HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Min 1988-12-19
12-5-88 / 12-19-88
7xplained that the individual could file a police report if
1t were felt there was some act of wrong doing.
Mayor Hunt clarified that the joint public hearing would be
continued until Tuesday, January 3rd at 7:00 p.m.
The joint session concluded at approximately 12:35 a.m.
&~U~
I
Seal. Beach, California
December 19, 1988
The.Redevelopment Agency of the.City.of Seal Beach met in
regular session at 6:45.p.m. with.Chairman Grgas calling the
meeting to order with the Salute to the Flag.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chairiman Grgas .
Agencymembers Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson
Absent:
Agencymember Risner
I
Also present: Mr. Nelson, .Executive Director
Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney
By .unanimous consent .of the Agency members present, Mrs.
Risner's absence from the meeting was excused.
WAIVER OF FULL READING
Wilson moved, second by.Hunt, to waive the reading in full
of-all ~esolutions 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:
ABSENT:
G~gas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson
None.
Risner
Motion carried
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Agencymembe~ Wilson noted that she.was absent from the
November 21st meeting the~efore would abstain from voting on
this item, that the minutes should be corrected to reflect
her.absence .and the-presence of Agencymember Laszlo, and
that-the agenda-should be co~rected to reflect the date of
November 21st .rather -than the 27th. Chairman Grgas also
noted his absence f~om the-meeting of the 21st. Hunt moved,
second-by Laszlo, to approve the minutes of November 21st as
corrected.
I
I
I
o
I
12-19-88
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Hunt, Laszlo
None
Grgas, Wilson
Risner
Motion carried
ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT - FISCAL YEAR 1987/88
In response-to Agencymember Laszlo, M~. Nelson explained
that in recent years a change in State law requires a twenty
percent setaside--for-affo~dable housing and affects
redevelopment projects established-after a certain year, the
audit-repo~t merely noting that potential requirement. Mr.
Nelson -stated-a report will be forthcoming from the Finance
Director. relating to the-Surfside P~oject which has now
satisfied-their indebtedness, that the recommendations being
explored are-to either set aside the twenty percent from the
tax increment or to dissolve the-Project Area, also
explaining that in.recent past appropriate findings were
adopted relative to the outstanding debt of the Riverfront
Redevelopment Project -which, at this time, the tax increment
is me~ely covering the outstanding debt therefore exempt
from the twenty percent set aside for affordable housing
until such time as -there may be a surplus tax increment and
at that time may-be required.- He noted that under State law
the set aside can be used-to provide low and moderate income
housing within the project area-or to benefit the project
area,-or if monies were sufficient, could be used to
purchase, operate, o~ -subsidize housing, pointing out that
in the case-of-minimum funds the option would be for the
community to turn the-monies over to the County Housing
Authority for use to the benefit of persons within the
Project Area. He also explained that affordable or moderate
cost housing is -considered to be one hundred twenty percent
of-the County ave~age family income, that average in Orange
County approximately.$547'000. Chai~man Grgas added that the
average in Los Angeles-County.is somewhat lower, that the
guidelines used to determine average income are the U. S.
Department of Housing/Urban Development standards and are
applied on a countywide basis.
Laszlo moved, second by Wilson, to receive the annual
Financial Statement for the Seal Beach Redevelopment Agency
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1988.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson
None
Risner
Motion carried
ORAL.COMMUNICATIONS -
There were no Oral Communications.
CLOSED SESSION
No Closed Session was held.
ADJOURNMENT
Wilson moved, second by Hunt, to adjourn the meeting at 7:03
p.m.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Grgas, Hunt, Laszlo, Wilson
None-
Risner
Motion carried
12-19-88 / 1-3-89
~~r~
I
Seal Beach, California
January 3, 1989
The Redevelopment -Agency of the City of Seal Beach met in
adjourned-joint session with the City Council at
approximately 7:10 p.m.
Present:
Chairman Grgas
Agencymembers Hunt, Laszlo, Risner, Wilson
Absent:
None
Also present: Mr. Nelson, Executive Director
Mr. Stepanicich, City Attorney
Mr. -Knight, Director of Development Services I
Chief Stearns, Police Department
Mr. Jue, Director of Public Works/
City Engineer -
Mrs. Yeo, Secretary
CONTINUED JOINT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC
HEARING-- PROPOSED HELLMAN LAND DEVELOPMENT
Mayor Hunt declared the continued-joint/consolidated
Redevelopment Agency and City Council public-hearing open to
consider Amendment No.4 to the-Redevelopment Plan for the
Riverfront Redevelopment Project, amendment to the Hellman ~
Specific Plan,-General Plan Amendment la-88, Land Use
Element, General Plan -Amendment Ib-88, Open Space/
Conservation/Recreation Element, Tentative Parcel Map No.
86-349, Vesting Tentative Tract Map-No. 13198, and Precise
Plan-I-88. Mayor Hunt recalled previous agreement as to
procedures for this meeting where the-Council would have the
opportunity-to express their views with regard to the
proposed plan-based upon the information presented to date.
Mayor Hunt also noted recent reference to alternate plans of
Mola Development that incorporate some of the comments made
by-the public, therefore he would then ask that Mola present
those plans to the Council and public. Councilmember Risner
inquired if the-Council could consider new plans and the
original plan currently under consideration, should I
alternatives-be presented at this meeting. The City
Attorney responded that-if the applicant has decided there
may be alternatives that they would prefer to pursue or
raise with the Council, that could be done, however no
action could be taken on-alternatives at this meeting. He
added that one option would be for the developer to withdraw
his application, also if there were substantial revisions in
the alternative(s} then the proposal should be reviewed by
staff as to additional environmental review that may be
necessary, whether or not a new application would need to be
filed, also if the developer did not withdraw the
application a decision would have to be made as to what
action would be taken on the current application, whether it