Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-11-22-MINUTES Council Chamber, Civic Center �. Huntington Beach, California November 22, 1976 A tape recording and transcrip.t of this meeting are on file in the City_Clerk's Office.` Mayor Wieder called the adjourned regular meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency to order. Said meeting being held to conduct the continuation.of the public hearing with the Redevelopment,Coincniason on the Prod Redevelo posepment Plan for the Huntington Beach Downtown Project area, and.'to consider and act upon the final Environmental Impact Report• for the project and the Redevelopment'Plan, with the members of the Planning`Coamiission to be in attendance.' ROLL CALL - CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Present: Bartlett; PatItinson; Coen, Shenkman, Wieder . Gibbs (8:0O.P:M) Siebert (7„22 P M,) Shenkman:(8.:15 P.M,) iAbsent: :None ,i ROLL CALL .- REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION' The Vice -Chairman of the Redevelopment Commission called the meeting of the Redevelopment Conanission to order: Present: Greenbaum, Milkovich, Perez, -Garofalo, Klinge Absent: Granger,.Bazil , ROLL CALL - PLANNING COMMISSION -The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by the Secretary. Present: Gibson, Finley, Newman, Parkinson Absent: Shea, Slates,rBoyle The Assistant .City Administrator presented a review of the redevelopment plan, plan options,, plan modifications and .opportunities' for'plan reduction. Deputy City Attorney Amsbary presented the rules,;by'which the continued'public hearing would proceed, whereby only ,those people who left their name with the court reporter at the November 18,, 1976 meeting would be'allowed to.speak. Following discussion,, a motion was made by. Siebert that the ground.rules for the i meeting be as follows: ghat any member of the public be allowed to speak whether they signed up or not and:that'they be given unlimited.time..as previous speakers. The motion died for lack of a second..; 49 Paf;e #2 - Council Minutes - 11/22/76 A motion was ,made by Pattinson, second ,Coen, that the speaker be limited to those persons who signed up at the.November 1'8, 1576 meeting, that. the time be limited to a two hour time limit divided by those wishing to speak so that work can be done a fterwards.. Albert T. Boswell, 324 Camino San Clemente, San Clemente, addressed Council regarding the procedure for hearing testimony. ..Councilmen Pattinson and, Coen then modified their motion to limit the public testimony ,to two hours, ;to.allow initially those who. have. signed the list to speak, with the balance of the two hour period allotted to those persons not o.n.the list. The motion was passed by the following voter AYES: Bartlett, Pattinson, Coen, .Gibbs, Wieder NOES: Siebert ABSENT: Shenkman Donald Hart, 509 10th Street, City, addressed .Council and stated that he did not want his home encumbered by the Redevelopment Agency. He stated that he believed the ti.y had laws which they could enforce to improve the -Area, and -that the present 'businesses in the area were needed. He submitted a letter from a neighbor, Gertrude Reilly, in opposition to the proposed plan which was recorded as Exhibit No. 26. Robert.Stanko, 1401 Palm Avenue, City, addressed Council and stated that he was op;iosed to the destination resort concept,. He stated that he did not believe the area was blighted and that the city had laws to enforce building violations and .street conditions. He'stated he was opposed to .the redevelopment plan, however, if it were approved, he would recommend removal of the option areas and.redevelopment .in a low profile of the remaining minimum area.. Gail Langenbeck, resident,400 block of 9th Street, City, addressed Council regarding the proposed plan and presented questions regarding eminent domain, and the Acting Planning Director reported.on'the.matter. Mr. Kenneth Flint, 408 loth Street, City, addressed Council and presented reasons, Why he opposed the redevelopment plan, including what he believed would be increased density, traffic, noise and air pollution and'relocation of. residents and businesses. t .Mr. Richard Babiracki, 17091 Sandra Lee Lane, City, addressed Council and stated that he was riot here to speak for or against redevelopment but on what he believed to be the immorality of it.. He presented a letter from Mr. Bernard Adams, .Civil Engineer, Garden Grove, regarding the soundness .of the structure at 306 Pacific Coast Highway, known as the -Golden Bear. Mayor Wieder requested that a statement from. Albert Hoffman, 15115 Jeffrey Road, Irvine, Real Estate Broker, representing the. Max Hoeptner Properties, located between Main and Second -Streets, fronting on Pacific Coast Highway, be entered into the record. Said communication in favor of `the proposed redevelopment project was recorded as Exhibit No. 27. Roger Bloom, 125 16th•Street, Apartment 14, City, addressed Council and Mated that he believed consideration of the plan should'be'withheld until the Legiirinture provides property tax relief. Mr. L. D. Zender, 201 14th Street, City, addressed Council and presented reasons why�he opposed the plaii. He presented reasons why he did not believe the proposed Page #3 - Council Minutes - 11/22/76 plan'Was viable; and submitted what he ,stated were 100. cards of Persons in the area opposed to ttie..project. Said cards were. recorded'as Exhibit No. 28. RECESS. - RECONVENE 'fhe Mayor called a recess of Council -At 9:07 P.M. The Council was, reconvened by the Mayor '.9,: 20. P.M. Brian Hudson representing the American Civil, Liberties Union, 1704 E1 Camino Real, Tustin., and resident of Sector C of the.project area, addressed Council regarding the function of the A.C.L.U. He presented reasons':why he..believed.the proposed plan violated civil liberties, addressing such areas .as tax increment financing and relocation by reason, o.f eininent domain. John Manning, 410. 9.th'Street, City,'addressed Council'and added .his card to the previously', submitted. list opposing the plan. He also submitted a.clipping from the Daily .Pilot dated°N.ovember 19,:19.76 dealing with the fire on the 32nd story Occidental Tower downtown'Los. Angeles which he stated demonstrated the, necessity to commit funds for fire fighting. He stated that he d.id' not believe the detrimental aspects of the plan"tad been�presented. He stated that he.was opposed to tax increment financing.. Mr. Donald Weir; 40.1 20th Street, City, addressed Council and stated that he opposed the Redevelopment Plan. He informed, Council -of his, areas of concern and -also stated reasons why he believed oil operations were a'valuable asset tothe. city., Mr. Jim -Hensley, 6902 Seaway.Circl' 'City, addressed Council on behalf of his wife and himself.and urged the Council to Carr -- _ c i y out the wish of the community.regarding redevel: opment. Mr`. Robert Stapp, 421 1Oth Street City, addressed. Council in opposition to the plan .. P.. � y� PP stating that he believed Redevelopment would cause the area to suffer from density related problems and increased taxes. Mr. Robert Terry,. 19.711 Quiet Bay Lune, City, read a resolution prepared by the C.A.N.r' organization (Citizens*Against New Takes) supporting the establishment of a Redevelop- ment plan. He reported on the history of efforts :to redevelop the .downt.own.area and. spoke regarding reasons why he believed redevelopment was necessary. Mr,. Robert Shupe, 25255 Cabot Road, Laguna Hills, addressed Council regarding the i Montoya Legislation and,presented'a.copy.of the bill to the court.reporter•,. He :also read portions of the California Senate Local Government Committee Staff. Analysis of. said bill: He'referred; to an article from the Register.riewspaper dated November 26, 197.2 relative to the."Top of the Pier" plan. He`stated that he believed private enterprise would. develop -the area. Mr., Ray Cooper, 9392•Breakwater.Circle, City, President of District Educators Association of Huntington Beach- UnionHigh School District, addressed Council and stated _their concern.w.ith the.tax increment financing feature and its impact on the school district. He then read the resolution adopted by his association opposing the adoption -of the proposed redevelopment plan in its present form. a Mr. Ernest Oldfield, 1011 Park Street, City, addressed Council in' opposition to the "' proposed plan and spoke regarding the -.history of the city's development. Page #4 -.Council Minutes - llralg�/76 Debbie Dickerson, 19301 Waterbury Lane, City, addressed Council and presented a petition listing approximately 141 signatures of students and faculty.of Fountain Valley High School opposing the proposed Redevelopment plan. She then presented photographs of the project area to the City Council. Marie B.uckland, 21771 Kiowa Lane, City, addressed Council and stated that she be.ltevad a specific plan was. needed. She then'stated her concerns relative .to various aspects of the plan.. Brian Trela., 8832 Dolphin Drive, City, addr.essed.,Counc.il regarding the financial aspects of the plan. He then read. from Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations 1976 and also, commented on the plan, sub -areas, and Coastal Commission guidelines. Lance Jacot, 215 Crest Avenue,.City, addressed Council and stated that Denise Jacot had a petition with approximately 3,000 signatures in opposition to the proposed plan which should be entered into the record. He,then referred to a City agreement dated, July 16, 19..73 relative to the Terry litigation, which was recorded as Exhibit No. 29. He stated that he did not believe the Re'deve.lopment•plan would help the area and that he believed the general plan should be revised. He questioned the relationship Of the Terry litigation to. the Redevelopment plan and. the Deputy -City' Attorney reported on the matter. Councilman Shenkman left his chair and addressed the Council and.'audience. He ,. spoke regarding the proposed Redevelopment plan stating that he believed that rehabilitation and restoration of the.areas that are blighted is desirable. He stated that Plan A was not favored by the City Council and that he,was opposed to s high density plan. He stated he was prepared to .continue,,with staff help`. and community input, the development of'.a plan which encompasses the Montoya Legislation, low density in nature and keeping the character.of the City..as',the community desires. Councilman Siebert and Commissioner Perez hen presented their comments on aspects of the'plan. PUALIC.HEARING RECESSED TO JANUARY 31, 1977 On motion by Pattinson, second Gibbs, joint,public hearing.was recessed to Monday, January 3,1, 1977, at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber by unanimous vote.. The Redevelopment Commission then recessed to their joint public hearing with the City Council/Redevelopment Agency to_Monday, January 31, 1977,. at 7:.00 P.M. in.the Council Chamber by unanimous vote. ATTEST: YY Alicia M. Wentworth ----Clerk, - Harriett M. Wieder Mayor/Redevelopment Agency Chairman