The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRDA Min 1987-10-19 10-19-87 Seal Beach, California October 19, 1987 The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Seal Beach met in regular session at 6:45 p.m. with Chairman Hunt calling the meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Hunt Agency Members Clift, Grgas, Risner, Wilson Absent: None I Also present: Mr. Nelson, Executive Director Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney Mr. Joseph, Assistant City Manager Mrs. Yeo, City Clerk WAIVER OF FULL READING Wilson moved, second by Clift, to waive the reading in full of all resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading shall be deemed to be given by all Agency members after reading of the title unless specific request is made at that time for the reading of such resolution. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried APPROVAL OF MINUTES Risner moved, second by Clift, to approve the minutes of the regular Redevelopment Agency meeting of September 21, 1987. AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried I REPORT - ZOETER SCHOOL SITE ACQUISITION The Executive Director pointed out that the City previously purchased the playfield and bleacher area of the Zoeter site, now designated as Parcel 3, with General Fund monies set aside for that purpose, thereafter obtained through lease-purchase, funded by Redevelopment tax increment funds, the remainder of the playfield and the area on which the child care facilities are located, now designated as Parcel 2, and through the Redevelopment Agency it is now proposed to purchase the Pacific Coast Highway fronting parcel, Parcell, to be funded by revenues derived from a public- private venture to develop the Parcel for commercial uses consistent with the C-2 zoning of the site, while retaining and integrating the Mary Zoeter School building into the development. With regard to the Master Lease presented for consideration between the Agency and Gemtel Corporation and Dana MacKay, Mr. Nelson pointed out that should changes be proposed to that negotiated document, the result may cause other provisions of the lease to be less favorable, and require further negotiation. Agency member Grgas recalled that Gemtel was selected as one of two developers that agreed to work with the existing building, rehabilitate the structure for use for commercial purposes, which was the objective of the City Council, and that subsequently the lease was negotiated with a level of rent payable over the twenty-five year term of the lease to allow the purchase of the property from the School District, funded by the rental payments. Mr. Grgas referred to the lease provision allowing reconstruction of the building or construction of another building in the case of partial or total destruction, dependent upon the period of the lease, I 10-19-87 I and pointed out that in the event the property was destroyed early in the lease term and there was reconstruction of something other than the school building on the site, he would suggest that consideration be given to requiring a percentage of rents against the gross income on the property in addition to the minimum rent guarantee over the lease term. He referred to Section 4.4, Security Deposit, suggesting that the language be modified to require that the $10,000 security deposit be restored if drawn upon at any time and retained at a minimum of $10,000 per year7 Section 10.1(b), Alterations, allowing demolition of any presently existing structures on the premises with the exception of the School Building and the alteration of the Building with the exception of the footprint and the north and east load bearing walls, suggesting that a requirement be added that would allow the Council to architectually review the treatment of those two walls7 Section 20.l(a) , Rights of First Refusal, the tenant asking for a two year first right of refusal to purchase or lease the property at the end of the lease term, suggesting a period of six months would be more appropriate than two years7 and Section 20.l(c), requested that this Section and Section 20.2(c) on page fifty-three be deleted, explaining that as those provisions exist it would allow the tenant to exercise the first right of refusal twice. I Agency member Risner requested clarification as to the section of the lease that guarantees that the lessee will rehabilitate and retain the Zoeter School structure. The Executive Director referred to Section 10.1 as well as Section 7.2 which provides that the landlord may comment on the proposed plans and specifications, but shall have no right of approval or disapproval so long as the plans and specifications do not violate any provision of the lease. Agency member Risner suggested that the word npreserven be added to Section 10.1 which would provide an assurance that the basic structure and the appearance of the Mary Zoeter School building would be retained, also that a provision be added that would allow Agency approval of the architecture, noting that preservation of the structure was a prime consideration for selecting this developer. Mr. Nelson responded that he had hoped everyone would understand that with the development of this property for commercial use, the installation of signs, provision for parking, and the subdivision of the property through building alterations into stores for rental, the appearance will be modified from looking like a school to a shopping center. Mrs. Risner requested that a conceptual rendering of the development be provided to the Agency. Chairman Hunt recalled his understanding that the wording set forth in Section 10 of the lease is due to the desire for a requirement that would allow the City the ability to force the developer to retain the footprint of the school if the City chose to do so, although there was no agreement to retain the footprint. He also stated his understanding that once the contract was signed, Gemtel would come back with drawings and possibly a plan that would not include preservation of the school, showing the dollar differences and allow a decision to be made at that time as to whether or not the appearance of the school should be retained. Mr. Hunt stated he felt that if there would be any cost to the community it needs to be known, also that he recalled previous comment that any resemblance between the completed development and the original school building would be slight. Agency member Risner noted that the community expects that the school building will be retained, and objected to any deviation from that goal. Discussion continued. Agency member Clift concurred with the recommendations posed by Mr. Grgas, I 10-19-87 particularly with regard to architectural review. Agency member Wilson stated she felt it would be reasonable to request drawings of the conceptual development. Grgas moved, second by Risner, to direct the Executive Director to negotiate incorporation into the master lease document 1) an added provision for percentage rent in addition to the minimum rent in the event of destruction of the buildings and reconstruction of the buildings on the property~ 2) an obligation that the security deposit be I restored and maintained at $10,000 in the event it is drawn upon~ 3) add to Section 10.1(b), or another appropriate section, the architectural review of the North and East bearing walls~ 4) Section 20.1(a) be modified with regard to the two year right of refusal beyond the term of the expiration of the lease, reducing said period of time to six months~ and 5) delete Sections 20.l(c) and 20.2(c). AYES: NOES: Clift, Grgas, Hunt, Risner, Wilson None Motion carried It was the consensus of the Agency to hold over final approval of the master lease pending revision of the document as directed. The City Attorney noted that the changes directed by the Agency may raise further issues by the lessee. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no Oral Communications. ADJOURNMENT By unanimous consent of the Agency, the meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m. ~~.v -g;zairman I I