Loading...
RRA - 08-10-99APPROVED CITY OF ROSS MEAD DATE BY - MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUGUST 10, 1999 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Redevelopment Agency was called to order by Chairman Vasquez at 7:04 p.m. in the conference room of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Agencymember Imperial The Invocation was led by Vice-Chairman Clark ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Agencymembers Bruesch, Imperial, Taylor, Vice Chairman Clark, and Chairman Vasquez Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: NONE 1. RESOLUTION NO. 99-18 - CLAIMS AND DEMANDS The following Resolution was presented to the Agency for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 99-18 - CLAIMS AND DEMANDS A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $164,804.86 DEMANDS NO. 5650 THROUGH 5670 MOTION BY AGENCYMEMBER IMPERIAL, SECOND BY VICE-CHAIRMAN CLARK that the Agency adopt Resolution no. 99-18. Vote resulted: Aye: Bruesch, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial, Taylor No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. 2. APPROVAL OF FINAL CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR THE GARVEY AVENUE COMMUNITY CENTER AND SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING PROGRAM Steve Cophenhaver, GRC Associates consultant, stated that the Agencymembers expressed concerns at a prior meeting regarding the cost of the project, design of the entryway signalization, the soils condition, and the possibility of an alternate access to the west. Mr. Copenhaver explained that the total cost of the project, which includes purchase of the property in 1989 and relocation of the muffler shop, professional fees and construction budget would total $7.4 million or $102,780 per unit. Mr. Copenhaver, addressing the alternate access to River Avenue, stated that according to the parcel map, an access cannot be provided unless additional right-of-way is acquired. Dale Brown, BVH Architect, addressed the issue of the permeability of the soil and ways to handle the storm water runoff. Mr. Brown stated that the storm drain system will be RRA 8-10-99 Page 1 connecting from the roofs of the building and will have a series of storm drain inlets throughout the site. Mr. Brown stated that turf block paving will most likely be installed at a portion at the rear of the site that is least used by cars. Agencymember Bruesch asked what effect would recompaction of the soil would have on the permeability of the soil. Mr. Brown responded that any soil recompacted would tend to be less permeable, and the storm drain water would sheet more. However, the site between buildings would not be affected as those are landscaped areas. Vice-Chairman Clark asked if the entire parking lot could have some type of porous paving, and that she would provide Mr. Brown with informational materials that she has. Agencymember Bruesch asked about the slope of the parking area in relation to the buildings. Mr. Brown stated that portions of the parking area slopes to an area with a drain inlet which connects to the underground drains. Agencymember Taylor asked what is the recompaction depth under the footings of the basement? Mr. Brown responded that it is approximately 16' to 17' or until a suitable bearing soil is found. Agencymember Taylor stated that the recompaction depths over the entire site may vary depending on where the debris is buried. Mr. Brown responded that the current site plan contains a minimal area for removal and recompaction and that it goes beyond the 15' soils report recommendation. Mr. Brown stated that areas of drives and other areas adjacent to the buildings need to be considered where there is more settlement. Agencymember Taylor asked how the excavation and recompaction will be bid. Mr. Brown responded that the contractor will bid per BVH's instructions on specific areas and their depths. Agencymember Bruesch stated that his main concern is that care be taken so that there is no ponding or saturation of bearing or subgrade soils due to rainwater or irrigation. Mr. Bruesch stated that if the extra cost for excavation and recompaction is necessary to ensure that the water sheets off, then we should do it. Steve Copenhaver stated that one option would be to excavate and recompact only 3' in the areas that have very low loads. However, there may a settling of a few inches, which could result in the pavement cracking, and thus having to make repairs. Mr. Copenhaver stated that the other option is to spend more money now to dig and recompact the entire site, which would eliminate future pavement cracking. Mr. Copenhaver stated that the Agency needs to direct Mr. Brown on this issue. RRA 8-10-99 Page 2 • • Agencymember Clark stated that she is concerned for the safety of the residents and asked if the extra excavation and recompaction will ensure their safety. Mr. Brown stated that they are exceeding the soils report recommendation. Mr. Brown stated that cost estimate for the extra excavation would be $200,000 to $300,000. Frank Tripepi, Executive Director, stated that the Agencymembers need to make a decision on whether to spend $200,000 to $300,000 for the extra excavation versus how much the cost would be to fix the asphalt on the parking area should it move and crack. Agencymember Taylor pointed out that it is not just a matter of repaving the parking lot, it would have to be dug out and recompacted again. Mr. Tripepi stated that it would be an on-going repair for years and by spending the extra money now, that problem would be eliminated. MOTION BY AGENCYMEMBER IMPERIAL, SECOND BY AGENCYMEMBER BRUESCH that the Agency approve the final conceptual plans and expend the additional funds for the extra excavation and recompaction. Before vote could result, more discussion ensued. Agencymember Taylor stated that he favors the extra excavation and recompaction, but does not intend to vote for the conceptual plans. It was the decision of the Agencymember to bifurcate the motion to APPROVE THE ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE EXTRA EXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION. Vote resulted: Yes: Bruesch, Clark, Vasquez, Imperial, Taylor No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Vice-Chairman Clark asked about the noise level, particularly at night by groups using the multi-purpose rooms, and its effect on the senior housing units facing that area. Mr. Brown stated that no units face that area, and a courtyard separates the buildings. Agencymember Bruesch asked if the large room could have removable partitions. Mr. Brown, referring to the rendering on the easel, stated that that may be not be practical for immediate access from the interior circulations and of meeting the emergency egress requirements. Mr. Tripepi added that the large room is for City events and the multipurpose rooms on the other side of the building, when combined, are close to the same size as the large room. Mr. Brown, referring to thee rendering, described the ingress and egress areas. RRA 8-10-99 Page 3 • 0 VERBATIM DIALOGUE STARTS: AGENCYMEMBER TAYLOR: What has been done to address the security issue? DALE BROWN, BVH ARCHITECTS: On the site, there is one ingress and egress out of the site (referring to the site rendering). For people who are living in senior housing, there's a separate gate here, that can be controlled... essentially like Angelus is. So you come in here and park and exit this direction. This exit here we just used potentially for traffic... for emergency engress kinds of parking... come in this way and come around at this point. TAYLOR: Is that being done... that's going to be a rolled security gate where they'll have to wait for it to open? BROWN: They'll have a transmitter. So, yes, when they pull in they.... TAYLOR: Then with any traffic pulling in behind them has to wait until the gate opens and they can get through. BROWN: Correct, that would be true. TAYLOR: Which means people making left hand turns, as they start to come in... how wide is the driveway for double access? BROWN: The driveway is three aisles. So there is one ingress and a right and left hand turn exit. TAYLOR: That seems like a potential problem as the residents pull in and block the ingress while the gates opening. What else can be done to alleviate that, where they're not blocking the main driveway. FRANK TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER: Take the center lane that you have now and designate it as one of the exit lanes and turn it into a straight ahead lane. TAYLOR: Then we have two lanes... TRIPEPI: You have two lanes going in and you have one coming out. STEVE COPENHAVER, GRC CONSULTANTS: Or we can inset the security gate. TRIPEPL Move it in. BROWN: Yes, we could take the gate out...use it as guest parking and just slip it to another location. TAYLOR: All right, that sounds feasible. COPENHAVER: That's what I would do. We have so... if we don't have that many trips in and out... and this should be very similar (referring to Angelus Senior Housing). RRA 8-10-99 Page 4 r1 LJ n TAYLOR: If you move that gate back, that will get rid of that problem. If you have visitor parking on the outside, two stalls, or whatever. What about the security of locking the community center at night? BROWN: Well, the side perimeter is...the only gate is in here for access to the wash (pointing to site rendering). For service, it's coming along here and coming down there's another pair of gates here, sort of inboard from the side, it would close at night. Then there's a fence line that tracks through here. So essentially, if someone is coming in at night and parking here, when these are open, they're parking here and... if they want to see someone in the senior housing building there is still a way for them to get through, with the telephone entry system like they are using now. You essentially can create... except for this portion right through here... the perimeter if you will is here... here... along here. TAYLOR: What's to prevent a criminal element from parking in that back parking lot and going into the senior citizen project? BROWN: We could put something right across here. There's a trash enclosure and we could just sort of come off it at that point with a gate. from main entrance to the community center bldg. TAYLOR: That's c4ozs:~Ilhe ng that...the biggest objection that I have to the entire project is that nobddy ~atfybWy/can lookstreet and see people coming and going, in and out of the HtfiYdiAg If we have ladies working there, or the girls working late at night, or down at Zapopan, there's eyes that can see. There is no way possible that people coming out of that front office, the reception area, there's no eyes that can see anything going on in the back of that project. If you're out on Garvey Avenue, nobody can see what's going on in back of that building or the back parking lot unless someone happens to be walking across the bridge. So, the security on it is going to be a nightmare. TRIPEPI: We can install video cameras at the corners of the buildings to shoot to the back parking lot.... inside the building. BROWN: Also, we're putting one or two cameras through here. AGENCYMEMBERIMPERIAL: This is the same thing we ran into with the storage facility. We put cameras... BROWN: We spent quite a bit of time in meetings talking about security both perceived and actual and systems that can be put in. VERBATIM ENDS. Agencymember Bmesch inquired about the left-turn pocket location length. Joanne Itagaki, Traffic Engineer, stated that the left-tum pocket on Garvey would be about 75' or 4 car lengths. Agencymember Bruesch asked about potential problems for westbound traffic if events are held during peak evening traffic hours. Ms. Itagaki responded that the left-tum pocket westbound would be protected and does not forsee any problems. Agencymember Taylor requested an update on the operating cost. RRA 8-10-99 Page 5 Michael Burbank, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that the cost will be estimated for the upcoming budget as the project will not be completed until September, 2000. Mr. Burbank stated that the Rosemead Community Center costs approximately $300,000 a year to operate. MOTION BY AGENCYMEMBER BRUESCH that the Agency approve the final conceptual plans for the Garvey Avenue Community Center and Senior Housing Projects. Before the motion was seconded, more discussion ensued. Agencymember Taylor inquired about the eligibility requirements for moving into the senior housing. Mr. Tripepi responded that this item is not on the agenda for discussion and will be discussed at a later date. Agencymember Taylor asked if the Agencymembers received a list showing the residency eligibility of the tenants that moved into the Angelus senior housing. Mr. Taylor asked how many of those residents were under the six month residency requirement. Don Wagner, Assistant City Manager, replied that he thought there were about eight applicants meeting the six month residency requirement. Agencymember Taylor stated that the report listed some residents were as low as 1 '/2 to 2 months. Mr. Taylor stated that the building was not fully occupied when finished, and in an effort to fill the units, the residency requirement was not adhered to. Mr. Wagner stated that he will provide another copy of the list. Agencymember Imperial stated that he will Second the Motion of Agencymember Bruesch. Vote resulted: Aye: Clark, Bruesch, Vasquez, Imperial No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain None The Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Agencymember Taylor stated that he voted No as the security problem is a critical issue, the cost of the units at $102,000 is high, there is not an operating budget, nor where that money is going to come from, and the residency requirements for the tenants has not been established, if they are to be primarily residents of Rosemead. Mr. Taylor stated that with the Angelus Senior Housing, Rosemead residents were not able to obtain the units on a priority basis. Agencymember Imperial requested information on any Rosemead resident not being able to obtain a unit. 3. AWARD OF CONTRACT TO REPLACE TWO POOL HEATERS AT ROSEMEAD POOL MOTION BY AGENCYMEMBER BRUESCH, SECOND BY VICE-CHAIRMAN CLARK that the Agency approve awarding the project to the low bidder, Trans-Therm, Inc., and authorize allocation of an additional $8,000 to provide for the installation of the pool heaters. Vote resulted: RRA 8-10-99 Page 6 Aye: Clark, Bruesch, Vasquez, Imperial No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None The Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. Councilman Taylor stated that he voted No as City funds should be used for this project. 4. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS - None 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MATTERS - None 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for August 24, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Agency Se retary APPROVED: RRA 8-10-99 Page 7