HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 6,1990_2
I
I
0110- ':;D
0.:10' C;O
32:0047
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS ARE TAPE RECORDED AND ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
CLERK
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA
and the
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 6, 1990
The City Council and the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in
a regular session at 7:40 p. m., Tuesday, March 6, 1990 in
the Arcadia City Hall Council Chamber.
INVOCATION
Minister Gary Stouffer, Church of Christ
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE
City Librarian Kent Ross
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Counci1members Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and
Chandler
ABSENT: None
MINUTE
APPROVAL
(Feb.20,
1990)
(APPROVED)
On MOTION by Counci1member Young, seconded by Councilmember
Lojeski and CARRIED, the Minutes of the Adjourned and
Regular Meetings of February 20, 1990 were APPROVED. Council-
member Harbicht ABSTAINED, since he was not present at the
February 20, 1990 meeting.
ORD. & RES.
READ BY
TITLE ONLY
It was MOVED by Councilmember Harbicht, seconded by Council-
member Lojeski and CARRIED that Ordinances and Resolutions
be read by title only and that the reading in full be waived.
CITY ATTORNEY
CLOSED
SESSION
The City Attorney announced that, "pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.9(a), the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in
CLOSED SESSION to discuss the case of Arcadia Redevelopment
Agency vs. Jackson".
PRESENTATION
AMERICAN
RED CROSS
Mayor Chandler then read a Proclamation from the City of
Arcadia proclaiming the Month of March as Red Cross Month and
calling upon the Citizens of Arcadia to support the Arcadia
Chapter of the American Red Cross through financial assistance
or volunteer services to continue this vital service to our
community. This proclamation was presented to the Chairman
of the Board of the American Chapter of the Red Cross, Mr. Hal
McCann and to Mr. Jim Parker, Executive Director.
-1-
3/6/90
1.
tJ?Jo-~o
Be-s r D/5 f
,v.s I'
32:0048
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Thomas Crosbv, 601 South Old Ranch Road, President,
Santa Anita Homeowners' Association, stated, in part that
recently a sixteen year old was involved in a serious accident
when he was traveling at 70 miles an hour on Old Ranch Road
and struck another auto, the occupants of which had to be
taken to the hospital; one of them a 6 year old boy. Some of
the streets in the Village area are attractive to drivers who
like to race their cars. He inquired of Council if it would
be possible to install speed bumps or radar traps, or both,
to help solve this problem.
Mayor Chandler suggested that Mr. Crosby discuss this problem
with the two Police Captains present at the meeting.
I
Scott Downie, 1104 Rancho Road, stated, in part, that he had
attended a February Council meeting at which time Council made
a decision regarding the transfer of the trash pickup contract
from Best Disposal Company to Newco. It is his contention
that since Best Disposal is declaring bankruptcy, this
contract should have been put out to bid and numerous trash
companies invited to bid upon it. He noted that Monrovia
residents paid less for bin service than Arcadia residents;
also, that San Marino had trash pickup by four different
companies, thereby making the price competitive. He also
called Council's attention to the fact that trash pickup on
Foothill Blvd., which is a very busy street, caused traffic
slowing and a possible hazard when the trash cans are blown
or fall onto the street. He suggested that those residents
on Foothill Blvd. be encouraged to arrange for bin service.
Councilmember Harbicht responded, in reference to Mr. Downie,
that there has been some misstatement of facts. The contract
does not run out in 90 days; it is a multi~year contract;
there are built-in cost increases each year which were
negotiated at the time the contract was signed. The terms of
the contract are set and will continue to be set until the end
of the contract term. Also, to pick one rate out of a complex
rate structure does not necessarily mean that the people of
Arcadia are paying more for trash collection, because they
could be paying less for their individual service. The
contract has been negotiated and was compared point by point
during the negotiations; it was done in a competitive bid
situation. He is satisfied that the contract is a good one
for the people of Arcadia. He also pointed out that whether
or not this company is bankrupt, they have not violated their
contract; they are living up to the letter of their contract.
The company they intend to sellout to has been investigated
thor~ughly and that company will be bound by the terms of the
contract with Best Disposal. This is a good contract for the
people of Arcadia; they are being well served.
Councilmember
new company.
contract to.
I
Lojeski noted that the City did not
Best Disposal selected Newco to
The City did not bring Newco into
solicit the
sell their
the City.
The City Manager stated that Arcadia's service is far superior
to that of San Marino and always has been. San Marino is
served by several trash companies; they have trucks on the
streets every day of the week. The rates for Arcadia are
comparable across the board with other cities in the Valley;
the rates are excellent for the service we receive. The City
would like to go to bid now and choose a firm; unfortunately
we cannot do that because Best Disposal has the contract.
Unless they default on their contract, the City cannot legally
go out to bid. The contract has three or four years to run.
At that time the City can go out to bid.
3/6/90
-2-
I
I
2.
3.
3a.
ROLL CALL
3b.
MINUTE
APPROVAL
(Feb. 20,
1990)
(APPROVED)
3c.
HEARING RE.
EMINENT DOMAIN
PROC. (Cordova)
(157 E. Wheeler)
064'0-<lfo
tD IJCQlAlSriloN
32:0049
Councilmember Gilb stated that about sixteen years ago when
he first came on Council, there was a trash company that
defaulted; there was trash left on the streets for " to 6
days. When they gave the contract to Best Disposal, they
cleaned up the City that afternoon and the next morning.
It's easy to suggest going out to bid on this, but some of the
companies involved do not have the necessary equipment. As
far as Best Disposal is concerned, they have lived up to their
contract; they clean up the town and that is all that is
required. And as far as Foothill Blvd. is concerned he would
like Mr. Downie to tell those residents that they can not use
their trash cans and have to have bin service; he is not going
to do it. Driving in and out of those driveways would not be
any safer than picking up the cans. With regard to the
comments about Monrovia's cheaper rates, that was true for
the backyard pickup, and he was very unhappy about it. For
the backyard pickup, many of the driveways in Arcadia are much
longer than those in Monrovia and take longer to go in and
out of. Those rates have been adjusted since that time in
Monrovia.
The City Attorney added that Best Disposal has not been
adjudicated bankrupt; they have filed for a reorganization and
are seeking to get the bankruptcy court to approve the
acquisition of the contract by Newco and get some protection
from their creditors.
CITY COUNCIL RECESSED IN ORDER TO ACT AS THE
ARCADIA REDEDELOPMENT AGENCY
PRESENT: Agency Members Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and
Chandler
ABSENT: None
On MOTION by Member Lojeski, seconded by Member Young
and CARRIED, the Minutes of the Meeting of February 20, 1990
were APPROVED. Member Harbicht ABSTAINED since he was not
present at the February 20, 1990 meeting.
The Agency Counsel announced that "as previously announced,
on Items 3c, d and e, Member Lojeski will be ABSTAINING with
regard to a potential conflict of interest, so he will not
be participating in the vote on those items".
The request to adopt Resolution of Necessity instituting
condemnation of certain real property (Cordova) has been
continued from February 20, 1990. Resolution No. ARA-149 set
hearings for this date on the commencement of eminent domain
proceedings for the Cordova property. Prior to setting the
hearing, the Agency established just compensation and made an
offer to the owners to acquire the property for the full
amount established as just compensation pursuant to Government
Code Section 7267.2. Also in compliance with Ca11,fornia
Redevelopment Law, the Agency provided Owner/Tenant
Participation Opportunities to the owners. Staff has
conducted a full and adequate review of environmental impacts
associated with the acquisition of the property.
In response to a question from Member Gilb, the Assistant City
Manager for Economic Development explained that there are two
actions contained in this single item. One is a Resolution
of Necessity for the Cordova property, 157 East Wheeler. The
second is for the Wingard property, 101 North Second Avenue.
In the event that the Agency tonight, after hearing any
testimony offered by the respective owners or people with an
interest in that property, determines that they wish to pass
or adopt these Resolutions of Necessity, it requires a" - 0
vote. If it is approved, the Agency will then file this with
the' Agency. Attorney; the Agency Attorney will then file it
3/6/90
-3-
ob8o-l.fC,
RESOLUTION
NO. ARA-156
(ADOPTED)
MOTION
3d.
HEARING RE.
EMINENT DOMAIN
PROC., fWingard)
(101 !t. Second
Ave.) tfr
00 to -1./6
L-D ,/'Ir,/ISIT, 1M
6{, 7C- <f~
RESOLUTION
NO. ARA-158
(ADOPTED)
32:0050
with the Superior Court in downtown Los Angeles in
approximately one month from this date. The case will be
calendared for a hearing and, given the normal time, it will
take about a year for it to come to Court for a full trial.
In the meantime, the Redevelopment Agency staff will continue
to negotiate with the families in an effort to resolve it
before we ever get to that trial. In the past, no cases have
gone to trial.
Member Gilb inquired if there were homes in Arcadia that could
be purchased for $225,000. He had talked to a real estate
agent who said he had found two or three homes in Arcadia that
can be brought for that price. Staff agreed there are a few.
The Assistant City Manager for Economic Development then read
the title of Resolution No. ARA-156: "A RESOLUTION OF
NECESSITY OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA, INSTITUTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF ~INENT
DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ~CQUISITION OF
CERTAIN PROPERTY FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES (CORDOVA)".
I
The hearing for those with a possessory interest in the
property was then opened.
MARGARET TORRES, EI Monte, in regard to the property at 157
E. Wheeler, Mrs. Torres stated, in part, that she feels the
City has been given unfair power to condemn property for
redevelopment purposes. Most people cannot afford the
financial impact, let alone the stress. She wondered if this
is really for the good of the community or just to fatten
someone's pocket. As for a fair price, if they had ten
appraisals, they would all be different. If the appraisers
were hired by the City rather than the landowners, the price
would, of course, be lower. So far they have been unable to
find property equal to what they have for the price being
offered by the City for their property. Nothing is available
in the prime area where they are now. The City is taking the
land that their parents worked and sacrificed for. It is
ironic that the City logo should be "Community of Homes".
It was then MOVED by Member Harbicht, seconded by Member Young
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No.
ARA-156 be an it is hereby ADOPTED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Members GiIb, Harbicht, Young and Chandler
None
None
Member Lojeski
The request to adopt Resolution of Necessity instituting
condemnation of certain real property has been continued from
February 20, 1990. Resolution No. ARA-153 set hearing for
this date on the commencement of eminent domain proceedings
for the Wingard property. Pursuant to Resolution No. ARA-153 ,
staff has transmitted a hearing notice and the Agency's final
offer to acquire the property to the owners. Prior to setting
the hearings, the Agency established just compensation and
made an offer to the owners to acquire the property for the
full amount established as just compensation pursuant to
Government Code Section 7267.2. Pursuant to California
Redevelopment Law and Resolution No. ARA-IO, the Agency
provided Owner/Tenant Participation Opportunities to the
owners of the property. In compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, staff has
conducted a full and adequate review of environmental impacts
associated with the acquisition of the property.
I
The Assistant Manager for Economic Development then read the
title of Resolution No. ARA-158: "A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY
,
OF THE ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
3/6/90
-4-
32:0051
CALIFORNIA, INSTITUTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN
PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES (WINGARD)".
The hearing for those with a possessory interest in the
property was then opened.
I
Karen Win"ard, 3lS Pleasant Street, Pasadena, stated, in part,
that she is the Secretary-Treasurer of Nelson Ii< Wingard, Ltd.,
the daughter of Eugene and Esther Wingard who live at 1651
North Santa Anita Avenue, Arcadia, and who own tlle property the
Agency is now considering condemning' at 101 South Second
Avenue. She noted correction in that the owners did submit
a timely letter expressing interest in participation in any
proposed development contemplated for the project area. She
noted anther correction in the amount offered by the Agency
for the property from $255,000 to $263,797, or $66.83 a square
foot, which she feels is still far from reasonable when other
industrial properties in the same area have sold in recent
years for nearly three times that much. She further stated
that her parents had lived in Arcadia for nearly fifty years.
They cannot help but question whether the public interest is
best served by the Redevelopment Agency's acquisition of this
business property. Her parents and grandparents built the
cabinet shop on that property in 1948; it was specially
designed for its purpose. It would be difficult to replicate
such a building today especially for the amount of money the
Agency is offering. In a more heritage conscious community,
such a building would probably be a candidate for
preservation. It is a functional building, structurally sound
and in a good state of repair. The Agency says this
neighborhood is blighted; apparently a necessary finding if
redevelopment is to proceed legally; it is a subjective
definition. The properties are kept up and the owners have
watched with dismay the non-enforcement of the parking law
along Wheeler Avenue, where the City impound lot is located.
Properties in less desirable locations have been quoted to
them for twice the amount of money the Agency has offered.
The Agency is attempting to discard, as blighted, a functional
mixed-use neighborhood. Can an, as yet undetermined,
development be of greater value than a functioning
neighborhood? She argues that it can not.
I
In response to a question from Member Gilb, staff responded
that the Agency has included the Wingard's interest in
participation in the subsequent RFP which went out two weeks
ago. However, the Agency's primary interest is in commercial
rather than industrial development. The Resolution, if
passed, will not eliminate the Wingards from negotiating for
possible participation. In reply to a question from Member
Gilb, staff replied the Wingard's participation can take any
one of a number of forms. Their land could be incorporated
into a larger development, or their use could be incorporated
by selling land and building and moving into a larger
development, or even as part owner. Their parcel is in the
middle of the development site, so the possibility of the land
remaining in their ownership is quite remote. Member Harbicht
noted that he understands that there is a lot of concern here;
it is unfortunate that people have to be displaced. However,
to clarify a few items, the purpose of redevelopment is not
to make money; the purpose of redevelopment is to eliminate
blight. That is why the law was passed by the California
legislature. One of the things that is a necessity for
redevelopment is the power of condemnation. Eminent domain
has been in the law for years and years. That is how the
freeways were built; they were built over land that had been
private property. It is something that government has the
right to do. It is necessary to make a finding if public
interest requires this to be done. He feels this project
makes sense and it needs to be done ... this is a blighted
area.
'\
3/6/90
-5-
MOTION
3e.
SOUTHWEST
, CORNER PROJ.
PROPOSAL REV.
(ERN TO WLA
ARCON/SCHAEFER)
(APPROVED)
() b to -'-f'f
Sfv' (,DqI.,Mt.fI.. ~Ro:r
T
R
A
N
S
C
R
I
r
T
A
V
A
I
j.,
A
B
L
E
3f.
ADJOURNMENT
32:0052
It was then MOVED by Member Harbicht, seconded by Member Gilb
and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Resolution No.
ARA-158 be and it is hereby ADOPTED.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Members Gilb, Harbicht, Young and Chandler
None
None
Member Lojeski
At its February 20, 1990 meeting, the Agency deferred
consideration of the Southwest Corner Project Review to this
date. At that time, Chairman Chandler, as well as ~embers
Gilb and Yo~g were concerned about the possible loss of the
traffic island at Second Avenue and Huntington Dr. The
Assistant City Manager for Econoll!ic Deve~opment noted that the
present estimated project cost is $2,200,~00.
I
Warren Lortie, on behalf of WLA Arcon/Schaefer Bros., set
forth, in some detai~, the propose4 p~~n~ ~or th~ s~te, not~ng
they are negotiating with a retai~ or a ~ser for th~ propo~ed
office building which would gener~te r~t~~~ ~~~es and ~~~e~
tax revenues; also there is a commitll!~nt ~or ~ resta~r~nt o~
the corner.
After considerable discussion, it w~~ ~O~D ~y ~ell!b~; G~~b,
seconded by Member Young alld CARRIE)) o~ roll cal~ vote ~~
follows that the Agency ACC~~T the new propo~al a~ ~ut~~n~d
in the map to include the portion o~ the tr~~~~c ~s~~n4 ~s
outl~ned there for the new co~~~g~r~~ion of the ~ot.
AYES:
~OES:
ABS~N+:
ABS~AIN:
~embe~s Gi~b, ~~rbicht, Yo~g ~n4 Gh~ndl~r
None
~one
~ember Lojeski
Chris Wilson, Champion Development, stated, in part, that his
cOlI!pany is interested in a retail proje~t' an4 '~s in support
of the plans for the expanded site, 'just passed, They do'not
have a commi~m~nt at the present till!e' and ~eel th~t th~
parking restrictions in the City are severe.
. . .. , . ""'. . . . . ,
Howard Schaefer, Schaefer Brothe~s, stat~d, in part that h~
agreed that the 'best use of the projec~ site, wou14 be tha~ of
an office building alld a quality restaurallt. TIl~y hav~ a
commitmellt from a well-~oVl1 quality' ~e~~au~allt for th~ ~H..,
Chairman Chandler inquired of the name of the -~estau~allt
referred to. Whereupon Hr. Schaefer introduced Charles
Sturniolo, 102 Hill Run, "Monro~la, owner of the Derby
Restaurallt, WhO stated that th~re'a~e pla~s to '~elocate'th~
Derby Restaurant to the new site under' discussion. This
relocation is ~ecessary because of the expen!le of repairs "to
the buildillg whicll are neceSl!lary followfng the earthq~k~.
unless the Derby is moved to another site. Considerable I
discussion ellsued cOllcerning th~ DerbiR~staural!t ~eloca~ioll'
Chairman Challdler felt the Ilerby i" a' leg~lld ~Il ~~~aciia allcl
he would like to see it relocate4, .'
,
It was MOVED by ~ember Ha~bicht, ~~cond~4 ~y M~mb~~ YOUllg ~nd
CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that the Agency commence
p.~got1atiop.s Oil an Exclu~f..re R~ght '~~. ~ego~~ate w1th '\h.A
A~cop./Schaefer.
AYES:
IiOES:
ABSENT;
ABSTAIN:
Members Gilb, ~arbicht! Young anci Challcller
None '
None
Member Lojeski
TIl~ meetillg ~JOURNED to 7:00 p.
, '
m.,
March 20, 1990.
'." "r
3(6/90
-6-
I
I
4.
5.
5a.
FINAL MAP
47904 ~IY
(Slf-.52d'
Longden Av,)
05f.O-60
If<. '-I7Qo <I,
5b.
MUTUAL AID
AGREEMENT -
PUBLIC WORKS
(L. A. &
Orange
Cou\lties)
IO/O-do
~I-I1 (J,"1vf!L Ii I/)
5c.
NIGHT STALKER
REWARD (Consid'd
Separately)
5c.
NIGHT STALKER
REWARD
OlI70~&.1
!JIMtl Sitt,_I([R.
6,
6a.
ORDINANCE
NO. 1919
(ADOPTED)
() S?O ~GS
7// J'9~oo7
32:0053
CITY COUNCIL RECONVENED
CONSENT ITEMS
APPROVED Final Map 47904 for an 8 lot subdivision at 516-520
Longden Avenue and 511 Walnut Avenue filed by Chris
Construction Company (owner/developer of, the subject site).
Approval subject to the condition that before the Final Map
is recorded, all outstanding conditions of approval must be
complied with. '
APPROVED Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement between Los Angeles
County and Orange County and various cities within same who
have become signatories to the Agreement. AUTHORIZED the
Mayor to sign a duplicate copy of the Public Works Mutual Aid
Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney; DIRECTED
the City Clerk to forward said signed copy to the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works for their records.
Considered separately. (See below)
ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSENT ITEMS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM 5c,
WERE APPROVED ON MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER YOUNG, SECONDED BY
COUNCILMEMBER HARBICHT AND CARRIED ON ROLL CALL VOTE AS
FOLLOWS;
AYES:
Councilmembers Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young apd'
Chandler
None
None
NOES:
ABSENT:
With regard to the claims filed for the Night Stalker Reward,
Councilmember Harbicht inquired why the eight other persons
who were given portions of the reward by Los Angeles County
were not included in the rewards from Arcadia. Staff replied
these individuals had not made claims to Arcadia. Discussion
ensued as to how the offer of the reward was publicized and
how the claims were made and processed. ' Councilmember
Harbicht felt that the individuals instrumental in the Night
Stalker capture who had received a share ,of the reward from
the County should likewise receive part of the reward offered
by Arcadia. Councilmembers agreed.
It was then MOVED by Concilmember Harbicht, seconded by
Councilmember Gilb and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows
that the Night Stalker reward be awarded based on the same
ratio as the distribution applied by the County, including
those that received the County reward but have not applied'to
Arcadia.
AYES:
Councilmembers Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and
Chandler
None
None
NOES:
ABSENT:
CITY ATTORNEY
The City Attorney presented Ordinance No. 1919: "AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA APPROVING TEXT AMENDMENT 89-007,
AMENDING THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS IN THE" ~i~" R-_, 0 0
0, R-l ZONES",
3/6/90
-7-
6b.
RESOLUTION
NO. 5525
(ADOPTED)
1030--;;0
y 10-90
6c.
CLAIM OF
M. D. CONN
(DENIED)
/0</0-'+0
toN#; (>'lj)
6d.
CLAIM OF
J. F. ROGERS
(DENIED)
/OVO-,+O
f(oIrER,S) :rF
;I
"..
7.
8.
HARBICHT
(Parking -
Santa Rosa Rd.)
(Disposal of
Toxic
Materials)
Olf3o-'J. 0
DIS f'oStl /...
NSf
32:UU54
It was MOVED by Councilmember Gilb, seconded by Councilmember
Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that Ordinance
No. 1919 ,be and it is hereby ADOPTED.
AYES:
Councilmembers Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and
Chandler
None
None
NOES:
ABSENT:
The City Attorney presented Resolution No. 5525: "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING VOTING PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES,
APPOINTING PRECINCT BOARD MEMBERS AND FIXING COMPENSATION FOR
THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, APRIL
10, 1990, HERETOFORE CALLED BY RESOLUTION NO. 5511 OF THE CITY
COUNCIL."
I
It was MOVED by Councilmember Young, seconded by Council-
member Gilb and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows that
Resolution NO. 5525 be and it is hereby ADOPTED.
AYES:
Counci1members Gi1b, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and
Chandler
None
None
NOES:
ABSENT:
On recommendation of the City Attorney, the claim of M. D.
Conn was DENIED on MOTION by Councilmember Gi1b, seconded by
Councilmember Young and CARRIED on roll call vote as follows:
AYES:
Councilmembers Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and
Chandler
None
None
NOES:
ABSENT:
On recommendation of the City Attorney, the claim of J. F.
Rogers was DENIED on MOTION by Councilmember Young, seconded
by Councilmember Lojeski and CARRIED on roll call vote as
follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmembers
Chandler
None
None
Gilb, Harbicht, Lojeski, Young and
MATTERS FROM STAFF
None
I
MATTERS FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS
Noted that he had received telephone calls from residents 'on
Santa Rosa Road stating that since a new restaurant has opened
in the area, they are having parking problems. Requested staff
to look into this question and give recommenation as to some
kind of parking limitation.
Councilmember Harbicht noted that in the matter of toxic
disposal, there are many items such as paint, motor oil, etc.,
which are technically illegal to be placed in the common
trash. Yet there seems to be no definitive location for such
toxic disposal. When he 'was representative to the Sanitation
3/6/90
-8-
YOUNG
I
HARB1CHT
(Site for
Disposal of
Household
Hazardous
Materials)
HARB1CHT
CHANDLER
(Night Stalker
Reward)
32:0055
District last year, they designated four or five days when
people could come with their toxins to a central location.
Staff reported they had understood from the Sanitation
District that a proposed, place for disposal of household
hazardous materials was to be the Rose Bowl, probably sometime
in April. Staff will obtain exact information.
Stated that this information should be publicized. She also
noted that if paint cans were left open so the paint could
dry, then they could be placed in the ordinary trash.
Requested staff to find out details as to how and when people
can dispose of household toxins and perhaps publicize the
information in some manner. Suggested also that the
Sanitation District be contacted.
Noted in reply to a question from Councilmember Gilb that
disposal by the trash company of such household toxic
materials is extremely expensive because they have to be kept
in separate containers.
Mayor Chandler noted for the benefit of the reporter and
others remaining in the audience that he wished to call
attention to an important item. Councilmember Harbicht made
a motion that the $5,000 reward offered by the City for
capture of the Night Stalker be awarded to all those who were
instrumental in the capture, whether or not they had applied
to Arcadia for the reward. This was voted unanimously. If
one can remember what the Night Stalker did to this City and
this community, it is important to know that this is a City
that backs law enforcement and people who help. This is
significant.
GILB Will be unable to attend the next Planning Commission Meeting.
(Plan.Comsn.Mtg.)Councilmember Lojeski volunteered to attend in his place.
LOJESKI
(In Memory
of Pearl
Dillingham)
N.s p
I
"I would like to take a few moments and adjourn this evening's
meeting in memory of an individual who certainly had an
impact on me and many, many young people in the community of
Arcadia. The individual's name was Pearl Dillingham. If I
could just take a couple of minutes taking some excerpts from
a little article by Paul Murdy, former principal at Hugo Reid
and Bonita Park Schools in the Arcadia Tribune. Pearl
Dillingham was born August I, 1903. Many people in Arcadia
will remember her she was a long-time teacher and
principal. She passed away in Arcadia on January 20, 1990.
She basically served the children of Arcadia for well over
forty-six years. She was born in Chino; she graduated from
Norma School in 1924 after which she applied to Mr.
Westerhouse, then superintendent of Arcadia schools, for a
teaching position. She started her teaching career in 1924
at First Avenue School and then went to Holly Avenue School,
where she taught grades kindergarten through fifth grade over
a period of many years. She was always interested in sports
and took a special interest in actually teaching physical
education. In those days, there were many woman teachers in
the district who were not particularly interested in physical
education, so she volunteered to handle many of these classes.
She also organized a club within Holly School to encourage
children in good dental health. Many, oldtimers and former
Holly students will remember the Tooth Templer Club. One of
her students at the time she was teaching at Holly Avenue was
the former New York Yankee, Johnny Lindell. As a third
grader, she noticed that he was having some difficulty in
using the baseball bat during a noon recess period. They
often talked about her special instructions after school and
taught Mr. Lindell who became, again, a great Yankee
pitcher and baseball player how to bat properly. Her entire
life was centered on children; she was never married; her work
with children was her greatest interest and joy. She later
became principal of Hugo Reid School and soon after this
assignment, she was selected as Principal of the newest school
3/6/90
-9-
9.
ADJOURNMENT
(Mar. 20,
1990 -
7:00 p.m.)
ATTEST:
32:0056
in the district, Highland Oaks. At approximately the time I
came to Arcadia as a fourth grader, the first person I met at
Highland Oaks was Pearl Dillingham. She often expressed her
concern for teachers. She formulated in 1930 the first
meeting of Arcadia teachers and discussed the organization of
what became the Arcadia Teachers Association. She was a tough
drillmaster, but she truly loved what she was doing. She
loved those with whom she worked. She once said that her life
was richer for having known so many good people, particularly
good children. She is survived by her sister-in-law, Emma
Dillingham of Chino, her niece, Louise Osche of Henderson,
Nevada and her grand nephew, Brian. I would like to adjourn
tonight's meeting in memory of Pearl Dillingham."
At 9:25 p. m., the meeting ADJOURNED to 7:00 p. m., March 20,
1990 in the Chamber Conference Room to conduct the business
of the Council and Agency and CLOSED SESSION, if any,
necessary to discuss personnel, litigation and evaluation of
properties.
~l~rd~qk
3/6/90
-10-
I
I
I
I
T RAN S C RIP T
(Insofar as decipherable)
RELATING TO
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PROCEEDINGS IN CONSIDERATION OF THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER PROJECT PROPOSAL REVIEW
(CONTINUED FROM 2/20/90)
I
REGULAR ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING OF MARCH 6, 1990
I
,;
I
CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MARCH 6, 1990
ITEM 3-e - SOUTHWEST CORNER PROJECT PROPOSAL REVIEW
CHAIRMAN
CHANDLER
The next item is the Southwest Corner Project proposal review
(continued from 2/20/90).
PETE
KINNAHAN
Mr. Chairman, the staff has provided you the proposals and a
little handout to you last night, which gives you the comments I
of the developers relative to the use of the island at Second
and Huntington. The issue, really, for the Agency first to
discuss is how much of the island do they want to preserve for
green space. Because, as you know from the transmittal, that
if a great deal of the island is, in fact, devoted to green I
space, it becomes a reduced site size, which means that Arcon
may not be interested in the property any more. If CDC is
selected as the developer, because of the reduced site size
the Agency will lose $227,000 in income and there'll be a net
loss of around $20,000 a year in annual revenues to the
Agency. Both of the developers are here this evening, and I
know at least the Arcon/Schaefer Brothers would like to
address the Agency. I'd like to have Warren speak at this
time if he would.
CHANDLER
Any questions from the Council first?
AGENCY
MEMBER
HARBICHT
I have a couple of questions here. On the amortization
period, is that based on the tax increment or the total tax
revenue?
KINNAHAN
The amortization is based upon
by that particular development.
sales tax and other revenues.
all of the revenues produced
That includes tax increment,
HARBICHT
But, in fact, only the tax increment goes into the Agency
coffers?
I
KINNAHAN
That's true. The tax increment goes to the Agency and the
sales tax and other taxes go to the city.
And what caused the downward revision in the expected Agency
costs?
HARBICHT
KINNAHAN
As to which proposal, sir?
Well, the Agency costs are the same in both proposals.
You were talking about the summary that was handed to you this
evening?
HARBICHT
KINNAHAN
HARBICHT
Yes, you have an estimated Agency projected cost on 9-5-89 of
one number. Then on 3-5-90, which was yesterday I guess, of
another number. A lower number. What makes it different?
I
KINNAHAN
When staff was doing the original estimates for these
projects, we had before us appraisals and we estimated with
Port and Flor the relocation costs. And we put it together
into what we thought was probably going to be the most
realistic cost. But we estimated kind of on the high side
just to make sure we'd be covering all of our costs. We've
now had about 6 months, 7 months of experience. We've
acquired some of the properties. We've relocated some of the
businesses. We've taken care of many of the issues that were
in the original budget. We now know that the cost of the
project is significantly less than it was in September. And
the numbers you see there, the 9-5-89, is the estimated budget
the staff provided to you then, which was our first one. The
I
1
HARBICHT
KINNAHAN
I HARBICHT
CHANDLER
I WARREN
LORTIE,
ARCON
one that was done yesterday is a more - reflects what is
currently believed to be the estimated project cost.
So that's our best estimate now. So we can forget these other
ones.
Y$S, the $2,750,000 is gone. We're looking now at $2,200,000
as the project cost.
01<. Thank you.
Any other questions for Council? Ok, please state your name
and address.
I
Y$S, Mayor Chandler, my name is Warren Lortie, I'm president
of Arcon and one of the joint proposers. I'm here tonight
with members of the Schaefer family, who are my joint
p~oposers and a participant in our project, who has made a
commitment on a portion of the site, This is a major
d$velopment for us, and we would like to address that this
evening. If you have any questions or specifics are needed,
W$ will provide those tonight. I'd also like to make a
comment on our use of the entire site. We've made a couple
of comments that we didn't feel the site was appropriate as
a reduced site, when the expanded site was an option. Did
not mean to intend that we would not be interested in a
development. We just really didn't feel that that was
appropriate that it be reduced if you have the availability
of the full site. We said that we would take any portion of
the street or the island that was allocated to us and we
SUbmitted a proposal of a revised site plan showing how we
could save a portion of the island and as many of the existing
t~ees as we felt were appropriate without any adjustment at
all in our proposal. Did not mean to imply that we would not
negotiate a reduction in the price if we could deal with some
site in between or even the original site. We've just always
been of the opinion that that was not the logical thing. And
it certainly would affect the valuation of our project and all
of the tax impact numbers. So, we didn't see where that was
a possibility. Didn't mean to imply that we would not do that
p~oject because we certainly would revise our proposals to
come back if that was the decision of Council that the island
was absolutely not an option we did not want to do it. Also,
we are negotiating with a retail or a user in the office
building that would generate retail sales. The commitment
that we have on the restaurant corner is also a restaurant
which can be validated in terms of income and so we would like
to be sure that those numbers are used in the sales tax
computation. I believe you have a range before you now on
what the sales tax revenues would be and we would be at the
high end of that range. And with the potential pharmacy
being added to the office building, then that number would be
increased even higher than that.
A~e there any taxes on pharmaceuticals - prescriptions?
I CHANDLER
LORTIE
CHANDLER
I LORTIE
CHANDLER
Yes, to the extent they make retail sales.
But not on prescriptions?
I'm not sure how drugs are treated. I think they actually -
certainly all patent-type medicines are taxed normally.
OK. Yes, I was led to believe that if the
included, then you were out of the deal.
restated that fact.
island wasn't
And you just
LORTIE
Yes, really, that was not what we had intended when we made
that statement. It was that we really didn't feel that was
logical and we've always - from the time that the Agency had
2
offered it as an option, we said, well, that's the option we
would take. If the option's not there, then we'd go back.
It would require a reanalysis of the tax impact, because the
office building would be significantly reduced. The
restaurant is dictated as a certain size; but, we could make
that smaller. There's still a possibility to put an office
building on the site. It would be reduced quite a bit from
what it is now. But I don't have those numbers.
AGENCY
MEMBER
GILB
OK, Discussion? Question? Mr. Gilb?
NO, I don't really know where we are then. We've gotl
Champions here tonight and these proposals are with a portion
of the island or all of the island included, or what?
, CHANDLER
KINNAHAN
Well, if I can, the original proposals, of course, were fori
the entire island.
For the entire island. Yeah.
And there was also a request that they submit for reduced site
It Was my understanding that Mr. Lortie did not have an
interest in the reduced site. He corrects me now and says he
is. If he is, then I guess if the Agency would like to
proceed with the reduced site, then I guess we'll need to go
back to this developer and have him provide us with some
further information to clarify his proposal.
KINNAHAN
GILB
LORTIE
If I can inject, please. We have a time constraint. We have
a specific user that does need to move forward quickly. I
think what I need to make very clear is that we're willing to
work with whatever site you determine you would like to
provide. If it is not significantly different, then the full
site that you proposed to us is our first option. We don't
propose to change our contract with you, our proposed
contract. If it is significantly different, I propose we workl
this out in an ERN and come to a mutually satisfactory
conclusion. But we do need to move forward quickly in order
to preserve the commitment that we do have and which affects
not only this site, but another site in the area. Is that
clear?
GILB
I think what we have to do then is decide among the Council -
the majority of the Council - if we want to retain the park
out there. And if we reduce the size of the property to be
developed, then we're still going to have to take in the
street - part of the street - in the development. But, in
other words, if we move out from the development toward the
park - the little park - and we take up the street, then we
really have not accomplished very much. In other words, if
there's no place for cars to pass in on that side, you know,
it's going to be kind of a screw ball deal over there as far
as the park is concerned, the way I see it. Unless I I m wrong.
I mean, the people are still going to have to drive around thel
park, aren't they? The outside of it.
Well, if YOU'd look in the package that was provided last
evening, there was a concept map drawn by the Public Works
Department that showed that they can take the traffic through
part of the island and there will be a second small pork chop
island to the north of that. And if I can, I can route - givel
you a larger version.
Yes. But, that will give somebody something to run into.
Huh? That's going to be a traffic hazard, isn't it?
Well, not necessarily. We have that same kind of thing at
Colorado Place and Colorado.
GILB
KINNAHAN
HARBICHT
GILB
Oh yeah, that's right, Yeah, This is the property.
3
KINNAHAN
Mr, Gilb, the traffic consultant, Barton Aschmann, is the one
that prepared it in a concept plan and it's been reviewed by
Public Works and what you see there is actually a drawing by
Public Works ,that could be incorporated into the overall plan
for the southwest corner, '
HARBICHT
What page are you looking at, Pete?
Well, what I've given Councilman Gilb
KINNAHAN
IGILB
Then we're going to cut a piece off of the front
and like you have on Colorado Place as Mr,
pointing out. OK, I understand that, I didn't
night,
of the island
Harbicht was
see this last
IAGENCY
MEMBER
YOUNG
Mr, Kinnahan? Seeing this blueprint I assume that some of
those trees that are there on the east end are the trees that
are there on the east end are the trees that are existing.
KINNAHAN
Yes, Some of those trees would, of course, have to go,
could be saved,
Some
GILB
This conceptual map that I have here is not a heck of a
different in land overall total that the full deal, is
How much less is it? It couldn't, be that much less,
lot
it?
KINNAHAN
Well, the - if you can see, the island is shown kind of in the
underlying - you see where the island is today and you can see
what would be left if they put basically a new turn lane,
which would take off the northern tip of the island. The
little pork chop would be left. Now the pork chop would be
the traffic signal, the main Edison pole, there'd be probably
a fire hydrant located there and it would be concrete. Maybe
there might be a place for some small landscaping.
Well, then we'd have to cut a piece of the corner off to make
the turn. Is that what you're talking about?
IGILB
KINNAHAN
Yes, Essentially what would happen is that the new driveway
would go right kind of through the middle of the island, A
little bit to the north end of the island. But you would
preserve a significant part of it for use as parking and
landscaping.
KINNAHAN
OK, Well, then with the figures that I've got - all these
pieces of paper - how many less square feet would the property
be with this new proposal?
ROUghly about - the new island would give you about 6,000 more
square feet to add to the development site, Roughly, without
the island you get about 50,000, with the island you get
about 6,000 of usable square feet which would be used by the
new developer.
GILB
I G'LB .
...., KINNAHAN
56,000,
IGILB
KINNAHAN
56,000 roughly.
So you lose about 4,000 square feet by making (inaUdible).
Because of the island. Right,
GILB
OK, That's what I want to know,
YOUNG
I think that's very attractive - the shape of that.
I like it,
GILB
4
KINNAHAN
As I say, it's been designed by Barton Aschmann, the traffic
consultant. And Public Works has actually done that concept
plan. What's very lucky about it is that it happens to avoid
almost all the major utilities. Not all of them, but most of
the major utilities in the island.
Mr. Kinnahan, that's a big part of this, isn't it? That those
utilities are there and that's a very expensive item, right?
CHANDLER
KINNAHAN
Yes, There's a main Edison vault there. There are some -
underneath the street there is a sewer line and a water linel
There's a main Edison overhead that goes above the island
So there are some very significant... There's a sewer lin
in there. Some very significant stuff.
What would have to be changed?
Well, fortunately, because this seems to work, the only thinl
that has to change is the fact that you would probably hav
to relocate a fire hydrant. You may have to relocate th
water and irrigation system for the remnant of the island.
But that would probably have to change, anyway.
KINNAHAN
YOUNG
YOUNG
That's easy.
KINNAHAN
Yes. And beyond that, you have to design and build the new
driveway lane.
CHANDLER
And the Police Department did their study and recommended this
as a way to make traffic move.
KINNAHAN
Yes. They saw the original concept and they've also seen the
specific proposals. And they say this is OK.
CHANDLER
Can we get off dead center on this one?
Well, I don't know what action you have to take, except thai
I would MOVE that we accept the new'proposal as outlined i
the map to include the portion of the island as outlined here
for the new configuration of this lot.
GILB
MOTION
YOUNG
I'll SECOND that.
GILB
That way, at least, if we can get that passed, then the
developers at least know what we're working with.
KINNAHAN
That's right. If that's the Agency's pleasure, and I may take
some consensus, but if that's it, then we know that the Agency
prefers the expanded site. And after that it's merely
selecting the developer.
CHANDLER
Mr. Harbicht?
GILB
Well, I think that's the key thing this evening is selecting I
the developer. And frankly, I'm not sure that either one 0
these is what we ought to be going with. I had hoped, and
think we had all expected, that we would get more proposal
than we got. And, like on the north side we've gone out fo
re-proposals and thrown it open to anybody who wants to
propose. And I'm not so sure that that isn't what we should
be doing here. The prices that they're offering - the pel
square foot prices - I think are real cheap.
Well, the only thing is, Mr. Harbicht, I wasn't saying that
we take the two developers or pick out one tonight. I'm just
saying that this is what we're going to develop and how we're
going to develop.
HARBICHT
5
HARBICHT
GILB
HARBICHT
GILB
I CHANDLER
GILB
,YOUNG
CHANDLER
HARBICHT
CHANDLER
ROLL CALL
CHANDLER
HARBICHT
I YOUNG
HARBICHT
YOUNG
HARBICHT
YOUNG
HARBICHT
YOUNG
HARBICHT
GILB
I
I
HARBICHT
Well, I think that's set. But now we have to decide if we're
going to use Champion, are we going to use Arcon, are we going
to go for something else?
Well, we haven't set that yet. We've got a motion and a
second. We haven't even voted on it yet.
Oh, he just took that as a consensus.
Oh.
Well, I'd like to firm it down a little bit (inaudible)
Me, too.
Why don't we take a vote?
First of all, I want to be sure everybody understands what
we're talking about.
We all understand.
We all understand? OK. We do have a motion and second.
Let's have a roll call on that one, please.
AYES: Gilb, Harbicht, Young, Chandler
ABSTAIN: Lojeski
OK. That clarifies that issue.
OK. But the main issue that's before us is where do we go
from here? Now we've got the site. I guess I would be
willing to take some extra time to go out and see what other
expressions of interest we might have if we went out again.
What are you looking for?
I'm looking for more money.
OK.
This is - I think this price is real cheap.
It is cheap.
I think the property's worth more than that.
I'll agree with that.
And so, if it takes us another 3 or 4 months, it will take us
that long.
Well, I have to agree. I understand that the developer, you
know, that time 1S of constraint because of the money
situation. But, in redevelopment anybody that does business
with a redevelopment agency is used to these delays.
Especially bidding on or going to work on a piece of property
that we're really not sure how we want to plan the whole
thing. And I'm like you. I was very disappointed with how
many answers we got back for all of the proposal requests that
we put out. It just - I think the property's - for what it
cost it's worth more than that. If that has anything to do
with it.
I think so, too. And it's always going to cost us more than
we get for it. Because we have to destroy - take down the
buildings that are there. We've got to prepare the land. We
have to do all these things. But - and that's the price we
pay, though, to eliminate a blighted area. But this seems
like the differential's greater than it out to be. And just
6
GILB
KINNAHAN
LORTIE
KINNAHAN
HARBICH'l'
LORTIE
KINNAHAN
HARBICH'l'
YOUNG
HARBICH'l'
YOUNG
HARBICH'l'
YOUNG
CHANDLER
YOUNG
MOTION
CHANDLER
YOUNG
GILB
CHANDLER
GILB
CHANDLER
GILB
CHRIS
WILSON
CHAMPION
DEVELOPMENT
looking at the absolute value of the land - forget about how
we acquired it or what it cost - I think the offer is too low.
Well, actually, we really don't know what Mr. Lortie's offer
is because we were informed that he might not be interested
in this thing. And now he says he'll work with any site. So
we don't really know what those numbers are right now.
They're less than obviously what it was for the entire site,
but how much less I don't know.
Mr. Gilb, he does. He has proposed for the expanded site
his numbers are shown in that summary sheet.
ani
The site you just voted on is the site that I bid on.
Yes, that's the one he prefers. It's shown as - under
second column "Arcon" - it's shown as $1,200,000.
th)
This is public information, isn't it?
Yes, it is.
Yes, it is.
OK. We're talking $21.27 a square foot.
That's very low.
I don't think it's enough. And I don't think $25,88 a square
foot's enough, either. And I know that we have to look at it
in light of what's going to go on there and what the returns
are. But the fact is, I think the property's worth more than
that. I think we can get more than that for it.
Especially on a Huntington Drive site, too.
Yes, we're going to beautify that railroad bridge.
to look good. And so, I think that we maybe out to
advertise for proposals.
It's goinl
go out am
Mr. Mayor?
Yes.
I MOVE that with our new vote on the exact site that we go out
for new proposals.
Before we get a second, would it be courteous at least to let
the other developer who showed up tonight say his piece and
we can decide after that developer gets done?
That's fine with me,
I'll SECOND her motion.
J
OK. We have a motion and a second.
To put it on the floor.
Put it on the floor, OK? Would - yes - anybody.
They want to pay $260,000 more than the other guy.
my kind of people.
They'rl
I'm Chris Wilson with Champion Development. And first thing,
I'd just like to say that I'm in support of the motion you
just passed for the expanded site because it does work better
for our project that way. And I would like to just tell you
that from a retail standpoint I think we've used the site most
effectively and it's really a function of the income that we
7
I
,GILB
WILSON
GILB
HARBICHT
WILSON
HARBICHT
WILSON
CHANDLER
I WILSON
GILB
WILSON
GILB
I CHANDLER
WILSON
CHANDLER
I HOWARD
SCHAEFER,
SCHAEFER
BROTHERS
can generate on that site afterwards, And if you go out again
I think you have to identify with the types of uses that maybe
you think you might get there to generate more land value for
you, You've got an office guy here who has obviously used the
site most efficiently based on Arcadia's parking codes. And
us, being a retailer, you know, we're the same way. Your City
is, because of this parking issue, one of the most restrictive
that I work in. 5 per 1000 for retail with no compacts and,
you know, expanded larger parking stalls so folks have, you
know, an easier way to get around~ And, I mean, you're really
creating a better environment, but what you're also doing is
impacting the amount of building that you can put on there.
So, I just would like to leave you with that and see if you
guys have any questions regarding my project.
In other words, $25.88's you and that's it, as of right now.
Yes, sir.
OK.
You still don't have a commitment.
No, we don't. We don't have a commitment and, you know, until
we had a site plan settled down and an economic deal with the
city, you now, we really have not taken it out beyond the
initial people that we had contacted at first.
And has there been a change in their attitude?
There has not been.
Would an expanded site? At least we've put it in concrete
what you have to deal with.
To tell you the truth, Roger, we presented the expanded site
to them, And when I went out to visit with the pier I people
at the site, he told me that without the expanded site that
he was going to drive away at that time. Because, see, the
site from a commercial standpoint for retail without that
identity, it's just too soft a site. It just doesn't - it
doesn't attract the type of tenants that you folks are going
to demand that I produce. So, you know, I'm pleased that you
voted the way you did.
The site's just too difficult to get to being on that side of
the street, with the divider in the middle of the street.
And there's no identity. I mean, Second's just a sleepy
little street without, you know, doing something to it. OK?
Yeah. I follow.
OK.
All right. Thank you.
No more questions? Thank you.
I'm Howard Schaefer, Schaefer Brothers, and a joint venture
with Arcon on the proposed project. If I may just comment on
the issue of value, because I think it's a good question that
you've raised. As you know, we're familiar with and have
dealt with the real estate opportunities in Arcadia. We've
dealt with the projects for a number of years. When we've
taken a look before the condemnation of that particular site,
we took a look at the values that were being asked along that
area by owners for properties. And the judgment we made at
that time that the value, even though that may have the
highest value that people were asking, it wasn't justified
8
HARBICHT
with respect to the types of commercial properties that would
be conducive to the City and that the City would want in that
particular area. So, consequently, when prices were being
offered at $30 or $35 a square foot, we backed away from those
particular prices. When you're talking about a condemnation
of property, as the Council was aware, the price is for the
highest and best use of that particular property. But in the
RFP that has been presented and the desire of what is best for
the city of Arcadia, excludes certain types of commercial
activities that might be willing to pay the highest price.
For instance, a fast food operation in some of those areasl
So I think those are items that you have to take int
consideration and it's indicated in the reaction that you go
to the RFP. The fact that you only got a few people that were
particularly interested. As you're aware, that site is a very
difficult site. The individual from Champion indicated soml
of the problems with that particular site from a developmen
point of view. Our feeling was that the best use of that sit
would be combination of an office building, since that wa
acceptable to the City of Arcadia, plus an established well-
known restaurant. And we've been able to obtain one of the
restaurants in Arcadia that is very much interested in that
particular site and that way we will be abl~ to retain their
business acti vi ty here in Arcadia. And I think that's another
important factor to be taken into consideration as to how the
development of that site, while it may not be the highest
price that the Council's being requested for, nevertheless in
the long run it brings in sales tax revenue and other tax -
and property tax revenue. So in time I believe the City will
get back a significant benefit to the City of Arcadia and a
good looking, quality building, which I think is also just as
important. If you're talking about eliminating blight in the
city of Arcadia, it's not important just to have another
facility there, but a building that we can all be proud of,
that will establish a quality and a direction for the future
for the entire development in that particular area. And thai
is what we plan to do. Thank you.
I think, Mr. Schaefer, what we were talking about the last
time we had this meeting that if we wanted to put a hamburger
stand in there we could get $40 a square foot for that
property without any trouble. I think, you know, there's 2
or 3 that have shown an indication for it. So, maybe that's
something we have to deal with. What we want, you know, if
you're going to go to heaven, you got to die. And if you're
going to want $40-$50 a square foot, then you're going to get
something that you may not want too bad, you know. So there
you've got the problem. Anyway...
Pete, what do you think about - what's your prognosis of what
would happen if we went out with a wider advertising proposal?
GILB
KINNAHAN
Well, the Agency has done a relatively wide first RFP and we
got - if you recall, we narrowed it down to 10 qualifiers.
We went to those 10 and we got 2 that seriously proposed. Thl
RFP that we wrote basically said that we want the develope
to do everything. And I think that, coupled with the wea
office market, had a little bit to do with the limited numbe
of proposals that we got. Not just for this corner, but for
the northwest corner. The proposal we've rewritten for the
northwest corner has put the Agency a little more up fronJ
that says we're willing to ,help out a little more to get th
type of development we want. I suspect we're going to ge
more proposals. But there's a trade-off there, because if we
give them more incentives by, say, paying for off-site
improvements and they give us a higher land price, the net is
really going to be about the same. That could be true here
in this one as well if the Agency - my question to the Agency
is in light of this. If $25.88 is not enough, then as we've
done with another RFP, maybe the Agency wants to fix a bottom
9
IHARBICHT
"NO....
HARBICHT
KINNAHAN
HARBICHT
I'
KINNAHAN
HARBICHT
KINNAHAN
HARBICHT
IKINNAHAN
HARBICHT
,KINNAHAN
I
HARBICHT
KINNAHAN
HARBICHT
price that says we don't want - don't propose unless you're
going to at least meet this price. My concern with that' is
we're going to be running up against a difficult time. I
think we've got a couple of bona fide proposers out here who
have looked at their pro formas and these are valid. These
are not pasted together. They've taken some - there's some
work to these. And if we go out again we run the risk that
we may not get - they may not come back in again. If they do
we may get the same - possibly better, possibly worse. So
we're running a bit of a risk if we go out again with the same
RFP.
If we were to enter an Exclusive Right to Negotiate, is price
one of the negotiable?
It is. We would get a re-use appraisal by our consultant and
we would see - the re-use appraisal basically backs you into
the residual price of the land, which is what they offer on,
using their particular development and their particular
expenditures. And if the re-use appraiser said that he felt
they could pay more money for the land, we would certainly
seek to have them pay more money for the land.
You mean somebody has to tell them that they can?
Well, we need to have some professional get in and analyze all
of their numbers in a very detailed way. The numbers we have
seen today appear to be relatively - I'm comfortable with them
in terms of what I believe the market to be out there. But
we would hire a professional appraiser to look at those, which
is what we typically do.
Well, I guess I'm saying if you're negotiating with somebody,
that person might say, OK, I've made you an offer, but I'm
willing to up that offer. Just like we might be willing to
say we're willing to do this. I mean, I assume that they came
up with these prices by themselves.
Yes.
Why would we have to have an appraiser?
Well, as part of the normal exclusive process, we typically
do that. We have an outside expert come in and take a look
at their numbers and make sure those numbers are, in fact, as
accurate as they say they are.
Well, what if the re-use appraiser - let's say we're talking
to Arcon here, just for purposes of discussion. What if the
re-use appraiser comes in and says, yeah, $1,200,000 is the
right price. And Arcon says, we want to close this deal.
We'll make it $1,300,000,
That's fine.
I mean, they're not bound by the re-use appraiser.
No, no. Of course not. No, no. We need to do the re-use
appraisal for basically two reasons. One is to verify the
numbers that are given to us by the developer. The second is
~ we have to make a finding when we adopt the DDA as to what the
actual value of the land is. Whether there's a write-down or
not.
And we haven't done a re-use appraisal yet?
Not on this property. No, sir. We do that usually during the
Exclusive Right to Negotiate period.
OK. So that wouldn't be a repeat of something.
10
KINNAHAN
No, no.
GILB
Mr, Kinnahan? I want to ask a question. This piece of paper
I got here - Champion - is $1,460,000. Then it says reduced
site $1,222,000. Is this the reduced site?
KINNAHAN
No, sir. That's the expanded site with the island.
includes the expanded site.
So that's $1,460,000 with Champion?
It
GILB
KINNAHAN
Yes, sir.
I
GILB
And $1,200,000 with Arcon?
KINNAHAN
Yes, sir.
I
HARBICHT
You can throwaway the second sheet (inaudible).
GILB
Yes.
KINNAHAN
The Agency tonight just decided it's going to be use of full
island.
GILB
OK. So Champion's offering $260,000 more for the site than
Arcon,
KINNAHAN
Yes, sir.
GILB
So if you're going to go ahead, there isn't even a contest as
far as I'm concerned. For that kind of money. Unless I'm
reading this thing all wrong. Of course, the increment you
get from Arcon for this thing is twice as much.
CHANDLER
What is that difference? Why is the increment? Is it becausl
there's three different users?
It's that the tax increment comes from the buildings that are
proposed. And the buildings are, of course, different.
See, one of them's proposing a retail building. The other
one's proposing a restaurant and an office building.
KINNAHAN
HARBICHT
KINNAHAN
Yes, but it's $6,000 difference in the deal.
Well, those figures are - I wouldn't consider those to be
immediate. Those are orders of magnitude. Basically, what
it shows you that overall they're relatively close in terms
of their overall estimated revenues. There is a difference.
We feel that Arcon's going to be a little higher, probably,
than would be Champion.
GILB
GILB
But it would take 40 years for them to catch up.
I
KINNAHAN
Well, we know that...
At least, my mathematics it does.
GILB
KINNAHAN
We've now looked at the different - the project cost, we
believe, now is around $2,200,000. Which means that thl
payoff for both of them ranges from 13 to, say, 16 years t
payoff that debt. Which is the difference between the lan
sale proceeds and the project cost. There is a little - there
is some money to pay back and that's amortized over time. And
that takes about anywhere from 13 to 16 years to pay that
bac!c,
HARBICHT
That's not based on present value.
line.
That's just a straight
11
KINNAHAN
HARBICHT
IGILB
r'CHT
I
CHANDLER
SCHAEFER
CHANDLER
SCHAEFER
CHANDLER
CHARLES
STURNIOLO,
I DERBY OWNER
CHANDLER
STURNIOLO
IYOUNG
STURNIOLO
YOUNG
STURNIOLO
straight line. straight line.
See, the difference between the two proposals in terms of the
net net isn't that much difference in terms of the payoff.
But there are some significant differences on what's going to
be there. You know, the question is would you want something
like a pier I there? Or do you want something like a
restaurant and an office building there?
You're getting an office building with a restaurant. The
restaurant won't be the major part of that deal, I don't
think. The medical building is the big thing.
In any case, you're - the actual physical plant for the Arcon
proposal is going to be a much more substantial, much more
expensive development than the other. The other makes it up
because it returns twice as much sales tax because it's
retail. And I guess my feeling is that given these two, I
would rather go with the restaurant and office because I think
it provides an anchor down there and is going to sort of set
the tone for the rest of that area. And I don't think we're
going to have a thriving retail area there. I think that -
I'm not saying that a pier I or something like that couldn't
succeed there. I think it could because it's a destination-
type shop. But, it's not going to generate a whole lot of
other retail on both sides of the street around it, because
the area itself just can't succeed for that. It just doesn't
work. And, so, given these two I'd rather go with the office
and restaurant because I think that's what the character of
Huntington Drive between First and Second is going to be.
That's what the hope is. You know, we have the proposal
across the street for the remodel of that one building which,
if they ever get going on it, is going to be very nice office-
type development. And there's other office-type developments
in there.
I have a question. Mr. Schaefer, we keep talking about a
quality in-town restaurant and, unless it's some big secret,
this may have a big - I'd like to know what it is. Yes.
I don't think - I'm pleased to announce that the Derby is very
much interested in relocating to that particular site.
Relocating its entire building, or just expanding, or what?
with your permission, Mr. Mayor, I have here the owner of the
Derby restaurant.
Name and address.
Charles Sturniolo, 102 Mill Run, Monrovia, We would relocate
the whole building over to the new site.
Where would the office building be then?
I guess on the back side.
And the restaurant would be as big as the present one?
No, it would be a lot larger.
A lot larger.
7,000 - 8,000 square feet. We're on a time schedule here.
We have 9 months, I guess 8 as of tomorrow - months to do
something. The restaurant is not valuable enough to earth-
quake it, so we have a choice of finding a new home for the
Derby. Our first choice, naturally, is to try to stay in
12
CHANDLER
STURNIOLO
CHANDLER
GILB
Arcadia. This is what we're trying to do. This is why, when
they were talking about "time is' the essence", we're on a
clock there. We have maybe 9 months.
So, in a nut shell, because of the earthquake needs to repair,
you would just build and close shop and then sell what you
have.
We have to now.
Yes. OK. Thank you very much. I think that should have coml
out sooner. OK? We have a motion on the floor.
Well.
YOUNG Maybe I should withdraw it.
MOTION WITHDRAWN
CHANDLER '
GILB
SECOND
WITHDRAWN
YOUNG
GILB
YOUNG
LORTIE
CHANDLER
GEORGE WATTS,
CITY MANAGER
LORTIE
Withdraw the motion?
I
And I'll withdraw the second. I understood from the
discussion with Mr. Schaefer last time that we were going to
have an office building with a restaurant upstairs. I mean,
that's what I heard. At least, I think that's what I heard.
A banquet room upstairs.
A banquet room. Yeah.
That would be fine.
That's what I plan. If I may explain a little bit more about
the layout. If you picture the land as being a rectangle area
going from Second moving west, it would be divided into, you
might say, two parts. The eastern part would be the restau-
rant. Roughly, about one-half. And the west side would bl
the medical building. That was similar to what our original
presentation was, except that we were anticipating a littl€
larger medical building and a smaller restaurant facility.
But to accommodate the Derby, we can give them a larger
restaurant facility, including banquet facilities and bring
down and make smaller the medical building. That seems to
accommodate all the parties that we have of an interest in the
property. Plus,_having the restaurant at the side also allows
us to better utilize the trees and some of the shrubbery that
you already have there. And, so, that accommodates some of
the concerns that the Redevelopment Agency has presented to
make sure that it maintains some of that park ambience that
you have there.
Mr. Watts, do you have a comment?
Yes, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, if you will turn
to the memorandum on this subject that was given to you las1t
night, dated March 5. It's the same one where you wer
looking at the island configuration. If you'd turn to th
fifth - to the sixth page in that, you will see a propose
layout for the Lortie-Schaefer plan. It shows the medical
office building on the left and a proposed restaurant site on
the right. Although that may not be to scale, given the size
of the proposed Derby restaurant, I think that's the basil
configuration. Am I correct?
George, that was a 6,000' foot restaurant - 4,000 foot on the
first floor and 2,000,upstairs in a banquet Kiwanis/Rotary
Club type facility. That will now be expanded to 5,000 to
6,000 feet on the ground floor and retaining the same 2,000
feet upstairs. It reduces the office building approximately
the same amount - 1,000 to 2,000 square feet. The configura-
13
CHANDLER
LORTIE
CHANDLER
I LORTIE
J
CHANDLER
STURNIOLO
CHANDLER
STURNIOLO
I
GILB
CHANDLER
GILB
CHANDLER
YOUNG
I GILB
HARBICHT
GILB
I HARBICHT
GILB
HARBICHT
YOUNG
HARBICHT
tion on the site plan stays essentially exactly as it was
shown on the original proposal.
Parking's no problem?
Parking's no problem. The original
His current situation, he's got all kinds of parking.
Yes, we actually counted the spaces that they have at the
existing Derby in order to determine that we could provide the
same amount of parking that he has now, which is a larger site
than necessary. On our first proposal what really changed
most significantly was the downstairs. We had parking just
under the office building. We would now need to expand it and
have it under the entire site, except for the area where the
utilities are running under the island. That area we couldn't
use, but we will expand that underground facility, which is
one of the reasons the assessment of the project for property
tax revenue went up. We had to increase the construction
costs.
Just one other question. Mr. Sturniolo, other than the fact
that you're forced to do something because of the earthquake
thing, does this all add up to you real nice in terms of your
business?
Well, we need to go to 7,000 - 8,000 square feet to make the
payments. Yes, it does.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Of course, he's got to make that deal with those folks, not
with us.
The initial motion was withdrawn and the second was withdrawn.
We're back to square one. We have any kind of a discussion?
I'll start the discussion. For some reason, I didn't know
what local restaurant we were talking about and we're talking
about a local legend, not just a local restaurant.
Shoemaker is a legend.
Well, his picture's on the wall, too. Somebody has to win;
somebody has to lose. In my mind this proposal with the Derby
restaurant included in it is my choice.
It certainly creates a different story knowing.
certainly don't want to lose the Derby.
And we
I kind of like - I'm looking at the $240,000.
mercenary.
I'm kind of
I think the $240,000, though, is you have to give something
up to get it. It's just like...
We're gonna get it up front. We can run.
It could be even more if we let McDonald's go in there.
I said that. Yeah.
So, I mean, it's what do we want there and, you know, the net
net is pretty much the same for either one.
I truthfully don't want a fast food restaurant.
No, well, I don't think any of us do.
14
LORTIE
How fast is the food at the Derby? Slow. OK.
Mr. Harbicht, I could answer your question. You haven't asked
me yet. But we would be willing to discuss the price very
seriously with your re-use appraisal. We're not trying to
steal the property from the city. We did a very careful
analysis and, obviously, just in the things that have
transpired already with the island and trying to save the
trees, more things could change. We're not trying to steal
the property. We've come up with a price that we feel we can
make work. We need to guarantee it to you. We're not gOingl
to enter this project unless we can produce a quality project
and be successful at it. . It's a project that we want to
continue to own and we don't want it to go into bankruptcy or
have words over the windows in two years. So, we will 1001
very seriously at the re-use appraisal from both - from ou
point of view as seriously as from yours. And if there is
some justification in the appraisal process that we've either
been able to increase the usage of the property or increase
our utilization of the property and it significantly changes
our pro forma, we would certainly consider renegotiating the
price.
GILB
CHANDLER
Do you have a motion, Mr. Harbicht?
WATTS
Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. The appropriate motion, if the Council
wants to select one of the firms, would be to designate the
firm and then direct staff to commence negotiations on an
Exclusive Right to Negotiate.
Yeah. I would MOVE that we commence negotiations on an
Exclusive Right to Negotiate with ArconjSchaefer.
HARBICHT
MOTION
YOUNG
I'll SECOND that.
CHANDLER
Motion and second. May we have a roll call, please?
I
GILB
May we have a discussion?
CHANDLER
Oh, we certainly can. I thought we had it.
GILB
We're going to have another one.
CHANDLER
All right.
GILB
Listen. I'd like to know what Mr. Lortie was saying there
about - I think we've been a little misled on this thing. I
mean, I had that vision they want to pay $1,200,000. They're
going to put an office building in, a dental building in.
There'll be a little restaurant upstairs. And that's all it's
worth. But if you're going to put two buildings over there
and the Derby'S one of them, I mean, that's a hell of a
different ball game than I understood we. were going to get.
In fact, as I was sitting here trying to figure out how at
guy's going to keep a restaurant going on the second floor of
a medical building, unless I didn't know, you know. I don't
want to charge a lot more money just because the Derby's
coming in over there. But, I don't think we got the facts to
start. I'm going to support the motion, but I want to tell
you something. I don't think we got the facts in this wholel
thing to start with. And that gives me a little disturbance,
you know. I don't know how long ago everybody on the staff
knew this, but I got to tell you something. Tonight's the
first time I ever heard about it and that's moving a major
restaurant over there and putting up two buildings is a lot
more on that corner than I thought we were going to get, you
know. And it just seems like if we're going to make these
decisions, we got to weigh everything and not just get the
surprise 10 minutes before the vote, you know. I don't think
15
that's fair to me sitting home studying all this junk every
night and then I don't even know what we're talking about.
That's all I got to say.
HARBICHT
Well, my impression all along was that the restaurant was a
separate building.
GILB
It wasn't mine.
IHARBICHT
YOUNG
They were talking about a banquet facility on the second floor
of the restaurant building.
~BICHT
'GILB
HARBICHT
I knew it was going to be a separate building for the restau-
rant, but I did not know it was the Derby until tonight.
I didn't either, but...
Pardon me?
I said I didn't either, but...
YOUNG
Yeah.
CHANDLER
Well, needless to say, I think that's a significant part of
the program.
GILB
What does that mean?
CHANDLER
Well, I said it earlier that it's not just a successful
restaurant, it's a legend. And I think its hope for future
success is good. And I'm willing to go with a winner.
GILB
Well, I got nothing against the Derby. I'm just saying that
I think that we didn't get the whole ball game that we were
entitled to.
I LORTIE
Mr. Mayor, if I may shed a little bit of light, because I
think it's no one's fault. These are what's happened when
you're trying to negotiate things when you've got a lot of
different parties involved. We, ourselves, did not know that
we would have the Derby committed until this past weekend.
Because the Derby had to consider a certain number of alterna-
tives that were available to them and what they were going to
do. Our original proposal when we presented was for a res-
taurant site. And we were hoping that there was a possibility
of the Derby. But in all fairness to the City Council, in all
fairness to the Derby, there was nothing definite that was
being discussed. It wasn't appropriate for us, since there
was nothing definite to disclose, who it was that we were
talking to. And we had a back-up plan that if it wasn't going
to be the Derby we would try to get some other type of good
style restaurant, because that would provide sales tax revenue
to the city. And, in fact - and we didn't disclose a lot of
our negotiations with the Redevelopment Agency. So it's not -
this is last minute information that we definitely had a
restaurant committed to our particular proposal. And, also,
another one of the issues was how to use that particular
island and certain other issues that we had to come up with
as far as our financing. Could we do it with the extended
size of the Derby? Would that accommodate with reducing the
medical building? So there was a lot of things that had to
be negotiated. Thank you.
I
I
CHANDLER
Thank you. Yes, Mr. Harbicht.
I want to make it clear. I mean, I hear what you're saying.
Speaking for myself, I don't care that it's the Derby.
HARBICHT
GILB
Fine.
16
HARBICHT
GILB
HARBICHT
GILB
HARBICHT
CHANDLER
YOUNG
CHANDLER
WATTS
CHANDLER
ROLL CALL
If it was Tony Roma's - fine. We're talking a restaurant.
We're talking an office building. so, I mean, the fact that
the Derby's a legend - I don't care.
Well, it seems to be important to the Mayor.
Well, maybe it is. I'm just saying, to me it's not. I mean,
I like the Derby. I eat there. But, I'm looking at the
proposal for a restaurant and an office building. And that's
what I'm looking at.
In other words, you would have passed this tonight if theyl
said we're going to try to get a restaurant. You wouldn't
have no idea what it was. Is that what you're saying?
Yes. We did that on the northside development. We did thai
on the souths ide development. Part of the ERN was that w
negotiated with them that the restaurant would be from a lis
that we prepared. So we - I mean, we're not passing th
project tonight. What we're doing is saying, these are the'
people we're going to talk to and work out the deal with and
if the deal doesn't work out, we'll go talk to somebody else.
But, the fact that it's the Derby - fine. I think that's
great. But if it was - like I say, if it was Tony Roma's or
Benihana or something like that, I'd say great too~
Everybody had their say?
.We have a motion.
Yeah, we have a motion. Would you repeat the motion, please.
city Clerk, can you repeat the motion.
The motion would be to direct staff to commence negotiations
on an Exclusive Right to Negotiate with WLA Arcon.
The motion from Mr. Harbicht and the second from Mrs. youngl
OK. May we have a roll call.
AYES:
ABSTAIN:
Gilb, Harbicht, Young, Chandler
Lojeski
I
I
17