MINUTES
CITY OF DELANO
CITY COUNCIL – REGULAR MEETING
November 18, 2024
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Alindajao called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1015 – 11th Avenue.
INVOCATION
Pastor David Vivas offered the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE
Mayor Alindajao led the flag salute.
ROLL CALL
Council members present: Mayor Joe Alindajao, Mayor Pro Tem Morris, Councilmember Nunez, Councilmember Solorio-Ruiz,
Council members absent: Councilmember Vasquez.
OFFICIALS PRESENT
City Manager Reyna, City Clerk Chavez, City Attorney Hensley, Police Chief Nicholson, Finance Director Rios, Human Resources Director Zamudio, Interim Community Development Director Evanson, Recreation Manager Batth-Chavez, Associate Engineer Nunez, Fire Chief Crist and IT Manager Enriquez
PRESENTATIONS AND AWARDS
No items.
ITEMS FROM THE PUBLIC
1. Fernando Bravo – “Good evening, council Mayor. My name is Fernando Bravo, 1417 Baumont Street. I just have a couple of questions. Okay, now that we're having Thanksgiving, I know you guys going to have a luncheon on the 28th right at the firehouse. And my other questions is, are we going to have a senior citizen Christmas party this year and what day and the time? So that's all my questions.
CONSENT AGENDA
1) Authorization to waive the reading of any ordinance in its entirety and consenting to the reading of such ordinances by title only
2) Warrant Register in the amount of $3,731,142.11
3) Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of October 7, 2024 4) Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of October 21, 2024 5) Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of November 4, 2024 6) Acceptance of the 2024 High Street Storm Drain Improvement Project and authorizing the filing of the Notice of Completion
7) Award of the “2024 1002 Eleventh Ave. Re-Roof Project” to Barth Roofing Company, Inc. in the amount of $221,504.00, and authorization for the City Manager or her designee to sign any documents needed to carry this project to completion (Agreement No. 2024-65) 8) Award of Contract for the “2024 CDBG Oxford Street Watermain Replacement Project” to JM Pipeline from Bakersfield, CA, in the amount of $294,500.00 and authorization for the City Manager or her designee to sign the construction contract and any other documents needed to complete the project (Agreement No. 2024-66)
9) Award of Contract for the “2024 CDBG 12th Avenue Watermain Replacement Project” to JM Pipeline from Bakersfield, CA, in the amount of $221,100.00 and authorization for the City Manager or her designee to sign the construction contract and any other documents needed to complete the project (Agreement No. 2024-67)
10) Approval of Task Order 01 for $98,299.00 under professional services agreement 2022-03 with Edgar & Associates to provide additional consulting services for the implementation of SB 1383 requirements and authorization for the city manager, or her designee, to execute any documents needed to carry this out (Agreement No. 2024-68)
11) Request from Delano Chamber of Commerce for a sponsorship for the 2024 Christmas Parade & Fair and authorize Finance Director to appropriate approved funds to line item 01-5307-105 12) Authorize the transfer of $93,840.00 from Line-Item 01-800A-200 (Dash Cameras) to a new Capital Outlay Project Fund dedicated to the Police Department's Radio Infrastructure and Maintenance. Additionally, authorize the Finance Director to establish a Capital Outlay Account and initiate an open purchase order for ongoing maintenance and repair needs 13) Report on the Status of the Local Emergency regarding the failed Water Main located on Schuster Road and Randoph Street Pursuant to Public Contracts Code § 22050 Motion was made by: Solorio – Ruiz to approve item no. 1-13 on consent items; 2nd by: Morris
Vote: 4-0
Ayes: Alindajao/Morris/Nunez/Solorio – Ruiz
Nays: None
Absent: Vasquez
Abstentions: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
No Items.
REGULAR AGENDA
14) Consideration and possible action regarding the developer’s desire to change the terms and conditions of its purchase and development of a vacant city-owned parcel (APN 410-020-04) provided for in an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) approved by the City Council in December 2023 and executed by the developer for the “Gateway Project” located south of County Line Road and west of the Highway 99 southbound on-ramp. The ENA was based upon the developer’s written proposal to the City to purchase the property Staff Report provided by City Attorney Hensley.
Mayor Alindajao opens public comment.
No public comment.
Mayor Alindajao closes public comment.
Max Bacerra – “Good evening, Mayor Alindajao, City Council, staff and audience. My name is Max Bacerra, principal of a Pacificus IV Company, 3605 Coffee Road in Bakersfield. Our office represents Mr. Brar and the real estate group regarding the planning components of this project. The city attorney is correct in that there was a process through which Mr. Barrer was successful in earning the trust of the city to enter into an ENA. This was done in December of 2023 and the call-out from city council was to let's have a project that we can move forward on that we're not just sitting around having this piece of property be sold to a private entity and nothing get done.
But Mr. Bryer and the team has been diligent. We had to wait, at the request of the planning department, we were ready to move forward with a planning commission approval back in May, but we were asked to hold back until September, October. So it was finally put on the City Council, I mean on the Planning Commission agenda back in late September, I believe after Planning Commission gave us our approval to move forward, we had already committed the services of our engineer, of our architect and we have plans that we've submitted on the gas station portion and on the city parcel to at least do some engineering. Our engineering is now all approved for both what's called the West Parcel, which is the property already owned by Mr. Brar and the East Parcel. So all of our engineering is done in terms of the building plans we have submitted on both sides for both the complete renovation and redo of the C-store that exists and we've submitted to the city on the West Parcel and as well as the East Parcel, which would be a 4,300 square foot multi-tenant building with a drive-through, which would have the Starbucks already included and Mr. Brar will tell you the status of that Starbucks contract. But we are ready and able to move forward with this project completely. So we've done everything we possibly could at this point in terms of moving the project forward. Our plans are in and you can check with your building department and planning department and engineering department, so all our plans for both sides are completely done. The other aspect that I'd like to address is that we would like to make sure we have as many national tenants come to Delano as much as possible, but at the same time we want great tenants that could be regional, could be local, that would be great fits for this small area.
Again, only have a C-store that will be completely renovated with a small deli on the inside and that will compliment a 4,300 square foot building. Starbucks will take up 1,200 square feet of that 4,300 square feet. It's highly unreasonable with all due respect to have all four uses with all national tenants that have to meet this requirement of a hundred units over five states. We want the best stores here in Delano, but there's a lot of great local stores and regional stores businesses that would do very well at this location because once they come into Delano and fill that hospitality and fill that efficiency of service here, I think this can be a place where they can keep on coming back. I would just like to say that this project is ready to move forward. The developers are able to commit to not only Starbucks but, and we're talking to other national tenants right now that could possibly come into this location. We just want to see what we can do to move this project forward. It's been a long time waiting and I know that they would like to move and we're very friendly. We're a very business friendly community and to make sure that we help our developers that want to bring in business into Delano, we want them to see good action from our city. Thank you.”
Nav Brar – “Hi everyone. My name is Nav Brar, address 2340 High Street, City of Delano on County Line Road and High Street subject of today's conversation. Thank you for everyone's time. So just to get in the forefront, one of the main things that I was a little shocked with when I saw the staff report and the agenda was inferences of our desire to change the terms and conditions of the agreement. Our desire to change the ENA we're in full heart agreement with ENA, whatever's in the ENA we agreed to, I emailed Mr. Hensley that came and we agreed to that.
The DDA, which is a longer document that derives from the ENA, kind of takes a lot of the things that we agreed in the ENA and takes them to very, very specific definitions. And we have a little bit of differences that we need to make sure that we're on the same page. One of those, the two main topics and as described in the staff report is the tenant mix requirement and the involvement of the gas station in the project. And I'll get a little bit more into that, but just quickly to go over a change in wanting the deposit to be applied in the purchase agreement, if that was inferred that way. That was incorrect when we originally made the deposit for this project per the ENA, the agreement to end the ENA, the way we interpret it is that we can use costs that we had, that we had, we could use that as a deposit towards our engineering plans and deposits. That didn't end up being the case and it was actually vice versa where the city can offset its costs associated with processing that. So we agree and we just got our first per the ENA, it says that we were supposed to get a monthly report. We got our first one I want to say last month for Mr. Miguel and we're okay with that. Whatever the balance of that deposit is, we would like that to be applied to the purchase price if there is a deposit. If not, we're in agreement and aware that there will be no deposit if there is nothing left on the original deposit from the ENA. Real quickly on the two components of the timing of the integrated development, so in short, we're going to be developing both at the same time. We submitted building plans and our elevations are exactly consistent with what was in the conceptual site plans. We are going to be branding the fuel station. We are going to be fulfilling our obligations of this agreement. One of the main things that was a little bit we felt was overreaching of the DDA is they were getting into topics about our fueling station, about how many pumps we have, is there desire to do fueling improvements, stuff that didn't have a specific impact on the development of this project.
And that was the inference that we were trying to make is that hey, we're going to do our end of the bargain and reconstruct and rebuild the gas station. We're going to do our end of the bargain and bringing a multi-tenant national building, a multi-tenant mix, a 4,300 square foot shell building, we're going to do our end of the bargain of bringing a Starbucks. But we didn't want specifics about the fueling specifics about the things related to the gas portion of the property have to be a part of the agreement because in our opinion we didn't feel that that was a subject matter of this DDA. In an essence we agree to the ENA component that the c-store must be reconstructed and the fuel must be branded outside of that. We're trying to limit that reach outside of that and whatever we can do inside. One of the things is the DDA wants us to put a national tenant inside the C-store component of the deli slash restaurant area. And that again, is a little bit overreaching. We think out in the C-store specifically, if we put a mom-and-pop deli shop in there or whether we put a Cinnabon in there, that tenant inside there should not be of the concern to the city. And one of the points that I give is we gave the highest bid and if we did not win this bid, the other parties who would've won this bid would not have any ability to have any reach or limitation or anything to do with this C store and gas station. But we're wanting to take this project to the right direction and we're fulfilling that end of the obligation. So we asked for the understanding in terms of the C-store, we're going to brand it outside fueling, but it's going to be hard to get, you're not going to get a Starbucks inside, although we already have a Starbucks on the multi-tenant. You're not going to get a Starbucks or a coffee being these crazy great tenants inside of a C-store. That's just not how the real estate market works for majority of the time. I can't speak for outliers.
Additionally, I just want to mention that this project will be integrated. Our comment from the DDA is that it wanted us to join the parcel lines and I'm glad Mr. Mark Hensley had said that the parcels can be separate. We will be keeping them separate parcels, it will be subject to CCNRs, a shared parking agreement, shared access agreements.
It's going to be a harmonious and integrated plaza. So we don't, do not have any problems with that. We agree with that and that's the way we will develop this property and the CCNRs that will be recorded against the property would stop anybody in the future if ever sold or anything to make way with that. Lastly, in terms of the second point for tenant qualifications and city approval, section seven of the ENA mentions that we will be obligated to work with the city on guaranteeing mutually acceptable nationally recognized tenants and retail businesses for the project. My interpretation of that and when we had sat with some of the city staff on a meeting, our interpretation of that, not speaking for them, but my interpretation of that and I had some grievances on this, were that there will be number one, it's mutually acceptable. So if we bring tenants and it's mutually acceptable, that's good. Number two, if we get a national tenant, that's good, but it did not make the inferences that a hundred locations, it did not make the inferences that we have to have nationally recognized tenants outside of a Starbucks and making those exceptions of the location requirements. I feel like it's a little bit overreaching and there is forms of due diligence that we can have between both parties to make sure they're mutually acceptable. And that's something we agreed to that on the first go around we agreed to guaranteeing mutually acceptable tenant mix. So in the end we have a Starbucks lease in hand. I have brought, we actually have been going back and forth with them and today we received the final executed copy dated November 18th. It's right here from Starbucks, [email protected] and a retailer including their counsel, it's in hand ready to be executed. We're fulfilling our end of the obligation, we're fulfilling our end of the agreement outside of that. We're just requesting some understanding in number one, real estate development to commit yourself to getting fully nationalized tenants. And if we do commit to this that I had mentioned to some council members is that if we cannot fulfill the end of the agreement, it's disadvantageous to us and it's disadvantageous to the city when we have a Starbucks populated shopping center, partially populated and the rest is empty, that would be disadvantageous to the City of Delano and economically speaking. So, in addition, we're just requesting for the reach of the city to be limited into the initial leasing period. The DDA makes inferences that every single tenant in the lifetime of the DA agreement, it has to be approved. We're requesting for limiting that reach just for again, some of the examples that I just mentioned. And then after we have fulfilled our initial requirements such as the tenant mixes for the first leasing go round is approved, most of these tenants are going to be signing, it's a bill to suit. This is the way build to suit in real estate works is you're signing a 10 year lease with two five-year options. So we are requesting for after we fulfill our first initial go-around that the DDA has now been relinquished and we fulfilled our obligations and that property is just as any other property in any other development area. That's it for the most part. I am here if there's any questions. I sincerely appreciate everyone's time and thank you for staying with this project for almost over a year.” City Attorney Hensley – “Mayor, just address a couple things. Sure. The proposal they submitted showed three national tenants on it. It was not staff's proposal, the Jersey Mikes, Wetzel’s Pretzels, Starbucks. It was their proposal. It was not staff's proposals. They came forward with this. We drafted the ENA to match that proposal. In fact, it actually was lesser requirements in that proposal than in the ENA than what they had proposed because staff had actually included a regional with just 25 locations or a more local with just 10. So it wasn't some national tenant standard that was really high for all of the tenants. That's not what the agreement said. So I just want to make that clear. And as far as the other side of it is, again, if this can be triggered off of one another, that is that the CFOs don't get issued for this project until the gas station everything comes together, then you can protect the city and make sure that gas station gets done the way it was envisioned originally. If the council still wants that, there are ways to make that happen, but I just want to make it clear that when there's statements made that somehow there was something done by staff that was too onerous. We just followed the proposal from the development. So if the markets different or it's different than what we understood based upon the representations made by the developer, but it was not the staff's idea. We just simply took their proposal and put it in writing as far as the ENA. So I just want to make that clear and that's it. And just looking for staff/council direction.
Council Member Solorio-Ruiz – “Yeah, absolutely. Mr Brar, if you can come forward and thank you Mark for that information. I was going to inquire about that. Can you kind of give a response to that in terms of were you all aware initially on that it was going to be focused specifically on national and not more broad in the scope? Nav Brar – “So just to answer that and thank you. In terms of the presentation that was provided, I believe even on the sheets it says it's a conceptual site plan. Those are just concepts we're bringing. One of the main conversations, I believe Mr. Mark and I have had conversations in regards to this that the Starbucks was going to be the requirement, these Starbucks and the only tenant that is mentioned in the ENA is the Starbucks and we're fulfilling that obligation as far as the rest of them, again, the site plan and the elevations are conceptual. We have submitted building permits, we're going to start the gas station construction first. That's going to make the most sense for our strategic plan for this property and we're going into a slow area for business in the C-store. So we're looking to start God willing in the next 30 days or less. I can't commit to that based off of weather conditions stuff, but we will be starting on that. But just to reach back around to the question, the way we interpreted the ENA, the way we presented everything and conversations that I've had with staff would be that the Starbucks was going to be one of the quote-on-quote deal breakers.”
Council Member Solorio-Ruiz – “Okay. Can you kind of explain the thought process for the changes when it comes to national tenants and regional and local? What would you say are some of the benefits that you see from going to what it is now specifically, of course its stating that it's only national compared to what we want to change it to.” Nav Brar – “So it's just coming to a point where City of Delano is not immensely populated at this exact time. So national and regional tenants may feel that already certain brands that are in City of Delano may not need another locations. So if you look at it strategically and you go to a database of all national and local regional tenants and you filter it by these conditions presented in the DDA, we feel that the tenant mix is very low when it comes to that.
And one thing you learn in development that I learned very quickly is there's only so many tenants for as much land out there and that is something we're trying to avoid as we build the Starbucks and the rest is empty. We really want, from a real estate development standpoint, we want to put national tenants, it provides the most real estate value, but putting pen to paper and saying that is what I can perform on a hundred locations for national and I can perform for the regional and local definitions. We are just wanting a little bit of more, going back to the ENA, mutually acceptable choices because based off of what the DDA explains our local tenants like for example, El Puesto is right across the street, well is it going to come to our location? Probably not. They're right across the street, but El Puesto is a very good brand and when you go inside there, it's one of the nicer restaurants that you see in Los Angeles. So would that be good for our shopping plaza? From our perspective, we think so, but based off of the definitions that it brings, that would mean that it's not accepted. So again, we're looking for mutually acceptable tenants that would be more advantageous to fulfilling that property correctly.” Council Member Solorio-Ruiz – “And you stated that you'd prefer to limit the reach of the city and relinquish the DDA. What's the timeframe that you are proposing to relinquish it?” Nav Brar – “We fulfill the Starbucks requirement and we fill the rest of the tenants when it's fully leased out. We've done our part of the development agreement, it's fully developed.” Council Member Solorio-Ruiz – “So immediately after all that. Looking at it, I would think that I would want at least some overreach for the City Manager to approve or disapprove because we wouldn't want to put let's say a smoke shop or any, I don't want to say we don't want to put, because I don't want to speak for the council, but just having more guidance and more say on what we input there. Would we be able, do we see that in contracts that we've had before where we allow still the city to have some type of reach?” City Attorney Hensley – “Yes. And I think that may be one of the approaches if the Council wants to go with a little different direction is to prohibit certain uses that you may not want to see there.” City Manager Reyna – “And many times sir, it's not necessarily the first initial lease, but it may be a term, let's say for example the city has the ability for 10 years because you could have a lease for five years or you could have a two-year lease or you could have a 20 year lease. So usually we go for the amount of time versus after the initial term, the initial lease.”
Nav Brar – “And if I may comment on that and thank you for that again, we're open to a term. One of the concerns that we have as developers and is if we put let's say 10 years and a part of something like covid, God forbid, comes again and the economy is in shambles and companies like Starbucks file for bankruptcy and these tenant mixes that we've seen file for bankruptcy and they're no more and the property's empty. Now we're in violation of the DDA. As long as there can be some clauses in there that give us some protection in regards to that, I'm sure we would be able to agree on something of that such.
Council Member Solorio-Ruiz – “Would we be able to provide some type of protection?” City Attorney Hensley – With an act of God type of provision that if we have another global pandemic? Sure.
Yeah. It's pretty unusual to, I mean that was a very unique event. It happened once every a hundred years so far, at least in the last two centuries.”
City Manager Reyna – “And sir, there's always the option of coming back to council for clarification or redirection or revision or amendment of the agreement. There's always that possibility.” Council Member Solorio-Ruiz – “Absolutely, and that's what I was going to ask as well. It's decided tonight is not, we can always in the future change it if needed based on the circumstances. So, I personally, I think that it's appropriate to open it up more to a wide variety. I think it's national is as much as we want it and we crave it here in the city and we're getting it. I think locally owned is also important. I think we should uplift it. We have some local business owners who are excelling in our city and I think, let me see, what else was I going to ask? I wanted to ask as well in regards. I know you mentioned about the fuel pumps and whatnot in the DDA, is that something that you wanted to remove? The specifics of that.”
City Attorney Hensley – “Actually, that was never intended to be any sort of requirement. It was like a question, comment in the DDA about how many do you have or how many you're going to have requirement it was never going to be, I've never actually been asked a question about that. It was a comment in there because we didn't know what they wanted to put there and whether they were going to put four pumps or eight pumps, I don't think the city cared. It was literally just like a fill in the blank thing.
Council Member Solorio-Ruiz – “Yeah. Okay. Thank you Mark. Well other than that, like I mentioned, I would be open to allowing local, national, regional, whatever it may be. And also I'd be interested in setting a few more barriers in terms of coming to the middle of what you want and what we kind of want. Because ultimately, we work as a business and it's important to make sure, and I know your family is not going to approve a strip club or a smoke shop or anything in that sense. I would understand that, but ultimately, I think it's important to have some grasp of what we want here in our city. And so yeah, those are all the questions I have. Thank you.” Jessie Brar – “Mayor, vice mayor, council members, attorney, manager. Just to add that if we give you the list of Starbuck that they have prohibited us that there's a long list that we cannot do next to Starbuck. We already have committed. All I want to say is that we need to move this project, but right now Starbuck leads is the city we're not signing, but there's the liquidated damages clause on it because once the city gives us the okay to move forward, we want to sign it and then because we have to give it to them in a certain timeframe. So if we have that and most of the stuff when we are talking, I honestly don't see any disagreements and I'm so glad that we are clarifying everything right Because when we have a turn mutually accepted everything, let's say from Subway to Jenny's or outpatient O, we have to come in front of council to get approval. That's what I understand the mutually accepted is at that time. If there's a certain that we don't, and as Nav said that everybody want a national tenant, you don't know the value of the property, how high it goes. But again, we want to just protect, my goal is after this one we need to, I want to break ground as quickly as possible and we are, we are demolishing the gas station, we're starting with the gas station before we go to Starbucks portion that way because as he said, it's better for us and I think planning don't communicate because they already have plan for approval for how many 4,000?” Nav Brar – “Proposal for both the gas station C store and the 4,300 square foot shell building has been going back and forth between our engineers, our architects and building department, which is outsourced for over two months now.”
Council Member Nunez – “I have a couple of comments and a question on the national tenants. What, as a city, what are we looking for? I know we want to see at least one national tenant on each parcel, which includes the gas station and the portion that the city is selling. I understand what they're telling us about in attending all these ICSE conferences and there are some restrictions on some companies. Example, if Starbucks comes in, you're not allowed to bring in certain other companies within their areas or you cannot build on the areas and they give you a timeframe. The city, I believe we have something similar to that on the property that we have or we sold, I believe in block H we did the same thing. We restricted any 99 cents stores, anybody coming in there for the term of the thing for ever, ever. And that's sitting out there, I know right down the street from you where Burger King is being remodeled and the gas station's there, Burger King has a limit of no burger joints are allowed to be built on and around that old Kmart area. So I understand how hard it's going to be a second national tenant. I know one of my questions is when this proposal was put together and it had pictures, was it just pictures to show what it looked like or was it pictures of tenants you were coming after? I know specifically one of them is Jersey Mike's and another one is Wetzel’s Pretzel. Both of them based on our population size. And so what we have, if we already have one in town, they will not build another one here in town because they will not cannibalize one to bring another one into town and those two companies specifically will not do that. So I don't know if there was something, if it was actually written in the proposal or not. I think our city should be looking at least getting one national tenant on each one of those partials and something written out to where when this is developed and we don't turn it to look like one partial, they remained two individual partials. However, there's an agreement there that so the at least 20, 30 years or whatever it takes or even the lifetime of that property, they could never shut that down and turn it into one parking lot. It would have to be flowing all the time, even if they sell the property similar to what the city did with no 99 cents stores in Block “H.” That's the lifetime of the agreement we have out there. There's also a current tenant I believe who wants to come into that area and they currently have for the lifetime that we own a property near there, another gas station cannot come in and they have that on there. So I think if we can work something similar to that two parcels, at least one national tenant on each one with at least 20 years on each one of those, I don't see an issue with it. Some of the questions that had come up and I was aware of on these reports that I read, I believe a lot of 'em were just dealt with right now by Mr. Barr. That's all I have.
City Attorney Hensley – “The parcel I just said quickly again it can be done as two different parcels. I was a bit surprised when I saw their comments a couple of weeks ago that they wanted to do. That was the first time I was notified that they had the desire. It's actually kind of very complicated to have all those easements and whatnot as opposed to have one parcel, but if they want to do it that way it can be done. It's just a little more complicated. But never, it was more just a matter of making sure it was all integrated. They want two different parcels. I think it's more work for them, but we can do that.
Council Member Nunez – “I believe the Walmart has that. They have that worked out with everybody in that Walmart area. Everybody owns different parts of that YK project, but they all have a mutual agreement for like ever.
This is how we're going to work it.
City Attorney Hensley – “I see it in bigger commercials lots where they're CC&R, this is a relatively small area, that's why I mean it's a fair amount of paperwork for a relatively small couple of parcels, but if they want to do it that way it can be done
City Attorney Hensley – I'm going to have you hold your thoughts Mr. B, hang on a second. Okay, we're going to get through our comments first and then we'll check with you for questions or any concerns vice mayor? Mayor Pro Tem Morris – “No, I totally agree with my colleagues. I don't think we need to have all national tenants there I think, and it's not going to be a tremendously big parcel. So I'm looking if you're going to have four tenants there, the builders aren't going to be that big and many national tenants want already regulations for how they build their stores or whatever. So for me, I don't have a problem with that and again, I look forward to seeing the project move forward. So that's all I have.
Mayor Alindajao – “Alright, thank you Vice mayor. So it looks like we're not too far off in terms of the ENA and eventually the DEA, I think what the DDA did was essentially define some of the issues in the ENA, correct me if I'm wrong Mark, but in terms of national and regional tenants, we have to have a working definition for those. That's how contract law works, that's how contracts work. If we're not on the same page, there's a meeting of the minds as far as what a national brand means or regional brand and that's when we get into litigation issues and whatnot. So I can totally see that. As far as the agreement, the issues that Navi brought up, I think one of 'em was essentially the argument of overreach in terms of first I'll tackle one at a time. First the City Manager in terms of approval beyond the leasing period. And I think part of the agreement, and correct me if I'm wrong, mark did the parties drafted the DDA or and the NEA or ENA.”
City Attorney Hensley – “My office drafted it and we just a couple of weeks ago got comments back from the developer. “
Mayor Alindajao – “And so like I said, we have to define the terms that are now in the DDA and one of the issues was concerning the city manager per I guess scope of authority in terms of approving national regional tenants. My understanding that it is too restrictive in terms of the agreement and the DDA don't have an issue with the definition of a national chain or I don't have an issue with the regional change. But giving the developer the third option, if it cannot fulfill on good faith and on due diligence cannot fulfill the national requirement or the regional requirement.
It should at least be an additional language added so that the developer can exercise its right to bring in a nonnational retailer, a non regional retailer. So I think that's probably part of what I'm going to recommend that we do moving forward. I think that it is over restrictive and I think the second part of the city's overreach was the area of the language in the DDA regarding fuel pumps and I think we've worked that issue out, right. It looks like there was a misunderstanding in terms of from our end, I think it was a question, not necessarily an item to be agreed upon and contracted for. And I think that's not a non-issue. Is that how you see it, Mr. Barr? Jessie Brar – “Yes.”
Mayor Alindajao – “Okay. So that's that issue in terms of the consolidation of the properties you do intend already on developing both parcels at the same time. Now is it clear in your mind in terms of what Mr. Hensley is saying, if you want to have two different ownerships or two different distinct lots between the, we'll call it the east and west lot, it's going to be a little bit more complicated that way. But are you and understand the complexity in doing it that way?
Jessie Brar – “Yeah. Yes sir. I think the way we are understanding is that City would not have, if we were not the finalist to get the West parcel, Citi would not have the right to, I think that's what we are requesting is like Mr.
Nunez come 20 year, I think we can look into the east side for the 20 year, right? We go back, but on the west side we want freedom.”
Mayor Alindajao – “That because it's more difficult to get a national regional brand inside of a convenience store?”
Jessie Brar – “Yeah, it is very difficult for, they like their separate footprint, right? We are right now very, very close to get some kind of agreement with the two, I can't say the name right now to get them into the gas station. The way I'm visiting is if we were not the finalist, let's say there was somebody else and there would be two parcels, the City would not have no control. We are going more than our way to do the gas station as we agree with the city. But I think if you're going to put some restriction 10 year we want to go around, it may be two year, it may take and then like city manager say 10 year leads, we are agreed to that but we want a little bit less restriction on the West parcel considering that if somebody else owned that got the bid, then city had zero saying into the west files. That's what we the question.
Mayor Alindajao – “Okay. Mr. Henley, what is the practice I guess in terms of, I mean I'm for having the city have a little bit more control of the property in terms of what goes in there. In fact, I think Mr. Hensley suggested that perhaps we may prohibit certain types of uses or retail. Will you be open to that?” Jessie Brar – “I think if you look at the Starbucks, what they giving us that we can't have either on West parcel or East Parcel, I don't think a city would have any more. How many items I think they have, it's about 15, 20 items, 15, 20 item smoke shop, some adult entertainment or some other stuff. We are already being restricted by Starbucks.
Right? And I think City should have every right to take care of the east parcel, west parcel. We definitely want to follow what we committed. We want to rebuild the gas station because long run is we are getting better property doing both.”
Mayor Alindajao – “And the question sir, is would you Navi, would your team be open to in writing prohibiting, prohibiting certain uses on the land.”
Jessie Brar – “Certain uses on the land in writing? Yes, I would. Yes. And just to answer the original question, we want two separate parcels with CC&Rs that go with the life of the property, shared access, shared parking. In our world, we're not the most experienced and I know there's a lot of bright minds in this room, but we're experienced to even two weaker developments. CC&R is just the easier way to go for an integrated development. It protects the city, it protects us.
Mayor Alindajao – “I appreciate you responding to the question and it just adds another level of complication, but sounds like you're ready for that and that's not an issue for you guys. Okay. Now Mark, I started to ask you, in terms of these prohibited retail or projects that would come to these locations on a lease basis, how far does the city, does it want to put a infinite, I mean is this going to be an infinite time restriction or is this going to be a limited time restriction? What's your recommendation?”
City Attorney Hensley – “I wouldn't put anything infinite. Generally the law doesn't allow infinite anyway, but somewhere between 10, 15 years generally is what I see. You can go longer, you can go a little shorter, but generally I see 10 to 15 year provisions and the way land use works in 10 or 15 years, who knows what things will look like. And again, if they have maybe some use that doesn't look attractive today and 10 years looks really attractive based upon some change in something and they can always come forward and bring it to the Council and get that lifted from the restrictions.
Mayor Alindajao – “And I understand that we're on the same team. I know that you want good tenants in there forever. So, and I think that's what we're all getting at here. I think there's a few minute details that we can fix the language on and I think we can get on the same page or on a better page if we make these adjustments. So the fuel issue with the pumps and whatnot, I think that's going to be stricken mark from the DDA.
City Attorney Hensley – “The only thing that really on the gas station side of it that needs to be in there is to clear that those renovations will be done concurrently or prior to the other parcel being developed. So you have the certainty that it gets done.”
Mayor Alindajao – “And that was the spirit of the approval. In fact, that was what really drew our attention to your particular project is the consolidation of the two lots and the renditions look beautiful even if it may be different than what we're seeing there, but I think it's going to be a great looking project on that part of the City. So, I'm personally excited for your project. Alright, so I'm going to make a motion or I guess give direction, right Mark? Yeah. The direction is to change the language on the exercise of the City Manager. I believe that's how it's worded in the DDA that perhaps adding a list of priorities for lack of a better way of putting it. But the City of Delano, in terms of the businesses on that location should first exercise due diligence and good faith effort to bring in a national tenant first, a regional tenant second and other, I suppose I wouldn't even know what to categorize any other tenant or just non-national, non regional tenant as the third option. So long as we see a good faith effort and due diligence on trying to obtain a national regional tenant. Go ahead.
City Manager Reyna – “This is aside sir, from the already agreed upon national tenant on each lot?” Mayor Alindajao – “Correct? Because as far as the parties have an issue with the definition of a national tenant, I think that's pretty fair. I mean if you're talking about a national tenant, you're talking about multi-state location. So the definition seems to fit that.:
Nav Brar – “I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page that the fuel brand is a national tenant.” Mayor Alindajao – “Yeah, and I think we're talking about looking forward in terms of city manager approval of future lessees and whether the definition of national regional tenants is that agreeable to you?” Nav Brar – “As long as the fee store, gas station lot, the fuel brand is classified as a national tenant for the West parcel, we are in agreements with that.”
Mayor Pro Tem Morris – “And I'll also add that to the direction of counsel. I don't think that's a horrible ask. Again, I think there are practical reasons why we don't want to necessarily demand a national regional brand inside of a gas station for all sorts of obvious reasons. So is that a fair statement?” Mayor Pro Tem Morris – My also too, with all these changes that we're making, is that going to hold up their project? Thank you for saying because they're anxious to get started with their project and of course we don't meet the beginning of January.”
Mayor Alindajao – “I'll kind of address that at the end as well. So add some language, broaden the language in the DDA regarding the requirement for national regional rents to add other looks like a 15 year post, the first leasing period with a cap of 15 years.”
Nav Brar – “Can we make a request for 10 years? Our Starbucks term lease is a 10 year.” Mayor Pro Tem Morris – “Okay, we'll do 10. That'll be my recommendation. 10 years. And there was another issue I think I saw the CC&R on the property will be lifetime.
City Attorney Hensley – “They would've to come in. I mean I think the way they're going to structure this is that if they want to come and redo the property, they're going to need to redo the CCNRs too. I mean the way it's laid out, I mean it's going to be 11, those CC&R if you're going to have parking that both sides are relying on and common driveway easements and I mean if they want to redo that, they're going to have to essentially come in and redo everything.”
Council Member Solorio-Ruiz – “So is that too much back and forth in your opinion? City Attorney Hensley – “Well again, listen, it's their property if they want to structure it that way. I mean I'm not used to seeing small properties where they divide 'em up that way, but if they want to do it, it's a lot of paperwork.
Sure. And that's why. But to the council member's point is that there probably are their lifetime to the extent that those projects are there. If they want to completely come in and redo that at some point then they'll have to come back to the Council or whatever and get things changed.
Mayor Alindajao – “And that was the point of the question is that splitting the lots up adds another level of complication.”
Nav Brar – “They're already split. We don't feel as long as, yeah, as the city is okay with the CCNRs that we provide and we get them approved, CCNRs are going to be executed by the property owner, so it's going to be executed by our group and it would be recorded against the property after of that. That would be our problem that if we choose to redevelop the property or do that, we'd have to go around those ccrs. Obviously we will figure that out by declaring a declarant who can make those decisions in the futures if that happens.” Mayor Alindajao – “Any issue with that mark?”
City Attorney Hensley – “No, because the parking will need to be site will need to legally adopt to everything that's adjust to everything on both sides. So the City will be protected for that.
Mayor Alindajao – “So I guess my bottom line in terms of the delay of the project, of course we want to do it as fast as we can, but we also want to get it right.”
Mayor Pro Tem Morris – ”Can we do a special meeting?”
Mayor Alindajao – “Sure. I mean, so let finish my thought. So I don't think any of the material changes or changes that we're making to the DDR or DDA that is going to hold up the project in and of itself. We agree. I agree. Right? In my view, it looks like more superficial adjustments, although they have some significant consequences are minor.
What's probably going to hold the project up is having to draft it in the way in the mix that you want to, of course like the vice mayor suggesting we're ready and able to, if we need council approval for that, we're already able to make that happen. As soon as you can complete your part of that.” City Attorney Hensley – “If I might just so that we're all on the same page, we had this conversation I believe back in June with everyone, this project, well I guess it went to the planning commission part of it, the development agreement that DD and A needs to go back to the planning and that needs to the, to go to the planning commission.
And so there are three hearings that are going to need to be held for this. There need to be a planning commission and then two council meetings. And so the process is going to take just by, even if you started all the clocks running tomorrow, you would not get this done until January. And that's if everything was done today.” Nav Brar – “Was that where did this, for lack of a better term process originate from?” City Attorney Hensley – “State law.”
State law. So
Mayor Alindajao – “You can rethink, but just understand now you know how the law works in terms of split lots and easements and whatnot. Now that you can appreciate the length of time that it may take, either you might want to take a different route or continue with that route and then we will get it done as fast as we can. Targeting sometime in January.”
Max Bacerra – “Mayor City council city staff, when we laid out the site plan, all of the required parking that was needed for it was parcel met the requirements under your zoning ordinance, all of the parking requirements for the East Parcel also met your zoning requirements. So we're good so that these two parcels can move ahead and be developed and still look the same with the parcel lines thing as there are. The other comment I want to make was that I know that initially our staff moved very quickly to move the project to be ready to be heard at the planning commission level back in May, but when we were asked to pull back and not present our item, we held back to a later date and we said, well, is that going to be it in terms of the timeframe, if we waited till September to be heard and was put back on the planning commission agenda. Would we have to go back? Even though the ENA and the subsequent DDA and PSA still hadn't been completed and they were told that it would not have to go back to the planning commission level.”
City Attorney Hensley – “Don't know. I don't know. I have no idea who told you that it wasn't me. I can tell you that because I've been very clear with staff that when they were going to bring that CUP forward back earlier this year, I said, you can't do that until all the documents are ready and the DA's ready. The DA requires an ordinance and it requires the planning commission to make a recommendation on it. And it requires two hearings by the council.
There's a site plan, there are multiple documents. I've been very clear, it's not that it can't get done, it's just how it gets done. And for whatever reason, there were documents ready to go several months ago and I just finally got comments to them two weeks ago or three weeks ago. So I'm not quite certain who you've been talking to, but I wasn't part of those communications.”
Mayor Alindajao – “So I guess the bottom line is it's nothing material in that sense, but mostly procedural. So if you want to continue, I'm going to still make the recommendations that I'm going to and wait for the council to weigh in on whether they want to accept those recommendations. But in terms of the City Council, this is now a legal procedural thing that's going to take about a month and a half to complete if you want to go down that track. Now, for all intents and purposes, the Council doesn't care if you want to have the two lot system or a one lot system.
We're just here to accommodate those issues that we've seen in the ENA and the issues you brought up in the DDA.
And we're addressing those issues now. So anything beyond that is not within our jurisdiction. Is that fair enough? Mark?”
Jessie Brar – “Our concern, sir, is that we have a Starbucks lead and we were hoping to sign it tomorrow because it starts a cloth, right? And if it's now seems like we are on an unknown, but we don't want to commit to liquidated damages for Starbucks because they have a certain time period that we got to get everything ready. So that is definitely going to delay that. So we can't even start the gas station portion because that we were thinking about 30 to 45 days.
City Attorney Hensley – “They might be able to start, they're not going to include the gas station as part of the project. They might be able to start certain aspects of that. Again, I'll need to talk with staff tomorrow and with the developers about the timing of this. But it gets the development agreement and that part of it through the process. I mean IT law requires it goes to the commission and it comes to the council twice.” Mayor Alindajao – And you said you received that document how long ago? The comments? City Attorney Hensley – “We had a conversation back in back June, July about what we were going to do. I think in August they got the documents and then a few weeks ago I got their comments.” Jessie Brar – “And then the last question I have is when those leads is come, just let me give an example. For example, they want to know, do we have to come for those leads in front of the entire chamber or does the city manager and the city council have the ability to let us know because somebody sub council and they want to know, Hey, are you guys good? We want to know the respond. And if we tell them, we'll let you know in two months.
Sometimes they start looking around.”
Mayor Alindajao – “I think the DDA makes the City Managers essentially the executive or the executor of that approval. So I think that's what it's, Any other questions or concerns? Yes, and I think I agree with the rest of the council. I think I'm feeling what they're feeling that we want to get this project moving as quickly as we can and if it takes special meetings to, so long as we're compliant with the law, we're ready and available. And I think the rest of the council feels the same way. So I have, I think, do you need a vote on that mark as far as the recommendations or the direction?
City Attorney Hensley – “Yes. And I want to be clear, it was back on October Sunday, October 11th that I got, or 10th, I got their comments to the DDA that they were given in August. So I've had it for a few weeks. But anyway, so yes, we need Council direction, majority of what he want us to do.” Mayor Alindajao – “And Mark, are you clear about the directions to at least my proposed directions?” City Attorney Hensley – “Yes, I am. I mean, my big concern listening to this is timing and how we get this done, but we'll just have to work through.”
Mayor Alindajao – “That. Sure. I mean we could sit here and maybe point fingers and talk about delays, but let's move forward and let's see what we can do. So does anyone have any questions before we vote on the direction? Go ahead.”
Council Member Nunez – “So I know we have one more council meeting coming up in December, then we go dark in December and in planning commission, when do they come back in December or if they come back in December or this month.”
City Manager Reyna – “Sir, the council has two meetings in December, but I believe the planning commission is dark in December and then the first meeting in January is when the council goes dark.” Mayor Alindajao – “Okay. We can certainly, I don't know how procedurally this might work, but ask the perhaps for a special of the building or the commissioners, building commissioners, perhaps that might be a workaround.
Alright. Does anybody want to add or have a comment add to the direction that I just proposed?” Council Member Solorio-Ruiz – “Can someone repeat those directions if Mark…” Mayor Alindajao – “Yeah. And I think that that is the case now, correct Mark? I think there has to be, there's a 15 year period of city manager approval on less fees.”
City Attorney Hensley – “The process of who they're going to be. Yes. And so I mean the way this is going to be structured now I understand it'll really be, you're going to prohibit certain things you don't want, which is going to make it much clearer what you are willing to accept. And City Managers have to be reasonable if they come in with a use that's not one of the prohibited uses. There need to be a reason that you're not going to allow that.
Mayor Alindajao – “And those are the details that you'll work out with the parties in terms of type of business prohibitions, correct, Mark? Correct. Okay.
Council Member Solorio-Ruiz – “And of course we're starting with a list already, right? I can provide that.
Starbucks already has that. They can't have near them. We are already having to build Starbucks.?” Mayor Pro Tem Morris – “So the proposal is to move forward with the project and then put the language in.
Mark. If you want to read those back.”
City Attorney Hensley – “It's going to be the Starbucks, which is sort of a given in this, but I'll say it. And then there'll be a list of, and there's going to be two national tenants on the two properties. So essentially you'll have Starbucks one and the other will be the nationally branded gas station. And then beyond that, there's a desire that they'll have this list of priorities of national, then regional and then sort of an other, when we get into the other, it'll be something that's mutually agreed upon by the city manager and the developer. But there'll be a list of uses that are not okay. And then that use list, that restrictive list if you will, will be a 10 year restriction. We'll have CCNRs on the properties and deal with the however they want to structure, whether it's two parcels, one parcel, we'll have to deal with making sure that the restrictions are on there appropriately. I think those were the key issues.
Speaker 1 (01:12:09):
Motion was made by: Alindajao to direct City Attorney to require two national tenants on the two properties Starbucks and the other will be a nationally branded gas station. They'll have a list of priorities of national, then regional and then when we get into the other, it'll be mutually agreed upon by the City Manager and the developer. But there'll be a list of uses that are prohibited. That restrictive list will be a 10-year restriction.
They'll have CC&Rs on the properties and deal with them however they want to structure it, whether it's two parcels, one parcel, they'll have to deal with making sure that the restrictions are there appropriately; 2nd by: Solorio – Ruiz
Vote: 4-0
Ayes: Alindajao/Morris/Nunez/Solorio–Ruiz
Nays: None
Absent: Vasquez
Abstentions: None
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
• Facility Fee Study provided by Recreation Manager Batth-Chavez.
COUNCIL STATEMENTS AND REPORTS
Council member Vasquez – Absent.
Council member Solorio-Ruiz – “I have none as well. Only of course. Happy Veterans Day. To those who served our country, I know we celebrated last Monday Veterans Day and I know that there is needing of help for decorations, for Heritage Park. And if you would like to volunteer, you can reach out to Mr. Colton Kinsey. Other than that, thank you to city staff for all the work they do, but that'll be all.” Councilmember Nunez – None.
Mayor Pro-Tem Morris – “Yeah, just want to remind everyone that there is a community Thanksgiving lunch, all those that would like to go out there and volunteer. I think nine o'clock I think is what they said. So it's out at Tony's Grill or Tony's Grill and only thing. And then I have of course the Christmas parade, which is coming up in Thursday, December the fifth. So we hope we can get everyone to participate in that. And the theme is Candy Land, I believe, right? Yes. And so we have that to look forward to. And of course I'm sure December will be jam packed with a lot of different opportunities to serve in different projects and helping people and so forth. So I'm sure that'll be thrown out there also too. So to let everybody know and hopefully the Chamber will put out some of those things where we can know where we can go to volunteer or what's needed in our community. It's such a great time for giving and for being thoughtful to others that need help. So with that, the only other thing I have is what's with High Street? Okay, High Street. When you go down that street, I've had several complaints from different people. When you start out like at Garces and go down north all the way down to Cecil, there's bumps and scoops and coming up and down. And so people have said, I'm sure I have some heads that are nodding back there that have kind of felt the same thing. And so I don’t know what that is, but we want to bring that out and hopefully you can give us an answer of what happened to that street and what we can do to fix it. Because if people keep saying the city wasted their money, getting the street done. And that's all I have.” Mayor Alindajao – “I had the privilege of meeting with some of our retail business partners in the community of Delano Bastrop was present, Walgreens Tractor Supply, am I missing any others? Chief Chevron Gas Station. And the purpose of my meeting with our retail business partners is to try to help them and hear them out in terms of the issues they're having with either homelessness, homeless people or retail theft. And we had a very productive discussion. Thank you, Chief, for being there for presenting and also for your department for presenting some tips to our retail business partners on how to address retail theft. But I know that there are going to be some initiatives that we have in the works that'll help our business partners. Nothing scares businesses and customers away than high crime around our retail business partners and homeless individuals hanging around and causing disturbance in the stores. So I look forward to meeting with more of our retail business partners in the community. So stay tuned for that. I believe the Vice Mayor talked about the Christmas parade. What was the date on that again? Did we give a date? December 5th and then the City Christmas Tree Lighting is December 4th. Thursday. Thursday. So Christmas tree lighting Thursday. No, no, sorry. The Christmas tree lighting is on December 4th Wednesday and the Christmas parade this year will be on December 5th, Thursday. So I hope y'all can make it out there. I also want to thank our City Clerk, Ricardo Chavez, for his work on the election. We sound like we had a successful election cycle.
Congratulations to all the winners, both locally, statewide, and nationally. Thank you, I saw you do a news report or interview and I'm glad you're out there watching, making sure the rules are followed in terms of the election. So thank you Mr. Chavez. Let's see. I also want to invite everyone to the Shaylyn 5K run. That's on November 30th. I see you back there, Elsa. Do you want to say something real quick about that? About the Shaylin Run? It's on November 30th. It is in honor and loving memory of Shaylin and it is a 5K walk and run. So you don't have to feel like you need to run. You can walk. And it is for the purpose of bringing awareness to pedestrian safety in our city.
Can you say something really quick?”
Elsa Pinoliar – “Yes. So it's on November 30th, Saturday. This is the first year that we're holding it in on a Saturday since we did hear everyone's feedback of changing it from Thanksgiving morning to a Saturday. However, we do have a special announcement that the actual 5K is going to be held at La Vina Middle School this year. Okay, great.
The cost will be $30. It will increase after the 22nd. So register now and we will post it and let you guys all know just don't get your registered walk, right?”
Mayor Alindajao – “Awesome. Thank you. Appreciate it. And it's a great cause I've been involved in that race. What a long time. It's been what, at least five years. Yeah. And it's nice and crisp. Cool. Morning to go running. So please come out. Alright, thank you. Also appreciate it. And it's a great cause. Come out please. It's on Saturday now. I used to be on Thanksgiving Day and I know a lot of people have plans and whatnot, but thank you for changing that.
I think you'll get more participation.”
Moved for Closed Session by: Solorio-Ruiz
2nd by: Nunez
Time: 6:58PM
Vote: 4-0
Ayes: Alindajao/Morris/Nunez/Solorio-Ruiz
Nays: None
Absent: Vasquez
Abstentions: None
The City Clerk was excused. City Manager Reyna was appointed as Acting City Clerk. City Attorney Hensley was present.
CLOSED SESSION
15) CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8.
Property: 1942 Randolph St, Delano, CA 93215
APNs: 034-200-12 and 034-200-14
Agency negotiator: City Manager and City Attorney
Negotiating parties: Kern Community College School District Under negotiation: price and/or terms of payment
Mayor Alindajao abstained and left at 7:05pm.
Motion to move into General Session made by: Nunez
2nd by: Solorio-Ruiz
Time: 7:12PM
Vote: 3-0
Ayes: Morris/Nunez/Solorio-Ruiz
Nays: None
Absent: Vasquez
Abstentions: Alindajao
RETURN TO GENERAL SESSION
No reportable action.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Nunez seconded by Solorio-Ruiz and unanimously carried 3-0 to adjourn the meeting at 7:13 PM _____________________________________________
Ricardo G. Chavez, City Clerk