Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1982-12-01 -~ - e - Minutes of the Seal Beach Planning Commission of December 1, 1982 The Planning Commission met in regular session on Wednesday, December 1, 1982 in the City Council chambers of the City Administration Building, The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chairman Goldenberg at 7:40 p.m., and the pledge to the flag was led by Commissioner Jessner. PRESENT: Commissioners Jessner, Smith, Goldenberg and Chairman Covington ABSENT: Commissioner Perrin STAFF: Allen Parker, City Manager The minutes of the November 17, 1982 meeting were considered and approved by Commissioners Jessner, Smith and Goldenberg. PUBLIC HEARING A, Resolution on Surfside Redevelopment Plan Staff report 'presented by Mr. Parker, Under California redevelopment law, Planning Commissions are required to review and comment upon any proposed redevelopment plan. This particular plan deals with the construction of a revetment wall in Surfside for shoreline protection and protection of homes from wave action. In particular, it deals with method of payment for the $300,000 revetment wall aleady under construction. By inclusion in the RDA, Surfside will (through tax increment based on an assumption of 12% annual growth) be able to repay construction costs in five years. At the end of the five year period, the RDA will close down. Chairman Covington asked what difficulties would follow if the Surfside Redevelop- ment Plan were to be amended at a later date to include other items, Mr. Parker stated that the original proposal for the plan was to include other items such as water lines, sewer lines, etc., but that would have necessitated an environ- mental impact report. Since it was the City's desire to get this plan adopted by December 31, 1982 so that it would go on the tax rolls in order to have City collect taxes by dolJ 1, 1983, it was only possible to accomplish by this by considering the revetment only in the redevelopment plan, as it is an emergency nature and does not require an environmental impact report, which would require more time. Another point was brought out by Mr. Parker, that redevelopment law considers whether there are any other possible funding for projects. There did not appear to be any other funds available for the revetment wall, but funds could have been possible for the other items (such as an assessment district). He mentioned that the City could come under severe criticism if the p1anw~r~ amended at a later date to include other items which could be funded in other ways. .. ., Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting December 1, 1982 Page 2 Mr. Parker also mentioned that if an assessment district had been used to recoup cost of revetment, the cost would rise significantly, to approximately $700,000, The question would also have arisen as to whether the homes receiving the most benefit for the wall would have had to pay more than homes furthest away from the wall. Public hearing opened and closed as there were no comments, Chairman Covington moved to adopt the resolution with Commissioner Jessner seconding. Motion passed unanimously, REPORT/COMMENTS // Mr. Parker noted that City Council adopted the DWP Specific Plan with minor changes as shown to the Commission. They did include a 9-member advisory . /' committee to be established to provide citizen input and review all matters relating to th~ Specific Plan. Chairman Covington asked for the status of the State Lands Parcel. He did not want a "fait accompli" with regard to development. Mr, Parker stated that he would look into the matter, and that the Commission might consider a Specific Plan for that property. .. . With regard to Hellman property, Mr, Parker noted that the Dept. of Fish & Game and Hellman reached an agreement over the wetlands. Hellman withdrew their appli- cation and will reapply when maps showing wetlands are finished for submittal. With regard to the condominium devel~pment near the trailer park, the developer felt it was unwise to build with a 68 year lease and asked East Naples Land Company for a land swap. That is being accomplished now and developer will be in ~oon to pull building permits. Mr. Parker also pointed out that four proposals were received with regard to restoring the old police building, The firm selected (California Properties - 80) has experience in historical restorations in Sacramento, etc, Reference checks show them to have $2,7 million net wort~l ~The~' firm antiCipates c,ompl~tiori by November, 1983, Meeting was adjourned at 7:58. ~. -,Y," 'Ii'