HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes-06-20-83-Adjourned Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE
CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 20, 1983
The City Council/Community Development Commission held an adjourned regular
meeting at 7:30 p.m., June 20, 1983, in the Downey Community Theatre, Mayor/
Chairman James T. Quinn presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members/Commissioners:
James T. Quinn Mayor/Chairman
Robert G. Cormack Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-Chairman
Theodore H. Jackman
Randall R. Barb
Bob Davila
ALSO PRESENT: Bud Ovrom, City Manager
Carl K. Newton, City Attorney
Graham Ritchie, Special Legal Counsel
James R. Jarrett, Director of Recreation
Dudley Lang, Consultant
Mike Wagner, Consultant
Robert L. Shand, City Clerk
Judy McDonnell, Secretary
The Invocation was delivered by Councilman Jackman, The Flag Salute was led
by Councilman Barb.
Mayor Quinn opened the joint hearing of the City Council and Community
Development Commission regarding proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment No. 3 for
the Downey Redevelopment Project and the Associated Environmental Impact Report.
He inquired if the City Clerk had the Proof of Publication and Affidavit of Mail-
ing, and the response was yes.
It was moved by Councilman Jackman and so ordered to receive and file the
Proof and Affidavit.
Mayor Quinn announced the purpose of the joint hearing is to consider the
proposed Plan Amendment No. 3 for the Downey Redevelopment Plan. He said as Mayor,
he will chair the hearing.
Mr. Lang explained copies of the Redevelopment Plan have been posted for public
review showing the four original areas and the 28 areas proposed to be added, which
would be subject to all of the controls of redevelopment, as well as all the bene-
fits. He then cited reasons for considering a redevelopment plan, which include
eliminating blight conditions within an amended project area. If the Council
approves the Plan, it will be providing a vehicle, whereby the community can main-
tain both residential and commercial areas and improve those areas as to property
values and uses of the property. Mr. Lang stated that with regard to residential
properties, which might be included in the Plan, the City Council would envision
that the Community Development Commission, within a year after adoption of the
Plan, would have low interest loan programs available to facilitate rehabilitation
of any homes within the project area. The Redevelopment Plan does contain an
eminent domain provision for residential properties, but it would not apply to
single family owner -occupied homes that are occupied at the time of the Plan's
adoption. However, if a property is sold, it might be subject to acquisition by
negotiation or condemnation by the agency. He pointed out that any acquisition by
the Commission would probably be limited, and he does not foresee any acquisition
efforts for residential areas --any efforts would be in the way of rehabilitation.
The only area where he could foresee acquisition of residential would be in
commercial areas where the City's General Plan is for commercial and the residential
would be nonconforming, and the eminent domain exemption would still apply on the
property even if there is eventual commercial use. For commercial property, the
Commission envisions property acquisition and relocation efforts through the use of
tax exempt financing. Following adoption of the Plan, the Commission would enter-
tain offers for redevelopment, which could also come from conforming owners of
properties now complying with the goals of the Plan. The eminent domain provision
would apply in commercial areas, and all commercial properties would be subject to
acquisition by eminent domain should the Commission feel it would be necessary to
further an approved project. Mr. Lang commented on the documents presented to the
Council and Commission for this hearing and said correspondence has been received
from Los Angeles County indicating they wish to share in the tax increments created
Council/Comm. Dev. Comm. Minutes 6/20/83 (adj.) -1-
by the Redevelopment Plan and would expect 60 percent of the tax dollars. The City
has made a counter offer to the County for a more equitable sharing of the tax
increment money in order to finance the proposed Plan, and it is anticipated the
County will allow the City to do the financing and pay the County later. Mr. Lang
commented on the Planning Commission's study of the Redevelopment Plan and its
recommendation of approval with the exception that Area 10 be deleted because
development is now taking place.
Mr. Lang mentioned the Project Area Committee has reviewed various aspects of
the Plan and passed resolutions concerning changes in the existing rules for parti-
cipation; the method and plan for relocation of families affected by the Plan, as
well as eminent domain exemption and inclusion of vacant properties adjoining
owner -occupied single family residences. The Committee also adopted a resolution
for rejection of the Plan. He read into the record Resolution No. 6 of the Project
Area Committee adopted June 15, 1983, recommending rejection of the Plan. Mr. Lang
stated the Project Area Committee also reviewed each project area, and for the
record, he cited the following recommendations made by the Committee:
Area
1
- Include.
Area
2
- Include.
Area
3
- Include with amendment.
Area
4
- Exclude.
Area
5
- Exclude.
Area
6
- Include.
Area
7
- Exclude.
Area
8
- Exclude.
Area
9
- Include.
Area
10—
Exclude.
Area
12
- Include.
Area
13
- Include.
Area
14
- Include.
Area
15
- Exclude.
Area
16
- Exclude.
Area
17
- Include.
Area
18
- Include with amendments.
Area
19
- Exclude.
Area
20
- Exclude.
Area
21
- Include.
Area
22
- Include.
Area
23
- Include.
Area
24
- Exclude.
Area
25
- Include.
Area
26
- Include.
Area
27
- Exclude.
Area
28
- Exclude.
Area
29
- No recommendation.
Mr. Lang also indicated the County has requested the City consider excluding
County -owned areas, such as the County golf course, Rancho Los Amigos Hospital,
County courthouse building, and County data facility on Imperial Highway.
Mr. Wagner reported on the Environmental Impact Report which was prepared and
distributed to the State clearing house, Project Area Committee, and taxing enti-
ties, and copies were made available for public review. The Notice of Availability
was published. Comments have been received from the Regional Quality Control BOard
and Department of Transportation. He commented on the anticipated financial
feasibility of the proposed project and tax increment money to be received. MR.
Wagner then narrated a slide presentation showing properties in the various
redevelopment areas. He described the official Blight Report to be submitted as
part of the record.
It was moved by Councilman Davila to scrap Redevelopment Plan Amendment no. 3.
There was no second.
Mayor Quinn set forth the guidelines under which people may address the chair
and said any written comments should be given to the City Clerk.
Mr. Shand indicated he has received 39 communications, two in favor and 37
opposed. An aggregate of 656 signatures have been received on various petitions
protesting the Redevelopment Plan.
Mayor Quinn then called for anyone desiring to speak to address the Council.
He mentioned there will be no cross-examination.
Mr. Harold Eck, resident of Downey and owner of the Tri City Mobile Park and
Orange Grove Mobile Park in Area 25, said he has submitted petitions signed by all
mem ers of the two parks. He indicated that as required by law, in 1981 he gave
legal status of each mobile park, and he read from a letter issued by the City
advising him of non -conforming legal status for 15 years. He introduced Dr. Donald
Thomas, representing both mobile parks and the residents.
Dr. Donald Thomas, residing in Orange grove park, 13331 Lakewood Boulevard,
said most of the residents are senior citizens. He spoke in opposition to the
proposed redevelopment Plan.
Mr. Earl Lane, West Lomita Boulevard, Harbor City, representing the Golden
State Mobile Owners League, expressed hope the two mobile home parks will be
eliminated from the proposed Redevelopment Plan and said he is opposed to closure
Council/Comm. Dev. Comm. Minutes 6/20/83 (adj.) -2-
?a i3
of any mobile home park. He commented on the responsibility of the owner of a
mobile home park to maintain the premises. He also opposed eminent domain.
Mr. Frank Montleone, President of the Downey Board of Realtors, expressed the
Board of Realtors' opposition to Redevelopment plan Amendment No. 3.
Olga May, 9826§ Paramount Boulevard, in Section 8, spoke against redevelopment
in the form presented. She commented on plans of private enterprise in the area
to spend money for remodeling properties, and she requested Section 8 be deleted
from the Plan. Ms. May mentioned her attorney is present to speak on behalf of
the property owners in Section 8, who are unanimously opposed to the redevelopment
in its present form.
Mr. Richard Del Gursio, attorney, 601 West 5th'Street, Los Angeles, spoke as
representative of property owners in Section 8, who are in opposition to inclusion
of their area in the Plan.
Diane Boggs, 8629 Meadow Road, President-elect of Downey Chamber of Commerce,
stated the Chamber approves redevelopment for the City but does not support the
totality of Project Amendment No. 3.
Arthur Mitani, 9920 Paramount Boulevard, location of Ferndale Nursery, said
they employ 30 people and collect approximately $1.5 Million a year in taxable
sales. He questioned how the City could get anymore tax money by making them
leave their present location.
Ken Davis commented on the long-time residency of his family in the City of
Downey, owner of a duplex at 12817 Downey Avenue and a vacant lot on Adoree. HE
does not feel people should have to give away their 'property.
Evelyn Burback, 9636 Downey Avenue, owner of business properties at the
corner of Florence and Paramount in Section 8, said the property has five new
businesses; also, the auto repair shop is up for lease. She does not feel the
properties are blighted and Section 8 should be deleted.
Bob Moniacci, 8572 Cherokee Drive, said he sees tremendous deterioration
occurring in the City and has complained about this. However, he is not sure the
Council is moving in the right direction with this proposal. He suggested a brief
explanation of the proposal be given to the people present.
Mayor Quinn declared a recess from 8:40 p.m. to 8:54 p.m. The meeting resumed
with all Council Members present.
Mayor Quinn explained the Redevelopment Plan is now coming to reality, and he
mentioned the groundbreaking that took place for the new hotel on Firestone; the
new office building on Stewart & Gray and Firestone; and plans for a Black ANgus
restaurant. The proposed Redevelopment Plan is a 30-year plan, and many hours have
been spent on ways to enhance the City. He said eminent domain will not be enforced
if the property is owner -occupied.
Mr. Ritchie also explained any redevelopment plan may contain provisions for
exercise of powers of eminent domain, and if the City intends to exercise that
power, then it must inform people at the time of sending the public hearing notices
that their property may be subject to eminent domain. If notice is not given, then
the agency may not be able to exercise that power in the future. The agency is not
obligated to place the power of eminent domain on any property within the Redevelop-
ment Project Area. After the public hearing, the agency may decide the power of
eminent domain will not be exercised, and then written assurance must be given in
the Plan. When asked how eminent domain can be removed from property in the future,
Mr. Ritchie replied if eminent domain is in the Plan, then property would be subject
to that power at any time in the future. Approval of the Plan, through adoption of
an Ordinance by the City Council, is subject to the power of referendum.
Mr. Moniacci indicated he has property on Firestone in need of upgrading, and
while he has the financial capability, he cannot get cooperation from the City.
Mayor Quinn mentioned he will be making a motion that the Council not make
any decision this evening but to have staff continue to review the matter and re-
consider the entire area.
Dave Gomez, 12751 Brock Avenue, commented on his experience with redevelopment
in South Gate and how tax increment funds are held by the County. He said once a
property is considered blight, the value goes down.
Council/Comm. Dev. Comm. Minutes 6/20/83 (adj.) -3-
7d.l �
Mr. Harold Tredway, 9277 Otto Street, speaking on behalf of Cerritos College
as President of the Board of Trustees, explained that under Proposition 13, taxing
agencies are permitted to increase assessed valuation of property two percent per
year unless it is sold, at which time the property is reassessed. The effect is
that the two percent increase goes to the redevelopment agency. Mr. Tredway stated
the Board of Trustees took action to oppose any redevelopment project unless satis-
factory arrangement is made with Cerritos College to receive an equitable share in
the increase of revenue. Alletter to this affect has been sent to the City.
Yvonne Knickerbocker, owner of the Regency Restaurant, does not see that
taking the restaurant under the Redevelopment Plan would be beneficial to the CI-y.
Scott Alden, 13328 Castana, indicated the time of the hearing was ommitted
from the letter sent by the City. He said Downey, compared to surrounding areas,
is one of the finest cities in the area, and he does not concur with selecting
several small areas that do not meet the City's code in order to fix the entire
area. He commented on people's confusion over the eminent domain provision.
Eleanor Lindenfeld, 8846 Manzanar, introduced her father, who resides at
8856 Manzanar, and said both of them have lived in the same block since 1946. SHe
spoke in opposition to redevelopment being used to take people's homes so that
builders can make money from their properties. Ms. Lindenfeld said the homes in
the are are not substandard, and they would only lose value if they were to front
on commercial. She said a petition was presented in February signed by approxi-
mately 500 citizens requesting their homes be deleted. Ms. Lindenfeld commented
on the review by the Project Area Committee and requested residential properties
be deleted from the Redevelopment Plan.
Shellie Jones, 13213 Lakewood Boulevard, concurred with previous speakers
and said the threat of uprooting their home is very disturbing. She feels the areas
shown in the slide presentation could be found in any neighborhood of the City, and
she urged the Council to drive through the areas and judge for themselves.
Joyce (inaudible), 11661 Bellflower Boulevard, representing people on BUckles
Avenue in Area 17, spoke against the eminent domain provision. She commented on
the upgrading that has been done by herself and neighbors. She voiced opposition
to being included in the Redevelopment Plan.
Randy Ide, 8830 Manzanar, Area 3, expressed fear and anger at the possibility
of losing his home, which is totally paid for. He mentioned he attends Calvary
Chapel in Downey, and understands it is also included in the Redevelopment PLan.
Oren DeWind, 8501 Muller Street, said he has a medical office building in
Area 8 across the street from the Downey Women's Club, whose property has been
exempted from the Plan. He indicated he is in the process of redeveloping his
property without the aid of the redevelopment agency.
(inaudible), owner of property at 7447 East Firestone Boulevard on which
Johnnie's Restaurant is located, stated the restaurant has been a landmark and is
well preserved. He suggested people be contacted and given a chance to indicate
whether they wish to participate in redevelopment.
Donna Jean Brown, an architect, representing her mother who resides in ARea 25,
13228 South Blodgett, said redevelopment can be very positive if there is partici-
pation from the people involved, and she suggested workshops and planning with the
people to determine what the goals might be.
Linda Jones, 7839 Kingbee, suggested the boarded -up homes be included in the
Plan. She mentioned Keep Downey Beautiful has established an office, whereby
people can voice their complaints regarding areas needing upgrading.
Brian Gasdia, 7705 Irwingrove Drive, member of Keep Downey Beautiful Committee,
said the committee is interested in keeping the City as beautiful as it always has
been. He spoke regarding the procedure of redevelopment and urged the Council that if it decides to go forward with the Redevelopment Plan to not give up the power of
eminent domain.
Lennie Whittington, 8542 Manatee, Area 18, said there are many vacant office
buildings in the City, including a new redevelopment building on Stewart & Gray and
Firestone. He commented on 'plans of a Mr. Zweber to purchase property and build a
medical building on Brookshire. He feels the City should let people develop pro-
perty on their own.
Edward Frank, 13320 Castana, Area 25, expressed opposition to Redevelopment
Plan Amendment No. 3.
Council/Comm. Dev. Comm. Minutes 6/20/83 (adj.) -4-
Cheryl McCalley, 12926 Kipway Drive, said she did not receive notice on this
matter, and she expressed worry on how the project will affect her property.
Viola Pace, 8006 East Lubec Street, Section 8, requested her property be
deleted from the Plan.
Vernon Walsh, 13032 Airpoint Avenue, Area 25, requested the Council pull back
and take another look at this matter before making a decision.
Katherine Hodge, 13258 Verdura, said she is living in her first home, and she
disagreed it is in a blighted area.
John Dickerson, family owns property at 8147 and 8211 Phlox Street, Area 19,
recommended the Council follow Councilman Davila's suggestion and scrap the project.
He commented on inadequate storm drainage on the street which causes flooding each
year. He suggested consideration be given to taking care of streets without curbs
and sidewalks.
Barbara Anaya, 8850 Manzanar, requested lights be installed on her street,
along with proper drainage, and that it be deleted from the redevelopment program.
Don Jervis, 9634 Clancey, office building located in Area 8, 9800 Paramount
Boulevard, expressed his views regarding redevelopment and eminent domain. HE
urged the Council to listen to the people.
Oren Benedict, 13219 Lakewood Boulevard, Area 3, spoke in opposition to the
proposed project.
Joel Lubin, residing in northwest Downey not in a redevelopment area, feels
there are problems with the proposed plan in that it is difficult to understand.
He suggested all residential areas not intended for commercial or industrial be
excluded from the Plan.
Dorna Benedict, 13219 Lakewood Boulevard, indicated she was informed this is
a 30-year plan. She suggested the Council shorten the time frame and then take
one section at a time.
Norman Horney, 9102 Angell, feels there is a discrepancy between the legal
definition and the map concerning his street and that there could be errors in
other areas as well. He.spoke in opposition to eminent domain and suggested the
Plan be rejected and go back to the drawing board.
Sheila McCormack, 13123 Izetta Avenue, Area 27 or 28, mentioned most people
in her block have lived there 10-15 years, and many are retired and have their
homes paid for. She questioned whether anyone would be willing to buy a home in a
redevelopment area.
Paul Sarvis, 13603 Barlin, Area 25, said it appears from his investigation
that although some of the areas are blighted, the boundaries of Area 25 were drawn
far wider than any blight. He submitted a list of questions for answers.
Billie Gooing, 13153 Verdura, Area 25, intends for her son the develop the
property and will resist any attempt to have it taken away from them. She said
redevelopment is discrimination against affordable housing.
Eric Shaver, 701 East 36th Street, Long Beach, officer of a family -owned
corpration which owns property in Area 25 on the west side of Lakewood Boulevard
between Rosecrans and Century, said they have long desired to improve their pro-
perty and are taking steps in that direction. He petitioned the Council and the
redevelopment agency to exempt their property from Area 25. He spoke against
eminent domain.
Marie Clay, 11401 Pruess Avenue, owner of property at 9838 Paramount Boulevard,
Area 8, stated the property was purchased and remodeled at considerable expense and
according to City code --the building is only three years old. She does not feel
the block is blighted.
George Baker, 13040 Barlin, inquired when people will be able to have their
questions answered. He was told questions should be submitted to the City Clerk,
who will give them directly to staff for evaluation.
Dominick Salomone, owner of property at 7649 Firestone Boulevard, Section 13,
inquired if he would be out of order to request Councilman Davila state his motion
to throw out the project. He was informed he would be out of order because the
Council/Comm. Dev. Comm. Minutes 6/20/83 (adj.) -5-
hearing is still open. Mr.,Salomone then asked whether the people have the right
to vote on this issue.
Mr. Ritchie replied that if the Redevelopment Plan Amendment is adopted by the
City Council, it will be subject to referendum under the law.
Mr. Salomone requested Section 13 be taken out of the Plan.
Guy Turner, 10303 Downey Avenue, owner of commercial property at 8145 and 8151
Firestone Boulevard, requested his properties be deleted from Area 14.
Elton Parham, 8712 Cahill Street, requested the 15 residences in the area be
deleted from Area 17.
Frank (inaudible), 11518 Lakewood Boulevard, Area 17, said it is a triangle
area between Lakewood and Bellflower and it should remain as it is. He feels the
properties are utilized to their best advantage except the one that is for sale.
He lives in a home in a commercial area, and he does not think Area 17 should be
included in redevelopment. He suggested each area be looked at individually.
Monica Ortloff, 9953 Foster Road, said she lives with her parents, and her
father is disabled and cannot afford to replace his home.
Verna Day, 6503 Rivergrove Drive, said her street has approximately 18 homes
and most of the residents are senior citizens. She hopes to be able to retire,
sell her home, and live off the proceeds. She requested Area 9 be deleted.
At this.time, Mayor Quinn mentioned the Council will be continuing the hearing
to July 5th.
It was moved by Councilman Davila to reject Amendment No. 3. The motion died
for lack of a second.
The hearing was continued to 7:30 p.m., July 5, 1983, July 5, 1983, in the
Downey Community Theatre.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
Z
Robert L. Shard-. City Clerk -Treasurer ,James T. Quinn, Mayor
Council/Comm. Dev. Comm. Minutes 6/20/83 (adj.) -6-