HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - July 1, 2013 - CCCITY OF AZUSA
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
AND THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF
THE FORMER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MONDAY, JULY 1, 2013 — 6:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Azusa met in regular session at the above date and time in the Azusa Auditorium
located at 213 E. Foothill Boulevard, Azusa, CA 91702.
CLOSED SESSION Closed Session
The City Council Recessed to closed session at 6:31 p.m. to discuss the following:
].CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION - Gov. Code Sec. Existing
54956.9(d)(1). Litigation City
City of Irwindale vs. City of Azusa, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. BS 132946. of Irwindale
2.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION - Gov. Code Sec Existing
54956.9(d)(1). Litigation
Case Name: Heracillio Arellano v. City of Azusa (Case # KC062935). Arel lano
The City Council reconvened at 7:30 p.m., City Attorney Martinez announced that item No. 2 of closed City Attorney
session was not discussed; item No. I Council heard a presentation regarding possible settlement that has Reports
not been finalized; there was no reportable action taken.
Mayor Rocha called the meeting to order.
Pledge to the flag was led by Ms. Laura Jimenez
Invocation was given by City Manager James Makshanoff.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: GONZALES, CARRILLO, ALVAREZ, ROCHA
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: MACIAS
ALSO PRESENT
City Attorney Martinez, City Attorney Avila, City Manager Makshanoff, Director of Public
Works/Assistant City Manager Haes, Police Chief Gonzalez, Finance Director Paragas, Community
Development Director Christiansen, Human Resources Director Neiuber, Utilities Director Morrow,
Assistant Director of Community Development McNamara, City Engineer Hassel, Information Officer
Quiroz, City Clerk Cornejo, Assistant/Deputy City Clerk Hernandez.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Call to Order
Flag Salute
Invocation
Roll Call
Also Present
Public Part
Ms. Vanessa Alikhan addressed the meeting thanking Council and staff for meeting with Rosedale V. Alikhan
'residents and Azusa Pacific University (APU) who has agreed not to use the homes for student dorms and Comments
to rent only to staff and their families; however, investors are still renting to students; the Home Owners
Association (HOA) states that homes are for single family use only; she further stated the need for a new
school at the Rosedale Development, and asked for Council's support to have it built.
REPORTS. UPDATES COUNCIL BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS -STAFF Repts, Updates
City Manager Makshanoff responded to Ms. Alikhan concerns stating that the City Attorney's office has J. Makshanoff
been reviewing the side agreement of the Rosedale Developer and the Azusa Unified School District to Reports
find out to what extent of input the City of Azusa has in building a school, and we will provide a report to
Council the findings; he announced that staff will be requesting, at the next Council Meeting, to cancel
the regular scheduled meetings of August 2013.
Councilmember Carrillo addressed the meeting wishing everyone a happy 4111 of July, and reminded all A. Carrillo
that Mayor Por -tem Macias is defending the democracy and freedom that we enjoy; he encouraged all to Continents
purchase safe and sane fireworks from the local non- profit groups; and asked residents to report illegal
fireworks.
Councilmember Gonzales addressed the meeting wishing everyone a happy and safe 4th of July. R. Gonzales
Councilmember Alvarez wished all a happy 4th of July; lie asked all to support the local nonprofit E. Alvarez
organizations in the sale of fireworks, and to stay away from illegal fireworks; he announced that the Comments
following week he was to be going to Washington D.C. for training.
Mayor Rocha addressed the meeting stating that it was going to be adjourned in memory of Arthur J. Rocha
' Morales IV; he announced the following events: Comments
- Public information meeting regarding Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), by Solid Waste
Management, July 3, 2013, 6:00-7:30 p.m. in the Azusa Auditorium;
- Federation of Eagles, 22nd annual Chile Cook -Off, July 6, 2013, 10:00 a.m.-8:00 p.m., at the
Eagles Club;
- Clean up of the Covina Irrigation Canal from Sierra Madre to the bridge, July 18, 2013, 7:00 a.m.,
to begin at Pioneer Park;
- Families On The Move and Be a Walker, 9:30 a.m., at Pioneer Park;
he further stated that Azusa is known as the city that honors its Veterans and spoke about two letters he
received from soldiers thanking Azusa for remembering them; he also received a letter from the
Department of the Army informing him that Azusa was to receive 2 flags as a thank you gift, for the
continued support; he honored the soldiers and asked that they be remembered this 4th of July; he
requested ajoint meeting with the Azusa Unified School Board on September 9, 2013, at a location to be
determined; at the Council Meeting of September, 16, 2013, Council to consider to increase the fines on
illegal fireworks; and asked to keep service men and women in daily prayers.
Police Chief Gonzalez addressed the meeting stating that the Police Department was receiving
complaints regarding illegal fireworks; the 4th of July Holiday is the busiest time of the year; patrols are
doubled and at times tripled, depending on activity; current ordinance allows legal fireworks from noon
to mid -night on July 4th, no fireworks are allowed north of Sierra Madre, Rosedale Development, parks,
schools, commercial lots, or within 100 feet from fireworks stands; fines are $250 for the first violation,
$500 for the second and subsequent violations; other cities have $1,000 fine for the first time offense; if
Azusa increases the penalties it may not stop, but it would reduce the number of illegal activities.
'
SCHEDULED ITEMS
PUBLIC HEARING - INTERMODAL PARKING FACILITY ("Project')
A request to certify an environmental impact report (EIR) and approve Use Permit and Design Review
applications to permit the construction and use of a 38 -foot high, three-story parking structure
(intermodal Parking Facility) with rooftop parking, containing 550 parking spaces, for use by the public
and government agencies. The Project is generally located on properties north of 213 E. Foothill
Boulevard, East of Azusa Avenue, West of Alameda Avenue and approximately 100 feet south of 9th
Street.
City Manager Makshanoff addressed the item stating its importance; when it was first presented by the
previous administration, the plan was to locate it by Veteran's Park; staff heard opposing comments from
residents and found an alternative on the north sites of A2 and A3 located on Alameda Ave.
Director of Public Works/Assistant City Manager Haes gave a presentation of the proposed Intermodal
Parking Facility; he gave a background of the project stating that the Gold Line's EIR calls for 200
parking spaces to be built north of the tracks identified as Blocks A2 and A3; Council had identified these
blocks for future use as retail, and staff had been working with developers to bring retail development to
those two blocks; the Gold Line's parking lot would impede any future retail use on these lots that front
Azusa Ave., which is the major thoroughfare; staff worked with a parking structure architect to find an
alternative location and free Blocks A2 and A3; Alternative I proposal was presented to Council, to build
a parking structure on Alameda Ave. and on part of Veterans Freedom Park; it would have provided 520
'parking spaces, 200 for Gold Line, 200 for Foothill Transit, 120 for the City, approximately 36 ft. high, 3
story with rooftop parking; there was feedback from residents on this project expressing concerns on
building the parking structure on a portion of Veteran's Freedom Park, traffic on Alameda Ave., keeping
Santa Fe Ave. open, bus traffic on Santa Fe Ave., and not being aesthctical with the Civic Center; with
the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency, Council directed staff to look for alternatives, specifically
north of the railroad tracks; staff worked with Foothill Transit and the EIR consultant and came up with
Alternative 2, which he presented for consideration; Alternative 2, north of the railroad tracks, it takes up
portion of Block A2 leaving frontage on Azusa Ave. for retail, A3 for residential or retail mixed use; it
will include 550 parking spaces, 200 for Gold Line, 200 for Foothill Transit, 150 for the City.
approximately 38 ft. high, 3 story with rooftop parking; the architect tried to match the Target Building as
well as the Civic Center; he showed the difference between the No Build Alternative and Alternative 2;
Alternative I was no longer being considered.
07/01/2013 PAGE TWO
S. Gonzales
Comments on
Fireworks
Sched Items
Public Hearing
Proposed Inter
modal Parking
Facility for the
Alameda Gold
Line Station
J. Makshanoff
Continents
T. I-laes
Presentation of
the Proposed
Project
He addressed residents concerns on both alternatives stating that there will be no additional bus lines,
traffic would travel north of Azusa Ave., enter the parking structure, and exit through Alameda Ave., go
up to 9th St., and travel east or west; buses will be routed as close to the station as possible.
The No Build option, buses would be routed up Azusa Ave., to Santa Fe Ave. for bus layovers, only 200 Difference of
spaces available, no overflow parking, excess traffic would have to find parking throughout town, Alternatives
restriction signs would need to be posted, no direct maintenance cost to the city, Metro would maintain it,
and Metro would be responsible for security measures.
Alternative 2, buses would be off streets going north of the tracks onto Block A2, bus layovers would be No Build
inside the parking structure, and 550 parking spaces with 150 for overflow parking; regarding
maintenance cost, staff used City of Covina figures of maintaining their parking structure and applied
them to Azusa's per space cost, it was estimated to approximately $36-$37 thousand a year; Metro would
contribute to the maintenance of their 200 spaces; Gold Line would provide $243 million of their
allocated money to the City as compensation for providing them with 200 parking spaces, the money can Alternative 2
be used at Council's discretion; staff would work together with the Police Department to implement
security measures, i.e. cameras that can be monitored by dispatch, emergency call buttons, lighting, open
windows; after a year of operation, these measures can be reviewed to see if additional measures are
necessary; it provides extra parking for the Gold Line station, there is no impact for Veteran's Freedom
Park, provides land for retail facing Azusa Ave., A3 could be used for mixed use or residential, keeps bus
layovers off public streets, Santa Fe Ave. will remain at its current state.
He answered written questions that were submitted:
Q. The Planning Commission staff report was incomplete because it lacked the justification of
compliance with the General Plan and Development Code, no findings of fact, there were no written
conditions of approval, resolution is inadequate not in compliance because it failed to include findings of
facts to justify compliance with the General Plan and the Development Code, and because it was done as Question &
a single resolution for all three actions? Answer
Session
A. Staff could have prepared the Planning Commission report in that manner as requested, Planning
Commission could have certified the EIR; however, if staff took that approach, someone would have had
to pay a $1,200 fee to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council, if they disagreed
with the decision; staff felt that this was an important item, there has been a considerable amount of
public input for the last 3 years that staff has worked on this project; staff set it up for the Planning
Commission to give a recommendation to the City Council, and at this meeting all those requirements are
in the staff report so Council can certify the EIR.
Q. The 150 spaces could be used by the Gold Line, is that a City of Azusa commitment? Is there a written
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) already in
place making 300 parking spaces available for Gold Line use?
A. No, should the structure be built, staff will work with Metro and the Gold Line Construction Authority
to come up with an MOU or formal agreement on how their 200 spaces would be allocated, and how they
would be monitored so that people of the Gold Line can only use them; however, the 150 parking spaces
to be used for overflow parking would be to the City's discretion how the parking spaces would be
controlled, so there would be no need for an agreement or an MOU to allow those spaces to be used as
overflow parking; the City may not want to use those spaces for Gold Line, staff would not advise to set
it in writing as it would limit those spaces.
Q. This will provide land for future retail or residential or mixed use at a later date; however, how long
will it be before this happens?
A. I can't answer that, it could be next month that a developer comes wanting to build on this ,land, or it
could be 5 or 10 years; however, it will be closer to when the Gold Line opens in 2015 or 2016; staff has
been working to get developers for blocks A2 and A3, and we will continue to do that; at the
International Conference of Shopping Centers, staff spoke to developers regarding A2 and A3 retail
opportunities.
Q. Regarding the $2-$3 million from the Authority, does that mean that an Agreement, DDA or MOU
already exist between the Authority and the City of Azusa?
A. No, there is nothing written, we have had meetings with the Gold Line, and they verbally stated that
whatever money was allocated for the Gold Line parking construction, will be given to the City of Azusa,
in exchange for the 200 spaces.
Q. What about the addition of bus traffic along downtown Azusa Avenue?
A. As I stated before and I will state it again, there is no additional bus lines or trips with either parking
option, the only difference on the alternatives is the routes that the buses would be taking.
07/01/2013 PAGE THREE
Q. What about the additional wear and tear to Azusa Ave. due to constant bus traffic?
A. Azusa, like all cities in the L.A. County, receive prop A and C money to mitigate transportation efforts
so it can be used for street re -paving or to operate transit, dial -a -ride or fixed -route; the city gets money to
pay for the impact of buses already on the streets, we would not get additional money; we already receive
sufficient money to fix our streets, specially if they are travelled by buses.
Q. Additional traffic impact on Azusa Ave due to buses?
A. The buses would have to cross the railroad tracks to enter Alternative 2, there is an additional strip on
Azusa Ave. that will be used by buses; with the No Build Alternative, bus traffic would use Santa Fe
Ave. and Alameda Ave.; there will be the same number of buses on both alternatives.
'Q. What about the elimination of the Transient Plaza as envisioned on the general plan approved by the
citizens of Azusa around 2004?
A. The Transient Plaza could be incorporated into this parking structure, with retail along Azusa Ave.,
there could be a plaza or beautification on the triangle between Azusa Ave. north of the tracks; the
Transient Plaza envisioned in 2004, was before the Gold Line EIR was finalized; Alternative 2 fits the
vision of the citizens congress better than the No Build.
Q. The staff report indicates that the parking structure does not face any residential uses; there are
currently residential properties to the northern part of 9th St.; wrapping is required on the north and east
elevation of the parking structure?
A. There are residential uses to the north of the parking structure; using our definition of facing, the
parking structure is adjacent to residential uses, but not facing them, the building is facing south of the
railroad tracks; therefore, the wrapping is not necessary.
Q. The Azusa Development Code chapter 88.24, districts .010 states the Gold Line station will require
parking for 400 cars, a 4 level parking structure is proposed directly north of the station, to minimize the
mass appearance of this garage, one level should be below grade and the structure should be wrapped
with store front retail to appear as though it is one building?
A. The Development Code says that it should and with Alternative 2, it eventually will be wrapped along
'from Azusa Ave. to the Alley with retail or mixed use, it will eventually meet the adjust of what is in the
Development Code.
City Attorney Avila, answered written questions received from Ms. Sandra Benavides; the first half of Attorney Avila
the letter referred to the history of the first alternative, given that staffs recommendation is for Answers
Alternative 2 these questions are not relevant to the proposed action or to the adequacy of the EIR; she Questions
addressed two California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) questions:
Q. She a]leged that the city piece mealed the environmental analysis with regards to the first alternative,
specifically the previous proposal for the north side where the parking garage is currently proposed;
previously the City was in preliminary negotiations to get a developer; the development was part of the
first alternative to have the parking garage at Veterans Freedom Park; the EIR should have assessed the
environmental impact of that commercial retail development north of the railroad tracks because it was
impermissible to piecemeal;
A. The potential development project was very preliminary, there were no set plans and once the
argument was dissolved they all went away; there was nothing to analyze in the EIR even if it was part of
the same project; those two components are independent utilities, one can go forward without he other;
the parking garage and the park were not necessary in that order for that development to occur; proof is
that said development is no longer being proposed and staff is still seeking to do a parking garage.
Q. The second alternative does not meet all of the objectives of the project, as identified on the FIR, and
there was one objective out of 8, that stated that one of the objectives of the original project was to
maintain the north side free for development; Alternative 2 will prevent it due to the parking garage.
'A. CEQA allows the City Council to adopt an alternative that meets most of the basic objectives of the
project, it does not say that it has to meet all of them; the lead agencies have the flexibility to adopt an
alternative that is environmentally superior to the original proposed project; Alternative 2 is an example
of such alternative; the first proposal had a couple of significant and unavoidable impacts, that would
have required the Council to adopt statement of overriding considerations; the second alternative avoids
all of those significant 'impacts; there are no significant impacts associated with the second alternative as
it meets all of other project objectives.
The Mayor declared the Public Hearing open. City Clerk read proof of publication published .lune 21, Hrg Open
2013 in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune.
07/01/2013 PAGE FOUR
Ms. Jeri Vogel addressed the Hearing stating that in 2011, the first project was presented and the J. Vogel
residents reviewed the EIR; they did what they could to save the Civic Center Park, which is the heart of Comments
Azusa; she thanked Council and staff for holding the Monday, June 24, 2013, meeting that was very
informative and answered the public's questions; she stated that she supported the new project.
Mr. Bruce Knoles addressed the Hearing congratulating Ms. Jerry Vogel for being selected Azusa B. Knoles
Woman of the year by the 48th Assembly District; in 2011 he attended a public meeting to save the park; Comments
it is unobjectionable to highjack the movement of saving the park for other agendas; he is in favor of
Alternative 2, he supports it and encourages Council to approve this project
Ms. Sandra Benavides addressed the Hearing congratulating Mayor Rocha for opposing to build the S. Benavides
structure at Freedom Park; reminded Council that they previously embraced the citizens to participate in Comments
'the amendment of the Development Code; questioned why Council never addressed her letters until
today; originally this project was to be located at Veterans Freedom Park in order to free Blocks A2 and
A3; staff was working with a commercial developer Lewis Retail Center; at that time the General Plan
and Development Code were not being followed, why was it ignored until now with Alternative 2; she
suggested to build a surface parking lot, and allow Gold Line to build a parking structure once a planned
development is in place.
Mr. Jorge Rosales addressed the Hearing stating that it appeared to him that the City was operating under ,l. Rosales
two different standards of approval; for outside developers various requirements were imposed but on Comments
City developed projects, the requirements are less stringent; he gave two examples to support his
comments; as Vice President of the Save The Azusa Civic Center Park Committee, he welcomed the
move of the parking structure away from the park, as that was the objective.
Mr. Steve Castro addressed the Hearing stating that on behalf of the Board of Directors for the Azusa S. Castro
Chamber of Commerce, they are in full support of the proposed project and will like to see this project Comments
move forward.
Ms. Mercedes Castro addressed the Hearing thanking Council, City Staff and the Planning Commission M. Castro
for their hard work on the project, appreciated the forward thinking in order to make Azusa a destination Comments
point and not just another city people pass through, and stated that the City needs this parking structure;
she suggested to approve it now that the City has a financial partner.
Mr. Joe Guarrera addressed the Hearing stating that as a former Director of Parks and Recreation and J. Guarrera
'Community Services, he thanked staff and Council for listening to the residents' concerns, as the only Comments
objective was to keep the park in its current state.
Councilmember Alvarez addressed the Hearing stating that Alternative 2 met the goal of taking the E. Alvarez
parking structure out of the park; regarding the surface parking lot with the intent to build later, is Comments
something that can be proposed so that when retail does come, it could build on as needed to fit the
retailers.
Public Works Director/Assistant City Manager Haes answered that the land is controlled by City of
Azusa, Metro does not own the land yet; if Gold Line builds the parking, the land will be controlled by
Metro; Metro is difficult to work with, they are a huge organization; Metro has never worked with a city
the size of Azusa, or any city in the San Gabriel Valley, to partner and develop over Metro Controlled
existing land; in addition, alternative parking would need to be available during construction, which
might take up to 2 years; it is very difficult but not impossible for staff to try and work something out.
Mr. Roland Cordero, Director of Maintenance and Vehicle Technology for Foothill Transit, addressed the
Hearing stating that there will not be additional lines; they have never worked with Metro on large
projects, as they receive federal funds to do their own projects, they purchase or lease lands; currently
they have partnered with the City of Industry for a 40 year lease, at $1.00 per year, to build a 41/2 level
parking structure for Metro Link; the city has been cooperating with them in terns of construction and it
is scheduled for completion the first week of September 2013.
Reky Hiramoto, Metro Gold Line Construction Authority Representative, addressed the Hearing stating
that the construction authority is a state created agency for the purpose of management and construction
'of the Foothill Extension, it is a separate organization from Metro; they follow Metro standards and
criteria, and have to coordinate with them because they hand the project to them once they have been
environmentally cleared; 200 parking stalls in area A2 need to be built by the time the project is finish in
approximated in 2015, and then turn in the facilities, including parking for Metro; the authority has
delayed the parking project of the Azusa Downtown station waiting for approval of a parking facility; the
authority would pursue building a parking lot as previously envisioned with the environmental criteria
should this project not be approved; he answered a question posed stating that the parking at Citrus
station will also have 200 parking spaces.
T. Haes
Comments
R. Cordero of
Foothill Transit
Rep
R. Hiramot,
Metro Gold
Line Rep
Moved by Councilmember Carrillo, seconded by Councilmember Gonzales, and *carried to close the Hrg Closed
Public Hearing.
07/01/2013 PAGE FIVE
Councilmember Carrillo addressed the Hearing thanking staff for their well laid report, expressed his
appreciation to the transportation partners for being present at the meeting and their willingness to work
with the City of Azusa on this venture; his vision has been to see a parking structure that provides the
parking that the Gold Line needs as well as blank slate available for future retail development; this would
be an opportunity for Azusa citizens to have jobs, retail growth, amenities, resources, potential
restaurants, shops, stores, etc.; once surface level parking is developed, it is tied up; the idea of
negotiating with Metro in the future for potential development, is a concern; they are a 13 board member
group that has 5 supervisors from the County, 4 city controlled seats, and only 1, maybe 2, would have
the San Gabriel Valley interest in mind; Metro is a difficult agency to work with, an example is the
contentious relationship that exists between them and the Gold Line, where in order to get funding to
have a Gold Line Construction Authority, was an act of state legislation; he stated that he would not be
very optimistic to think that in the future Azusa would have open dialog with the Metro Board in order to
potentially create some development, as it would not meet their needs; Council took testimony from the
public, came to a compromise with an alternative that meets the needs of the community; there will be
parking spots available for the Gold Line, a transportation project that this community has asked for;
Council lobbied for the Gold Line to reach Azusa, and it is the only city on its current extension that has
two stops; this is a great transportation project for the benefit of the community; Azusa's partner, Foothill
Transit, will help build this parking structure, and they will not bring new lines or new bus traffic; this is
a win-win deal; in addition Azusa will have space available for future retail sites; currently there is no
developer, but there has been interested developers; he expressed concern of past developments such as
Block 36, the corner of Azusa Ave. and Foothill Blvd., which never came to fruition and is now a parking
lot not meeting the community's needs; should Gold Line require additional parking, there is a plan in
place to work this out; the current restaurants and businesses that will stay for the future will benefit from
this; 8 years ago the issue of additional parking in the downtown was raised, and stated that the problem
is not the available parking, but not finding parking slots, which is a good problem, he expressed his
support for Alternative 2, and thanked the residents for voicing their concerns in finding an alternative.
City Attorney Martinez addressed the Hearing stating that after hearing all important comments regarding
this item, it is important for Council to frame them and understand that they have the final decision on the
project, and to determine if the project architecture is consistent with the General Plan or Development
Code; courts have given City councils lee way on such determinations, because they know that Councils
are the experts in their own Development Plan and Development Code; the only restrictions that the
courts have given and cannot be ignored and are specific and mandatory, are the terms when worded shall
or must; staff emphasized the words should, may, intend to, and possible; those are code words that there
is more lee way that those findings can be supplemented; staffs recommendation to Council was to
possibly have differences of opinion, to whether a project can meet the City's own Plan and Development
Code.
Councilmember Gonzales addressed the Hearing thanking staff for the work on the EIR; he stated that all
residents comments were considered through out the process; Monday, June 24, workshop was an
opportunity to answer questions from the residents; he thanked previous Councils and administrations for
their vision to build downtown; when he first started with the City in 2007, his interest was A2 and A3
sites; because of residents concerns, Council realized that an alternative was needed and looked at the
north; with the No Build alternative, all the suggestions that residents submitted, and the promise that
Council would put a development in place, would not be met Council is looking to bring development, a
market, retail and jobs; hard work was put into getting to this point, and Alternative 2 is a win for the
community having the ability to build.
Mayor Rocha addressed the Hearing pointing out page S3 of the report which states "...a no project
alternative allows decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the
impacts of not approving the proposed project ;however, no project does not mean that the development
of the proposed site will be prohibited, the no project analysis will discuss the existing conditions and
what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future of the project if not approved..." he
stated that the reasonable development that might be expected and the answer to this parking lot.
A. Carrillo
Conumiets
M. Martinez
Comments
R. Gonzales
Comments
J. Rocha
Comments
Public Works Director/Assistant City Manager Haes responded that the statement on the staff report is T. Haes
correct; the no project alternative does not eliminate the possibility of Metro working with a developer or Comments
the City at a future time; however, the likelihood of that occurring is minute; with the dissolution of
Redevelopment, it has been difficult finding developers for A2 and A3; developers are for profit and it
would be unlikely that they would work with Metro.
Mayor Rocha stated that regarding maintenance cost for Alternative 2, the annual cost is close to J. Rocha
$37,000, which comes close to $2 million for the 50 year life of the building, and that Metro will Comments
contribute; he asked how much will they contribute?
Public Works Director/Assistant City Manager Haes responded that there is no set amount at this time, as T. Haes
it has not been negotiated; he would recommend that Metro pay the per stall space for the 200 spaces; Comments
they would have to maintain the part the City hands over to them; once the project is finished, future
agreements can be negotiated.
07/01/2013 PAGE SiX
Lengthy discussion was held regarding the life expectancy of the building to be 25-30 years, the
maintenance cost for 20 years and after, Foothill Transit willing to contribute towards maintenance cost
for 200 spaces, the amount of money to be received from the Gold Line Authority should the city build a
parking structure, maintenance cost of the life of the project, the use of gas tax money for maintenance,
general fund money not being used for maintenance, the certificate of occupancy is not released until all
agreements have been signed and conditions added, the General Plan/Development Code Findings under
Use Permit No. 4, certain language in the EIR's analysis of the Project causing impacts, buses traveling
east or west on 9th St. entering Pasadena Ave. compromising the safety of the children walking to Dalton
and St. Francis of Rome schools, Dalton Ave. being a narrow street for bus use and the potential of
eliminating street parking that is available for the Library and the Senior Center, having buses exiting the
structure on Azusa Ave. only and avoid residential streets, a cross walk from the parking structure to the
station, mitigation measures and construction i.e. dust and noise and posting a phone number for such
complaints; and consideration to continue the Hearing to July 15, 2013, once these issues have been
addressed and in writing.
Discussion
Moved Councilmember Carrillo Seconded by Councilmember Alvarez and *carried to continue the Continue
Hearing to the regular scheduled Council Meeting of July 15, 2013, and to direct staff to add conditions Hearing to
of approval that relate to: July 15, 2013
1. Contributions by the other agencies towards the maintenance of the project;
2. A condition regulating bus turn movements on 9th Street;
3. Condition requiring the posting of signs with a phone number for noise complaints;
4. Planning Commission recommendation to the Council concerning whether or not they want to bring
back whatever is the ultimate refined design of the structure will be for the final review by the
Planning Commission and for Council's review and approval.
It was consensus of Council that the Public Hearing on this matter had been closed, no further testimony
or evidence outside of the public hearing will be discussed at the meeting of July 15, 2013.
The CONSENT CALENDAR consisting of Items D -I through D-7, was approved by motion of Consent Cal
Councilmember Gonzales, seconded by Councilmember Alvarez and *carried.
1. The minutes of the regular meetings of June 17, 2013, were approved as written. Minutes
2. The following Resolution No. 13-C45, was adopted and entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA ALLOWING CERTAIN Reso
CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AND SPECIFYING THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE SAME Warrants
ARE TO BE PAID.
In accordance with the City of Azusa Civil Service Rules and applicable Memorandum of H.R. Action
Understanding(s), the Human Resources Action Items were approved as follows: Items
Merit Increase and/or Regular Appointment: A. Holmes, M. Barbosa, M. Bohorquez
New Appointments: T. Corwin, S. Sloniker
Reclassification: H. Vuong
Promotion: V. Perkins
Separations: S. Soria, J. Willison, K. Chagnon
4. The following Resolution No. 13-C46, was adopted and entitled: Reso LA
Impact JPA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOS ANGELES INTERAGENCY METROPOLITAN
POLICE APPREHENSION CRIME TASK FORCE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT (LA IMPACT
JPA); AUTHORIZING THE CITY'S MEMBERSHIP IN LA IMPACT; AND AUTHORIZING THE
CHIEF OF POLICE TO EXECUTE THE JPA AGREEMENT
5. A jail food service contract with the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. Was approved. Jail Food Sevc
Contract
6. The following Resolution No. 13-C47, was adopted and entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA, CALIFORNIA, Reso OTS
APPROVING A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC Grant
SAFETY (OTS) FOR THE "SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM 2013-2014"
PROJECT #PT1449
7. The following Resolution No. 13-C48, was adopted and entitled: Reso Amend
Appropriat
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA ESTABLISHING AN
AMENDED APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2013-14 PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE XII IB OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION LIMIT.
07/01/2013 PAGE SEVEN
SUCCESSOR AGENCY RELATED BUSINESS Seer Agency
Councilmember Carrillo offered a Resolution entitled: Reso Warrant
A RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE FORMER REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF AZUSA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS TO BE
PAID OUT OF SUCCESSOR AGENCY FUNDS.
Moved by Councilmeber Carrillo, seconded by Councilmember Gonzales and *carried to waive further
reading and adopt Resolution No. 13-119, by the following vote of the Council:
'AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GONZALES, CARRILLO, ALVAREZ, ROCHA
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: MACIAS
AZUSA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY RELATED BUSINESS APFA
No Business No Buss
It was consensus of the Council to adjourn in memory of Arthur Morales IV. Adjourn in
Memory of A.
Morales IV
TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10.00P.M.
NEXT RESOLUTION NO. 2013-C49. (City)
NEXT ORDINANCE NO. 2013-01.
NEXT RESOLUTION NO. 2013-1110. (Successor Agency of the Former Redevelopment Agency)
I* Indicates Mayor Pro -tem Macias Absent.
07/01/2013 PAGE EIGHT