HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - April 27, 1998 - CCCITY OF AZUSA
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 27, 1998 -6:30 P.M.
'The City Council/Board members of the City of Azusa and the Redevelopment Agency met
in adjourned regular session at the above date and time in the Light and Water Conference
Room.
Mayor/Chairman Madrid called the meeting to order. Call to Order
ROLL CALL Roll Call
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: HARDISON, STANFORD, ROCHA, BEEBE,
MADRID
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ALSO PRESENT: Also Present
City Attorney/General Counsel Carvalho, City Administrator/Executive Director Hsu, Chief
of Police Broderick, City Engineer Abbaszadeh, Community Development Director
Bruckner, Transportation Manager MacKay, Finance Director Craig, Superintendent of
Public Works Pedroza, Facilitator Joe Peake, Deputy City Clerk/Deputy Secretary Toscano.
Lengthy discussion was held regarding a proposed moratorium for the 5 lot subdivision at Lengthy
455 West Sierra Madre Avenue. The subdivision was approved in 1996 as a single family discussion re:
'detached project adjacent to the Montecito development (Van Daele). At the time, such a Moratorium
project required R3 zoning and a C.U.P.. In addition, in this particular case, a general plan subdivision
amendment and zone change were also required. Following approval of all these 455 W. Sierra
applications, the developer did not exercise his approvals in a timely manner, and the C.U.P. Madre
lapsed, but the zone change and general plan amendment were established. The subdivision
map is still in the tentative stage. Since that time, the Zoning Code has been revised, and
there is now a proper zone in which developments of this nature could be constructed (the
PRD Zone). At the present time, the five -lot subdivision cannot be developed as a single
family detached project, because the C.U.P. has lapsed, and the Zoning Cod no longer
permits the application for a C.U.P. for this type of development. A PRD Zone would now
be required.
It was moved by Councilmember* Stanford, seconded by Councilmember* Beebe and failed Motion to
by roll to adopt an Urgency Ordinance enacting a moratorium immediately prohibiting the approve
approval of all land use entitlements or the issuance of building permits on the property. Urg Ord
Mayor Madrid and Councilmember Hardison dissenting. (Four-fifths vote of the Council (failed)
was required for passage). It was noted that the issue is being mediated by community
mediators, property owners, etc., and that the moratorium might interfere with the process.
After further discussion, Councilmembers* took the following action:
Councilmember Hardison* offered an Urgency Ordinance entitled:
AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, Ord #98-05
PROHIBITING THE APPROVAL OF ALL LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS OR THE Prohibit all
ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ALL NEW land use entid.
RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON REAL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO AZUSA GREENS GOLF Or issue bldg
COURSE FOR A PERIOD OF 45 DAYS, PENDING THE COMPLETION OF A STUDY pmts pending
OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS NEAR THE GOLF COURSE AND THE study 455 W.
ADOPTION OF ANY AND ALL AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S LAND USE Sierra Madre
REGULATIONS.
Moved by Councilmember Hardison*, seconded by Councilmember Beebe* to waive further
reading and adopt. Urgency Ordinance passed and adopted by the following vote of the
Council:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
HARDISON, STANFORD, ROCHA, BEEBE
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
MADRID
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NONE
Councilmember Beebe* requested that the mediation continue and that staff do analysis Beebe
concurrently. City Attorney advised that she would speak to the mediators to explain the comments
'impact the actions would have on the issue.
Discussion was held between Council and staff regarding the need for direction from Council Dis re CIP
with regards to CIP projects as well as a matrix listing proposed projects during the next five 5 yr plan
years: a five year plan.
A common vision was established as follows: To know and respect the difference of Ground rules
personal power and position power. There was an establishment of Ground Rules for the
meeting; which were as follows: 1). Respect 2). Encourage participation - equal "air time",
3). Is it Good for Azusa? Yes or No. 4). First seek to understand, before being understood.
5). Judge contents, not the container. 6). Suspend assumptions when you're seeking to
understand. 7). Clarifying questions. 8). Warm questions. 9). Don't be afraid to ask hard
questions. 10). Civility -be civil.
Wide ranging discussion was held between Councilmembers, staff and audience regarding
conduct at Council meetings, ground rules, CIP projects (what Council would like Azusa to
be); listing, clarifying and prioritizing projects on and/or what's best for Azusa. The
comments included, but were not limited to the following: downtown village, community
with great housing stock, see kids come back, family -positive atmosphere, center of
education from Headstart to Doctorate, new expanded Library Facility, multi -informational
center, greater use of recreational facility, integrated community/health, multi-
denominational/industriaManduse/ages/ethnic/cosmic integration, economically viable, well
'rounded, and multi -cultural -potential. Staff expressed a need for clear direction and
requested that the comments be directly related to projects, such as streets, roofs, Sr. Center
and auditorium, in order that they may correlate the CIP budget directed to the projects. It
was suggested that a matrix be created listing streets, roofs, gateways, trees, maintenance
schedules, etc, as well as a flexible CIP budget in order that Council may move around if
there is a need to do so.
Lengthy discussion was held between Councilmembers, staff and audience regarding the
River group project, with each Councilmember providing his/her opinion of the project. No
action was taken. Additional discussion was held regarding suggestions that requests from
Council be placed on the agenda and discussion regarding mission vision.
It was consensus of Councilmembers/Boardmembers to adjourn.
TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:10 P.M.
DEPUTY CITY CLERK/SECRETARY
' NEXT RESOLUTION NO. 98-C69. (Council)
NEXT ORDINANCE NO. 98-06 (Council)
NEXT RESOLUTION NO. 98-1129 (Agency)
NEXT ORDINANCE NO. 98 -ROI (Agency)
* Indicates Councilmembers are also acting in the capacity of Redevelopment Agency Board
of Directors.
04/27/98 PAGE TWO
Lengthy dis re:
Vision of Azusa
Lengthy dis re:
River Group
Project
Adjourn