Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Min 1971-02-22 q6 2-22-71 February 22, 1971 The Redevelopment Agency of Seal Beach met in regular session on Febr.uary 22, 1971 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 211 8th Street, Seal Beach, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jay Covington with the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Covington Members Barnes, Jackson, Lindstrom~ Scheib1auer None I Absent: Also present: Robert E. Myers, Executive Director-Secretary Dennis Courtemarche, Assistant to City Manager Bill Murphy, Director of Public Works/City Engi reer Jim Bentson, Legal Counsel Denis Thomas, Director of Finance Mayor Morton A. Baum and members of the City Council also attended the meeting as special guests of the Redevelopment Agency along with Eugene Jacobs, Special Legal Counsel for the Agency. APPROVAL OF MINUTES By unanimous vote, the agenda was amended to include consideration of the minutes of the meeting of February 8, 1971. By unanimous vote the minutes were approved as presented. Discussion focused on methods and alternative sanitation facilities, payments to Seal Beach School District and/or other school districts, possible dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency and legal mechanics involved. Mr. Jacobs was asked several questions by the audience and members of the agency and City Council concerning the Redevelopment Agency. Jacobs was asked by Mrs. Scheib1auer I concerning amendments to the Redevelopment Plan and the effect this would have. Jacobs pointed out that those who have participation agreements with the City could not be affected by any change in the Plan, however, areas such as the Department of Water and Power where no participation agreement has been signed, in his opinion, he didn't feel that their objections to a change in the plan would have any legal bearing. He also added that the Redevelopment Agency could not take the Department of Water and Power land by eminent domain without the consent of the Department of Water and Power, unless it went back out of private hands first. They could not, being a public agency, develop it for private use. Covington then asked that if the City wished to acquire this land for public use or development it would have to do so first after final negotiations with the owner and could not if effect, request a change of zoning by this request alter the bargaining position of private holders. Jacobs answered "No." Yes, you could change position of the private holder but the way law works that land is zoned either M-1 or M-2, whatever it happened to be that was the zoning at the time of the redevelopment project. Therefore, you're probably rolling back the zoning, and there is no market for M-1 land right now, and you would have to pay M-1 prices as though there had been no redevelopment project and whether that would be low or high would depend on the market here, usually it's higher. But the price that would be arrived at would be the price that had I been used at the original zoning as if there had been no redevelopment plan, but you cannot take eminent domain from any public agent without its approval, if it went to a private market then you could use eminent domain. Barnes asked a question concerning values of blighted land. Barnes felt that it's declared blighted and the value of the land would be lower because of that. For purposes of paying, Jacobs said, for example a residential project dealing with slum land, slum land is blighted. But not all blighted land is slum land. If you have a typical slum land situation, the groce~ store on the 2-22-71 ' q7 - corner and that grocery store is served by a high value of revenue because of the great sales volume there. It's, therefore, a very valuable commercial location and if you buy it and tear it down, all the residential properties around it, due to the project, it has no value. The piece of land is what it is - not what you anticipate it to be, Jacobs said. Barnes indicated to Jacobs that he had said there were other definitions of blighted land and he asked what th~ might be of Jacobs and how does land become blighted. Jacobs answered, "It's the finding of the City Council. It can range all the way. There are degrees of blight. There is no question that places such as Harlem is the ultimate definition of blight, where densities are so high that if you placed the densities of Harlem into New York City, you would have the entire population of the United States in New York City with that density of Harlem. It can range all the way to any economic maladjustment when land becomes disused or misused or difficult to develop down to a situation like South Pasadena which is empty hills and with people living in those in 1900 back before there was proper zoning and proper subdivision mapping. It was impossible to put streets in because they would have been vertic1e. You get all forms of blight due to building deterioration in almost every city and its old downtown area is in a very blighted condition, in terms of economics, terms of physical and terms of development, looks, any number of tfiings. Many have been made even more blighted by suburban shopping centers, etc. There are various blights which ultimately where a given part of the community is blighted or not is based on, provided for legal purposes, not descriptive purposes, is based on a finding of the City Council and the ordinance adopted by the redevelopment plan." In other words, Barnes said, the City Council could declare any area blighted. "Right," Jacobs said, "but that has to be based on reports and facts. The legislature gives the test and the city council acts on the ordinance, makes certain findings and then that finding can be challenged in the courts." Jackson asked, "Is it very common to have bare, level land declared blighted?" ~It's not uncommon," Jacobs said. "There are a number of places that this has happened. It is certainly not the most common type of redevelopment project without the basic sewer problem that existed here and the fewer problems that were in here. Railroad track situation is an area that can easily be justified as blighted. I have no question about the basic sewer prob1'em involved here. It is an area concept to try to do away with bad street problems, bad traffic and a whole series of situations and in most American cities, they have these kinds of situations." I I I Covington then said that "it appears from what you say, Mr. Jacobs, that there is no narrow definition applied to Seal Beach in terms of reversing the decision that this area now is blighted. The fact that it was not challenged within 60 days after the adoption of the ordinance, it cannot be challenged. Mr. Boisvert asked Mr. Jacobs questions concerning the agency being taken back by the city council and other actions, that this agency may take the reverse. Jacobs said this agency has absolutely no power to go into business by itself without an ordinance of the City Council. Whether the agency is a separate agency board as it now exists, or is taken back to the City Council, deals with action has to be the action of the City Council. So that whatever charter or whatever you want to call it, constitu- tional or cooperative, which we call a redevelopment plan, is the action of the City Council. The agency can suggest things to the City Council and if the city council agrees, then the agency will carry those items out in an administrative action. ,Whether or not this agency can be taken back to the city council, there has been qs 2-22-71 a lot of comment here and in most cities using the Wbrd dissolve' because this word is actually confusing. This agency exists as a public corporation under the redevelopment law of California, whether or not you use it and it exists in every city in California. There are many redevelopment agencies in California. Whether they become operative depends on an ordinance of the city council. The City Council then has the authorization to name itself the board or to name citizens as we have here. Recently, a law passed in the last session of the Congress which became a law I in November that the intention of that law and the question in ~ mind was to rid the City Council of a board and bring it back to themselves but it is a public corporation and different public corporation just like the sanitation district, for example. I feel the law was written ambiguously and I feel that eventually the courts will decide'that the city council can bring the agency back to itself. But there are certain problems right now that lawyers have with this law. As far as dissolving the agency, all it really means in terms of the law, is that the agency is reduced back to quiescence as it was before the ordinance was established activating it and it does, however, raise a great complex issue. So you clearly can't do that if bonds are out- standing. But there are problems in terms of existing contracts with certain peoples and where rights were created. Even if the agency is dissolved, the contracts still have to be honored and this would be a function of the city council to honor these. Mr. Boisvert asked a question touching on the life of the redevelopment plan. Jacobs mentioned that the Redevelopment Plan can only be changed through the process of public hearing. In the final analysis, it could return to the City Council. He further responded that the 45 year limit has been highly confused. 45 years has nothing to do with the financing of the Plan. The original Redevelopment Plan was done on the basis of assuming that with a very modest public expenditure and a very massive I private development going in there, the cost could be paid off in a matter of 3 to 5 years or less depending on what was implemented. The 45 years has nothing to do with financing, particularly it is for what is expected to be the length of time the financing might have to take place. Private financing to build the buildings of the tract of the development involved. So that this particular plan can very easily be reduced to 15 or 20 years. You could have a plan for 20 years but have bonds for 30 years, for example, in Long Beach. Barnes asked Mr. Jacobs a question concerning dissolution and whether or not it took a unanimous vote. Jacobs indicated that yes, it does take a unanimo~s vote. "What you are really talking about, if I we~e- on the City Council, I wouldn't worry about you dissolving or approving. I would pull it back to me, then dissolve." ' In response to another question regarding the Master Plan, Mr. Jacobs said that regarding the master plan that in the formation stages of the redevelopment agency, that this must conform to the general plan once these findings are made by the Planning Commission and then by the City Council. But once these findings are made and the ordinance is passed, you cannot then, amend the redevelopment plan just to conform to the general plan if the general plan is amended. If you want to change a redevelopment plan to do some- I thing that is inconsistent with your master plan, you have to ' first go through the public hearings on the master plan to change that because you could amend the redevelopment plan. But if you should change the general p1an without amending the redevelopment p1a~, then it would have no effect on the redevelopment plan. Fuhrman then asked a question of Mr. ,Jacobs. Let's suppose a councilor this council were to take back the agency with the knowledge that it has learned and the feelings of the people and has decided to put the plan on the referendum and allow the people to vote if they want an agency or not and they decide . 2-22-71 qs I to vote it down. Then Jacobs indicated that it would have no impact at all. The law is very clear on this, Jacobs said. Mr. Boisvert asked the question, could the council take the agency back by a 3-2 vote. Mr. Jacobs answered in the affirmative. Boisvert then asked that would it not be possible to dissolve the agency by a majority vote and have it tested in the courts since this had never been tested in court. Jacobs answered that he had wrestled with this problem. Mr. Jacobs indicated that other attorneys had indicated that since there are requirements, for example, in the state legislature which require a majority vote on some issues and 2/3 vote on other issues, that this perhaps, throws some validity to the unanimous vote section of the community redevelopment law. However, I do have some questions about it. I don't necessarily agree with ~ colleagues that feel this way. The question certainly is one of doubt. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Jacobs if you dissolve the agency, then does that dissolve the plan. Mr. Jacobs answered that Dr. Jackson asked the question that if the agency was dissolved, what would happen, say, in 2 months, if the city council wished to reactivate the agency. Jacobs said "I don't think that you could start all over again and if you fully dissolved the redevelopment plan, but it could be started in a different way. To create a new plan, the same steps that were originally taken, would have to be taken again." He also added that if you dissolve the plan today, depending upon what the zoning is on Apollo and R & B, etc. they may gain some legal rights they do not have because of the redevelopment plan. One would have to think out the repercussions involved before this step should be taken. The question was raised concerning why certain properties were left out of the redevelopment plan. Mr. Fuhrman indicated that these properties were left out, to the best of his knowledge, because those owners did not want to participate in the redevelopment plan. Jacobs added that concerning the technical aspects, this project was conceived as an attempt to bring about maximization of owner participation and not have a project requiring the use of eminent domain and minimum amount of public expenditures. Then Mr. Dressler addressed the redevelopment agency and read a letter that was signed by the former city manager which would accomplish the payments to the Seal Beach School District for in lieu payments. He wanted to know when can we expect the property tax payments. Jacobs answered that he had serious questions about the payments or the basis on which in lieu payments can be made which does not necessarily cover the exact situation here. Jacobs then, at the request of the Chairman, discussed alter- natives to in lieu payments to the school districts. Mr. Bentson asked the question concerning how in lieu payments could be made or if they could be made at all. Mr. Jacobs responded to the question saying that each dollar was released by the redevelopment agency and would be distributed proportionately among all the taxing districts in the area. Mr. Fuhrman then asked, or stated, that we have a unique area in the city called Leisure World. People with fixed incomes and many of them are living on welfare, subsidies, county aid and pensions. To keep raising taxes, you are going to keep pushing these people out. Our senior citizens have as much right to live in this city in the type of atmosphere that we want, and we do. Jacobs responded that in pure financial terms, the concept of the redevelopment agency relieves the tax burden and those people on fixed incomes. Additional discussion followed. No official action was taken by the agency although the Executive Director-Secretary was asked to I I jL()()2-22-71 prepare several resolutions relating to payments to the various school districts. The meeting, by unanimous consent, was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. I Executive Director-Secretary I I