Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Min 1971-03-08 3-8-71 , :t01 March 8, 1971 I The Redevelopment Agency of Seal Beach met in regular session on March 8, 1971 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 Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Covington Members Barnes, Jackson, Lindstrom, Scheib1auer None Absent: Also Present: Robert E. Myers, Executive Director-Secretary Dennis Courtemarche, Assistant to City Manager Bill Murphy, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Jim Bentson, Legal Counsel Eugene Jacobs, Special Legal Counsel for the Agency APPROVAL DF MINUTES Chairman Covington expressed displeasure at the brief format of the minutes of the meeting of February 22. 1971 and asked that if possible that all future meetings of the Redevelopment Agency be taped and a more complete detail be presented as part of the minutes. It was moved by Lindstrom, second by Covington, not to approve the minutes as presented of the meeting of February 22, 1971, and that they be redone and presented at the next meeting. AYES: NOES: Covington, Barnes, Jackson, Lindstrom, Scheiblauer None Motion carried I PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS REGARDING PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES Chairman Covington asked that the Executive Director-Secretary read all of the resolutions regarding in lieu payments. Following additional discussion concerning the subject of in lieu payments, and dissolution, Resolution 71-6 was read by the Executive Director- Secretary titled "A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SEAL BEACH RECOMMENDING DISSOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY." The' resolution was read in its entirety. Chairman Covington asked if the members of the Agency had any comments concerning the resolution. Mrs. Scheib1auer made the following statement regarding per position concerning the Redevelopment Agency. She felt the Redevelopment Agency was immoral because it takes money away from the schools. The City had progressed for years without a Redevelopment Agency and she sees no reason why we cannot finance public improvements the same way as we have in the past. In other cities, no agency existed, therefore, they go to bonds. She also indicated that she gets calls from people saying that they like the small town atmosphere of Seal Beach, but they don't like what is happening with the Redevelopment Agency, and that is big development and that's what we have right now, as a result of the Agency. She feels that it's a stretch of the imagination to declare vacant land near the beach as blighted. "I will never buy that theory in a million years" she added. "My understanding of the definition of blight, I feel, is interpreted as in the eyes of the beholder, that would be the Agency or the City Council, calling what it feels blight, and this I don't agree with. I do have confidence in the members of this present Agency but we must face facts. We will not always be the Agency. Also, we must face f.acts that the City Council can certainly take the Agency back and what then? That is the question. What then? Our present plan has not been amended, we just talk, talk, talk. It still includes what it always has. We cannot, I understand, zone. So far we have done nothing about changing the Plan. I realize too, that someone will say, yes, a City Council can take it back, and they can formulate a new agency. And I think that the people are wiser now, however. I have had so many people tell me that they did not know what the former city fathers were up to. Now that's the way they put it to me. I believe now they would have a very difficult time of forming a new Redevelopment Agency." I 11\2 3-8-71 . Mr. Lindstrom then made the following comments. He agreed with everything that Mrs. Scheib1auer stated but also would like to present a few more facts. The Redevelopment Agency was started in 1967 and amended in 1968 and as far as he could determine in going back through the plans, the purpose was to develop properties for multiple family units in Seal Beach. Zoning requests were made by the former Councilor the former Redevelopment Agency to the Planning Commission who were also sitting as City Councilmen at the time. The citizens of old town here fought the development of the P. E. Right of Way. They didn't want the so called "Berlin Wa 11" down on the P. E. Ri ght of Way. They wanted that open space for parks and parking. All of the studies made by the City prior to the Agency formation all came to the same conclusion: that the P. E. Right of Way should be open space. So far, we have done nothing to amend the plan for the simple reason that the Redevelopment Agency as an agency existing to divert tax monies had to conform with the Master Plan. The Master Plan and the Redevelopment Plan you might say, morally are in conflict, legally they are not. But I don't think it serves the best wishes of the citizens of Seal Beach to divert tax monies for the benefit of private developers. If we don't dissolve this agency, the best use of the tax monies diverted is to put it back into public use, mainly parks and parking or some other form of public use that the citizens of Seal Beach will get some benefit from. The other point being that - and this is a fact that maybe Mr. Jacobs will bear me out - under State Law, every city in California has the inherent redevelopment agency within its power. Any legislative body in any city can declare the need for a redevelopment agency and it suddenly exists, simply by declaring some area of the city blighted. We could dissolve the agency, we could all resign. Yet here sit five electorate citizens appointed by a City Council that exists now. And the State law, very prudently, I think has a stipulation in it that every chartered city over 250,000, if the legislative body wants a redevelopment agency, then they must turn that agency over to the electorate. They cannot operate it themselves. We here in Seal Beach are: a small beach town with very high value properties and you might say, we could consider ourselves a small Balboa Island. We've been overcrowded throughout the years, run by real estate operators and what not and oil companies wBnting to have their foot in the door. I think now is the time where the citizens of Seal Beach have started to take some action. They've shown up at Council meetings; they've shown up at Planning Commission meetings; and they even take part on the various commissions and agencies by pressuring the City Council to appointing citizens to these boards. The main point being that if we dissolve this agency tonight, we can have a complete turnabout in the agency after March 30 at the next election. And if the new City Council by a majority vote decided to keep it under their own wing, not have public meetings, not publish agendas, meet in separate sessions in City Hall, but not by publicizing it, the apathy of the taxpayers, being what it is, usually, we could be right back in the same situation that we were before. There is no such thing as a dissolution of this agency, morally, physically or otherwise because it says so under State law. The only thing you can do is manage what you have prudently and hope for the best and I would rather trust ~se1f, ~ fellow compatriots than I would a city council. Mr. Barnes said he was confused with some of Mr. Lindstrom's , logic to have delusions of grandeur that we will remain as the Agency. He said that he had the utmost confidence in the people that are sitting up here with him and that he has the confidence that if they would be the agency with or without him, he would have really few qualms about the agency in terms of what would happen to Seal Beach in the interim. "But I don't have delusions of grandeur what may happen after March 30. The new City Council can appoint a new agency just as they can appoint five new electorates to sit on the agency just'as they can take the agency back to their own hands - they would have that power. So I think the argument that the agency is inevitable is a fallacious one. It is I I I 3-8-71 1ro I not an inevitable thing. I think the main consideration as I've said many times and has been said by others, is the agency good for the development of Seal Beach? Now, everyone wants to be omnipotent but I get the feeling of power just sitting up here as to being able to decide whether Marx Dressler is going to get any money for the children who are attending his school or not. I'm an independent being, in that the electorate has no control over me and ~ fellow members except we cannot really be removed in the present situation but if I were Mr. Marx Dressler, is this the way I would want tax money to be decided by five individuals who are doing something that the law allows them to do and perhaps the law shouldn't allow them to do? Regarding the original intent of the agency, and the fact that it's blight land. Actually, the true blighted land and many friends of mine feel this way and their interpretation of what blight is, the true blighted land is what is being put up over there right now. That is blighted land. It was fine before until that edifice was constructed. So in terms of what is blight and what is not, is the question once again, in the eyes of the beholder. I am sure it would not be difficult for an agency to decide that mY particular house on Central Ave. between 4th and 5th would be b11ghted. It could be declared blighted, just as easily as the vacant land on the riverfront was and the P. E. Right of Way. The agency is an interesting thing and I can see certain advantages that can come from it and Mr. Lindstrom's comment about not trusting the City Council is true but very undemocratic. If you can't trust your elected people to determine the right to do good for the public, who can you trust? I think we're being presumptuous in saying that we trust ourselves but we don't trust those who the people elect and that's in essence, what we are saying here. I do feel that perhaps I could decide certain issues better than the City Council but that's saying I should have the right to determine the policy for the rest of the community and I'm not so sure that that's valid. All things considered, I think the harm that the agency has done - and I do believe that there has been harm done, despite what people say, I do not think we would have an R & B development if the agency didn't exist. I don't think we would have had Suburbia without the agency. which is a mixed blessing at best. Nothing against the people who live there, just the particu1ac architectural styling and cramming of a number of dwellings on a relatively small area of land. I don't think this was in the best interests of this city. All of these things considered, I haven't seen any good come out of the agency. Mr. Covington will argue that we will accomplish certain things in the future and that could very well be true. We could accomplish good for the future. But I see ~ future, and I'm making a political prediction, is about two weeks long or thereabouts. So taking all these things into consideration, and being not only an idealist but a realist, I can't see how this city will benefit at the present time by keeping this agency. Mr. Covington then asked for Mr. Jackson's comments. Jackson said he had very mixed feelings about the agency. "First of all, I'd like to say that I disagree with Martha that the agency has promoted high density housing. It doesn't necessarily have to be that way. The agency is an executive body, not a policy making body. It's a body that carries out the overall master plan for the city within the particular boundaries chosen for the project. If the Master Plan is revised to emphasize public use, such as the P. E. Right of Way for parking or open space, parks and so forth, then the Redevelopment Agency is the instrument to carry that out. The agency provides a means for raising money that is necessary for this type of thing which in our past experience was very hard to raise. And it's also a means to obtaining closer control of the housing development of the Master Plan. Tax diversion from the schools, in ~ own opinion, should be made up. They certainly should get a comparable amount of money, say, for example, for capital improvements which is the subject of a number of resolutions. The overall problem of whether it's moral to divert taxes. Every governmental agency diverts taxes. It's a problem. I I 11l4l3-8-71 Well, I have, Covington says, because I agree with many of the points that have so far been expressed tonight and in my own way I'd like to refer to just some of them. 'First of all, it is absolutely certain that it is immoral in my opinion, to ,try to have the agency accomplish its goa~ as originally stated, in the method that it was originally outlined. For it to accomplish these goals, that was essentially the use of public powers utilizing public funds to enhance the developmental value of areas within the plan for commercial benefit has to be the greatest immorality. If we, however, talk about I morality, of diverting some monies that would otherwise go to various school districts, I think that anyone in education, particularly would agree that the decision that the school at any level, is part of society's means of presenting an environment enriched for development of the children into adulthood that would be most beneficial to those children and society as a whole. And I certainly cannot feel that the direction and consensus that has been expressed by the members of the agency so far here towards changing the direction of the agency in terms of acquisition of land for public use, parks and open space, recreational facilities, is fine; at least it's morally consistent with this obligation that society has to present an enriched, total cultural environment for our children and give, them a superior opportunity to grow up as useful, performing citizens. So then to say that it is immoral to accomplish this good for the children by these such developments as opposed to letting it all go back to the schools, I am not so sure that that is a fair evaluation morally. I think it no longer becomes a question of relative morality and as Dr. Jackson has stated already, there is a great deal of diversion of monies at all governmental levels and compromise is a very normal political thing, I think. Covington: I think changes in the plan as proposed by members of the agency would certainly be consistent with the benefit of the children. Therefore, again, we have the question of relative I morality and not total immorality versus morality and black versus white and perhaps no long consistent with what other members of the agency have expressed. Now, leaving that point and coming to the issue of open space. In general there was an open space referendum in this city several months ago as I recall, is that not true, Mr. ~ers?" A positive answer was given regarding an advisory ballot. "There was no money involved, it was just a consensus or an indi- cation of the general public will. Secondly, since the new City Council has taken office, July 1, one of the few areas in my recollection, there was a majority view which was the support of the general concept of open space development and acquisition of land for open space, use of park land; recreational facilities. I think we'rd really beating a dead horse. I would be the first one to agree with anyone that the original r.edeve10pment plan as constituted and laid out was wrong and if we were only talking about that plan or no plan at all, then I certainly would be in favor of implementing no plan. But I don't think we're really talking about that. I think we're talking about modifying the plan as Mr. Lindstrom points out at a time when it's possible to do so when it is consistent with the General Plan which is presently under review and from all indications will certainly rely on the concept of development for the next 20 or 30 years. It is completely different than what was originally laid out in I the 6D's. So if that is the case, then it makes no sense to me to destroy the ability of the agency to get on with this oppor- tunity. I am not saying that it will never get any better in terms of cost for implementing the plan. Development costs will always be higher as time goes on. For the agency to accomplish their goals as expressed by agency members, that is to acquire lands for public use and to acquire them as soon as possible, dedicated to the city with the understanding that it would be developed for recreation facilities, parks, and open space. There has been no suitable, reasonable, logical, definitive 3-8-71 1M I alternatives of any kind for the city to perform this on its own on a so called pay as you go basis. Pay as you go sounds very fiscally sound and very appropriate. But if you really examine pay as you go, you are really doing what the city has done in the past. Is every citizen present tonight and those who are not present thoroughly in favor and in agreement with the manner in which development has occurred within this city? In the part of the city in which I live, College Park East, to me, there has been an abysmal performance in this public obligation of tr.ust that the city has to supply an adequate amount of park land and open space land for residents in every part of the city and from the impressions I've received from many other citizens from other parts of the city, they share the same feeling about their part of the city. So, if pay as you go really means performing in the future as the city has done in the past, then I cannot see that that is in any way an acceptable approach if it means what you 'can afford or raising the tax rate so you can afford some more. Raising the tax rate is a very unpopular way ,and I don't think it will happen in the future in any significant amount that will allow you to perform at a different rate than you have in the past. So, if you're not gojng to do that, then pay as you go means really you!re going to do nothing and will be able to do less and less as the land that is available costs more than ever to acquire. So, if until a reasonable set of alternatives is presented to accomplish what I feel is the direction that the agency majority has indicated that they would like the agency to go, that is, acquisition of a maximum, optimum amount of remaining undeveloped land for public use supported by a minimum of the remaining land developed for commercial use, I have to support the agency and I can certainly consider an opportunity in which to dissolve. But because no suitable alternative plan has been presented, I look upon my appointment to this agency as working for all the people of the city and I cannot honestly say that an adequate amount of public open land, recreational facilities exists. We have a last time opportunity to reverse this trend. We are faced with a poor ratio between the number and population density and whatever the technical terms for public land are. How else are we ever going to reverse that except how in one swoop in a reasonably short period of time. If we don't reverse the pattern, let's at least get back to some meaningful ratio that has not existed in the past; it is certainly not going to exist in the future if we drop back and rely on the pat phrase of pay as you go. It doesn't really stand up. I I Mr. Barnes then made some comments regarding "pay as you go." If this community is unwilling to pay for parks and the only way this city is going to get parks is to divert them from schools and mosquito abatement, etc., then this city doesn't deserve parks. Mr. ~ers and I had a conversation after the last meeting and if we build a new sewage treatment plant, and I can't remember the figure he used, but it would cost every citizen in Sanitation District #3. I went home and figured it out for a new sewage treatment plant, that would seemingly be better than the present one we have and better than District #2. I figured out it would cost me $40 a year in additional taxes on my house. I would be willing to pay that $40 a year in order to get a sewage treatment plant that did not have to have a sewage treatment plant built from the diversion of taxes from schools. But the problem here as Mr. Covington raises it, it's a good point, that while I would be willing to pay the $40, most of the community would not. Therefore, we do not get a sewage treatment plant,. So our alternative is either to tie into District #3 or go on as we are. The alternative is this really - if we need a sewage treatment plant, and that has been established. But let's say that it is. That people are not willing to pay for it and still cannot favor diverting money from the schools and these other agencies to pay for one when the people don't deserve parks if they're not willing to pay for it. And to use this scheme, a device, a law, to give the people something that they really don't want because they're not willing to pay for it to me is not right. It is not correct. Mrs. 3-8-71 1~ Scheib1auer would also like to mention that we're talking of open space. The P. E. Right of Way has been sitting there vacant and the tracks were taken out some years ago. But there could not have been any purchase on that because the property was in litigation and now as I understand it, the city did on purchasing that portion of the right of way that was available and that from 15th St. to Seal Beach Blvd. They also, at the same time, I believe, are leasing on a purchase'option basis Bullet Hill Park. So the city is moving itself in that direction toward open space. In so short a time they certainly have taken a good stand in that direction. Mr. Lindstrom: For a point of clarity and to stir the pile a little more and to let the people know what the agency is in for, I ~rou1d like Mr. Myers at this time to present to the agency and those members that weren't present at the Sanitation District meeting Saturday morning, the proposals and the results of that meeting as to what the plans of the Sanitation District are and the decision they made and proposed alternative action being proposed to them to prolong the life of the agency. Mr. Covington wanted to know if that was related to what the discussion was nOW focused upon. Mr. Lindstrom indicated that it was pertinent to the discussion. Barnes asked the question that if it was an action affecting the agency, wouldn't it normally come in the report of the Executive Director-Secretary and the report appears to have been omitted from our agenda. The report generally follows the approval of the minutes so in that sense, maybe it would be in order besides what Mr. Covington says along this line of inquiry. "I'm trying to establish that," Mr. Covington said. Barnes said that type of activity comes in the report. Mr. Myers responded and gave a brief resume" of what was actually presented concerning construction costs, method of payment for tying'in with Sanitation District #3. I He pointed out that the issue was not one of who will finance but whether or not we would connect with Sanitation District #3 which was approved by the Sanitation District at their Saturday meeing of March 6. I Mr. Barnes stated that his question would be once again, that the members of the Sanitation District have not had an opportunity to voice their pleasure about solving the sewage treatment problem. It might not be a bad idea to have some type of advisory opinion from the electorate in terms of presenting alternative proposals and allowing them to decide which they would favor. But as it stands now, a majority of the members of the Sanitation District do not even live in the district themselves. So what I'm getting at is you say these alternatives were presented. I think one alternative was omitted. That very well may be the one that the people living in that district might prefer if they knew what the other alternatives were. MYers responded that he was under the impression that the alternatives that were under discussion were those that were presented to the Board. Barnes felt that there is no way the sanitation problem can be resolved in just one way. Myers again responded, stating that the direction that was given by Sanitation District #4 and that is they authorized that we pursue proposals for engineering to connect with Sanitation District #3 and that we get a proposed agreement I between Sanitation District #4 and Orange County Sanitation District as far as annexation is concerned. And funding is an issue that has not been settled. Myers added that one thing you have to consider that we couldn't resolve, in any proposal that you're talking about, in the city, Sanitation Distr~ct #4, perhaps the Redevelopment Agency, a Building Authority and Sanitation District #3 and I would qualify any statements that I make that anyone of those agencies could present a problem in the finalization of this. We just have to naturally recognize that all those agencies are not in every detail covered. MYers reaffirmed this. Chairman' ~~,~ I Covington then asked Mr. Jacobs if he had any comments concerning the validity of this resolution. He indicated that the resolution as a legal document does nothing because it doesn't actually consent, as required by the statute, that the City Council should vote to dissolve is simply a suggestion on the part of the agency. Again', legally it accomplishes nothing except the statement that it makes. He indicated to consent to dissolution would require a unanimous vote. Mrs. Dorr pointed'out that the agency had neglected to mention the other alternative of the environmental tax. She felt that it's childlike for any adult on a board to consider that there is a magic'way to make money. People should recognize that they are going to have to pay taxes in one form or another. You still have to pay for things. It's simply a matter of degree and to what extent. Mr. Covington responded to Mrs. Dorr's remarks. Mr. Bishoff stated that he was not sure how the taxes were diverted or where the taxes, come from. Myers responded to the question and explained the tax diversion method of the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Jacobs also ,responded indicating that it was not on a parcel by parcel basis but the total project. Mrs. Dorr expressed confusion as to why the members of the agency feel that because they make some plan that should benefit the citizens in their judgement, that this is going to stand up with the next council. What confidence do you have that they don't want to have the agency, back and handle it their own way? You said we should do it right away, within a year or two. There's going to be an election March 30. The~'s going to be some following elections. People go out of office. The majority shifts. That's the way life happens. They ,may not want that to go on. And because you put in some soft wear in here for open space seems to be presumptuous of all five of you to believe that you can control a future council. Now why do you? Covington expressed that he hoped he had never given the impression that he was trying to control any council but indicated he had no idea what the next city councilor the one after that would do. "I do know what I feel is right. I do know what responsibility I have been given as being appointed to this agency. I do know what the apparent public consensus is which is already reflected in the public stands taken by the General Plan Review Committee by a 'group of 21 ~itizens specifically charged with reviewing the General Plan to make it more amenable with current public desires. The Agency must agree. Any agency plan must agree with the"General Plan. Therefore, I take the position that, true, I cannot foresee the future. I don't know what will happen. But I do know what is possible now. I do know what the present publiC consensus appears to be and I have the opportunity and obligation and responsibility to make whatever small efforts are available now to accomplish those public wishes. And future counci1s,if they change that, that is as it should be. But we have an obligation to act now: not predict what's going to be in the future. Mrs.',Dorr then said that tax increment is the real purpose of this whole situation. That is the big key word - tax increment - tax increment - tax increment. We're going to need it for the sewer plant we've been told for months and months and months. Then now will there be anything left for open space? Covington responded that it is anticipated with the completion of R & B that the Redevelopment Agency will get between $240,000 and $250,000. 'Frank Sales asked Mr. Jacobs the following questions: "I think you're aware that the Council recently voted to spend $100l000 to buy a portion of the P. E. Right of Way. Now here's my question - the Leisure Wor1ders are assessed a tax on the Seal Beach schools. They send no children to school. They have no I I 3-8-71 ~.n8 l' complaints about this, however, it seems to me that the Council, by spending the $100,000 out of the general fund to buy this park is really taxing them double when indeed, a park could have been purchased out of redevelopment money. Now I understand that their taxes could go up to make up for what's necessary to send those 30 some children from Suburbia to school. I would like to know really how much it costs those Leisure Wor1ders for that difference in schoo 1 taxes." Jacobs said that if you're talking about the fiscal impact on I taxpayers in Seal Beach, use of the Redevelopment Agency funds is a relief of the burden on the taxpayer in the City of Seal Beach to the extent that that money would have had to come from 100% on the dollar from that taxpayer for school purposes or city 'purposes. No question, fiscally, this project, the more you use tax increment funds, the better off the taxpayer of Seal Beach is fiscally. The issues here, however, go well beyond these things. But the problem of whether or not to have density, parks and so forth is where the issue stands. Fiscally, there really is no question about the taxpayers coming out better. Sales indicated he understands that and posed one more question. "MY understanding is that you need more fire protection in downtown Seal Beach prior to any more building. This fire station could be on the Redevelopment Agency land. It would not, however, just benefit Riverfront Redevelopment area. Could this be built from Redevelopment Agency funds?" Jacobs answered that to whatever extent it benefits the project, yes. Tom Brady said "I think what we're really talking about here is what authority does the agency have? Now three new councilmen could change the power of the council. Three of those live outside the district, quote, unquote, Redevelopment Agency. They're going to have to make decisions on what happens down here. I The citizens in this end of town have not had a chance to take a vote on whether they want it or don't want it and it appears unfair that we didn't have that opportunity." Brady also pointed out how the agency could have high density, high rise and a great deal of income up to $500,000 if it continued. He feels the agency should be disbanded and that if a new council wants to start a new Redevelopment agency, then the people in "Old Town" should have a chance to speak concerning this. He feels the citizens should have something to say about'this. Covington indicated that the only citizens involved in the Redevelopment Agency right now are those who live in Suburbia. Brady indicated that the agency affects all of old town. Brady again indicated that the agency is unfair for the citizens in old town., He referred to the proposed Suburbia project on the P. E. Right of Way to help pay for the sewer plant and now we find out that that money is not needed to pay for it. He again reiterated that the citizens should have a voice in what happens regarding the Redevelopment Agency. He doesn't feel we've had a fair vote on it. Lindstrom indicated his opposition along with Brady against development of the P. E. Right of Way. "I was dead against that kind of action by the Redevelopment Agency then and I'm against it now." Lindstrom feels that the P. E. Right of Way should be purchased for pub)ic use and parking so that we won't have to fight the battle against I development of the area for years to come. Covington pointed out that this agency did not initiate the plan. It was initiated before we came. Jacobs indicated he had rewritten the resolution introduced by Mrs. Scheib1auer so that it would be put on the floor and it would read paragraph 1: "The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seal Beach hereby consents to the dissolution of the Agency." Paragraph 2 would state: "that the agency hereby recommends to the City Council that the agency be dissolved." Paragraph 3 would then read: "This resolution is effective if the City Council shall assume all responsibilities, debts and obligations 3-8-71 109 of the Agency at the date of dissolution and if all tax and other revenues due the Agency from the 1970-71 tax year shall be used to repay the City of ,Seal Beach for funds advanced by the City to the Agency." "That, I think, would have some legal effect," he indicated, although that was part of the resolution. It would also require an order from the City Council by a majority vote that the dissolution be done. I Covington then entertained a motion to approve the amended resolution. It was moved by Covington, second by Lindstrom. Covington invited more comments from the floor. I Mr. Leddy spoke. commenting that the General Plan Review Committee had requested the agency not to take any action whatsoever until, the General Plan Review Committee had completed its General Plan study. Leddy asked Jacobs if there was anything in the Redevelopment Agency documents that prevents these people on the Redevelopment Agency from voting themselves a salary. Jacobs said that any salary would have to be approved by the City Council. Leddy indicated that the point he is trying to make is that the people on the agency keep searching for reasons to keep the agency in existance when he feels that they're sure the majority of people that' are aware of the agency and understand it and the diversion of taxes from the other agencies are opposed to the agency. "I keep hearing any explanation of tax diversion; to use an example, vacant land. And the taxes from that land continue to go to other agencies, for instance, schools, only that improvement does not go to the schools. Another thing happens that you never mention, at least I haven't heard it mentioned. Suburbia is a good example. The schools still get the same taxes from the land that they got before the homes were built except that they now have 52 more students going to school from there. It's not only the Seal Beach school district but the Huntington Beach school district which is also affected. The junior colleges are also involved and the Redevelopment Agency isn't going to pay for those. " I Both Covington and Jackson responded to Mr. Leddy's comments. Jackson also asked about altering the present plan. He asked what the mechanics actually were of specifically changing the designations of housing development, parking space, parks, public use, etc. Jacobs answered that the Redevelopment Agency could pass a resolution which would suggest to the City Council the changes to be considered. A joint session could save time. It requires a three week notice. It would have to go the Planning Commission and they have 30 days to act on this and would make recommendations either for or against the changes and would then be forwarded to the City Council. Once the recommendations are made, it is in the hands of the City Council to pass an ordinance amending the plan. ' Mrs. Tom Brady asked what the agency can do for this town. Jacobs answered that there is no question, fiscally, that it is of benefit to the residents of the city since for example, you could pay 25% from normal taxes and perhaps 75% from other taxing agencies through. the Redevelopment Agency. Mrs.,Casarea asked how long the agency had been in existance with the citizens for it. The answer was about five months. She asked questions regarding conformance of the Redevelopment Agency Plan to the General Plan. Members then discussed the question of whether or not they were a policy making body. Dr. Jackson then asked if we passed the resolution as worijed by Mr. Jacobs, then what happens to the plan? Jacobs indicated it would be his recommendation that if you have all the votes then there is no argument as to what you want to do. I would recommend that an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan which in effect, terminated the Redevelopment Plan and as long as the City Council 3-8-71 1~O ~ picked up all the responsibility, let the City Council work its way out of this contract. There are one or two things in this contract which I think ought to be seriously looked at and to see what responsibilities there are. Unless the City Council did pick that up, I don't think you can effectively dissolve the problem. Questions were raised from the audience regarding ability of Mr. Jacobs to recommend and participate with the Redevelopment Agency Board. Covington answered that he was special legal counsel to the agency and was at the meeting at the request of the agency. Jackson then asked what we're voting on, is it to dissolve the agency or are we amending the plan? Jacobs answered that the only way the agency cou~d be dissolved is by a vote of the City Council. All the agency would be doing would be voting and consenting to dissolution. If the vote is unanimous by all five members which would then require action to be taken by the City Council. The actual act of dissolution is the City Council's. The resolution does not legally amend the plan. The problem tonight is that you're faced with an election in a couple weeks and you want to undo two or three years work. I'm not sure that you can do that. I think the resolution that you are about to vote on comes closest to it followed by a resolution of the City Council ordering dissolution. In my legal judgement, that would do it. The entire problem can't be cleaned up in a matter of two or three weeks. I Carl Sandfi11 asked can't this be dissolved by an emergency action. Jacobs said there is no way of overcoming a three week notice. Mr. Fuhrman asked about an emergency ordinance and three days provisions. Jacobs didn't feel that an emergency ordinance would have any effect. He reiterated that the minimum would be three weeks because the notice of heating provisions in the State Code. A vote was then taken on Resolution 71-6. I AYES: NOES: Scheib1auer, Barnes, Lindstrom Jackson, Covington Motion ,carried. The resolution would pass and would be ineffective as far as consent is concerned according to Section 33140 of the Community Redevelopment Law. The Redevelopment Agency recessed at 9:53 p.m. The Agency reconvened at 10:05 p.m. At 10:07 p.m., the Redevelopment Agency recessed to Executive Session. The Agency reconvened from Executive Session at 11:17 p.m. Resolution 71-7 introduced by Mr. Lindstrom and titled "A RESDLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SEAL BEACH" was presented. It was moved by Covington and seconded by Lindstrom to approve Resolution 71-7. Barnes felt that it was discriminatory to pay one school district and not another. Mrs. Scheib1auer felt that she would be against giving back money to school district at all and because once we start giving money back, there is no reason for the agency to exist. It should be dissolved. I AYES: NOES: Covington, Jackson, Lindstrom Barnes, Scheib1auer Motion carried Barnes introduced a resolution 71-8 "RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SEAL BEACH AUTHORIZING PAYMENTS TO ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS AFFECTED BY THE FORMATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF SEAL BEACH." The motion failed for lack of a second. 3-8-71 1~ Covington asked that the Executive Director-Secretary prepare amendments to the Redevelopment Plan to be presented to the Redevelopment Agency in its next meeting. An amended agreement with R & B Development Company was presented to the Redevelopment Agency by the City Attorney. It was moved by Covington, second by Jackson, to approve the agreement. I AYES: NOES: Covington, Barnes, Jackson, Lindstrom, Scheib1auer None Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS During oral communications, Mrs. Casares asked questions of Mr. Jacobs regarding the decision of declaring land blighted. Mr. Jacobs responded it was the authority of the City Council, after public hearings, to declare areas of land blighted by ordinance. Mrs; Casares then asked if low cost housing could be put in the redevelopment project area. Jacobs responded only if it's part of the redevelopment plan. Further discussion followed relating to amendments to the general plan and their effect upon the redevelopment plan. Jacobs was questioned by Mrs. Casares about conflicts between changes in t~e zoning laws of the city and the redevelopment plan. He answered that changes in zoning cannot conflict with the redevelopment plan. Upon further questioning by Mrs. Casares, Jacobs stated that the original plan of the redevelopment agency was to maximize private development and minimize public expenditures. The meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 11:42 p.m. I Executive Director-Secretary' I