Loading...
RRA - 11-13-01ja APPROVED CITY R EMEAD DATE a 3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY NOVEMBER 13, 2001 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Redevelopment Agency was called to order by Chairman Imperial at 7:00 p.m. in the conference room of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Agencymember Vasquez. The Invocation was led by Agencymember Taylor ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Agencymembers Clark, Vasquez, Taylor, Vice Chairman Bruesch, and Chairman Imperial Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OCTOBER 23, 2001 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY AGENCYMEMBER VASQUEZ that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 23, 2001, be approved as corrected by Vice-Chairman Bruesch. Vote resulted: Aye: Bruesch,Vasquez, Clark, Imperial, Taylor No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. RRA RESOLUTION NO. 2001-23 CLAIMS AND DEMANDS The following Resolution was presented to the Agency for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2001-23 - CLAIMS AND DEMANDS A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $64,576.43 AND DEMANDS NO. 6497 THROUGH 6535 MOTION BY VICE-CHAIRMAN BRUESCH, SECOND BY AGENCYMEMBER VASQUEZ that the Agency adopt Resolution No. 2001-23. Vote resulted: RRA IIN:I1-13-01 Page 9 1 • 0 Aye: Vasquez, Bruesch, Imperial, Clark, Taylor No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. 2. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL FOR A MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT AND CVS PHARMACY TO BE LOCATED AT 8548 EAST VALLEY BOULEVARD VERBATIM DIALOGUE BEGINS: FRANK TRIPEPI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: As the project comes to you this evening Mr. Chairman and members of the Agency, there is a slight change in the project. Staff was notified today by CVS Pharmacy that they do not wish to be on the corner of Walnut Grove and Valley. The reason given to us was they do not want to have shared parking with a fast food operation. So they have, for all intents and purposes, withdrawn from the project. I spoke to the representatives of the McDonald's Corporation today, and they informed me that they wish to go ahead with their project. As you know, when this project originally came forward a few months back, McDonald's did come in at that time as a standalone project. The Redevelopment Agency did not want to approve it because they wanted the property owner to get with the developer and take a look at the, how shall I put it... instead of a piece meal approval, a total use of that particular corner. I know McDonald's has basically been trying to get this approved for some time. They would like to move ahead with the project. As it stands before you this evening, staff in the past... there have probably been on a couple of occasions where we were not willing to recommend approval of the McDonald's project due to a number of concerns and issues. Basically, as a Redevelopment Agency this evening, as to whether it complies with the Redevelopment Plan... does it produce some revenue to the Agency, does it produce tax increment, is it an improvement to the project area... we would basically have to say, yes, to all those. As such, we would recommend approval of the McDonald's project as it sits on the board behind you. It is a freestanding store. They do meet the parking requirements, Mr. Johnson? BRAD JOHNSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR: Not necessarily. Where they are showing their lease lines, they only have about 18 parking stalls within the lease lines. They were depending upon a shared parking scenario outside of that lease area. TRIPEPI: But Mr. Woo understands that to get the project approved, it includes additional parking almost as laid out as with the previous design with the CVS store. So, I guess the McDonald's Corporation has to make that arrangement with the owner. That being said and accomplished, we have no problem with McDonald's going in on that particular corner. You do have.... Councilmembers/Agencymembers who have voiced concerns in the past about the fast- food operation, taking up hard corners in the City, major arterial locations. As a Redevelopment RRAMIN:I1-13-01 Page n2 • 0 Agency, again, I would tell you that as an Agency, it fits into the project area, and conforms with the Redevelopment Plan. It does produce tax increment. It is an improvement to the project area. It takes care of a vacant comer and does produce sales tax. Later this evening, as the City Council, we have provided you with a tool, if in fact the majority of the Council has a problem with a fast-food operation, regardless of where it goes in the City, whether it is in or out of a project area. We've provided you with an ordinance for your consideration that allows you to set a moratorium for 45-days and give staff direction on what your concerns are with these types of operations and how we can help the Council better address what those concerns are. But before you this evening as a Redevelopment Agency, the project is here for your consideration. The folks from McDonald's are here to answer questions. As long as they can meet parking requirements, we recommend approval of the free-standing McDonald's. I have to be honest with you and say I honestly don't know when Mr. Wu is going to come back to you with any kind of additional uses on that property. This thing has been going on for...I'm not telling you anything you don't know, for months, and still nothing is there. It first was a series of little buildings for lease, spaces. Then it went to CVS. Prior to that, of course, it was just a free stand- alone restaurant. So, that would conclude my report and recommendation. You have two ways that you can consider the City Council item this evening. You can either approve the project as a Redevelopment Agency project and you're done with it. You then go on to the Council meeting. If you should adopt the Urgency Ordinance, then if you specifically make this an Urgency Ordinance, then it does affect this project. If you do not, then this project has a window with which it has to get their plans in and get this done... get permits issued and start on it. Or you can specifically just say and do in the Ordinance, that it does not include this particular project. That's one way you can do it. The other way you can do it is to recess this Redevelopment Agency, not take an action on this item at this time. When we do the Council meeting, you can consider and take an action on the Urgency Ordinance. Then you can call the Agency back to order and either approve or disapprove the project. Again, for me, it seems like it's just a single step. If you approve the project, then the Ordinance gets adopted, the project doesn't go unless you exempt the project then your actions will approve the Ordinance or specifically tell us that that project is not impacted by the Ordinance. McDonald's folks are here if you have any questions. COUNCILMAN GARY TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman. I'd like to have a little more information on what happened with the CVS pharmacy. Who was it that proposed they go in and what was the corporate decision to go along with it in the first place, to be included in it? Where did that come from? TRIPEPI: Maybe the developer can tell us more about it. JOSEPH CAMPBELL: I represent the developer. My name is Joseph Campbell. I do this in cities throughout the area. What's happened, we have been looking for tenants per the request of all of you. We have 40 rejections from restaurants, nice restaurants, based on many items. We've started looking in other areas, approaching different types of retail stores. We did get an answer from CVS through our real estate agent. They gave us a proposal. We explained to them RRAMIN:11-13-01 Page #3 • 0 that it would have to be shared with McDonald's. McDonald's was willing. But then at the last minute, they made a change to see what happens. They didn't want necessarily the corner, but they sounded like, if I'm not mistaken, that they would take the additional spot if we developed the rest of the unit. Is that right? MAYOR PRO TEM BRUESCH: The last time I saw it, the McDonald's had been moved to the lot line to the west. CAMPBELL: That's true. TAYLOR: The reason for my question, I'm puzzled why a national corporation would even consent to something, and documents go out that they are willing to participate and then... because it's kind of crucial that we clean up that whole corner, and for them to go in there ...I wouldn't say go ahead and put my business in there, put the corporation image in there, and then pull it out. That's what really confuses me because I've dealt with projects. I'm really puzzled. The lot is big enough for the McDonald's and CVS. And, I'm at a loss why a corporation would do something of that nature. CAMPBELL: Well, we have the drawings they came up with on how we've relocated. Where we put the CVS store and moved the McDonald's to the west. We have all those plans before you. We've covered the.... LISA JOHANNSON, MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: I'm with McDonald's. I don't want to speak for CVS. It is my understanding that, as is typical of the way our corporation works, is that we do a deal on a level and then it has to go to a real estate committee for approval. And, it is my understanding that somebody from CVS who has approval rights and a VP came down to take a look at the site and had some issues. So, I don't believe there was a signed document. I think there was a letter of intent going back and forth. There was no.actual contract that was signed. BRUESCH: Point of information on that. We were informed the issues were... that they were worried about the shared parking. Is that true? JOHANNSON: That's what I have heard. I haven't had any conversations with CVS... BRUESCH: It wasn't particularly that the site was not suitable for this store. It was that they did not want to share parking. JOHANNSON: Well, that's the reason they gave. There's been no conversation with McDonald's. Frankly, if it were me and I really wanted a site, I might have picked up the phone and called and talked about it. We've already shown the effort. We were going on the hard corner, CVS wanted to come into the picture. We've already been very flexible and said we'll move over. We really did work and try to accommodate them. So they knew that. So if there RRAMIN:11-13-01 Page #4 • 0 really was an issue that they felt was resolvable, I would expect that they would have picked up the phone and called McDonald's. TAYLOR: I don't believe that it's such a hard issue because any property owner and businesses can have an agreement. You can put a wall between properties. JOHANSSON: We don't feel that it's an unresolvable issue either, that's why I guess I'm questioning... we've not had a direct conversation with CVS. Again, I just have to say that McDonald's has been extremely flexible with CVS and they know that. For us to actually go to...go off the hard corner, which is something that we really don't like to do in order to try and accommodate this development. So, this is really going a long way to work with them.... TAYLOR: I can agree with doing that. Mr. Campbell had mentioned... you actually have 40 rejections? We didn't have that in the agenda packet as being 40. There were several listed. But I'd like the record to show that there are 52 restaurants that were contacted as far as trying to get a nice eating restaurant there. 52 in this list that we have and you mentioned that you got responses back from 40. STELLA CHOW, REAL ESTATE AGENT: I'm the one that sent out all the letters. We did send out all 52, 53 of them. We have about 2 or 3 rejection letters and we have a few other ones verbally. We continuously try to market the properties and talk to them and they verbally just rejected it. Such as the Old Spaghetti Factory, such as...I'm not very good speaking in public, it makes me nervous ...I forgot. But I have talked to quite a few of them. TAYLOR: The Agency, the Board has tried to...I don't criticize what they were trying to do to get a restaurant in. But in economics in business, businesses know best what is good for them... when they survey and do a market research area. And, I'm sure that all these businesses would be interested if they were ready to expand. I don't think the location is a bad location, in the sense that it's pure economics. We have fought for so long up here on issues as far as how do you get development in to the City. We had an issue several months back to get a Starbucks coffee here on the corner of Valley and Rosemead. I didn't object to Starbucks coming in, but it was outrageous what they expected this Agency to do. I mean it was bordering $1 million just to get them to come in the door. But now without doing anything, Starbucks is locating right here in Rosemead down by the old Wards store. We have an International House of Pancakes going in at that location now. So these businesses, that's what they're in business for, to make a profit. Target is going in there now, which would be a tremendous asset to the City. San Gabriel is still kicking themselves in the fanny for losing the Target store. But now we've got it down here. So these things tend to come about because of market analysis by the businesses. Getting back to my main point. There was a good faith effort to try to get a restaurant in there. They're just not willing to do it. TRIPEPI: Mr. Taylor, ifI might... to remind the Agency, I know it's not the CVS. I'm at .a loss. I do not understand the drugstore industry. We sat here and watched Rite Aid go, a brand new RRAMIN:11-13-01 Page N5 • • store, on a corner. It sat closed for a couple of years almost. They decide they're going to open it and what do they do, they go in, open the doors, bring in a contractor again, and they redo the entire inside without ever opening it in the first place to see if that way worked or didn't work. I just don't understand it. TAYLOR: When I heard they were due to open in October, I saw a lot of activity. TRIPEPI: They're going to open. They're spending tons of money in there redoing what they built in the first...I thought what they built in the first place was the way they wanted it. They sat on it for two years, then made a decision we're going to open it but now we want to change everything inside. Walgreen's is looking to go on the corner of Rosemead and Valley. This Doug Jacobson is again talking about a SavOn at Mission and Rosemead. It's almost as if we've gone from the furniture capitol on Valley Boulevard to the drugstore capitol. I don't understand the drugstore mentality or the industry. All I can say is that CVS basically said that they're pulling. That's absolutely true and I understand the real estate committees and I know how that goes. For this Agency, the real estate committee, and I think it probably has to do with some other issues, but thor Kroger has now indicated to us they don't want to build a Food4Less at Temple City and Valley. But, that's about that project. But, the real estate committee for CVS looked at the site and decided, for whatever reasons, and maybe numerous reasons, we don't want to go in. And that's how it was left. Then basically, we just, rather than put everything on hold, McDonald's wanted to move ahead. Again, that's why it is before you this evening. TAYLOR: Is the owner here, of the franchisee? PAUL PERNECKY, OWNER MC DONALD'S FRANCHISE ON VALLEY BOULEVARD: Yes. TAYLOR: Paul, this is a very sensitive question, in the sense... and I don't want to...put you on the spot or McDonald's on the spot. Are you 100% behind this move? Here's McDonald's, and I put that question to you. Have you been fairly successful at the location you're at? PERNECKY: We have been very successful for 40 years - since 1960. TAYLOR: I used to go to the Winchell's Donut Shop that was there. PERNECKY: Fortunately we are faced with a situation where we're currently at. We're having a hard time, if at all... the possibility of staying where we're at is not an option anymore. We only have 4 years left on the lease.... TAYLOR: That's pretty clear it's not an option RRM11N:11-13-01 Page #6 BRUESCH: What is the reason for... they want to.... PERNECKY: The current landlord wants to renegotiate at an uneconomical price and I think he's already sold it. JOHANNSON: He sold the property to someone else who has already indicated that they do not have an interest in working with McDonald's. TAYLOR: That's what happened to Target over there. They sold the property and the new owner increased the rent, and I understand the rent went up 50%, and Target said we're not paying that. JOHANSSON: Yes. That's a similar situation here. TAYLOR: I can appreciate that, but I wanted to get that clear because that was raised before, that you were... it was just up in the air... PERNECKY: I personally have concerns about the redevelopment. We tried to move and those buildings, scaled corner, bit and pieces, and we're more concerned with the fact that we can't be there in 4 years. We'd like to be in the City of Rosemead, been here for a long time. We have to be somewhere and I'm sure the City would love us to be here. TAYLOR: I asked you at the last time, the meeting you were here about... you've paid directly to the City, through your sales, a quarter of a million dollars in... not total, but that's directly to the City. Employment was between 35 and 45 people a year. And, I think McDonald's has 30 to 32 thousand restaurants, somewhere in that area worldwide? JOHANNSON: No, not quite that many. One opens every six minutes, so we'll get there soon. TAYLOR: How many do you have worldwide? JOHANSSON: 26 to 28 thousand. TAYLOR: Ok. That's just what I've read in the financial reports. But, even 25 to 26 thousand, an international corporation with close to $10 billion in business... TRIPEPI: I guess with that being said then, for those on the Agency that are concerned with proliferation, then basically, what we're going to be doing is replacing one for one. BRUESCH: I have a couple of questions. One of the questions I asked last time we were discussing this is, what financial gain do you get with a corner lot as opposed to a mid-block lot for a McDonald's or any fast-food? It seemed to me that there were no figures, but since then RRAMIN:11-13-01 Page #7 • 0 it's been relayed to me that if there is any gain, it was marginal and in some cases that there is a loss in sales. Are there any facts or figures on how much more successful or less successful a corner lot as opposed to a mid-block lot per your analysis of restaurants would be? JOHANNSON: I did the projections as a real estate person when we go to relocate a store. We always believe that we will have an increase in sales when we move from a mid-block to a corner location. It is a better location. We have cross street traffic that we don't have where we are. The visibility is better. There is a square footage increase on this relocation. I would say most of the time there is an increase in sales. Sometimes you don't hit for whatever reason, but that's not the majority of the cases. In this particular case, we can put in a...we're putting in a small play place that is enclosed that is a benefit to the community and also we attribute some more sales increase from that as well. My anticipation is that this will be a increase in sales, not a decrease and we think it's a positive move. JENNAE KEMP, MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Just to add to Lisa's comment, I'm Jennae Kemp, and I'm also with McDonald's. To your question, I think if we look at the quick service restaurant industry, it is important to understand that our business is driven by impulse buy. People will typically make a decision to go to a quick service restaurant within 30 or 45 seconds of seeing it. For the most part, people won't typically, unless you have children, and unless you're building a play place, by what we're proposing here, this is not considered a destination location. You're not going to leave your house to go there. You might leave your job, you might go therefor lunch. But, we basically hang our hats on drive-by traffic. 1 wouldn't necessarily see this particular McDonald's as drawing people outside this particular community. If we were located at a freeway entrance or exit, then I'd said say perhaps we're going to be bringing in additional people to the community. I think the corner location for us makes it more convenient for the existing community. I think we can look at this project as a traffic diverter. Those people that are passing by in that heavily trafficked intersection will perhaps choose to get off of the street, the boulevard and to come onto the lot. And perhaps that might be an aid from a traffic standpoint. But, I think also from the impulse buy standpoint there is greater visibility and people have the ability to once they see the location, to negotiate their turn in and out of the restaurant and do it safely, and probably a lot more safely then they would in the mid-block location. BRUESCH: That will have to be discussed in a traffic study. I have two more questions. We found out that CVS was not interested because of the fact that they did not want to do a shared parking. But, was there any correspondence or conversations with CVS about establishing their building as a stand alone? TRIPEPI: At your request we attempted to get ahold of CVS today. We were unable to make contact, Mr. Bruesch, as I told you. BRUESCH: The third question I have is if this was a stand alone 12,000 foot building on that lot, wouldn't there be adequate parking for a 12,000 foot building without McDonald's there, RRAMIN:I 1-13-01 Page a8 • 0 without covering the wash. So, if they could get a 12,000 foot stand alone building, whether it be CVS or whatever, they save themselves approximately $1 million and still have adequate parking by not putting the parking over the wash. What I can't understand is why, if they can do all this moving around, and they have adequate parking for a 12,000 foot commercial building without the McDonald's, why hasn't that been discussed before? These are the types of things that we're faced with in terms of making the best development for a lot like that. And, to me, it would seem logical for a developer... if they could see a savings of $1 '/z million, $1 '/z million for not covering the wash and having a stand alone 12,000 foot commercial entity, which could be CVS or could be something else, why are we putting an additional cost on the development and an additional impact on that parking and the driving around that corner? Maybe ...I'm not an economist and I'm not a commercial land venture aRluen capitalist, but it doesn't make sense to me, it really doesn't. TRIPEPI: Bob, this lady would like to answer, then I think it's my turn. JOHANNSON: Again, I'm with McDonald's so I can't speak for the developer, but, one, McDonald's Corporation does have a signed lease with the landowner. So, part of what their effort would be is to... we are already committed with them. So, for them to try to do something that would not include a McDonald's, would require that they violate the document... a legal document that we have with them. That's one reason why they haven't gone away. The second reason is, I believe they have made a great effort to find tenants... and to your point, I'm the real estate person, I do all the demographics, I do my volume projections, I do cost studies. And, if it doesn't work, it's not a site that we're going to go into. So, they've made a lot of calls, they've talked to a lot of people. It's a great City, it's a great location, but it just isn't going to work for everybody. It may not be a 12,000 square foot user that they can do a deal with that, one, pay the freight that they are looking to pay. And, the third thing is the land developer. There is no better lease in the world than a McDonald's lease. We are spa a credit, in tough times we can be counted on. And, every landowner would love to have our land, just having McDonald's lease a land increases the value of the land. CVS, quite honestly, great company, but to your point again, with the Rite Aids, the drugstores have been in a lot of trouble. They're in, they're out. CVS is closing stores on the east coast. They're not necessarily a stable industry and maybe that's part of the reason why they're not on the deal today. IMPERIAL: I have a question. We have 3 McDonald's in the City of Rosemead. One on Prospect, then we have the one here and we've got one up on the freeway there. TAYLOR: That's not a McDonalds', that's been closed there at Wards. Is that the one you're taking about? IMPERIAL: INTO, no. I'm talking about the one on the freeway, the 60 freeway. BRUESCH: That's not in the City. RRAAIIN:11-13-01 Page a9 • .0 PERNECKY: That's San Gabriel and.... TRIPEPI: Right across from Charley Brown's Gary, just a little bit. It's in the county. It's-the county area. TAYLOR: It's not our sales tax... IMPERIAL: Thank you for your information. I would like to know how they compare, as far as sales are concerned. The one here, the one we're talking about, this gentleman has run a great operation over there. I have no problem with the way he runs it. It doesn't look like that operation is great over there on top of the hill, where San Gabriel, Rosemead and Alhambra... the one on Prospect doesn't look like that great of an operation too. COUNCILMEMBER MARGARET CLARK: Oh, I don't know about that. I live right down the street and there's a lot of trash in front of my house. IMPERIAL: Can you tell me how they compare as far as business is concerned. PERNECKY: The restaurant on Valley and Charlotte is the... runs at the average going for a southern California restaurant. Southern California restaurants run at the... almost at 20% higher than the average of the country. The one up on Prospect runs about 20% lower than this one, and the one just off of Del Mar and Garvey, that the City of Rosemead, that is one of the highest revenue generators of the 20 restaurants my family has been involved in. CLARK: Where is that? TRIPEPI: It's the one on Prospect. TAYLOR: So, that's been a fairly successful one also. CLARK: I think he just said it was 20% lower than the one on Valley. TRIPEPI: I think he meant the one in South San Gabriel, Maggie. The county area. He meant the one that is below par is the one off the freeway. BRUESCH: But, the ownership is different. One is a company store and one is a franchise. PERNECKY: All 3 are franchises. IMPERIAL: Another question I have is this. Who owns that property. Is it still Benson Woo? Am I correct? How do you fit on this, Sir. TAYLOR: What's your involvement with the project at all. RRAMIN:11-13-01 Page # 10 • 0 JOE CAMPBELL, DEVELOPER: Mr. (to the architect sitting next to him), you're just the representative for Benson Woo or helping the architect? ARCHITECT: I'm the designer for that... IMPERIAL: So Benson Woo is still the owner of the property. TRIPEPI TO STEVE HUNT: You go ahead. You were at the last meeting, you're involved with the McDonald's site itself? STEVE HUNT: Yes. I'm the landowner. Benson Woo is our leasee. IMPERIAL: Just the gas station part, am I correct? HUNT: No, the whole property. TAYLOR: They're the owner of the large parcel, but they're the leasee of your property. BRUESCH: Run that by me again. TAYLOR: They're the owner of what was formerly T & J's. IMPERIAL: I don't understand your answer. Will you tell me that again. HUNT: Yes. I'm the landowner of where McDonald's is going to be perched upon. IMPERIAL: That's where the gas station was and the lot behind it? HUNT: Yessir. I own the whole property. IMPERIAL: How about the T & J restaurant? HUNT: I don't think so, no. TAYLOR: But, part of that property is included in the McDonald's. That's what we need to keep clear. CLARK: So, Benson leases it from you? HUNT: Yes he does. IMPERIAL: Benson leased it when he bought the T & J Restaurant and that's the fact, and he's leased it since then. RRM11N:11-13-01 Page 9 11 • • HUNT: We leased all the parking to Helen when she owned T & J Restaurant. We own the three little huts in the parking lot also. TAYLOR: The only question as far as there was some discussion about the demolition of the old buildings there rather than leaving them in a derelict condition. IMPERIAL: The old buildings behind the parking lot. That's the one that comes up to the wash... TAYLOR: What's the disposition of putting in a new McDonald's using part of the parking lot of T & J? We'll just use that for reference... peer for McDonald's, what happens to the old buildings? CAMPBELL: At the last meeting it was brought up. We said... we made a motion, we will demolish all the buildings, including the huts, and spread it with gravel so that it is clear land and will look neat. TAYLOR: Well, that is for your benefit, completely. And, I'm glad to hear that. CAMPBELL: Well, we brought it up last time too. We would like to see the property look nice. Then if there is a chance then we can go ahead with any other portion of the development. It's a lot nicer to come in with a prospective client and say this is what we have available in addition to the main tenant. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman. In discussing the McDonald's, my six grandchildren and my children for that matter, they go to McDonald's. They leave home to go to McDonald's and they take me from home to go to McDonald's. It's... all I can say is it's such a successful corporation and anybody that really knows me, I can tell you where every Burger King is in the San Gabriel Valley. Any direction I go in, I know where the Burger King is, but the kids like McDonald's and I go there. But, it's the fact that it's a reknowned corporation from my standpoint that I just can't imagine the City losing such an asset of employment for a lot of startup young people. We get more revenue off of that McDonald's, than we do generally for the Alpha Beta store across the street. That's the next thing we've got to work on. CAMPBELL: Who else has a question? TAYLOR: I would just favor that the City go ahead and keep a good asset while we have a chance to do it. I don't know any other way to put it. CLARK: Mr. Chairman. I have to admit that I only knew tonight that the other location is not viable. I didn't realize that... TAYLOR: I didn't either, Maggie. Now we understand something is going to have to be done. RRAXIIN:I 1-13-01 Page #12 • 0 CLARK: I thought that if this didn't go here that it would stay there. KEMP: If I could just add. When we first approached the City, that was an option, a far fetched option. However, the property has been sold during the time that we have been working with you. We do not have that option. But it was an option when we first spoke with you. IMPERIAL: That's news. Gentlemen, ladies, what is your pleasure? TAYLOR: Somebody has got to do it, even if I get voted down I'll make the motion that we approve the project, then we'll go from there. IMPERIAL: Is there a second? ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: Determine that it's in conformity with the Redevelopment Plan? TAYLOR: Yes, and Mr. Tripepi, was there anything that you did not find in conformity with the Redevelopment Agency? TRIPEPI: No. I made that clear, it's on the minutes. There wasn't anything. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. CLARK: I'm just in a quandary here because that piece of news makes a big difference. IMPERIAL: I can agree with you, Maggie, but it's news to me too and I don't want to lose a person that's been a good businessperson in this community - and have done a good service for the community. On the other hand, I would like to look at this a little bit more. TAYLOR: What are you going to try to get in there now, Mr. Imperial? IMPERIAL: I'm not going to try to get anybody in there. I want to look at what the situation is going to bring on the City. TAYLOR: Is it going to be a detriment to the City. IMPERIAL: I'm not sure, and I'd like to know that. TAYLOR: I don't mind waiting, but this is where abuses of redevelopment agencies come in. IMPERIAL: I promise you if I get all the answers I want, I won't have any abuses coming. RRMIIN:11-13-01 Page # 13 • TAYLOR: It's been a year and a half, what other answers do you want? BRUESCH: Mr. Chairman. This is not a IMPERIAL: I can ask you that the same way when we've had a problem. TAYLOR: Ask me what..... IMPERIAL: You wanted to take a look at information and so did I. Now I didn't know that he was in this kind of a problem until tonight. Now, am I given the courtesy of looking at this a little closer and finding out more about it? TAYLOR: I will respect your courtesy. We're going to go out there now and pass some moratorium, and they're going to be dragged into it, and that's part of the game that we play. IMPERIAL: I hate like hell to have it referred to as a game, Mr. Taylor. TAYLOR: Shenanigans.... IMPERIAL: That's your opinion. That's not mine. TAYLOR: That's my opinion, but it is coming to reality. BRUESCH: Mr. Chairman. I disagree that this has anything to do with redevelopment power. What this has to do with is a group of people, namely the Council, who are struggling to put in a quality development that will be useful to the people and not a problem in terms of traffic and parking. That's the only issue, whether it's in the Redevelopment area, whether it's outside of the Redevelopment Area doesn't mean a hill of beans to us. The whole thing is...we're looking for the best type of development for that particular corner. And, it has nothing to do with redevelopment powers at all, I'm sorry. I'm struggling the same way with... as Mrs. Clark is. A piece of information that was given to me by the franchise owner today about the ownership transferring his piece of property was new information. I need to... actually, I need to cogitate on that. I need to mull that over and look at... my big problem is the ingress and egress and I've said this before. I have to look at what plans they have in terms of any mitigation of that corner in terms of making turns into that corner lot. The other thing I need to do is to know that they're not relying on a development on the other part of the properties in order to make their development viable. And, I vice-versa the other piece of property, should not use their development as making theirs viable. And it goes back to the question I still have from the very beginning is that what should have been done at the very get-go of this whole thing, is that the two property developers should have gotten together before the lease was made and made some type of commitment about joint development. That wasn't done. Now we're faced with a person that is making a very good attempt to utilize a piece of property that they've owned for 200 years or something. And, now we have another developer that is saying I need some of their RRAMIN:I 1-13-0I Page 414 • 0 parking and it's a real problem that if we have foresight instead of hindsight, we could solve all of these problems a year ago when McDonald's first approached the landowners. But that wasn't done. Now we've got a problem on our hands. I do need some more time to think it over and discuss it with staff. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman. I would like the record to clarify... Mr. Johnson was asked if the parking conditions were met. Did you answer, yes, they were met? JOHNSON: They are not met on the stand alone corner for what you see up there, on the easel. The lease lines are drawn in the manner that only take in 18 parking stalls. That's not even close to meeting parking. They need 40 to 50 spaces. There's plenty of room on the property to do that. TAYLOR: Then what is the understanding with McDonald's that they will have the JOHNSON: When they go for a Design Review Hearing before the Planning Commission, they're going to either meet the stringent parking requirements of 1 per 50 square feet, or they're going to have to apply for a Zone Variance to the parking requirement and provide the 40 to 50 that they say they need. BRUESCH: Brad, will you explain how restrictive or more restrictive or less restrictive our parking requirements are. JOHNSON: Probably double what other communities are BRUESCH: We are very restrictive on parking here. CLARK: I'm a little bit confused now. If we were to approve this tonight, then it would go to the Planning Commission? TRIPEPI: Sure. It has to go through design review. CLARK: Why are we getting it before them? KRESS: Because that's what you do with a major intersection in a redevelopment area. TRIPEPI: They don't want to spend a whole bunch of money designing all the plans if you won't do it. CLARK: In other words, we would need to know if there is adequate parking, and we don't know that tonight. JOHNSON: They would have to adjust their lease area to give us the parking RRAMIN:11-13-01 Page 915 • 0 TRIPEPI: To provide for parking. BRUESCH: Would that affect the other development then? CLARK: If we were to approve this tonight, then it still goes to the Planning Commission and if they don't come up with the right parking, it doesn't go. Then does it come back to us? TRIPEPI: Not unless it's appealed by the applicant. TAYLOR: They have to meet the parking requirements at that time or be denied CAMPBELL: I have an issue here. A few minutes ago Mr. Bruesch brought up the same subject about the traffic. We spent a great deal of money. We went to Traffic Solutions. If any of you drove through that intersection, you'd see the rubber pieces across the street with the counting machines. All those tapes were sent to another company in Monterey Park. All that information was sent to Brad Johnson for your traffic department. What more could we possibly do, stand there by hand and count? TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Did we get to see that? TRIPEPI: I don't know if we provided that, Gary, because that's part of what goes to the Planning Commission as part of their package. But, we could certainly give that to the Agency. JOHNSON: It's not complete.... CLARK: But, Mr. Johnson isn't saying that there's adequate parking right now. Do you accept that? CAMPBELL: The issue on the floor right now, Madam, is Mr. Bruesch on the traffic for the egress... TRIPEPI: Mrs. Clark is asking you a question as it relates to parking, not what Mr. Bruesch said relevant to traffic. CAMPBELL: We can make a change... TRIPEPI: And you will have to do that, you will have to meet parking requirements to get approved. CAMPBELL: We can meet the parking requirements. And down the line, perhaps, if there is more of the area developed there would have to possibly be a change in the parking arrangements, with the variance. RRAMIN:11-13-01 Page s 16 • 0 TRIPEPI: You may have to spend $1 million to cover the wash to come up with additional parking. CAMPBELL: $1 to $1 '/2 million if the developer is going to do it. It was done over Del Mar and Valley. There are other areas that it is being done at. IMPERIAL: That's why they wanted to put 26 units back there, remember at one time, condo units. And, that was stopped. CLARK: That's what I don't want to see. I want to make sure that if we allow this, that we were not getting into the.... TRIPEPI: The only thing you're looking at tonight, Mrs. Clark, is straight, single use, stand alone McDonald's. Nothing else. Nothing else is approved. They will demolish the buildings, put gravel on the entire lot and they meet the parking requirements when they go to the Planning Commission or the project won't be approved. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, what do you want with it here. IMPERIAL: What 1 would like to see done, I've had some questions I want to ask. I don't want to wind up with 8 furniture stores like that, or something like that in a one-block area. I'd like to see us defer this moratorium until the next meeting. TAYLOR: I would agree with that, thank you. IMPERIAL: Then we can get some more information. But at this point, I'm not ready to make that decision. I'll entertain a motion, but that's where I'm at. TRIPEPI: We don't need a motion then, just defer this item for two weeks. Motion by Agencymember Vasquez, Second by Vice-Chairman Bruesch that this item be deferred for two weeks. Vote was unanimous to defer item. BRUESCH: I want to apologize to you because we haven't seen that report yet. TRIPEPI: We'll get it ready in handout ready form, then we'll give it to the Agency. Whatever Mr. Johnson says he needs to complete it, give it to him. CAMPBELL: You would like getting information like a free standing store, like CVS. 12,000 feet is nothing. It's not enough to bring in enough traffic to fill that entire piece of property. CVS originally had a unit at the Glendale Galeria when it first opened. It didn't survive because of the rent. They're a mass merchandiser, low-end merchandise. Very, very good during the holiday seasons. RRAMINA 1.13-01 Page # 17 • • KEMP: Point of clarification, there was a motion to vote on the issue of the project and then I hear... TRIPEPI: It died for lack of a second. There was a motion made to defer the item for two weeks and that has passed 5-0. So, the item is now deferred. TAYLOR: So it hasn't been approved or denied. We can find out more about this ownership relation... BRUESCH: The traffic study also. CAMPBELL: One more point I'd like to reiterate. We have not and still are not asking for any money from your Agency. BRUESCH: That's why I reiterated that it's that a non redevelopment issue. CAMPBELL: We're also reaching a point where Mr. Woo may not go ahead and keep waiting and waiting to develop the project. IMPERIAL: If Mr. Woo doesn't want to wait on this, this again, is something you're going to have to deal with, ok. I want all the information. You're working for Mr. Woo, I'm working for about 70,000 people in this community. There is a difference, ok. To me, what we owe the people in this community is getting them what they need on a daily basis, if you want to say that, to go shopping or whatever the case may be. We owe that to them, that's why they put us in office. There's a difference between you dealing with Mr. Woo and us dealing with the people in this community and knowing what they want. TAYLOR: Mr. Mayor. Are we done on this particular item? CLARK: I have asked first. I just want to clarify that there were two major things that we found out tonight. One, was that the other McDonald's was not staying at their present location. The other was that we came in looking at it this way, and only found out today that CVS pulled out. So, those are two major things. I don't want you to think that we're just wishy-washy around here. But these are, to me, two major things that we have to justify'the two-week delay. BRUESCH: The third thing is the traffic study. This is the first time that I've heard that it was done. IMPERIAL: And, the fourth thing I would like to say. Benson Woo is a good friend of mine. never mix business with pleasure. This is not anything to do with Benson Woo, who is a friend of mine. It's what's best for the City and how it will be best for the City once this happens, if that's the case. Do we understand that? Thank you. RRAMIN:11-13-01 Page # 18 • 3. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS - None 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MATTERS - None 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Agency Secreta APPROVED: Qa4 dJAIWAN RRMIINA I-13-0] Page 4 19