Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Min 1981-02-23 4l~~ 2-23-81 Seal Beach, California February 23, 1981 The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 6:55 p.m. with Chairman Seltz calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Seitz Agency Members Kredell, Supple, Vanderstaay I Absent: Agency Member Laszlo Also Present: Mr. Thomas, Acting Executive Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES Agency Member Supple referred to a specific sentence under the discussion of the Department of Water and Power property during the February 9, 1981 Agency meeting and moved that that statement be corrected to read.... "increased condominium units that would provide income to cover interest costs to the Department of Water and POwer." Agency Member Vanderstaay seconded the motion. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Kredell, Seitz, Supple, Vanderstaay None Laszlo Motion carried Supple moved, second by Kredell, to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of January 26, 1981 as presented and the special meeting of February 9, 1981 as corrected. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Kredell, Seitz, Supple, Vanderstaay None Laszlo Motion carried I RESOLUTION NUMBER 81-2 - AUTHORIZING GRANT FUND APPLICATION - STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY Resolution Number 81-2 was presented to the Agency entitled '~ RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE COASTAL CONSERVANCY." The Acting E~ecutive Director stated the proposed resolution would provide staff the authority to pursue grant funds in the amount of $250,000 from the Coastal Conservancy for use on the Department of Water and Power property. Agency Member Supple asked if the amount of grant funds requested could be increased. Mr. Petrill, Executive Officer, State Coastal Conservancy, stated the Conservancy grant is proposed to replace the use of city Recreation funds and that Conservancy grants are generally no larger than the amount requested. It was the order of the Chair with consent of the Agency members present to hold over Items V, VI and VII of the agenda until all Agency members were present. AGENDA AMENDED Seltz moved, second by Vanderstaay, to amend the agenda to Include Oral Communlc~tions at the end of the meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Kredell, Seitz, Supple, Vanderstaay None Laszlo Motion carried I It was the order of the Chair with consent of the Agency members present to recess until 9:30 p.m. to consider Items V, VI and VII. The meeting recessed at 7:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:07 p.m. with Chairman Seitz calling the meeting to order. It is noted for the record that the City Attorney and all Agency members are present at the meeting. 2-23-81 453 I CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 81-2 - CONTINUED Kredell moved, second by Vanderstaay, to waive further reading and adopt Resolution Number 81-2 as presented. Chairman Seitz requested that the Agency gIve consideration to directing the staff to pursue alternatives for development of the Department of Water and Power property that may bring greater revenue to the city and still maintain environmental compatibility with the area. Private development of the area was discussed and It was suggested proposals be sought. Discussion continued. Mrs. Joyce Risner, 845 Driftwood Avenue, addressed the Council and requested that her statements be recorded for the record as follows: "I moved to Seal Beach in 1957, I moved to this area because I was a college student attending Long Beach State University and this was a low rent community at the time, one in which we could afford to live. I fell in love with Seal Beach and bought a home on the "Hi 11" in 1961. I have been active In numerous community support groups that have directly benefited this city and the County of Orange. My community service has included membership In the Orange County Grand Jury. I am not a member of any faction.... I am not pro-development, anti-park or pro-park, anti-development. I am a citizen who has witnessed political forces in action in this city and have been directly effected by the Intensity of their commitments. I am not at odds with anyone's rights to share their "dreams". I wi II defend those rights. I have at times 1 amented wi th despair, the inability of this community to solve disparaging problems without personal attack. I come before you tonight because I love this community. Here I raised my children and established my roots. I To me the City of Sea I Beach wi 11 a Iways be "Home" and I choose to live here at great personal sacrifice. I speak to you tonight about the proposed purchase of the DWP property and subsequent development of that property by implementation of the Coastal Conservancy.Plan. I have three major areas of concern, I) the solvency of the Riverfront Development Project; 2) the financial arrange- ments to purchase the DWP property; and 3) the Coastal Conservancy Plan. My first concern is: The financial position of the Agency under which the "Project" falls and the consequences to the City of Seal Beach. I am aware, J) that Merrill Lynch lists the Seal Beach Riverfront Redevelopment Agency as in serious danger of technical or actual default in its bond repayment. They have advised their Investors in this regard; 2) the RDA has borrowed hundreds of thousands of dollars from the City because of the financial commitments of that Agency whether to provide for public facilities or pay existing bonds Is not relevant. The solvency of the Agency is relevant and must be carefully examined; 3) the City of Seal Beach is depending upon the credibility and financial solvency of the RDA to repay Its loan; 4) the City of Seal Beach is hurting for money, so much so, that you as a City Council are dis- cussing formation of special assessment districts for I) lighting and 2) park maintenance. I My second concern deals with the financial arrangements to implement the plan. They are as follows: 1) the CEIP loan-- this is 3.1 million dollar federal loan is predicated upon a total commitment to the Coastal Conservancy Plan. The loan is based on the assumption that we can or could acquire the land for 1.5 mi 11 ion dollars. In fact, the land wi 11 cost 3 million dollars. It is based on the assumption that site restoration will cost $600,000, in fact it will be $2,200,000 to $3,200,000. Assuming the cultural center costs remain the same, the project cost projection including 460 2-23-81 catal izedri'nterest,"has"grown from 3.1 mi 11 ion dollars to 6.2 to 7.2 million dollars. These figures do not Include the interest paid on the loan which could almost approximate the loan itself. If we include the interest we are looking at a project approaching 10 million dollars. That, my friends, is for starters:...that is without development or maintenance costs. We base the purchase of this land on the assuredness that the federal loan is still a viable commodity. In light of recent statements by Mr. Stockman, Director of O.M.B., I question whether this loan will in fact be available under the revised conditions that seem to exist in Washington. My figures are based upon the Federal Grant application and the conclusions of the Gruen and Associates report filed with this cIty and the federal government. 2) The $450,000 Harbours, Beaches and Parks grant and the $450,000 Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund grant in AID. There may be a question as to funding since the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund is to be eliminated....according to Sunday's I.P.T. the office administering the fund was "put out of business as of 9 o'clock thIs morning." ThIs grant money, if available, locks the RDA and the City Into implementing the Coastal Conservancy Plan. I That brings me to my last' concern--the Coasta1 Conservancy Plan. This Plan was devised by a citizen group with the guidance of the Coastal Conservancy. The aims of this Oakland based Conservancy are honorable-- to provide and preserve for all the citizens of California as much public access to coastal regions as possible. I believe the goals of the citizen group were also honorable. To imply, however, that this plan was devised by a truly representative body of citizens of Seal Beach is incorrect. We are basing all of our commitments on a plan devised by less than one tenth of one percent of our population. This does not mean that their goals were not laudatory, it does mean that lilFor one, wanted to truly and unbiasly study the~ plan to see if I could share their dream. This plan and imple- mentation thereof, will effect our city for years to come. I therefore went to the public library to revIew the Coastal Conservancy Plan. I I looked at the plan in the context of "How would it effect the City of Seal Beach, what impact would this proposal have on all facets of our community and the services we require and especially how did It effect Old Town which would bear the burden of the plans impact. The following concerns me about 'the plan: 1) condos over commercial establishments and the marketability of same; 2) the fact that the data on financial cost was based on a study done by DWP In 1975; 3) the impact of 'congestion in the First Street area was not dealt with fn depth; 4) the commercial aspects of the plan seem to detract instead of enhance the present commercial development in our city ,i'ncludlng Main Street. I personally do not wish to have a "Ports of Call" ,in our midst; 5) I do support the concept of Main Street 'and I do not wish the city to be a part to strip and steppe zoning for commercial developments, we see this in many Orange County cities and it precludes a viable single business district. The "Hub" of our city is and always has been Main Street. I believe any development of this property should reinforce the integrity of Main Street; 6) no unbiased professional economic study has been made to support this plan; 7) if there are developers waiting in line to implement this plan; we have a right to know their names and the extent of their financial commitments; 8) if developed according to this plan, the City of Seal Beach will pay the maintenance costs of the park. If a rough rule of thumb is $10,000 per acre for a simple park then what will be the ongoing maintenance cost of the proposed 6 acres of complex public park'facilities. I 2-23-81 461 It is proposed that the RDA commit to an expenditure including loans in the magnitude of 10 million dollars without any economic studies. With the present financial condition of both the city and the RDA this plan does ~ot appear to be in the best interests of the citizens of Seal Beach. I I hope that this City Council, under the auspices of the Redevelopment Agency and more specifically the proposed Riverfront Redevelopment Project authorize a complete financial evaluation of the credibility of the proposed project before any further financial commitments including but not limited to the repayment of existing RDA bonds. In closing I would like to say that the RDA has accomplished much credible stimulas for desirable development both in the private and public sector however we must not misuse this tool and let our dreams and desires dictate and override the realities of life. Thank you." I Jean Dorr. 231 - 6th Street, expressed concern regarding funding for acquisition and restoration of the DWP parcel, recommended an accurate appraisal of costs be made and that careful evaluation of the proposed plan be undertaken. Mayor Kredell stated revenue from the proposed restaurant, sales and property taxes are estimated to generate $100,000 per year to the city and affirmed that there will be no cost to the city for the proposed project. Chairman Seitz reported receipt of a petition from the Seal Beach Senior Citizens Club submitted by Mrs. Dorr in opposition to the Department of Water and Power property purchase. Mr. Covington, 4260 Dogwood Avenue, spoke in support of the purchase and development of the site as proposed, noted the city's right to select the developer of the property and expressed optimism for substantial revenue return to the city. Discussion continued. Agency Member Supple referred to a January 22, 1981 letter from Gruen and Associates who had been engaged by the federal government to conduct an independent appraisal of the project in conjunction with the city's CEIP loan application and read several excerpts from the letter and the conclusions presented by Gruen. Agency Member Supple referred to his previous question posed to the City Attorney as to whether or not the design of the project plan would be frozen by acceptance of the CEIP loan. The City Attorney r.esponded that should the cIty find it necessary to change the design it would be necessary to apply to the federal government and the Coastal Commission for approval of any change, that changes could not be implemented without those approvals. Agency Member Supple read portions of a letter dated February 9, 1981 from the Coastal Conservancy to the Coastal Commission recommending Commission approval of certain plan amendment conditions and made specific reference to the statement "that any surplus proceeds from any condo sales be allocated towards funding of a youth hostel and/or cultural center on-site before release to City or acceleration of loan payments." Mr. Supple offered his interpretation of that statement and stated the plan would be unacceptable to him unless the financing, location and design of the project had total flexibility for the city and read the following statement for the record: I "After careful and extended study and analysis of the economic and financial status of the City of Seal Beach, I conclude that the city cannot now afford to divert or reclassify all or any portion of the so-called Bureau of Water and Power parcel of land (9+ acres), from "private ownership, tax producing" status to "City-owned, non-tax producing status." Mr. Joseph Petrillo, Coastal Conservancy, responded to Agency Member Supple's concern, agreed that the language of that statement was confusing and assured the Agency that it would be corrected to reflect Agency Member Supple's comments. Mr. Petrillo stated it was not Intended that the funds be locked into going to those two uses first, 4€~ 2-23-81 that they would be used only after satisfying every other use necessary to the project and assured the Agency that proceeds from the additional condominium units would be available to take care of any shortfall in the income for the project - for whatever reason. The City Attorney suggested that the Agency direct the Conservancy to rewrite the proposed conditions stating that the city be allowed to develop up to twenty- two condominium units with no conditions imposed. Agency Member Supple asked that the plan amendment conditions be rewritten as stated. Vote on the motion to adopt Resolution Number 81-2 as presented. I AYES: NOES: Kredell, Laszlo, Supple, Vanderstaay Seitz Motion carried DEPARTMENT OF WATER and POWER PROPERTY - PURCHASE OFFER The Acting Executive Director presented the staff report and noted receipt of a letter from the Department of Water and Power, Land Committee, indicating partial acceptance of the Agency's offer to purchase the D.W.P. site. Mr. Thomas reported the D.W.P. had some concerns, one being the now eight month old appraisal of the property. Laszlo moved, second by Vanderstaay, to authorize the City Attorney to prepare an amended offer to the Department of Water and Power indicating acceptance of a legally acceptable interest rate not to exceed ten percent on the unpaid balance of the purchase pr,ice, that escrow and title costs be shared and that the unpaid balance would be secured in a manner satisfactory to the Department of Water and Power. The City Attorney recommended that a schedule for interest payments also be included and stated he would suggest annual payment. Agency Member Supple suggested an ALTA guarantee title to the property would be preferable. AYES: NOES: Kredell, Laszlo, Supple, Vanderstaay Seitz Motion carried Agency Member Kredell moved to direct the city staff to negotiate and I draft whatever contracts and other documents necessary to acquire, restore and develop the San Gabriel Pacific Park project located on the nine acre DWP parcel according to the restoration plan previously approved by the City Council, the State Coastal Conservancy, and the California Coastal Commission, including a site acquisition contract with DWP and negotiation and signing of a Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) loan agreement with the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management and other contracts and agreements as needed, and to bring these documents to Council for execution, and that the staff work cooperatively with the Citizens Task Force and Coastal Conservancy staff to expedite the successful completion of the project, and presented a time schedule for specific decisions for development of the property. The City Attorney recommended the motion refer to the "plan as modified allowing up to twenty-two condominium units" and that the motion be contingent upon the sale of the site to the city by the Department of Water and Power. It was suggested the motion include the "Decision Points" as presented by Agency Member Kredell, but the time schedule be deleted and only considered as an objective. Chairman Seitz stated the proposed plan for the D.W.P. property has not received approval of the City, voiced objection to the motion direction staff to deal directly with the Citizens Task Force and suggested the staff confer with the Agency and Conservancy only. Agency Member Supple questioned the need for this motion. Mr. Grinell, Coastal Conservancy, stated the action would set forth the need to I proceed with the project in an orderly manner with clear direction to the Conservancy staff. Vote on the motion: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Kredell, Supple, Vanderstaay Seitz Laszlo Motion carried CLOSED LEGAL SESSION It was the order of the Chair with consent of the Agency to adjourn to 2-23-81 ... r.3 'it\.... , Closed Legal Session at 12:03 a.m. The meeting reconvened at 12:20 with the Executive Director reportIng the Agency had discussed a matter of litIgation. COMMUNICATION - URBAN WEST Kredell moved, second by Vanderstaay, to receive and file the communication from Urban West Communities dated February 6, 1981. I AYES: NOES: Kredell, Supple, Vanderstaay Laszlo, Seitz Motion carried ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Kredell moved, second by Vanderstaay, that a moratorium be placed on all two-story cabana construction in the Trailer Park. There was a brief discussion regarding liability of the city regarding this action. AYES: NOES: Kredell, Laszlo, Supple, Vanderstaay Seltz Motion carried ADJOURNMENT Laszlo moved, second by Vanderstaay, to adjourn the meeting at 12:25 a.m. AYES: NOES: Kredell, Laszlo, Seitz, Supple, Vanderstaay None Motion carried I I