HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - September 5, 2006 - CC •
14i67
`- ZUS
AGENDA ITEM
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ALAN KREIMEIER, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES/ CFO 0—
VIA: F. M. DELACH, CITY MANAGER
DATE: September 5, 2006
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2006-07 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM AND BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council approve the proposed Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) and budget for fiscal year 2006-07.
BACKGROUND:
The full CIP, attached to this report, includes new projects as well as projects
approved in the prior years budget but incomplete when the new fiscal year
began (carryovers). There are twenty-seven new projects for FY 2006-07.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approval of funding for new and carryover capital projects as identified in the
attached Capital Projects Appropriation Summary would result in all funds
capital appropriations of $78,203,738 for FY 2006-07. 6—
+�R r
INFORMATION ITEM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: F.M. DELACH, CITY MANAGER/Ir
MARCO A. MARTINEZ, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
SUBJECT: RENT CONTROL INQUIRY
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council receive and file this report.
BACKGROUND
At the August 21, 2006 City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff prepare a
report addressing an inquiry concerning why the City of Azusa does not have a rent
control ordinance. As you know, rent control ordinances typically set price ceilings on
the amount of rent that can be charged'to tenants occupying housing units.
Wikipidia, the internet encyclopedia, provides a brief general history of rent control. It
notes that:
"In the United States, rent controls were first adopted in response to WWII-era
shortages, or following Richard Nixon's 1971 wage and price controls. They remain in
effect in some cities with large tenant populations, such as New York, San Francisco,
and Washington, DC. Smaller communities also have rent control, notably Santa
Monica, and West Hollywood California along with many small towns in New Jersey
In recent years, rent control in some cities, such as Boston and Cambridge,
Massachusetts, has been ended by state ballot.
In some regions rent control laws are more commonly adopted for mobile home
parks (sometimes called manufactured home communities). Reasons given for these
laws include residents owning their homes (and renting the land), the high cost of
moving "mobile"homes and the loss of home value when they are moved. California,
for example, has only 13 local apartment rent control laws, but over 100 local mobile
home rent control laws. "
In fact, Azusa is one city that has a mobilehome rent control ordinance. Division 2 of
Title 18 of the Azusa Municipal Code contains Azusa's rent stabilization re lations for //J)1
mobilehome parks in the City. It was adopted in 1992.
While the decision to implement a rent control ordinance impacting rental units in the
City is purely a policy decision that rests with the City Council, it should be noted that
there are pros and cons documented in studies concerning the adoption of rent
control or rent stabilization ordinances. These are briefly summarized below (from
Wikipidia):
PROS
Proponents of rent control claim that it is necessary to prevent landlords from
imposing rent increases that force the elderly and the poor to move. Other advocates
claim that maintaining a supply of affordable housing is essential to sustaining job
growth, and to maintaining a community that includes senior citizens and people of all
income groups. Homeowners who support rent control point to the neighborhood
instability caused by high or frequent rent increases and the effect on schools, youth
groups and community organizations when tenants move more frequently.
Proponents of rent control also point out that the market for housing suffers from
information deficiencies and high transaction costs. Typically, a landlord has much
more information about a home than a prospective tenant can reasonably detect.
Moreover, once the tenant has moved in, the costs of moving again are very high.
Unscrupulous landlords can,thus conceal defects and, if the tenant complains,
threaten to raise the rent at the end of the lease. With rent control,tenants can insist
that hidden defects at least be repaired to comply with code requirements, without
fearing retaliatory rent increases. Rent control may thus compensate somewhat for
inefficiencies of the housing market. However,critics claim that such adverse
selection issues can and should be addressed directly.
CONS
Like all price ceilings, rent control is criticized for creating a shortage of housing,
reducing its quality, detering investment and raising the price of unaffected rental
units. Opponents of rent control claim that its benefits accrue disproportionately to
wealthy and well-connected tenants. They argue that the goal of making housing
affordable and available to the poor can be accomplished by the same free market
that created the affordable units in the first place or by government construction or
• subsidy.
Moreover, critics see rent control as a violation of property rights since landlords are
told what they may and may not do with their property. Some also claim that rent
control limits people's ability to sell their rent-controlled property, thus essentially
forcing them to put their property to work for the state without recourse. Landlords
and their organizations actively use their recourse to legislatures, initiative processes
and the courts to affect what regulations are in place. In particular, many legal
challenges to rent controls are based on arguments that the government has taken
landlord's property without compensation. In general the courts have found that this
has not happened. However, passage of the pending Anderson Initiative may impact
these decisions.
2
The Anderson Initiative is an anti-eminent domain initiative that will be on the
November ballot. (Proposition 90) Although the initiative is cloaked as an anti
eminent domain law, it really goes beyond eminent domain actions and imposes
monetary liability on cities for adoptingtype of law or regulation that substantially
affects the value of property or causes a "substantial economic loss". The term
"economic loss" is not defined in the initiative. As a result, cities are being cautious
about adopting new laws that require future determinations that can affect property
values.
In following up on Mr. Pina's specific situation, staff was able to determine that Mr.
Pina resides in a complex that has low-income assistance units. However, given that
Mr. Pina exceeds income levels for that program and is not a senior citizen, he is
ineligible for housing assistance. The property management company has been
contacted and been made aware of Mr. Pina's concerns. They will try to work with
Mr. Pina as he reaches a point where he may be eligible for any assistance program
available.`
FISCAL IMPACT
There is not fiscal impact as a result of this item.
3
, , - .„,,
/.
-„,..„.„.,
,,„,_,:::,_„...
,,,.:,,,,,,,
.,„, ,‘ ,..,.s.,
AZUSA
AGENDA ITEM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: F. M DELACH, CITY MANAGER /1
DATE: SEPTEMBER 5, 2006
SUBJECT: REQUEST FROM THE SAN GABRIEL GUN CLUB FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE AMORTIZATION
PERIOD DESIGNATING THE GUN CLUB AS A LEGAL NON CONFORMING USE UNTIL
DECEMBER 31, 2007, (15-months).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council consider the request of the San Gabriel Valley Gun Club and if approved,
direct staff to proceed with completion and execution of a Settlement Agreement.
BACKGROUND
On February 7, 2005, the Azusa City Council adopted Ordinance No. 05-01, adopting the 2004 City of Azusa
Development Code and a revised official Zoning Map (the "Development Code").
Adoption of the Development Code changed the zoning designation of the Property from Community Facilities
("CF") and Water Conservation ("W") to an Open Space ("OS") zone designation. The primary allowable land
uses in the OS zone do not include an outdoor shooting range as a permitted or conditionally permitted use.
Under the OS zone designation, the Gun Club's use of the Property has become a legal non-conforming use. The
amortization provisions in the Development Code,which apply to outdoor shooting ranges, required that the City
amortize the legal non-conforming use within 18 months from the date of the service of notice. The
Development Code further provides that at the end of 18 months, the Gun Club may apply for an extension of its
non-conforming use status, subject to City review.
Since that time, the Officers of the SGV Gun Club have secured an agreement to relocate their operations to
Burro Canyon. However, the move requires the completion of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District
dredging project in the San Gabriel Reservoir, due to the need to deposit the soil from the project at the
proposed Gun Club site. In order for the Gun Club to plan for construction and phased moving of their
operations they requested the 15-month extension to the "legal non-conforming use period".
Since last July, staff has received correspondence from several law enforcement and governmental agencies
regarding the importance of the SGV Gun Club facility to on-going training. Staff has also receive. continued
communication on noise and disruption related to Gun Club operations effecting residents 1- .,: ., 6
'n�
Azusa Canyon. Qp,fj
After holding a public meeting outlining their relocation plan, Gun Club Officials have proP��d/��u
"mitigation measures" to lessen their operational impacts attempting to address surrounding residents while
rllowing for their transition and full relocation to Burro Canyon.
The measures are as follows:
1. Hours of operation: Tuesday - Friday 9:00 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. (a reduction of 2.25 hours per day);
Saturday 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (a reduction of 1 hour); Sunday 10:00 A.M.to 3:30 P.M. (a reduction of
2.5 hours). -
2. Law Enforcement Training: Beginning October 1, 2006 the facility will be closed completely on
Mondays. Law enforcement and governmental training contracts will continue on weekdays until the
end of the current year, (December 31, 2006), between 10:00 A.M. and 3:30 P.M. Agencies will be
moved as soon as possible to Burro Canyon or other venues for training.
3. Weapons allowed to be fired: The Gun Club has prohibited, since July 1, 2006, the use of large
magnum rifles with muzzle breaks and 50 caliber weapons at the facility. Only weapons recognized
as legal firearms in California are permitted.
4. The SGV Gun Club agrees to be moved from the facility in Azusa Canyon by or before December 31,
2007 and will move as soon as possible if the land that they propose to develop becomes available
from the Los Angeles County Flood Control.
5. Lease agreements with the current property owners require clean up and restoration of the land.
The City Attorney recommended a Settlement Agreement, based upon the Gun Club proposal. More than
one-year ago the previous Gun Club Officers, and their former consultant, had contemplated legal action
against the City. Changes in leadership and new consultants have found a new home for relocation, and
have attempted a more practical and amicable solution to resolving the negative impacts of the facility, while
providing them enough time to remain in operation pending construction of their new facility in Burro
Canyon.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct fiscal impact related to this item.
FY 2005-06 CAPITAL PROJECTS APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
2006-07 New Projects Capital Consumer Public ALP Traffic Utility Facilities
General Gas Tax Projects Service Benefit Water Electric Mitigation Mitigation Endowment
L&W Electric Data Conversion 250,000 250,000 t
L&W Azusa Substation
75,000 75,000
es
L&W Gladstone Circuit Conduit Extension 600,000 600,000
L&W Canyon Water Treatment/Filtration Plant 42,000,00042,000,000
L&W Rosedale Reservoirs/Outlets 8,000,000 8,000,000
L&W Water Main Replacement 7,500,000 7,500,000
L&W Heck Reservoir Landscaping 75,000 75,000
L&W Reservoir Maint. &Improvements 200,000 200,000
L&W 1Road Ext. to Well No. 6 45,000 45,000
PW Pavement Management Program 1 1,600,000 71.0,922 889,078
PW Paint Beams-Womans Club Interior 25,000 25,000
PW Gas Tank Removal-PW yard 75,000 75,000
PW Re-model electrical Office ' 1' 180,000 PW Pedestrian Crossings- Y 200,000 200,000.
PW New securitygate for PW and *y/ 20,000120,00
9 I
.JLIOJ �i�/�S1r
20 b00
PW Concrete retaining wall @ 1st street dumpsite 35,000 ' 35,000
PW Rosedale Traffic Mitigation Projects 1,132,500 i 1,132,500
PD Interior Paint @ PD 70,000 70,000
PD Jail Renovation-@PD 92,000 1 92,000
REC Memorial park roof replacement 85,000 85,000
REC Memorial Park Flooring 10,000 10,000
REC Gladstone Parking Lot Repaving 75,000 75,000
REC Senior Center Boiler Sysytem 25,000 25,000
REC Gazebo-Pioneer Park 75,000 75,000
REC +Northside Park-Handicap Access 75,000 50,000 25,000
ADMIN Construct Interior wall and Doors@personnel Dept 25,000 25,000
ADMIN Additional Funding-Admin. Office Area Renovation 30,000 30,000
TOTALS 62,574,500 150,000 745,922 325,000 250,000 25,000 57,845,000 675,000 1,132,500 889,078 537,000
E:\CIP Projects-2006-With June 30,2006 BalancesCIP Balances(2)
FY 2006/07 Carry Over Project Funding
Estimated Balance Remaining
Project#Project Description Project Cost 1 6-30-06
Carry Over Projects
42003C Northside Park Improvements 292,196 127,941
42003D Pioneer Park Improvements 13,548 12,988
42003H Angeleno Park 50,000 50,000
420031 Consultant for Des/Arch 13,388 5,524
52105A Tank Removal 32,000 9,870
66103A Pavement Management Plan 2,321,299 40,137
66105A Rosedale Traffic Mitigation 515,625 515,625
66204A Citywide Concrete 305,742 104,762
66503A Sewer Master Plan Construction 2,268,947 2,211,722
66505A Roofing for materials storage at City Yard-NPDES 40,000 400
66603A Remodeling of Light Building at the yard 200,570 200,570
66603B Women's Club Improvements 39,498 36,915
71104A Customer Information System-LW 339,281 11
72101C Rockvale booster upgrade 150,000 150,000
72101G Radio Control for SCADA 121,445 98,914
72101N Upgrade discharge Wells 2 & 895,500 885,500
72101P Azusa Spreading Grounds 200,048 292,864
72102B 6300 LF Dalton-Sierra Madre 961,000 961,000
72102G Distribution Main Upgrades 1,105,407 1,105,407
72103A Purchase property from Pasadena 55,000 41,585
72103C Forest Service Gateway and Gardens 928,299 480,510
72103E Upgrade to Canyon Filter Plant 570,441 13,621
72104D Water Main Replacement 1,865,703 926,954
72105D Rehab well 2 reline/discharge 250,000 250,000
72105F Water Master Plan Update 253,328 178,789
72105J Design of new Water Plant 245,795 2,253,795
72105K Main replacement at various locations 1,500,000 1,500,000
73001F Street Light System Replacement 375,316 356,848
73001G City Yards Design and Construction 215,683 40,168
66106A/
66106B Intersection Improvements/Synchronization 165,000 165,000
11006A Renovate City Hall Admin.Office Area 20,000 20,000
31006A Police Dept- Replacement flooring 70,000 489
41006A/
41006B ppg Park _ 75,000 75,000
D60860 ADA improvement-Womans Club Entry 25,000 25,000
73006A Azusa Substation 5 circuit breaker 120,000 66,145
73006B Overhead line improvement/ Montecito 60,000 60,000
73006C Rosedale electric infrastructure 250,000 220,496
73006D Work management system/Light 210,000 210,000
73006E Kirkwall substation/ Perimeter improv. 50,000 50,000
72106A Gladstone Water Yard Improvements 255,000 255,000
72106B Rosedale meter upgrades 1,146,000 1,146,000
72106C Vehicle replacement/ Rosedale 230,000 71,262
72106D Urban Water Management Plan 25,000 9,050
72106E Replacement of system water mains 2,000,000 13,376
72106F Work management system /Water 390,000 390,000
21,216,059 15,629,238
E:\CIP Projects-2006-With June 30,2006 BalancesCIP Balances(3)
dt
;�s,iur r
�` y0 ,,,,,�ip Ot ^, w,,.,,,,‘,4.,,,,„,;,,T,„,,,..,,,1„,,v)
„....,,,,„, ,,,,,,„?-1„,,,,,,,04„,4,,,,..,,,,,,,„,r.tYt
•
a42s +}
L
,,,.....
,,,...,„,,,,,
,,. „. . ,,,,,,„:„,,. , , ,„ ,,,,,,,,k,
Capitalm rovement-ro ram, ,...
7
200
_.
.,,
...., , .. .
1 $
�,. a •o
Circulation
-
Iity ,
1
��"a, est A
, .,„ 4,'),',„,,,,,
‘,.....,, ,,,,,,,,..„..„
•
,..,.„.,,,,„,,,„,„,.
,..„...,,,,,,.„.,.„„
C .
irculationa
w
.. . .
. ,
ti
1. k, , 4
.; Pavement Management
Y1:000
Program
ao.i.„..41,0,..„...,
:,,,..„4:\,. ..f..,,..„,„.„,,
fl
' Traffic Control
sPublic., ..,,,„,,,,,,..„,
.....1,4,f' t",
S
,, ",,,,,,,,,-,,,,,,„,,,,,
07,,vor,
.„,,,,,,,,,,,k,,,,,,
lioi.-.,,,,,,,,zz,,,;,,,,,,
,..,,,,,,s.,,„„,,..,,k,i,*
Pavement
5 =off"
�.x � uRequired by Metropolitan
SI nt
..ttt
Transportation Agency (
.. ,..„,„:„.„:..„:„.„
:::,.,„„:„..„,„.,,,,,,..„
„.,::AVO:.44:
; t
Mt
■ Each ear must be certified to
5 * .� � maintain Prop A and Prop C
`.w. r ..
funding
46.
w
Eloal
Nr4
r { < 4 ;
s
h `
Upgrade thea earance of our
' "
neighborhoods as mandated by
444 41,4
' the General Plan
xt
40,
Sti Ms:
SCK y�r�
iv e Year Plan
t5y^ xp
1,,
tttPAArr
aWeyear IV
• What areas were done � n
years
I II and III '?
grar
.1
II 11
' • •• \\ II /�•
LrL
1 11 y
1 rLi I�CJn � I / \ !I 1
i
LII
• ;.,,„,i , =L I'I die
i 1!
4 mem
iIN
, r�\�, i i , • air-a31 m
i2,j
®®1♦ �li
y� gu
' rij
� �r11,7— IIMME mow.= ' / i /�1
4 17 - __ .. r _.._.._.._..__ . e,
ET
- e
- -
to - - �
JLii amil U_
11
if, Jar —k m -u ,IIIm
CD
1 ! !IL Milo 1 II F- -- _
,___...,\,. z,x2". m 8_< 8 _< 8 a.
I , _�— �� ' it -7.-J----- '11 i ! ', 00 o _ o= o = of
0.so o < o- o
i ;1 J1 �! V-11—'j
i1 I �1i n so co to A w
e 1I ❑� I ~ii I ii1 1 I
Year I 2002 -
2003
J "t:
a Nrth of Sierra Mad e r East of
0
24
IAA
San Gabriel Avenue
Gladstone Avenue South to
v ;•c d �''"a
r�A s r
Arrow Hwy .
South of 1 -210 East of Citrus
Avenue
•
I
,s ' �. t c '&
y
sb
.ni�. . '',,,.''.*•s • .._ . . 4.i " '? . • .4
_ - '. _ _,. . _ _ _;,. -
ti f am
•
:
t
si
• 9
i
}
ti .,1
, .
1
I
}
cIi
Y :
i
S
4
k4.,'
L O
. i
ss
t �p
t .
14!
•.::;;'.1';'• 4 '
, i .0
.
y.
y
2,
� �F
3 a ear II 2003 -
2004
allorth of the Santa Fe Rail Road
tracks east of Vernon
South of 1East of Azusa
* $ v Avenue
f � a
!....-'
vologgelnA
s u
a
....................................
.......................................„........,.............. ....,.........
... ...... .....,........
.............. ......,....,..„_,......
Year III 2 00 5 -
f �a
„,„,„,,,„,„,,,,,„,„,„,,,,,,,,,,„„;,„„,„„
k3i
Yx; 3
4 P
r tEast ofSan
•II of 5th St ee
f.....,
4
fi...,„..,,,„,„...,.:::„„...:
, Gabriel Avenue
,,„„:„.,...„,,,„,„,.,..„,,„,,:.„„,„„,:,,.,,„„„,„„,„,„,,,„,„,,,,,:,,,,!,,„,,,,,„,
„„.,,:,:,.,.,:.,,.,::„,„,„„„„„,„„,.,,,„:„„„„„„,,,,„„,,,,,,,,„,,,„„,,,,,,„,,,,,.
,.,,,„,„,,:,,,:,.„,„:„.,„,„:,„,„,:::::,„:„.,,:,,i,„,„,:„,„,:„,„,,,,i,.„,,...„
i
uLast Year $2 . 5 Million
w
Y, 8
''.,, 1 .::,‘ ''' .•."-..•'1, , i •
rem .. ,� k � `:
'-iit:\
T
.
x
- g -
iii ck
NA
5
.. :...,..,„....„.,.....A-1,,� -,,
'"Nkil'tt\\ i li' 1.,.." ,i " ,:j.',-"4--:4=' ' '.. '-'+'..-,';',','",.-t-i.;-'iittrIft.":2:4".:.,7,::;,::,:„;';
g '. i i$ ° - �i.'
\ iTi\1: , .1,,,,J- 1,3:. _- 't-,4'• ,i,-*".;•-i:'....;4int- ..'74;sn'illi.-•7,t;17::;:;1.---'
\ _
s
h.\1 pili
) ' , ,---1 ,y.i-t .-,-,.,s,`!..',:-.‘4,41.-'4;:,:i-'''.-.:-..',-; ,-
r •
4 ::._ : ,r- i, :
ST �_
j In
it.
i I
'tuIuuuuuIImuuuuI/
k, i. ... l',.
.AY
.iF
1
� 's u •{: �<fes i' •"- c STM" .
rk
{ T
' 4.
�x
\ \ '1'i 11'''..".i..s.;''s--.:''.-.'... It°—
1 ',
.-S
\.''
I S. t,
_._..'
1't;
ti a yw.,4,.':7„..„7.7i4,,,;,,,,,,w
i
t
�� _�
, ; , ii...„,, i '—ii i7—-- -,-,--. T.it::t.'..:..--A-'
ttx
Y fYi'il 'Eli ' r --:::1...,...,,P;i.:','...-,:!::::::.1;t7i.-..,":„.,,,„,z,
x
YS }
p,- r a
Y �' , ray � " a-,,,-.-.,. ....4:;.„,i,„,..,:-.-„,.-
,
`g;..
r m m
, N kY -':'4:.,
rte._ _.... Wit` e '+"f '�
`. 'St '' t T f
#0
y.
ii mak.'
xFThis Year we will dYear IV
}
•
$ 1 . 6 Million
{
YEAR 4 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
FOOTHILL BLVD. CITY HALL
Wink ST
w
SIXTH ST...
11 116
111
g11ci m z :fY in CC mFIFTH ST > J c.n
_.. _.... FIFTH ST
yj. i_.
zj •
° r BAYLESS11•. I BAYLESS SLAUSON � DR
•
ELEM
FOURTH ST • F❑U'
--44! ili is
Z;
HOLLYVAL: MEMORIAL J` I I I
W HOLLYVA�LELr
r f
PARK
' '`THIRD; :, ST 4 Q THIRI ST ti
Q' (.3--4 1 .
2
w I � Q
.z �•� ( i; Hill �i O`� _� 'HANKS
N , a
LEGEND 0sEc❑IVO ST . I !rU .•
. 2.5" ASPHALT OVERLAY > Q, ct MIN
Ell TYPE II SLURRY ,o ;; !
j
41
9
1
x
f
x ` .sem.
?, 4 °'ted' ',F' •: . ` _
ir
ilii71-'.-'_..'.-.
, '.'4,-': -4','.4i,.-:-.'-''' ' ' t .i '.-..-',-411-7,-i'''''' '-- ' i -
j
k
I . •, k:, '`;',;:*- -, , \.'":",7,„,''
f { & . '
•
:
. . !ft
._,.; ...,„,.,7.-",'-',--4*,s,
a f
S S s
4
» k4 4°, ,�tG §4nye .r 12 •''' 4ytl
•
i Z\ —4Zya -
•
� �
%.li- qui- ..-., ¢. .�.' �. .. ., ..< -
-' te• E t',.` ?,# ,
- w '* r" mi Er
fig,
a ,rid' .w *.k.'1.. a ?
SI � r4 ,� t,, t .a .s l i .r ° i • '4 ;
t
t
•
for
t
i
•
•
.
•
t .f x 1
v K' '
n '
•
y^
�{ ,` , }
1