Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes-01-30-79-Adjourned Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THEE~� CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 30, 1979 The City Council/Community Development Commission of the City of Downey held an adjourned regular meeting at 5:30 p.m., January 30, 1979, in the Green Room of the Downey Theatre, Mayor/Chairman William L. Greene presiding. PRESENT: Council Members/Commissioners: Theodore H. Jackman Kenneth J. Miller Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-Chairman Milton R. Mackaig Lyell W. Swearingen William L. Greene Mayor/Chairman Planning Commission: Frank Beckner Chairman Don Trapp A.A. D'Alessandro Len Rullo ABSENT: John K. Morris Vice -Chairman ALSO PRESENT: Charles W. Thompson, City Manager William A. Goggin, City Planner Howard Stup, Building Official Thomas Tincher, Housing & Redevelopment Coordinator Robert L. Shand, City Clerk -Treasurer CITY COUNCIL Mayor Greene requested the City Clerk to explain the reason for not having an executive session between the City Council and Planning Commission. Mr. Shand explained the City Attorney said the City Council and Planning Commission cannot meet together in executive session. He then cited Section 54957 of the California Government Code regarding executive sessions. A discussion was held regarding the Planning Commission memo to the City Council dated January 18, 1979, concerning Zone Change Case No. 137. Councilman Jackman stated concern regarding release of the memo to the press. It was noted copies of the memo were dispatched directly at the press conference. Mr. Thompson explained the normal procedure for distributing Council Agenda packets and indicated that due to the Wednesday night Planning Commission meeting schedule, it is not always possible to include pertinent data in the Council packet on the following Thursday. Consequently, some items must be handcarried to the Council after the packets have been distributed. Commissioner Rullo summarized the circumstances of Zone Change Case No. 137 and the question now before the Council. He feels his opinion of this case should be tested in Court. Councilman Miller said it appears the recommendation given to the Council by the Planning Commission is to grant the applicant more use of the property but to leave Council with the power to control the situation if it becomes necessary. Councilman Swearingen feels the applicant should be allowed to operate his business so as to give the City its full value of revenue. Commissioner D'Alessandro said the Commission.was given to understand by the City Attorney that cases of this nature are spot zoning. He said it was the Planning Commission.'s recommendation as an alternative that the original Zone Exception be expanded to allow flexibility in the business operation without having to rezone to the unrestricted C-1 zone, and it was hoped this alternative would be emphasized by staff to the Council at the zone change hearing. Council/Comm. Dev. Comm./Planning Comm. 1/30/79 (adjourned) -1- Mr. Thompson commented that during the Zone Change hearing before the Council, Mr. Goggin did present the entire case of the Planning Commission to the fullest extent possible. Mr. D'Alessandro commented that the City Attorney attending the Planning Commission said the case is indeed spot zoning; however, a different City Attorney attending the Council meeting offered a different opinion. The crux of the entire matter is whether the Council would have made the decision it did if the Council was aware of the information rendered by the City Attorney who attended the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Goggin reviewed the procedure for handling the filing of an appeal to a zone change case, which includes sending a report and the Minutes of the Planning Commission to the City Council. Councilman Mackaig said inasmuch as he is relatively new on the City Council, he would appreciate any input on past Council actions. Commissioner D'Alessandro suggested the Council consider a motion to indicate to the City Attorney that the Commission and Council be firmly informed as to whether a case is or is not spot zoning. For the record, Councilman Miller asked Commissioner Rullo if he, Councilman Miller, at any time during the hearings or until last night had any conversation about the Zone Change Case with Commissioner Rullo. Commissioner Rullo replied no, not at all. It was moved by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Mackaig, and passed by the following vote that the City Manager take steps to find out exactly what spot zoning is according to case law and come back with a definition to be used in the future by the Planning Commission and City Council to guide in making intelligent decisions. Mayor Greene suggested the same City Attorney sit in on both City Council and Planning Commission meetings. Mr. Thompson explained this procedure has been set up because of conflicting schedules among the attorneys in the City Attorney's office. AYES: 5 Council Members: Jackman, Miller, Mackaig, Swearingen, Greene It was moved by Councilman Miller, seconded by Councilman Mackaig, and passed by unanimous vote to instruct the City Manager to determine if there is any reason why there cannot be the same City Attorney for the Planning Commission and City Council Meetings, preferably Mr. Newton. Discussion followed regarding the City Attorney's retainer fee and disburse- ments for legal services. Councilman Mackaig requested the City Manager to obtain costs for services rendered by the City Attorney over the past five years. It was moved by Councilman Miller and seconded by Mayor Greene that the Ordinance introduced in Zone Change Case No. 137 be held in abeyance pending definition requested from the City Attorney regarding spot zoning. AYES: 2 Council Members: Miller, Greene NOES: 2 Council Members: Mackaig, Swearingen ABSTAIN: 1 Council Member: Jackman Failed. Mavor Greene declared a recess from 6:25 p.m. to 6:45 p.m. The meeting resumed with all Council Members/Commissioners present. Planning Commissioners present: Beckner, Trapp; Absent: Morris, D'Alessandro, Rullo. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Mr. Thompson discussed the Owner Participation Agreement (CPA) on the Cordono Property. He reviewed the minimum and maximum resale appraisals on the Cordono property. If the project goes to bond, Dean Witter suggests taking back one-fourth of the tax increment as a reserve to show prospective bond holders how much leeway the City has. Mr. Thompson said $680,000 Revenue Sharing Funds exist and could be Council/Comm. Dev. Comm./Planning Comm. 1/30/79 (adjourned) -2- utilized for bonding. He then proceeded to review the future outlook on revenue funds. A discussion was held regarding financing of future Redevelopment projects. Mr. Thompson anticipates the City will receive between $420-430,000 Revenue Sharing Funds during the coming fiscal year and approximately $350,000 the follow- ing year. Further discussion ensued on the manner in which the Community Development Commission would be protected in the event of default on the part of the developer of the property. It is anticipated the Cordono property will require 15 months for completion, after which the first year tax increment on the Cordono property will be approximately $67,000. In the event of failure to perform under the OPA, the agency would have the right to repossess the property and use the money to cover any costs incurred. The City would be the first beneficiary under the Deed of Trust in the event of project failure. Mr. Tincher explained the Cordono property is nearing the time to make actual plans for redevelopment of the property. He needs the Commission's indication of support so that he can proceed. Mr. Tincher said Mr. Cordono has indicated he needs to know the Commission's reaction because when he signs the OPA and if he has to redeem on that, he will be throwing away $84,000. It was moved by Commissioner Jackman, seconded by Chairman Greene, and passed by the following vote to approve the financial analysis as presented on the Cordono property. Commissioner Mackaig asked if the proposed reconstruction of Firestone Boule- vard to create a left turn lane for $30,000 can be billed to the State. Mr. Thompson replied no, the City has already charged the State approximately $800,000 for revamping traffic signals and controls. AYES: 5 Commissioners: Jackman, Miller, Mackaig, Swearingen, Greene Commissioner Miller inquired about the 911 Communications Center. Mr. Thompson explained the money will be coming back in terms of the payment schedule; plus, there will be this year's and next year's entitlement of Revenue Sharing Funds, and these will be sufficient to build the 911 facility if the City decides to do so. Mr. Tincher then commented on the OPA for the Mingura/McAlister Property in the Gardendale-Paramount area. He said the owners have expressed concern regarding out of pocket cash for their share of the block wall and sidewalk along Paramount. He then reviewed three amendments to the OPA: 1. For the Commission to increase the estimated cost for demolition from $200 to $700. 2. The property owners would make the improvements themselves and be reimbursed by the City. 3. The Commission will pay the costs for moving the water meter and water main in the alley. It was moved by Chairman Greene, seconded by Commissioner Jackman, and passed by the following vote to approve proposed changes on the Mingura/McAlister OPA and that appropriate revisions be incorporated in the OPA. Following discussion, Commissioner Mackaig made an amended motion to not approve amendment #1; to approve amendment #2 but make it stay at the $4500 figure; and approve amendment #3. The motion died for lack of a second. A discussion was held regarding use of HCD Funds for this project if approved. Roll call vote on original motion to approve proposed changes: AYES: 5 Council Members: Jackman, Miller, Mackaig, Swearingen, Greene Council/Comm. Dev. Comm./Planning Comm. 1/30/79 (adjourned) -3- Mr. Tincher gave a status report on the OPA for the Diller Project, which he said will be broken down into two agreements: One would be an OPA for the develop- ment of a senior citizen building; the second would be for a medical office building and parking structure. The consultants are exploring the revenue approach for this project. He said it is proposed the City's commitment with respect to the senior citizen building would be to agree to acquire the Blocker & Rowell property if Mr. Diller is unable to negotiate the sale of that property. Mr. Tincher said Mr. Mike Huggins has formed a meeting of a citizens rehabilitation committee regarding the Golden Park neighborhood effort (enhancement program). He mentioned he received a telephone call yesterday regarding the next committee meeting. Commissioner Jackman said he also received a call regarding this and will not be able to attend the meeting on such short notice. He said in the future he would prefer to have advance notice. Mr. Tincher requested the Commission set another study session: At 7:50 p.m., Chairman Greene adjourned the meeting to 5:00 p.m., February 6, 1979, in the Council Chamber of the Downey City Hall. I Robert L. Shand, City Clerk -Treasurer i/Z--G R William L. Greene, Mayor/Chairman Council/Comm. Dev. Comm./Planning Comm. 1/30/79 (adjourned) -4-