Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - March 4, 1985 - CC f--- ekor -... !IIDATE: FEBRUARY 20, 1985 TO: BILL CUNNINGHAM, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM ROBERT DeLOACH, PUBLIC WORKS/PARKS SUPERINTENDENT '`° SUBJECT: TREE PLANTING ALONG FOOTHILL BOULEVARD At the present time we have four (4) different varities of trees planted along Foothill Boulevard from the westerly city limits to Barranca Avenue on the east. It has been the desire of the Council to designate the Ficus Nitida (Indian Laural ) as the parkway tree for Foothill Boulevard for some time now. The Parks & Recreation Commission has as we know, voiced their dislike for this species , largely due to its maintenance characteristics . It is my understanding that the Councils opinion is that the asthetic value added by the Ficus will out-weight the maintenance problems inherent with the tree. A frequent questions asked of the Parks Division is why we are not planting trees at vacant locations along Foothill Boulevard? A decision must be made as to how the planting of a new designated -e should be handled. We must first be sure t - Ficus Nitida . ndian Laural ) be designated and approved by City Counci .s the ne. way tree for Foothill Boulevard. As it stands now, the Photenial Fraseri (Chinese Photenia) , and Tristana Conferra (Brisbane Box) , are the 'approved' trees for Foothill Boulevard. After its approval the following questions must be considered: 1. ) Do we remove all existing, non-approved, parkway trees and replant with the Ficus? This would provide the consistant planting desired in the long-run along the Boulevard, but would entail removing mature trees. I estimated that 25% of the trees could possible survive transplanting to other locations . 2. ) Do we plant the Ficus in the existing vacant locations (Example: White's Funeral Home)? This would eliminate the voids in the Boulevard planting but would create a "Hodge-Podge" effect on our planting. We would have four (4) very different and distinct trees growing at different growth rates with different growth characteristics . In the long run this would not enhance the asthetic value of the street for obvious reasons . A decision should be made, but by whom? I anticipate a struggle with the Parks Commission throughout this process . A decision now to remove and replant would be costly (cost figures to follow) but would eliminate this problem once and for all . The decision will have to consider the future growth and appearance of Foothill Boulevard and its place as the major thoroughfare through the San Gabriel Valley. If the decision is to remove all non-approved trees along Foothill Boulevard, and the cost and scope is prohibitive-, we could break-up the project into sectors of the Boulevard over a longer time frame. G 0/V /2 • • • :01 H.! T . r`.• = •4 3ii '71 13S • I , 7 !", , T' ‘••• . 0 2 3 i 9T 77 t .d )i ri •; •- • ' ; If• ,YCJI.1; L'IJ! 9:j n. ,:r '; Itt • ;II,;I')'I.!) • 2, cffi ;•:, • • . - . , °,1 " > f4.1 '2 ' V "1", • , , ;CH) •;-; ,t2"71 7. C' - - - - - - - .; (..)V ; 1 'f' I .1,,0'4 • ;:‘,-Cryt ; 13 c-f-r'rof ' 'DO ?;11. t '!271 . (.)/.4. =I; ",-)Ifq;;-:"..', -C . 90 t "1, 7-2-L71035 ; . ;.+ 71 :;:3 n CiO !. 01 1' 2;'?3b •: -;;;T•Ir, P.7 • 5-1 fi V.1H I,- 8 %-; ; t 0,11 n'•••2! 1r,- 7 5' rcc5' 5y159 di' t - ▪ ,31-1:3 J200 -•:•32Tii0a -MINUTES ' OF AZUSA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 21, 1985 The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m. by Chairman Harry Hoke who led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance. !resent: Members: Harry Hoke, Eunice Harrington, ROLL CALL LaVonne Muniz , Dave Santellan & Donna McCormick Others: Peter Selak, Recreation Superintendent Tom Klett, Azusa Herald Commissioner Harrington questioned the letter regarding unauthor- MINUTES ized tree removals and plantings that was not mentioned in the minutes. Superintendent Selak mentioned that Mr. Guarrera was going to speak with the City Administrator prior to drafting the letter. Harrington presented the Commission with a letter - she drafted that addressed illegal removals and plantings. The : letter was approved for submission to each Council member with a copy to the City Administrator on a motion by L. Muniz and second by D. Santellan. • Proposed Conditional Use Permit C-351 to allow use of a trailer - CUP C-351 for commerical purposes at 600 S. Vincent Ave. was read. No action at this time. Proposed Conditional Use Permit C-852 'to allow use of 60' trailers CUP C-352 for commercial purposes at 1100 Hollyvale St was read. No action required at this time. ?roposed Conditional Use Permit C-353 to allow operation of a. CUP C-353 dance floor at 629 E. Foothill Blvd. was read. No action required at this time. A request from Boys Republic Executive Director Max L. Scott was -- 7 BOYS read. Mr. Scott would. like permission to collect fallen pine cones REPUBLIC and pods from street trees to make Della'Robbia ChristmaSlwreaths. REQUEST The request was approved on a motion by L. Muniz and second by D . Santellan. A memo regarding the City Council' s desire to designate the Ficus STREET Nitida as the street tree for Foothill Blvd. and Alosta Ave. was TREES received from Bill Cunningham. Commissioner Muniz commented on ALOSTA/ the high maintenance disease, and pest problems associated with FOOTHILL this tree. She also pointed out how Monrovia removed this tree from Myrtle Ave. - Commissioners McCormick and Harrington discused ,. the numerous problems that Glendora has had with this tree. The Commission was agreed that the existing trees are just to the point of attaining a good size capable of providing shade and that it would be a mistake to remove 76 trees only to replace them with a known problem species. On a motion by L. Muniz and second by D. Santellan, staff was directed to send a memo to each Councilman with a copy to the City Administrator that outlined the Commissions adamant opposition to removal of the existing trees and planting of the Ficus Nitida. It was also moved to include highlighted copies of a previous report that details -" the problems .associated with:this tree and that any. detail questions should be addressed to :Robert DeLoach. 2-21-85 CITY OF AZU A r 1T[TTS .TlirIle Covet 04 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Paidu and Recneati.on Vivia :on February 27 , 1985 Honorable City Council RECEIVED / City Hall FE9 28 PM. Azusa , CA 91702 T1 All IMIP TOR Subject: Street Trees for Foothill/Alosta Gentlemen: A memo regarding the City Council ' s desire to designate the Ficus Nitida as the street tree for Foothill Blvd. was considered at the Parks and Recreation Commission ' s regular meeting of February 21 , 1985 . The Commission discussed the many problems associated with the Ficus and agreed that the existing trees are just to the point of attain- ing a good size capable of providing needed shade and that it would be a mistake to remove 76± trees only to replace them with a known problem species . Enclosed for your consideration are copies of 1 ) a short report outlining the problems encountered using the Ficus as a parkway tree ; 2 ) Memo to City Administrator outling the Commission ' s desire not to change the designa- tion and 3 ) the minutes of the February 21 , 1985 meeting . The Commission is adamantly opposed to removal of the existing trees and planting of the Ficus Nitida . Sincerkly , / 4:--/L, Z// ;41 ?;" ' arry oke Cha ' man, Parks and Recreation Commission HH: lj * 1 * Enc . 9 85-57 / 320 NORTH ORANGE PLACE, AZUSA, CALIFORNIA 9"1702 PHONE 0181-334-5125 LIETElilcaCYPTIVIE KENO Dote Feb. 27, 1985 "*J2 TO Bill Cunningham. Community Development Director FROM ,TOP Gua-crcra , rnmmuoity Services Director Subject: Street Tree Designation - Alosta/Foothill Your memo dated February 20 , 1985 recommending that the Ficus Nitida be designated as official street tree along Alosta/ Foothill and that authorizing for removal of all existing trees was presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission at their regular meeting of February 21 , 1985 . The Commission members are adamantly opposed to removing the existing trees and just as adamant about not planting the Ficus Nitida. Staff was directed to send a memo to City Council expressing their concerns and the reasons for not wanting the Ficus or removal of the 76± trees which were planted five short years ago . JAG:lj 85-55 RECEIVED FL 6 2 81985 ..�►Y PLA►4r Ir4( - AZUSA, CALIFORNIA CITY ZU A ' Mealret C)4... . ... FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT At, NCY FROM: GEOFF CRAIG, AGENCY TREASURER UP SUBJECT: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACCII TANT DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1985 BACKGROUND For several months, staff has been grappling with the need to secure the personal services needed to provide accounting, bookkeeping and bond manage- ment to the Redevelopment Agency. This report presents staff's findings in this matter. FINDINGS At the City of Azusa, Redevelopment accounting has been seriously overlooked for several years. Until August of 1984, Redevelopment books were prepared at the offices of the City auditors in Newport Beach; Later, the City's Finance Department took over the task of making book entries. However, changes in personnel and the inability of the current computer to accept Redevelopment data, have prevented any true financial analysis from being performed. The combination of outside auditing/accounting and lack of staff time within the organization has stymied the Redevelopment process. Staff of both the City and the consulting firm of DeDios and Associates have met to discuss this problem. Two primary needs were identified: 1) The need for preparation and administration of properly-documented operating budgets, presented separately from other sources and expenditures of funds; and 2) Continuous, ongoing analysis of the operating budget, updates, revenues and expenditures, with such information readily available to the Agency Executive Director (City Administrator) . Thea two requirements alone would amount to full-time work. Another area identified is the responsibility for effective bond administration with information and statistics readily available to the Redevelopment Agency Executive Director. Staff is still studying this concept, and will return to Council at a later date with a recommendation concerning the matter. O-n 3// e- I0 � * 4 * Page 1 of 2 213 EAST FOOTHILL BOULEVARD,AZUSA, P.O.BOX WWW, CALIFORNIA 91702-1395 . (818) 334-5125 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency February 26, 1985 Page 2 of 2 Staff of both the City and DeDios and Associates concur that the Agency should enter now into a contract with a qualified candidate for the position of Senior Account Clerk. The salary for this position would range from $11.03 to $13.41 per hour, including benefits. During the initial contractual period, the contractor would acclimate to the City's work environment while establish- ing and maintaining the desired Agency accounting records. In time, it would become possible to more accurately assess both his/her ability and availability to assume the additional responsiblities of bond administration. If feasible, the position could be made permanent on July 1, 1985 as part of the Redevelop- ment Agency's budget for fiscal year 1985-86. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency authorize the Agency Treasurer to enter into a contract Purchase Order with a qualified candidate for Senior Account Clerk, such position to be compensated between $11.03 and $13.41 per hour, through June 30, 1985. GC:bs