight months and he knows he can't. But, to come forward with a whole situation which puts them in control of the whole thing and the time limit and they don't seem to feel that they're responsible for all this time that was wasted along the way. So his position is now's the time to take a firm position, stand on it and force him to either agree with it or get off the pot. We've had a hole over there on that corner for an awfully long time, and he didn't see where we're gaining anything. We don't have any money tied up in it, but we've got to do something. We're losing our opportunity and we're being attacked from a dozen different sources at once. And if we don't step on it and force it into one path, we might as well give it up. Chairman Wilson stated she agreed with everybody on both sides. She would like to see it go forward, but is having a real difficult time with everything that has been going on. Yes, we've gone through three developers, three people. Now it's a constant change every single time. We started out really great. We thought we were getting somewhere and it just seems like we get further and further and further back. Instead of taking any steps forward, we keep taking steps back. So, she's kind of in a dilemma. She wanted to see this project proceed, but with these major changes, it's going to take forever anyway, because it has to go back to the Planning Commission, and how long now is that going to take? By the time we get to court? So, she felt right now we are almost at a standstill and should go forward and go all the way and see what happens in court. Mr. Gillanders said he thought we're going to have to have them dismiss that first lawsuit before we go anywhere. Chairman Wilson stated she was just terribly upset for the way this whole thing has happened when we had all these wonderful ideas thinking what we have for this city and that we were finally going to have something. We had a referendum going on — we had everything going on and nothing was ever settled. We finally figured that we have a project now that we can enjoy. The city would have something here — we'd have a place to shop and that started in the year 2006 and we still have not gotten anywhere. In fact, we are going further and further behind. Now we have a decision. They're sitting out there waiting to tell us what these major changes are. It has been changes, changes, changes for the last couple of years. How many more changes are we going to have? So, she just didn't see where were going anywhere with this whole thing. Councilmember Vizcarra said he would like to hear from the developer. Chairman Wilson agreed she would like to also hear from them before going any further. Howard Poyourow, developer, presented a brief chronology. On October 21st, he came before the Council for the first time. The Council, at that time, said the idea of an all retail project made the most sense and directed the staff to meet with us following that October 215 meeting. On October 29th, we had our first meeting with the staff and on November 4th, we came together with the staff at our second meeting with the Council. And following that meeting, he met one on one with Mr. Martin and re- emphasized in their Agency Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 6 communication what he had said the first time that we met with staff. And at that meeting. Mr. Martin said were not going to deal with any of the legal issues at this meeting. You are a developer meeting with staff. The staff has been instructed to consider the modifications that had been discussed at the meeting of the City Council on October 21St. We met again, the second time, with staff on November 17th and we developed new schematics. Those schematics are in a packet that was given to Council just before Thanksgiving and in the power point presentation. As a developer, his interest is in developing and in building. And I thought that the modifications which are described as major is a matter of opinion. He welcomed Council's opinion on the modifications based on, not just hearsay, but rather the presentation they were prepared to make. They would be happy to talk through the changes which he personally and professionally did not view as major changes. I viewed them as the removal of the condominiums which the Council agreed was a good idea back on October 21st and the reconfiguration of the retail space to make it more attractive, more open, more piazza - like, less strip mall -like and more esthetically pleasing. I hated to see good effort thrown out by rumor, innuendo and negativity. Mr. Gillanders stated he understood Mr. Poyourow's problem. However, we're now being approached by two totally different directions. One — Randy decides he wants to continue on with the development. However, he's also got an attorney that's suing us for continuing with the development with the craziest combination of allegations he ever heard in his life. Until those allegations are withdrawn, he couldn't see any reason why we should advance one day. He's got a problem. He's going to have to make up his mind which path he's going to follow. If he's going to deal with it in litigation — hey everything shuts down and that's how we handle it. If he wants to deal with it in negotiation and product and so forth, fine, but dispose of the litigation. He had no idea where this attorney came up with this wild song and dance. Do you think in any way, shape or form that type of thing can help us to develop a project there? We have to watch everything that is said, done, even intimated because this individual will attempt to build something out of it. Now, which tact is he going to take? Is he going to take the tact of fighting it out in the courts or does he really want to build the thing? You either do one or the other. You can't do both. So, he's going to have to make up his mind where he's going to go and from there we can talk about where how quickly we can get it underway. Remember, we waited an awfully long time. We're going into our fifth year and it's getting a little monotonous. So, the game is in Randy's back pocket right now. If he decides he still wishes to go with the attorney, we've got nothing to say. If he decides he wants to discharge the attorney in the action, then we can proceed like we were. But that position is not made by us. It's made by him. Mr. Vizcarra asked Executive Director Martin if there were anything that Mr. Wang could do or undo regarding the allegations. Executive Director Martin stated there was not. Mr. Vizcarra concluded that part was kind of a dead issue, but it's still there. Mr. Gillanders said it is still there and we're going to have to have some kind of a dismissal. Mr. Poyourow commented that, as he understood it, there was a lawsuit brought by the City and the lawsuit by Mr. Wang is a cross complaint. It is a response to that original lawsuit. Agency Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 7 Mr. Gillanders stated the idea was to find out what our original contract meant. We went to a judge and said here's all the papers, tell us what our relative responsibilities and rights are under this contract. But the cross complaint and the allegations on Mr. Wang's behalf were certainly not that. It appears to be an open attempt to destroy the individual on the Council for asking the courts tell us what is correct. Mr. Poyourow said the only thing he was here to do is to show you some pictures and have our architect, who has traveled here, just review them with you briefly and then you can dismiss us and we'll do whatever needs to be done. Chairman Wilson said she would make that decision and asked Mr. Poyourow to go ahead and show the pictures. She said she would also like Mr. Wang to come up and speak. Jane Housden, HTH Architects, with the aid of a power point presentation, reviewed the revised proposal and referred to a comparison list of the old scheme with the new scheme that was prepared by Assistant Executive Director Lambert. The rendering was very similar to the previous one with the condominiums removed — the residential portion. The retail space was rearranged slightly with the same kind of square footage of total gross of 139,000 square feet, giving a leasable of approximately 120,000 square feet. It gives a net retail of 107,755 and we're proposing a small office portion on a floor where we had residential before on the corner of Sultana and Las Tunas. And we are keeping the banquet because there is a little more room as we've moved it to another building. So, when you add up all the gross square footage, the total leasable, the retail, the office, the banquet, we come out with 480 required parking spaces. Obviously, if we take out the residential, you remove the issue of having parking which we had underneath the corner building. It allows for a lot less construction costs and affects our parking structure as a result. She asked the Agency Members to reconsider our parking structure now that we don't have to go all the way down 37 feet to get all the residential parking in. We only have to go down one level instead, or partial level and go up one more level to account for the required parking for the retail. There are some slight adjustments to all the buildings. We have two schemes with the parking, where we go up five levels which was the 45 foot or we go up six levels which is the 55 foot. I think the concern is that on the north corner, which is the top right corner of the parking structure, that it is actually not as high as the southeast corner. Randy owns the residential buildings to the north, and we are only going up either a proposed 48 feet 10 inches to the original 39 feet. So we are going up another 9 foot 10 inches. In response to Mr. Vizcarra's question, Ms. Housden stated, at that top north corner, which is really what's exposed to the residential side, when you come at that level, you're actually coming down. So that top level at that corner is actually 39 feet on the old scheme, and we're proposing going up another floor would only bring it up to 48 feet 10 inches. So, technically, it's only 3 foot 10 above what you had already approved. Mr. Vizcarra asked if Ms. Housden realized how sensitive that corner and that end of the building was. Ms. Housden explained at that corner the site slopes, so it's sloping toward the south, it's sloping toward Las Tunas down Sultana, and if you're a man standing about 30 feet away, that's what you're seeing. You still have a wall there. It is 55 feet at the southeast corner, at the inside of the property, where it was 45 feet before. So you're at the highest point when you're on the inside and that because your elevators are there and your staircases to get to the retail are in that portion of the property. Agency Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 8 Assistant Executive Director Lambert clarified that two options are proposed — one keeping the structure at 45 feet and their alternative, for the reasons stated — mostly costs, at 55 feet. Ms. Housden stated a lot of it is cost. There are some issues with the sewer running underneath the building and other utilities. That corner is the lowest portion of that parking structure to begin with, because that's where you're sloping down to come back down on those ramps. So we're asking if we can go up that extra 9 foot 10, so we do not have to go down the extra level underneath the parking structure. It will require more mechanical because we have to vent the underground, whereas this way we only have half a level down. We won't have to vent it as significantly as we had with going underground. Probably the key item tonight is to take a look at that and we hope that the Agency considers giving us that extra piece. The facade would remain the same and we'd have another bay. She reviewed the slope dimensions and entrances into the parking structure off of Elm and Sultana. There is already got a wall that's 39 feet or at least to the top of the slab and we're just asking that we go up the extra one level which is approximately 10 foot 4, or 10 foot 6. And then of course the stairwell is on the inside. It's the highest point, but you've allowed us the 6 foot parapet on it. Other than that, there's just some minor adjustments. The buildings that are 2 stories high, the 2 anchor buildings, will have a higher retail in them. We've removed that circular building. The large anchor building will have two floors which could possibly be completely rented out. The building to the south is also a two story building. The one next to it is now a two story building rather than three. We've taken that square footage that was the third floor and moved it over to the corner building which is Sultana and Las Tunas and added another level of retail on that one. Then we've taken the banquet off the two buildings in the middle that used to straddle the walkway. We've taken that and we've put it on the third floor with an outdoor terrace area. So the second floor of that building underneath the banquet would have some office in it which would be facing the plaza and then you'd have retail behind that. So the building in the middle, the circular building, is gone. You have all the options of a real, true piazza there and some kiosks and maybe some entertainment. We'll still have the art piece — the umbrella piece which would be lit up at night and still have your entries in and out off Las Tunas. You still have your campaniles and your Venetian look. She didn't think anything is really major in this thing. To just summarize, she asked the Agency to vote and decide that we can take out the residential which for obvious reasons is not economically. And we go to all retail with this minor piece of office and then the parking adjustments that we've requested which is one height going up and just the minor alignment adjustments with the rest of the building. Chairman Wilson asked if Mr. Wang would like to speak. Randy Wang, owner, stated as Howard said, about 3 -4 weeks ago the Council instructed city official Joe Lambert to work with our team for to remove all condos to make the project more feasible. So our team worked hard with Joe Lambert to get this proposal to present for the Council's review and decision. We would really like to move forward on this project and actually put all our effort on it. And we hope that you can support our project so that we can move forward. Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Wang if he understood what we were saying on that it's kind of a difficult thing — do we want to go on with this project, but it's kind of left a real rotten taste in my mouth on all the accusations and everything. And to be able to trust you, 1 1 Agency Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 9 which is what really bothers her. But she did want the project — that's the whole thing. So I'm in a dilemma because it's hard to say how much we can trust you now. Mr. Wang said he could not talk to anything regarding the litigation Chairman Wilson continued saying this has been a very hard decision because we need this badly and we've looked forward to it. We thought we would have it done and had to go through a lot of hoops, a lot of obstacles and everything else and these are major changes. So at this time, she stated she would go ahead and vote with Mr. Capra and Ms. Wong and send it to the Planning Department. Mr. Vizcarra asked what the ramifications are. Assistant Executive Director Lambert responded, in his opinion, it's not a mixed use project anymore, so he would say that the development agreement and the zone change and the CRA resolution that was approved would have to be revisited. It would fall under the underlying zone. This would be an approved project in the underlying zone — which is C -2. It would require a Conditional Use Permit and, in his opinion, the Mitigated Negative Declaration would have to be revised. As far as the parking and that kind of thing, he thought an updated traffic study would help to sort that out and even a shade, shadow and impact analysis was also part of that earlier Mitigated Negative Declaration. So, he thought if it went back to Planning Commission, they would have to essentially reapply, but he would defer to Executive Director Martin for some of the environmental proceedings. He felt case law has shown that we could ask for additional studies or revised studies to modify the environmental approval that was given. He agreed with Mr. Vizcarra that it would require a lot of time. There'd be public hearings before the Planning Commission, and then it would come before this body as well. There may be a desire to hold additional scoping meetings at the beginning, introductory meetings like were done the last time and so forth. Ms. Wong moved to send this proposal back to the Planning Commission because of the major changes to the plan. Vice Chairman Capra seconded the motion with comments. As he said earlier, things are going to be coming up and he wanted his name cleared of all the charges and Ms. Wong clarified that the allegations are false. He was here to represent the City and didn't like having the black cloud hanging over his head because they're serious allegations and he didn't like it at all. He stated for the record that Ms. Wong did clarify that the allegations are false clearing him of any wrongdoing. Ms. Wong stated she said accusation. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Member -Wong, Capra, Wilson NOES: Member - Gillanders, Vizcarra ABSENT: Member -None ABSTAIN: Member -None Chairman Wilson stated she would make the same comment as Mr. Capra that Ms. Wong clarified that the accusations that were made against her also were false. Agency Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 10 Ms. Wong made a correction, stating "the accusation that was made that what I said was false. But not the other accusation. I do not know nothing ". Mr. Vizcarra stated in his view, what this action means is that — he didn't know where Mr. Wang is going to go with this, but this highly has the potential of killing this project for all intents and purposes. Minimally, we're probably talking another year before they can even begin. 5. NEW BUSINESS — None 6. COMMUNICATIONS — None 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mary Kokayko, Temple City resident, said she listened to the presentation and still thought this should go back to the Planning Commission as this is a major project. She didn't know why it would even be going back to the Planning Commission as we're already accused and how can you trust them. We have a court case to deal with and we had a contract we have to stand up for. The Agency represents our rights as citizens and should stand up for our rights. Don't be afraid to make him honor the contract he signed. Until that contract runs out you don't have to listen to him and should not do anything until your court case. You had to file a lawsuit to protect the City and he went to the Chamber and should have gone to Council. Gino Brunengo, Temple City resident, referring to the presentation, and felt the architecture mentions of 2 -3 structures was large enough for large retail. He had questions regarding the benefit from sales tax, what types of retail and offices. The city should look at a needs assessment and 2 -3 options. They should come in with a concept and justify the benefits. The litigation should work its course. If this goes back to the Planning Commission, he felt the standard should be higher this time and to request a cost benefit analysis. Cynthia Sternquist, Temple City resident, said she could sympathize with Randy Wang regarding the economy, but felt our City needs to take a stand and she didn't believe in sending this back to the Planning Commission for delay and changes. If there is no basis for a lawsuit on Randy Wang's part regarding bribes, she believed we have nothing to worry about and hoped this Agency has integrity. This just adds fuel to the fire and the public doesn't know what is going on. Vice Chairman Capra stated he is for redevelopment and the court case will take its course and all evidence will come out. We will go to court to work this out, but he would still like to see some type of development there. Ms. Sternquist said she also would like to see development there. She would say go for it, but knows it will be tied up in litigation while waiting for some ruling on the bribery aspect. It seems like the City is telling Randy Wang if he withdraws, we will go forward with the project. You should not say that to him. We want a project that is viable. Council owes it to the public to be as transparent as possible. Tonight we heard very different bits and pieces. She wanted to have faith in each person on the Council and did not feel that tonight and felt that tonight was not the best time to say anything because the public will make its own presumptions. She would like to see this development put to rest and move on with something different. 8. UPDATE FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR — None 9. MATTERS FROM AGENCY MEMBERS — None 10. CLOSED SESSION — None 1 1 Agency Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 11 11. ADJOURNMENT The Community Redevelopment Agency Regular Meeting was adjourned at 9:09 p.m. Chairman ATTEST: .—LeA)/^/AJAJ Agency Se o etary