The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - August 25, 1997 - CCCI'T'Y OF AZUSA MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ThIE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 25, 1997 -6:00 P.M. The City Council* of the City of Azusa met in adjourned regular session at the above date and time in the Library Auditorium. Mayor* Madrid called the meeting to order. �tii7�3�7:Lil_�I PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: I-IARDISON, STANFORD, ROCHA, BEEBE, MADRID ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Carvalho, City Administrator Garcia, Community Development Director Bruckner, Interim Redevelopment Director Steel, Chief of Police Broderick, Captain Pihlak, City Clerk Toscano. a ub� Call to Order Roll Call Also Present Agenda Items City Administrator Garcia advised that the Settlement Agreement with Liberty Candle is in Liberty Candle its final stages and will be presented to Council at its meeting of September 2, 1997. 9/2/97 nrtg 'Community Development Director Bruckner addressed the Rosedale Specific Plan providing Update on a detailed update of the project. I le noted that this was not the time for public comment on Rosedale the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), but to comment on concerns with the specific Project project. A list of concerns voiced by the public is attached to these minutes. He noted various issues of concerns with the project such as housing types, lot sizes, amenities, and circulation and discussion was held regarding the EIR process. I le also advised of the project schedule attached to the staff report. Dave Linden of Monrovia Nursery was in attendance and advised that they have been waiting D. Linden for all the input from residents and Council before any changes to the plan would be made. Monrovia Nurs. Lengthy discussion was held between Council, staff and the public regarding several issues Discussion and concerns, a list which is attached for review. City Administrator and City Attorney advised that all concerns would be considered and evaluated; that they need to be of substantial effect on the project and that recommendations should be actual. City Administrator also advised that (lie project is in a concept stage and that no proposal with actual numbers has been accepted. Along with the comments attached, it was consensus of the public in attendance that a project that is "Right" would include the following: ■ Done for the benefit of existing population.... we may not be "experts" but have experience. ■ Railroad crossings ■ Economically healthy ■ Proper allocation of water ■ Infrastructure (roads, sewer, water) ■ Partial Completion of Project? ■ Remain "Part of Azusa, NOT a sub -City ■ Proper Traffic Flow ■ Look at past to assist future a CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY AUDIENCE: ► housing needs may change (Density, what is it based on) ► policy to change (ours or theirs) ► water rights ► transferrable density ► pollution • land ► adequate school system - property size ► EIR and how to changetalter, supplement, mitigation. ' ► traffic flow ► CE -QA requirements/obligations ► extension of the 45 day comment period ► Council commentslinput ► No apartments ► insecticides ► egress/ingress ► high density ► no town homes/condos above Sierra Madre ► impact on city services ► impact on the school district (they have added land for school) ► time frame for building school - same time as homes?? ► procedural deadline - CEQA ► lot size in cluster areas, too small ► too much cluster housing ► more upscale housing above Sierra Madre ► some lot size housing needs to increase ► better street scape ► circulation, better access to the south ► shifts in units ► mechanism for changes to the plan ► commercial property ► look at alternative independently, cumulative, blending ► amend outdated general plan ► housing product ► impact on existing streets ► senior housing ► density ► long term financing for maintenance, public services, need direction, community facility district, Mello Roos, landscape district, etc. ► information to public in strategic places regarding the Rosedale project. ► protests, objections, public comments, need to have professional knowledge ► impact on people of the city ► opinion of the people, should be treated with respect with the lack of credentials ► railroad crossing ► economically healthy ► sewers ► soil ► cost - roadway - infrastructure expenses ► southerly access into the swap meet ► proposed project only, if not good for the City, they do not approve it. ► where will traffic be directed, if there is a southerly access? ► try to sway traffic towards San Gabriel, or further to Irwindale. ► have enough rentals in Azusa ► Be specific in comments ► how feasible will this project be in ten or twenty years, how will it work? ► Glendora, how is their proposal compared to Azusa? ► livable community, universal housing 08/25/95 PAGE TWO Concerns by Audience re: Rosedale Project RECESS: 7:55 P.M. Itecess RECONVENED: 8:08 P.M. Recon'vened City Attorney Carvalho addressed Council presenting item regarding consideration of City Attorney reimbursement policy to recover legal and staff costs associated with the City's review of comments large land use projects. Currently the City does not have development fees or cost recovery fee because there has been no need in the past as no big projects have been considered in Azusa. Discussion was held between Councilmembers and staff regarding the feasibility of adopting Discussion re: 'a policy to recover costs for large projects, like the Rosedale project and the proposed Policies to Armory project, a policy where a standard of condition of approval is added to land use recover costs approvals, requiring the developer to defend and indemnify the City, if the City is sued for for projects approving the developer's project, and a policy where land use applicants and developer agree to pay the City's legal fees in the event the City must bring legal action to force the developers/applicants to do what they promised to do when they received their land use and project approvals. It was consensus of Council that the issues would have to be complex and sensalive. It was also consensus of Councilmcmbers that the two projects, Rosedale and the Armory be brought back to consider cost recovery scope, standards, etc., with reimbursement agreements, if the projects continue. Further, that (lie issue of indemnification be added as a condition of approval and when pertaining to Code Enforcement issues, (lie Attorney Fee condition ol'approval , make pay if District Attorney fees arc incurred. Councilmember Hardison concerns over the agenda format requesting that paperwork be duplexed, and be placed in 8'/2 x 11 %2 folders when appropriate. I larlison I agenda Councilmember Stanford advised that eventually the City will have to recycle trash by separating bottles, paper, and green waste. Stanford recycling Councilmember Rocha requested clarification on step increases of which City Administrator Garcia responded advising that step increase are through memoranda of understanding with Roclra bargaining groups, and that supervisors make determination on increase. lie responded to step increases .question regarding personal knowlege of an undeserving increase to be addressed to the City Administrator. Councilmember Beebe advised that she has been meeting with Boards and Commission that she is a liaison educating them on the ballot measure issues so that they can be informed on Beebe the subjects. ballot measures info to B&C Mayor Madrid requested clarification on Councilmember's feeling on proclamations. After discussion it was consensus that proclamations would be prepared for individual Madrid achievements after an E-mail is sent to all Councilmembers and there is no objection and Procs & Resos resolutions will be prepared for non -persons in support of cerlain campaigns, etc. and will be placed on the agenda for approval. She also inquired about the status of a grants person and City Administator responded he would look into the matter. It was consensus of Council to adjourn. Adjourn TIMES OF ADJOURNMENT: 8:48 P.M. ,DEPUTY CITY CLERK/ SECRETARY NEXT RESOLUTION NO. 97 -Cl 17. (Council) NEXT ORDINANCE NO. 97-010 (Council) NEXT RESOLUTION NO. 97-1140 (Agency) NEXT ORDINANCE NO.97-RO-1 (Agency) 'Indicates Councilmember are also acting in the capacity of Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors. 08/25/97 PAGE THREE