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