Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Min 1970-12-28 12-28-70 ~:3 December 28, 1970 I The Redevelopment Agency of the city of Seal Beach met in regular 'session on December 28, 1970.. at 8:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 211 8th Street, Seal Beach, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jay Covington with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Covington ' , Members Barnes, Lindstrom, Scheiblauer Jackson Absent: Also Present: Executive Director-Secretary Dennis Courtemarche Administrative Assistant Bill ,Little Director of Publ~c Works-City Engineer W. D. Murphy APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. BarneS-requested the minutes of December 14 be amended with reference to the memorandum dealing with owner participation agreements between the Redevelop- ment Agency and R & B Development Company to show that other participation agreements were also furnished to the members of the Redevelopmen~ Agency. I Mr. Lindstrom requested amendment under NEW BUSINESS, Page 3" Line 21, to show a "joint study session" rather than a "joint session" of the Council and the Agency is what he suggested on December 14. Mr. Lindstrom then requested an amendment to the minutes of December 21, Page 2, Lines 16 and 17, with reference to his con- fusion, to show that it was perpetrated by the contrast in council actions; namely, on one hand urging repayment of city funds through Resolution Number 1923, and on the other hand, instructing the Agency to initiate "cut t:hroughs" on'the Pacific ElectJ:ic Right of 'Way. '. . Mr. Barnes t:hen ~equested an amendment to the amended minutes of November 23, 1970, Page 3, following Line 22, to show that the discussion referred to copies of part:icipation agreements made available by Mr. Bentson from his office. .. 0" Chairman Covington moved, second by Mrs. Scheiblauer, to approve the amended minutes of November 23, December 14, and December 21, 1970. - '. AYES: NOES: Barnes, covington, Lindstrom, Scheiblauer None Motion carried. REPORT OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Chairman-covington inquired as ,to,the.sbatus of the report being prepared by the Executive Director~ Secretary; Mr. Courtemarche'estimated ,a completion date of. January 15, 1971.,' ,! . , , I .. . In reference to city council action taken December 21 concerning the invitation for a joint study session to,be held on January 18, Mr. Covington asked if' the Agency shou1d indicate by~emorandum,its willingness to participate, in, such a session. 'Mr. Courtemarche agreed to prepare and -distribute a memorandum on behalf of the Agency. ~ 12-28-70 UNFINISHED BUSINESS " Discussion ,followed regarding financial 'statements and eminent domain' procedures in 'regard to Agency Resolution Number 70-8. Mrs. 'Scheiolauer' indicated she had talked with council members and they were not generally aware of instructions to secure those portions of the right of way in question. Mr. Courtemarche stated that a prior city council action instructed ~he city manager and the city attorney to investigate securing 'the "cut throughs" on the right of way under eminent domain proceedings. Mr. 'Lindstrom stated that he had talked to tne city attorney regarding the matter, and that it was the attorney who had raised questions and decided the "cut throughs" would require agency action and subse- quently prepared the resolution in question. I Mr. Covington asked 'if Dmmsdiate action was r~quiredl Mr.' Court em arc he replied .it"was not"' of an'immediate nature. It was 'then th~ order'of the Chair to 'hold the matter over for considera~ion at the joint study session. ' NE.W BUSINESS Mr. Lindstrom 'indicated that he would like a resolu- tion prepared which would require the signatures of the Mayor of ~he City, the Chairman, and the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency on all agency owner participation agreements. Mr. Courtemarche explained ~hat this would give the council 'veto power 'over the ,agency and would affect their present relatively independent. status. ..' I Mr. Covington pointed out that the present status of the council and the agency is closely akin to a marraige. Mr. Lindstrom stated he felt it is more like a legal separation. I In reference to the memorandum from the Executive Director-Secretary regarding the joint study session, Mr. Barnes stated that he felt the intention of the counc~l'was to ,hold the meeting on a Redevelopment Agency meeting night .as that'would provide' more time. Discussion followed regarding time requirements for . discussing complex, :issues at the joint study session, including "cut throughs" all alon'g the Pacifid Electric Right of Way. Mr. Covington asked Mr. Courtemarche for his inter- pretation of th~ reasons for holding the joint study session. Mr. 'Courtemarche stat'ed he felt the primary purpose is to provide an opportunity 'for an exchange of ideas. I Motion, by Mr. Covington, ,second by Mrs. Scheiblauer, to instruct the Executive Director-Secretary to forwara a memorandum to the City Council expressing the Agency's willingness to meet in joint study session with the City Council on January -18, 1971, 12-28-70 ~5 at 7:00 p.m., in,the Council Chambers,. 211 Seh Street. " f. AYES: . NOES: Barnes, covington, Lindstrom, Scheiblauer 'Nolie' .." , .. Motion' carr ied. I Mr,. Lindstrom requested that the' City, Engineer provide a report on sewer plant flows for the month of December prior, during, and after the heavy rains that occurred du~ing ,thae month7 report. desired by Jan. 11. 'r "I. : .' Mrs. Scheiblauer asked about the City.Manager's pro- posed environmental study to determine the impact of implementation of the Riverfront Redevelopment Plan. 0", . '-01' 11 Administrative Assistant Bill Little stated that the study was referred, to the Environmental Quality Control Board, that they rejected the proposal as 'such, feel- ing that it was not broad enough in scope and should be performed primarily "in-house," but they were giving the matter further consideration and probably would have 'a revised,proposal and report. ready i~.the' near future: to present, to.the Council. \ . Mr. Covington asked about including the origina~or on future resolutions. , . Motion by Covington, second by Barnes, to include the ;name of the 'originator on all-future redevelopment agency resolutions. ' , .' I AYES: NOES: Barnes, Covington, Lindstrom, .Scheiblauer None Motion carried. Mr. Lindstrom opened discussion' on the matter of requir~ng signatures on participation agreements. Discussion followed.regarding ~eopardizing agency independence, past actions of the city council, and the city attorney acting as counsel to the agency, and the conflict it might create: .Mr'. ,Barnes noted that the agency meeting was 'straying from the.topic7 namely the discussion of requiring signatures on owner participation agre'ements. "'. '. I Mr. Courtemarche explained the nature of the:owner participation agreement. Discussion followed regard- ing whose signatures shourd appear on the agreements. Mr. Covington noted that such a requirement would provide an "audit trail." It was noted that the resolution to be prepared will include a require- ment for the signatures of the chairman, vice chair- man, executive director-secretary.; and vote of agency to appear on all future owner participation agreements. Mr. Lindstrom requested preparation of a resolution urging the Planning commission to require an environ- mental study prior to final approval of new construction projects in the redevelopment project area. Mr. Barnes pointed out that due to his employment as a teacher he has had time to thoroughly study the Riverfront Redevelopment Plan, and found many points which require clarification. ~ 12-28-70 Discussion followed regarding the amending"process, questions raised regarding Health and Safety Code, Section 33450 and its' designation of a legislative body.and recent unknown changes:in that code. Mr. Barnes suggested othe~ members read. the plan and ~ep0rt their views of those unclear portions. I Mr.-covington opened discussion ~egarding the General Plan Review Committee. The date of their first meet- ing was noted. ,,' . ," . . .... J " ,'" ,0.. J Mr.: Covington then'asked if a resolu~ion could be prepared indicating that the Redevelopment Agency intends to review the 'Redevelopment plan in concept with the General"Plan Review. Committee, "and that therefore the two groups should attempt to work together and coordinate their efforts. . Discussion followed regarding .same. wi , ,""' . I ", ". ,. 0,' . . ':.' , : " I Mr ,. 'Covington asked' if an agenda had been: prepared for the January IS" joint. studY. session. Mr.;".:J Courtemarche indicated no agenda had been prepared at this time. Mr. Covington then suggested that Agency Resolutions 70-7 and 70-S and Council Resolu- tion 1923 might be appropriate topics for discussion. I . . . ' . r . '. .." . . : . 1 ~ Mr. 'Lindstrom asked if agency 'members would re~eive copies of the city council agend~ for that-evening. Mr. Courtemarche indicated that agency members would be included in 'the ,list 'of those'~eceiving council agendas regularly. I Mrs. Scheiblauer raised a question about leasing land on "East 12th' Street." Mr. .Courtemarche stated that he did not think, that is the' case, but that he will: look into, the' matter.. .' :'1 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS _ _ ., . ChaIrman Covington announced that this was the time for oral communications. There being no oral communi- cations, oral communications were closed'. Chairman Covington, 'with consent'of Agency Members, adjourned the meeting of the Redevelopment Agency at 9:45 p.m. I I " ., '. . .' c .: . I I " , , . . ~ I .' i" , " . '