Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-03-28 (7)MINUTES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Council Chamber, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, March 28, 1988 A tape recording of this meeting is on file in the City Clerk's Office Chairman Erskine called the regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 7 p.m.. AGENCY ROLL CALL Present: Kelly, Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays, Winchell, Bannister Absent: None JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Chairman Erskine announced that a joint meeting of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency had been called. COUNCIL ROLL CALL Present: Kelly, Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays, Winchell, Bannister Absent: None PUBLIC COMMENTS Dave Schulze suggested that the old Civic Center site (Townsquare) be utilized for underground parking with a park on top. He informed Council he had gath- ered approximately 315 opinions during an informal survey that were over- whelmingly in favor of a park, rather than condominiums on that site. Barbara Milkovich and Howard Watkins urged Council to preserve the Little Blue Church and relocate it. Councilman/Director Bannister left the room. (City, Council) PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF CODE AMENDMENT 87-15 - REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMISSION WITH DIRECTION - ROD WILSON ELECTRA MEDIA ON BEHALF OF WILSON FORD The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing continued open from March 21, 1988, to consider an appeal filed by Rod Wilson, Page 2 - Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 3/28/88 Electra Media, on behalf of Wilson Ford to the Planning Commission's denial of Code Amendment No. 87-15 which would amend Article 961 (Sign Code) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to allow electronic reader boards. Scott Hess, Associate Planner, presented a staff report. Kent Pierce, representing the Planning Commission Sub -Committee, appointed to explore the possibility of the Code Amendment, reviewed their findings. He stated he believed the proposed Code Amendment would result in the clean-up of existing signs on Beach Boulevard. He recommended various conditions to be placed on electronic readerboards, that such signs be limited to certain arterial streets and that the present code be strongly enforced. Rick Evans, Vice President of Huntington Jeep Eagle, described the competition between automobile dealers and described auto malls in other cities. He stated that his company is civic minded and mentioned youth organizations and community events which the company sponsors. He stated the company would pledge ten per cent of the message time for service messages, possibly emer- gency road information, at the discretion of the City Council. Rod Wilson, representing Electra Media, stated that Wilson .Ford and the AMC Company contracted with Electra Media to buy an electronic sign to compete with the competition of other automobile dealers in neighboring cities that have electronic signs. He stated that he had distributed to Council a fact sheet report addressing Planning Commission and staff's concerns. He reviewed the fact sheet -and showed Council a lamp cylinder and explained that its func- tion was to mitigate glare and halo effect from the sign. He showed Council a shade screen that would cut down on glare and spillage. He stated that the display contained a photo cell and would dim automatically at night. Roy Moosa and Eric Weber stated their opposition to proposed code amendment 87-15. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. Following discussion, a motion was made by Winchell, seconded by Erskine, to uphold the Planning Commission and deny Code Amendment 87-15 with findings for denial as set forth in the RCA dated March 21, 1988. Following discussion, the motion was withdrawn. Following discussion, a motion was made by Winchell, seconded Erskine, to refer Code Amendment 87-15 to the Planning Commission for .evaluation and recommendation upon an alternative ordinance that would allow electronic read- erboards subject to certain location and design standards numbers 1 through 8, as recommended by the Planning Commission Subcommittee and Department of Pub- lic Works in their "Minutes of Subcommittee Meeting on Electrical Reader Boards Tuesday, March 1, 1988", adding #9 defining major arterials and where they appear, modifying #5 to read: "Maximum sign area limited to 200 square feet...", and requiring photo cells to dim the sign at dusk. The motion car- ried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays, Winchell NOES: Kelly ABSENT: Bannister (out of the room) Page 3 - Redevelopment Agency Minutes -- 3/28/88 1 The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing continued open from March 21, 1988, to consider an appeal filed by Rod Wilson, Electra Media, to the Planning Commission's denial of Special Sign Permit 87-18 which would allow an electronic reader board sign at a height of 50 feet in lieu of 15 feet with an area of 400 square feet in lieu of 70 square feet. The proposed sign would be in excess of total number of signs allowed for the project. He stated that Council had been provided with copies of two peti- tions which had been submitted to the Planning Commission listing approxi- mately 75 signatures opposed to Special Sign Permit 87-18 included. The property is located at 18255 Beach Boulevard (on the west side of Beach Boulevard, south of Taylor Drive - Wilson Ford) in the C-2 (Commercial Dis- trict) Rod Wilson requested a continuance of the matter for ninety days. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. A motion was made by Mays, seconded by Kelly, to continue the public hearing open, with readvertisement, for ninety days to consider Special Sign Permit 87-18 based on findings for denial as set forth in the RCA dated March 21, '1988. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister (out of the room) The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing continued open from March 21, 1988, to consider an appeal filed by Rod Wilson, Electra Media, to the Planning Commission's denial of Special Sign Permit 87-19 which would allow an electronic reader board sign at a height of 50 feet in lieu of 15 feet with an area of 400 square feet in lieu of 70 square feet. The proposed sign would be in excess of total number of signs allowed for the project. The property is located at 16751 Beach Boulevard (west side of Beach Boulevard north of Terry Drive - Huntington AMC) Rod Wilson requested that the issue be continued for ninety days. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and .there being.. 'no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. Page 4 -y Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 3/28/88 A motion was. made by Finley, seconded by Mays, to continue the public hearing open, with readvert.isement, for ninety days to consider Special Sign Permit 87-19 based, on findings set forth in the RCA dated March 21, 1988. The motion carried by the following roll) call vote: 'AYES: Kelly, Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays, Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: Bannister (out of the room) The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider Resolution No. 5860 - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF SUCH PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN." (Property located on Olive between 5th and Main) The Deputy City Clerk announced'that all legal requirements for notification, and posting had been met, and that she had received a communication from Jim Koller regarding the matter. The City Administrator presented a staff report. Doug LaBelle, Deputy`City Administrator, Community Development, stated for. the record: "The matter before the City this evening in the five.actions for your consideration, five separate administrative hearings, are city hearings on resolutions of necessity relative to the acquisition of property for parking facilities to be constructed in the second and third blocks of Main Street. The hearing this evening is for the owners of the real property in question only. Not a part of, the consideration this evening is the question of compen- sation since that subject is for the courts to ultimately decide at a later date should you adopt the resolutions of necessity. The noticed hearings relate to the issues of the public interest and necessity, the greatest public good and least private injury and the necessity for the proposed project in question. "I have some general comments that I would like to make relative to the matter that will apply to the five separate hearings that will be conducted follow- ing this. The five acquisitions in question are needed for parking to be pro- vided in the downtown area public parking. For public facilities to be con- structed both in the second block of Main Street, bounded by Main, Third, Walnut and 'Olive; and in the third block of Main Street bounded by Main, Orange, Olive and 5th Street. In terms of the parking, in our analysis, the areas selected provide for a natural progression of parking in areas where surface parking presently exists. Clearly the need is there and the least impact will be suffered as a part of the acquisition of these properties." . The Mayor opened the -public hearing and stated that the law requires that only owners or their designated representatives, i.e. an attorney or other agent of Page 5 - Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 3/28/88 the real property in question may testify during the public hearing. He informed Council they were not to consider compensation since that subject is for the court, at a later date, to decide. The noticed hearings relate solely to the issues of: the public interest and necessity; the greatest public good and least private injury; necessity: for the proposed project; and the public use for which the property is to be taken which is a parking facility. He stated there had been questions raised regarding Redevelopment Agency Resolu- tion No. 48 pertaining to acquisition of property by the Agency by eminent domain. The Mayor clarified that Agency Resolution No. 48 did not apply to a City eminent domain proceeding. Jim Koller stated that tonight was the first time he had been informed of the reasons the city was taking his property. He stated he did not believe that all the requirements pertaining to eminent domain proceedings had been.met by the city. He stated he believed the parking structure could could be built on a city.owned lot bounded by 6th Street, Main Street and Orange Avenue. He stated that if a parking structure must be built on his property he wanted to be part of it. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. A motion was made by Kelly, seconded by Mays, to adopt Resolution No. 5860 pertaining to Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8, Block 304 of the Huntington Beach Tract, Assessor Parcel No. 024-143-12 and 17. The motion carried by the fol- lowing roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays, Winchell, Bannister NOES: None ABSENT: None RECESS - RECONVENE The Mayor called a recess of Council/Agency at 9:12 p.m The meeting was reconvened at 9:31 p.m. �.l s"Avrc- c2.c Mo Ww r.1r�VAaWwc PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider Resolution No. 5861 - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF SUCH PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN." The Mayor stated this was a resolution of necessity for a property to be acquired for a parking facility - Main -Pier Redevelopment Area - Assessors Parcel No. 024-148-1-9 located east of Third Street, south of Olive Avenue. The Deputy City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publication and posting had been met, and that she had received no communica- tions or written protests to the matter. Rage 6 - Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 3/28/88 The Deputy City Administrator/Community Development stated that this is a city action in this case, as in the other four cases, we have analyzed other -alter- natives in terms of parking facilities within the downtown area,. we have, analyzed both as a part of the Parsons, Brinkeroff, Quade and Douglas study, the 3DI study and as a part of implementing our overall downtown plan for revitalization. We have looked at other alternative locations and believe that the greatest public good and the least private injury, occurs as a result of locating parking in this location. The specific as it relates to this parcel: It is currently a single family residence. It is tenant -occupied and it is income property for the owner. The City currently has, or is acquiring, major holdings within the block, again, as a part of providing parking facilities in the second block. A strong point for the selection of this site over other alternatives is its close proximity to the Main Street retail core and the ability to provide the visitor serving public parking both to the beach area as well as the interior core. It is significant to note that a significant portion of the total pro- ject site is currently devoted to parking uses both as it relates to the Main Street core area and as it relates to uses along the 5th Street area. Again, it is free of surface oil encumbrances. It is adjacent to a vacant site to the north and is also adjacent to a site to the south that we are currently in the process or have been acquired on a willing seller basis by the City. Pro- ceeding ahead with the Resolution of Necessity on this item would, again, be in the greatest public good with the least private injury and staff would recommend favorable consideration by the City of the Resolution of Necessity. The Mayor opened the public hearing and stated that the law requires that only owners or their designated representatives, i.e. an attorney or other agent of the real property in question may testify during the public hearing. He .informed Council they were not to consider compensation since that subject is for the court, at a later date, to decide. The noticed hearings relate solely to the issues of: the public interest and necessity; the greatest public good and least private injury; necessity for the proposed project; and the public use for which the property is to be taken which is a parking facility. There being no one present to speak on the matter and there being no protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. A motion was made by Kelly, seconded by Green, to adopt Resolution No. 5861 pertaining to Lot 23, Block 203 of the Huntington Beach Tract, Assessor Parcel No. 024-148-19. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:. AYES: Kelly, Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays, Winchell, Bannister NOES: None ABSENT: None �.%��\lw�T.11 Vo L\■Jl �■r■� The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to, consider Resolution No. 5862 - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF SUCH PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN." (Fifth Street between Orange and Olive Avenues) Page i - Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 3/28/88 The Deputy City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, ,publication and posting had been met, and that she had received a communica- tion from Jim Koller�regarding the matter. The Deputy City Administrator/Community Development stated that this site is located within the third block: It is a part of an area designated ,for, a parking facility. The site in question is partially vacant. It does have a single tenant and one owner/business occupant, so its two tenants in the structure. The City currently has major holdings in this block that are pre- sently being utilized for parking purposes. Again as an alternative parking location its in close proximity to the Main Street retail core area and pro' vides needed parking for the interior Town Square area,as well as the Main Street retail core. It is free of surface encumbrances such as oil. It is adjacent on the north and south to property currently owned by the City of Huntington Beach. The selection of this location in terms of parking facility site 1n our analysis provides,, for the greatest public good and the least pri- vate injury. In selecting this site previously the city did analyze a number of alternative locations within the downtown core area; either because of their location to other uses or because of the uses on the site they were not selected and it was the City`s action to proceed forward with this location for a parking facility to be located within the downtown core area. The Mayor declared the hearing open and stated that the law requires that only owners or their designated representatives, i.e. an attorney or other agent of the real property in question may testify during the public hearing. He informed Council they were not to consider compensation since that subject is for the court, at a later date, to decide. Jhe�:nott ed hea,,rings relate solely to the issues of: the public interest and necessity; the greatest public good and least private injury; necessity for the proposed project; and the public use for which the property is to be taken which is a parking facility. There being, no one present to speak on the matter and there being no protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. A motion was made. by Kelly, seconded by Erskine, to adopt Resolution No. 5862 pertaining. to Lots 12 and 14, Block 304 of the Huntington Beach Tract, Assessor Parcel No. 024-143-20. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays, Winchell, Bannister NOES: None ABSENT: None The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider Resolution No. 5863 - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY �OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR,PUBLIC PURPOSES, AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF SUCH. .PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN." (Corner - south of Olive Avenue, east of Third Street) Page 8 - Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 3/28/88 The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements for notification, publi- cation and posting had been met, and that she had received a communication from Mr. Dennis Nicole. The Deputy City Administrator/Community Development stated that this site is located 1n the second block; it would be a part of the second block parking structure facility. The site in question is vacant and is currently being used for surface parking. The City currently has, or is acquiring, major holdings within the block to facilitate our parking efforts in the downtown area. Once again, as in the case of the other parcels, there is close proxi- mity to the Main Street retail core as well as the visitor serving beach area. This is an ideal location fora parking facility to meet the complying needs of the downtown core area. A significant portion of the total project site is currently devoted to parking uses. This site is free of surface oil encumbrances and again its adjacent to a single family residence to 'the south. All other properties in the project site are currently being required by the City on a willing seller basis other than the facility to the. south. Again, as previously stated, in' analyzing and selecting this site we.have looked at other alternative parking locations within the downtown area 'and selection of this site provides for the greatest. public good and least private injury in terms of the acquisition by the City. The Mayor declared the hearing open and stated that the law requires that only owners ortheir designated representatives, i.e. an attorney or other agent of the real property in question may testify during the public hearing. He informed Council they were not to consider compensation since that subject is for the court, at a later date, to decide. The noticed hearings relate solely to the issues of: the public interest and necessity; the greatest public good and least private injury; necessity for the proposed project; and the public use for which the property is to be taken which is a parking facility. Dennis Nicole stated he objected to the eminent domain proceedings to acquire his property. He stated he would rather trade his property. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the. Mayor. A motion was made by Kelly, seconded by Mays, to adopt Resolution No. 5863 pertaining to Lots 25 and 27, Block 203 of: the Huntington Beach Tract, Asses- sor parcel No. 024-148-12. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays, Winchell,.Bannister. NOES: None .'ABSENT: None The`Mayor clarified, with Mr. LaBelle, that the action taken by Council did not preclude continued negotiations regarding a trade. The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to. consider Resolution No. 5864 - °A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON Page 5 - Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 3/28/88 BEACH DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FOR. PUBLIC. PURPOSES, AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF SUCH PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN." (Corner - south of Orange Avenue, west of Fifth Street) The Deputy City Clerk announced that all legal requi rements ' for notification, publication and posting had been met, and that she had received no communica- tions or written protests to the matter. The Mayor declared the hearing open and.stated that the law requires that only owners or their designated representatives, i.e. an attorney or other agent of the real property in question may testify during the public hearing. He informed Council they were not to consider compensation since that subject is for the court, at a later date, to decide. The noticed hearings relate solely. . to the issues of; the public interest and necessity; the greatest public good and least private injury; necessity for the proposed project; and the public use for which the property is to.be taken which is a parking facility. Mr. LaBelle stated that his previous comments on the other hearing items would apply for the record in terms of the general overview I provided. We have analyzed a number of alternative sites in this case as well. We have looked" at areas interior and on the periphery to the downtown core area.. As previ- ously mentioned, the Civic Center site and other locations were evaluated as a part of our selection of these sites through the Parsons, Brinkeroff, Quade' :and Douglas study, the 3DI study and those sites were rejected for a variety of reasons related to proximity to other land. uses. Ithat parking would not be compatible with, holdings in the area, the difficulty in terms of impact on other private properties in terms of owner -occupied, tenant -occupied and developed sites and those in part led to the selection of the two locations in the downtown core area. This site, again, is in close proximity to the Main Street retail core and would provide the best possible parking location .for' that downtown core area. The site in question is a single family residence that is tenant occupied and it is income property for the owner. The City currently has major holdings in the block and a major portion of that block. T,he block is currently utilized for surface parking purposes. This particular" site is free of surface encumbrances such as oil and our analysis is that the, construction of the public parking facility in this location would. meet the ,greatest public good and least private injury through its incorporation into our parking plans for the downtown core area. 'There being noone present to speak on the matter and there being no protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. A motion was made by Kelly, seconded by Green, to adopt Resolution No. 5864 pertaining to Lot 28, Block 304 of the Huntington Beach Tract, Assessors Parcel Map 024-143-01. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays, Winchell, Bannister NOES: None :ABSENT: None Page 10 -.Redevelopment Agency Minutes - 3/28./88 The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider Resolution of Necessity for Parcels 024-148-01, 024-154-09 and 10 and 024-153-12. The City Clerk announced that all legal requirements -for notification, publi- cation and posting had been met, and that she had received a communication from Chllcutt Realty. a Doug LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator/Community Development stated that staff recommended the public hearing be continued to April 18, 1988 and in the interim staff would continue to negotiate with these property owners regarding acquisition of their property and/or agreements to participate in the project. The Mayor declared the hearing open and stated that the law requires that only owners or their designated representatives, i.e. an attorney or other agent of the real property in question may testify during the public hearing. He informed Council they were not to consider compensation since that subject is for the court, at a later date, to decide. The noticed hearings relate solely to the issues of: the public interest and necessity; the greatest public good and least private injury; necessity for the proposed project; and the public use for which the property is to be taken which is a parking facility. A. motion was made by Kelly, seconded by Green, to continue the public hearing open on Resolutions of Necessity - Eminent Domain - for parcels 024-148-01, 024-154-09 and 10 and 024-153-12 open to April 18, 1988 to consider the adop- tion of Resolution of Necessity for parcels 024-148-01, 024-154-09 and 10 and 024-153-12. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays, Winchell, Bannister NOES: None ABSENT: None On motion by Kelly, second Erskine, Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 2934, 2935 and 2936, after reading by title, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays, Winchell, Bannister NOES: None ABSENT: None (City Council) ORDINANCE NO 2.934 - ADOPTED - SIGNS WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF= WAY - ADVERTISING PANELS ON TELEPHONE 800THS "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH. AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING ARTICLE 961, SECTION 9610.4(o) RELATING TO SIGNS WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY." Page 11 — Redevelopment Agency Minutes = 3/28/88 (City Council) ORDINANCE NO 2935 — ADOPTED — BENCHES — LOCATIONAL CRITERIA — TELEPHONE BOOTHS "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON' BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER 12.36 RELATING TO BENCHES.° (City Council) ORDINANCE NO 2936 — ADOPiD — RESIDENTIAL ANIMAL PERMITS "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 7.12.160 RELATING TO RESIDENTIAL ANIMAL PER—' MITS." (Permits for keeping of one goose, rabbit or duck) (M Council) VERBAL REPORT RE WASHINGTON D C CONFERENCE Councilwoman Winchell presented a brief verbal report regarding the conference she attended in Washington D. C. regarding policy in relation to legislators. PRESENTLY LOCATED AT 11TH & PECAN— LITTLE BLUE CHURCH — TO BE RELOCATED ELSEWHERE ON TEMPORARY BASIS The Deputy City Clerk presented a communication from the Deputy City Admini= strator/Community Development regarding the relocation of the Little Blue Church located at llth and Pecan and the 6 x 8 accessory building, both have historical significance. The Deputy City Administrator/Community Development presented a staff report. A motion was made by Finley, seconded by Erskine, to direct staff to relocate the structures, including the accessory building, on a temporary basis and that $23,000 be authorized to effect such relocation. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays, Winchell, Bannister NOES: None ABSENT: None The Mayor referred to a letter from Mr. Watkins regarding the preservation of the Church and suggested that staff contact him to see if he wanted to parti-; cipate in the project. Mr. LaBelle stated that he had spoken with Mr. Watkins and that Mr. Watkins wanted to assist in the preservation of the Church. (City Council) — CLOSED SESSION — MUSHROOM FARM — ELLIS & GOLDENWEST .Mayor Erskine called. a Closed Session of Council to confer with its City .Attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code- Section 54956.9(c) (Council has decided to initiate or is deciding whether to initiate. litigation regarding the Mushroom Farm located at Ellis Avenue and Goldenwest. Street. b Page 12 - Redevelopment Agency Minutes 3/28/88 -PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Chairman Erskine called a Closed Session of the Redevelopment Agency pursuant to.Government Code Section 54956.8 to give instructions to the Agency's nego- tiator regarding negotiations with Griffin Realty concerning the sale and lease of property located between Pacific Coast Highway, Walnut Avenue, Main and 6th Streets, Identified as Assessor's Parcels 024-152-1, 2, 3, 4, (519 Walnut Avenue), 5 (501 Walnut), 6 (121-5th Street), 10 (508 Ocean), 11 (506 Ocean), 12 (504 Ocean), & 13 (518 Ocean). Parcels 024-153-1 (411 Walnut), 2 (118-5th Street), 3 (112-5th Street), 4 (127 Main Street), 5 (123 Main Street), 7 (117 Main Street), 8 (115 Main Street), 10 (420 Ocean), 11 (400 Ocean), 12 (408 Ocean), 13 (109 Main Street), 14 (105 Main Street.), 15 (404 P.C.H.), 16 (122-5th Street), 17 (121 Main Street), 18 (119 Main Street), 119 (113 Main Street), & 20 (111 Main Street). All located within the Main -Pier subarea of the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area. The Mayor/Chairman called a recess of Council/Agency at 10:01 p.m. The meet- ing was reconvened at 11 p.m. Mayor/Chairman Erskine stated that as a result of the -Closed Session the City Attorney was directed to proceed in acquiring the mushroom farm located on the northwest corner of Goldenwest Street and Ellis Avenue. The Mayor/Chairman adjourned the regular meeting of the City Council and the regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to 6 p.m., Monday,,April 4, 1988.. ATTEST: Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk/Clerk BY Deputy City Clerk/Deputy ClerX Alicia M. Wentworth Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency and City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Y Deputy .Ci.ty 1 er /De ty rk • Mayor/Chairman