Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Min 1971-01-25 1-25-71 ~9 January 25, 1971 I The Redevelopment Agency of Seal Beach met in regular session on January 25, 1971 at B:OO 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, Jackson, Lindstrom, Scheiblauer None Absent: Also present: Robert E. MYers, City Manager Dennis Courtemarche, Assistant to City Manager Bill Little, Administrative Assistant Bill Murphy, Director of Public Works, City Engineer Jerry Patterson, Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Barnes requested the minutes of December 21, 1970 be amended to show that Mrs. Scheib1auer seconded his motion for adoption of Resolution 71-2 as amended. Mr. Lindstrom called attention to a typographical error in the word "environ." Mr. Lindstrom moved, second by Mr. Covington, to approve the minutes of January 11, 1971, as 'amended. . AYES: NOES: Barnes, Covington, Jackson, Lindstrom, Scheib1auer None Motion carried I REPORT OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Chairman Covington opened discussion of unfinished business. Discussion regarding Resolution 71-5, amending Resolution 70-6, providing authorization to sign checks, demands, and drafts for the withdraw1 of agency funds followed. Discussion on the change necessary in Resolution Number 70-6 to reflect that the City Manager of the City of Seal Beach is the Executive Director-Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency arid to delete the "interim city manager." Mr. Lindstrom noted that there may be a number of instances where the word "interim" may have been used in resolutions previously adopted by the Agency. It was the order of the Chair, at the request of Mr. Lindstrom, to request the Exeoutive Director-Secretary and the Deputy City Attorney to review past agency minutes and resolutions to see if they are correctly worded. Mr. Covington moved, second by Mr. Barnes, to adopt Resolution Number 71-5, A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SEAL BEACH, CAlIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 70-6, PROVIDING AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN DEMANDS, CHECKS, AND DRAFTS FOR THE WITHDRAWL OF FUNDS ON DEPOSIT WITH THE BANK OF AMERICA, SEAL BEACH BRANCH #132. I AYES: NOES: Barnes, Covington, Jackson, Lindstrom, Scheib1auer None Motion carried NEW BUSINESS Chairman Covington stated discussion of NEW BUSINESS, ITEM A, of the Agenda, consideration of alteration of the Redevelopment Plan, was in order. Mr. Barnes said that he felt there are a number of points in the Plan that should be clarified and/or altered so as to decrease contradictions apparent to him in the Plan, and that he would like ~25-71 to discuss some of those points at this time. First, Page 3, Section 4, that portion which sets up a philosophy, attitude, or an approach to eliminating blight, enumerating five ways of accomplishing same. Mr. Barnes suggested a sixth item: Developing land within the project area for public use. Mr. Covington commented on the background of the Plan and the reasons for including the enumerated points referred to by Mr. Barnes. Mr. Lindstrom referred briefly to Resolution Number 71-4 urging cooperation and coordination of the efforts of the General Plan Review Committee and the Agency, again stressing public use of those remaining parcels located within the project area. I Mr. Covington noted that one prime consideration in forming the Agency was to consolidate parcels, and that public use should rate a higher priority than commercial use; he agreed with Mr. Lindstrom that information should be forwarded from the Agency to the General Plan Review Committee. Discussion followed regarding process of amending the Redevelopment Plan and the effect on the usual process by the current revision. Mr. Covington suggested sending a membr.andum to the General Plan Review Committee outlining items of mutual interest, and perhaps scheduling a joint meeting at a later date. Mr. Lindstrom commented on the interdependency of the planning process particularly in regard to the present situation. Mr. Barnes asked how to initiate Agency intent to revise the Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Myers replied that the procedure is an administration/staff function and that if, at this time, that is the Agency's wish, it is simply a matter of following provisions outlined in the Health and Safety Code. Mr. Barnes pointed out that Section 33457 of the Health and Safety Code specifies that a public hearing must be held to do so. Mr. Covington asked for comments from members regarding actions which the Agency feels should be coordinated with the General Plan Review Committee; he suggested that individual members attend meetings of the General Plan Review Committee. Mr. Barnes asked how far the General Plan Review Committee has progressed. Mr. Jerome Leddy, a member of the Committee who was in the audience, info~med the group that the General Plan Review Committee had only one meeting as of this time; that the function, size, and scope of the Committee was the main topic of the meeting. Discussion followed regarding relationship of the General Plan Review Committee and the Agency, facilitating feedback between 'the two groups, and the possibility of joint meetings; Mrs. Scheib1auer commented on the contradictory height restrictions in the Agency Project Area. Discussion followed regarding same. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that Counsel review various elements of the plan and agency documents in order to eliminate loopholes. Mr. Jackson suggested that the other items Mr. Barnes had in mind be read into the minutes. Mr. Barnes enumerated the following: Page 4, Section 4, Part B, dealing with procedure for handling owners of property not wiShing to participate in redevelopment; Mr. Barnes felt it should be reworded. Mr. Lindstrom commented on same. I I Mr. Barnes: Page 6, with reference to Agency leasing or selling property without public bidding; questions legality and wisdom of doing so. Page B, Section 5, Part B, designation of right of way use (residential) and prescribed density; example at Page 9, Parcels 14 and 16 shown as multi-family housing and not Showing an alternate use. Mr. Lindstrom commented on public use of Parcel 12; he felt it should be further defined. I Mr. Barnes stated he was concerned about specified parking requirements and lack of formula for determining the amount of parking for guests. Mrs. Adele Owen, a member of the audience, asked about dissolving the Agency. Mr. Lindstrom replied that dissolution would require a unanimous vote of the City Council which he feels is not likely at this time; Mr. Lindstrom also expressed an opinion indicating he felt the present "set-up" provides means for citizen input. Mr. Covington responded to Mrs. Owen's remarks and also commented on the benefits of the Agency both to persons residing in and/or in close proximity to it and the tax increment advantages to the City as a whole. Mr. Barnes responding to Mrs. Owen's remarks indicated that he felt that since it appears quite likely an Agency will exist in Seal Beach for some time to come, he would rather see people like the present members sitting as the Agency rather than developers. Discussion followed regarding separation of legislative body and the Agency and the implications of division when the project area is in close proximity to the shoreline. Mr. Leddy, from the audience, asked about contradiction of optimum use and environmental effects. Mr. Lindstrom advised Mr. Leddy that the Agency had gone on record in this regard. Discussion followed regarding the County of Orange Master Plan and implications of the plan to cities in the County. Miss Julie Dorr, a member of the Planning Commission, spoke from the audience and asked if the Agency can be put on the Orange County Planning Department's G.P.P. mailing list. Mr. Little volunteered to make the necessary contact with the Orange County Planning Department and requested the Agency be placed on their mailing list for the publication. Mr. Covington asked if the December issue would be available; Mr. Little agreed to include it in the next packet. Mr. Barnes questioned all of the figures (projections) on Page 9, and also pointed out the reference to building height on Page 12. Mr. Lindstrom again commented on loopholes he has uncovered, and asked Counsel to investigate. Mr. Jackson stated he does not feel the Agency is a policy-making bOdy. Mr. Barnes disagreed with Mr. Jackson's viewpoint. Discussion followed. I I Mr. Patterson, Attorney, commented on dissolution of the Agency indicating that with the unanimous consent of the Agency members the City Council may dissolve the Agency by ordinance. Mr. Jackson asked about the procedure which would be required by the legislative body to reinstate itself as the Agency. Mr. Lindstrom indicated he had investigated this possibility. Miss Dorr commented from the audience. Mrs. Scheib1auer asked about conflict of owner-participation agreements with zoning ordinance provisions. 1-25-71 91 ~1~~71 NEW BUSINESS, ITEM B - REVIEW OF AGENCY Chairman Covington asked for a summary based on the following three questions: 1. What has already been done? 2. What is the Agency committed to do? 3. What is the status of other phases in the Redevelopment Plan? Mr. ~ers referred the questions to Mr. Courtemarche. Mr. Courtemarche replied as follows: I A) Bridgeport Development B) Schooner Park C) Marina Community Center D) Marina Park E) R & B Construction project. F) Acquisition of park land on the Pacific Electric right-of-way The Agency has no firm commitments other than those set out by law. Any property owner within the Redevelopment Project Area who intends to develop his property must come before the Agency, present his plans, and indicate his intention to participate in property redevelopment. Separation of the Agency from the legislative body is the most recent change of status. Discussion followed regarding the possibility of future agency/ council joint meetings. Question 1. Question 2. Question 3. I Mr. Lindstrom was of the opinion that if such a meeting is held, one of the first items of business should be to settle the question of dissolution of the Agency. Mr. Covington commented and asked for Mayor Baum's opinion. Mayor Baum responded from the audience and stated that the question is certainly one with which both bodies must soon come to grips. Mrs. Baum, also speaking from the audience, stated she does not usually enter into public debate, but that under the circumstances, namely, dissention and polarization, much of which she feels has been caused by the Agency. Mrs. Baum asked for an unofficial poll of the agency members as to whether or not they would be willing to resign so as to allow dissolution. Mr. Covington, first to respond, indicated that in his opinion the Agency may act as the means of realizing important public goals. Discussion regarding the value of the Agency followed. Mrs. Baum asked Mr. Covington if he would be willing to establish a redevelopment agency in College Park East in order to acquire Blue Bell Park and asked ,if Mr. Covington's present position is indicative of distrust of the present city council. Mr. Covington responded in the negative to both questions. Mr. Jackson indicated that his feelings were closely paralleled with those of Mr. Covington; he agreed with Mr. Covington's statements, and indicated he was not ready to make a decision as to resigning. Mr. Barnes stated he would not be in favor of resigning for practical reasons. He stated he is philosophically and ethically opposed to the Agency, but that this higher level opposition in no way overrides the more practical advantages of the Agency. I 1-25-71 q3 I Mrs. Scheib1auer stated that she concurs with "Tom" on many of the points he had just made, and commented on politics of the past. She expressed the opinion that more open space is needed in "old town"; that bid developers have b~en prime beneficiaries so far, but that the Agency may remain useful. Mr. Lindstrom said he is in basic agreement with other agency members,' would like to see the Agency dissolved, but before doing so would want a guarantee from the legislative body that monies would be commited to certain projects. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Covington opened oral communications. Miss Dorr expressed the feeling that the Agency should investigate circumstances surrounding formation of redevelopment projects in other cities; she referred to the Redondo Beach project; stated she accepts the domino theory of increasing taxation and would like to see the plan altered. She stated she would rather see the rate increased to fund needed projects. Mr. Covington summed up the Agency response to dissolution. Mr. Barnes commented on optimum public/private allocation of resources which is being questioned. Discussion followed regarding dissolution, building moratorium on shoreline development, zoning accomplishing public aims. There being no further oral communications, Chairman Covington closed oral communications. The Agency unanimously voted to adjourn at 11:13 p.m. I Executive-Director Secretary I