Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes-07-05-83-Adjourned Regular Meeting,2d a& MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING JULY 5, 1983 The City Council/Community Development Commission of the City of Downey held an adjourned regular meeting at 7:30 p.m., July 5, 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 Richard Terzian, Acting City Attorney Dudley Lang, Consultant Mike Wagner, Consultant Robert L. Shand, City Clerk -Treasurer Judy McDonnell, Secretary The Invocation was delivered by Councilman Jackman, The Flag Salute was led by Councilman Cormack. Continued Joint Hearing on Redevelopment Plan Amendment No. 3 Mayor Quinn mentioned since the last meeting, staff has reviewed the input, and two alternate plans have been prepared for Council 'consideration: Alternate 1 - if a spouse passes away, or if the property owner wishes to give his home to his children, there would always be protection against eminent domain; or Alternate 2 - to delete all residential areas out of Redevelopment Plan Amendment No. 3. First, he said, he would like to take a straw vote of the Council to see what they would recommend to the Planning Commission. It was moved by Councilman Cormack and seconded by Mayor Quinn to recommend Alternate 2 to the Planning Commission for further consideration. Councilman Jackman indicated he will support Alternate 2 because he has listened to what the people have said and will do what he thinks the people generally want, whether they understand the issue or not. Councilman Barb said he is willing to go along with the property owners' recommendations to remove their homes from redevelopment. He pointed out it was never the intent of the Council to use eminent domain on any residential property -- it has not been done in redevelopment in the past, nor will it be done in the future. He would be willing to vote for Alternate 2. Councilman Davila stated he is not completely satisfied with the Redevelopment Plan, and he would rather reject the entire plan and start all over again. He did agree that some locations are blighted, including the City's entrance ways, and said he cannot go along with Redevelopment Plan Amendment No. 3. Mr. Ovrom said it is clear from the unofficialstraw vote that the Council's intent is conforming residential areas be deleted in their entirety from the project area. He defined conforming residential areas as homes in a neighborhood zoned and in the General Plan for residential. Homes in shaded areas on the maps displayed are a conforming residential use, and the Council has directed staff to delete all conforming residential uses from the project area. Mr. Ovrom stated if a person owns a home in a commercial zone, then it would still be included in the redevelop- ment project area. He cited the procedure which, under State law, provides that the plan must be referred to the Planning Commission for its review and recommenda- tion back to the Council. The recommendation will be referred to the Commission for review at its meeting tomorrow evening. The Commission will then send its recommendation back to the Council.for decision at its July 12th meeting. Mayor Quinn then asked if anyone wished to speak regarding proposed Redevelop- ment Plan Amendment No. 3. Mr. David Gomez, 12751 Brock Avenue, said he is not in a redevelopment area but is concerned about redevelopment plans because of his past experiences in other cities. He questioned why Rockwell Internation would be included in the Plan when the City needs the tax money. Council/Comm. Dev. Comm. Minutes 7/5/83 (adj.) -1- Mr. Jim Santangelo, Chairman of the Project Area Committee, said the Committee's decision represents almost five months of analysis of the different aspects it feels are important and will be considered in the Council's final decision. He then cited the criteria reflected in the Committee's decision to adopt Resolution No. 6 recommending against the Plan. He did point out that neither he nor the Committee are opposed to redevelopment if the plan is right and the community is behind it. Mr. Santangelo indicated that after a meeting with the City Manager, the Committee reversed its decision and went on record supporting the Plan in the Firestone Corridor, with the condition that the 1981 Firestone Corridor Plan, as proposed, be incorporated in the Redevelopment Plan with regard to the widening of Firestone Boulevard. He said the Committee also stands firm on the premise that the Firestone Corridor should be the outer limits of anything the Council adopts and that all of the other areas, in proposed Amendment No. 3 should be withdrawn. Mr. Edward Frank, 13320 Castana, asked if he could be guaranteed his home would not be under the threat of eminent domain. Mr. Ovrom replied yes,, this can be guaranteed because the Council has made itself clear that it plans to delete all conforming residential uses from the Plan. Mr. Greg Palmer, 8633 Devenir, raised questions concerning why Councilman Davila is not allowed to make the motion he tried to make last meeting. Mr. Ovrom explained there can only be a motion of the Council's intent so that this matter can be referred, to the Planning Commission. Mr. Palmer said he lives near the I-105 Freeway in Area 25, and the conforming residential properties would be one step away from non -conforming if the properties bordering the freeway are developed as commercial. He feels as long as eminent domain exists in the Plan in any form, it could affect any properties in the Plan. Mr. Paul Sarvis, President of the newly -formed District 25 Homeowners' Association, commented regarding research he has conducted on this matter and men- tioned he feels the Redevelopment Plan is too sketchy. He also indicated the Plan is unacceptable and there are discrepancies in the maps. Mr. Sarvis said people in Area 25 are opposed to the Plan as a whole, and he said he has collected 695 signatures on a petition, the wording of which he quoted at this time. He distributed the petition to the City Clerk to be received and filed. ennie whittington, 8542 Manatee Street, Area 18 next to the downey Community Hospital, expressed concern that future Council Members could propose a similar redevelopment plan. He requested further clarification regarding conforming and nonconforming residential. Mr. Whittington stated that under the State of California Health & Safety Code, the Downey Community Hospital has the right of eminent domain of anyone's home in the City for hospital use. (inaudible), 13135 Berlin, Area 25, member of the steering committee of the Homeowners' Association, said the proposed plan would effectively change lives by causing displacement, anguish and disruption of the goals many citizens have tried to attain. He stated Community Development Block Grant Funds are available to housing and urban development which can be used for community improvements. It was moved by Councilman Cormack and seconded by Councilman Barb to close this phase of the public hearing and move on to the commercial. Mr. Brent Kennedy, 10901 Borson Street, indicated he wished to speak but was informed the conforming residential has been removed from the Plan and there is a motion and second to close ,the hearing. Mayor Quinn then inquired of the Council Members' wishes concerning the motion to close the hearing. AYES: 3 Council Members: Cormack, Jackman, Barb NOES: 1 Council Member: Davila Mayor Quinn declared a recess from 8:40 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The meeting resumed with all Council Members present. Mayor Quinn indicated he had informed a gentleman in the audien e that his property was non-commercial when, in fact, his property is not in the Redevelopment Area. He stated the Council will be moving to the commercial portion of the Plan. Mr. Ovrom suggested the Council act on each of the areas individually so people will know the Council's'intent. Council/Comm. Dev. Comm. Minutes 7/5/83 (adj.) -2- Area 24: One small remnant parcel was also removed by 5 AYES. Area 25: Including Golden Park and some commercial property on the triangle (Burger King) (the mobile home parks have already been deleted): - Me vote was 5 AYES to delete. Area 25: All other areas were deleted by 5 AYES. Mr. Jim Easton, owner of property at 13316 Grant Avenue, inquired regarding his property, and he was told the area in which his property is located has been deleted. Area 1: Under-utilized property on Telegraph Road (Vacant property on the south side). Eleanor Lindenfeld said it is a site of a future shopping center. Joel Lubin, residing near Paramount south of Telegraph, feels the private sector can handle this property. He recommended deletion. Connie Alden said as a realtor, she has received calls regarding the subject property, and she feels the private sector can develop it. Councilman Cormack made a motion to include Area 1, which was passed by 4 AYES, with Councilman Davila voting NO. Area 2: Councilman Cormack made a motion to delete which was passed by 5 AYES. A speaker from the balcony feels Area 2 should be left in the Plan. He was instructed to contact staff regarding his property. Area 3 (south side intersection at Lakewood and Telegraph) (conforming resi- dential has already been deleted). Councilman Jackman made a motion to include the rest of Area 3 in the Plan, which was passed by 4 AYES, with Councilman Davila voting NO. Area 4 (Including Penske Cadillac): Mayor Quinn moved that the area be kept in the Plan, which was passed by 4 AYES, with Councilman Davila voting NO. Area 5 (un-utilized Rancho Santa Gertrudes Elementary School - The School District requested the property be in the Plan): Councilman Cormack made a motion to leave the Area in the Plan, which was passed by 5 AYES. Area 6 (northwest corner Gallatin/Lakewood): It was moved by Councilman Jackman, seconded by Councilman Cormack, and passed by unanimous vote to leave Area 6 in the Plan. Area 7 (South side of Florence between Downey and Birchdale): Mr. Ovrom said the residential has been deleted and Lexington was only included because the street has no curbs and sidewalks. Staff recommends Lexington be deleted. As to the Florence Avenue frontage, if this is deleted, it is requested the one property be left in where public financing for an office building has already been approved. It was moved by Mayor Quinn to leave Area 7 in the Plan, deleting Lexington Road, which was passed by 4 AYES, with Councilman Davila voting NO. A gentleman in the audience raised a question regarding whether homes facing Florence are non -conforming. Mr. Ovrom replied yes, it is his understandingthey are non -conforming and that the area is slowly transitioning into office use. There was a question from the audience regarding llth Street, and Mr. Ovrom stated the south side of llth Street is deleted --the north side is the back of the Florence Avenue frontage and would stay in the Plan. Concern was expressed from a speaker in the audience regarding the homes on llth Street and how they would be affected by the properties on the north side which back onto the commercial property on Florence. Jim Santangelo said the Project Area Committee' studied this matter for five months, and he feels the Council has not listened to the Committee's criteria established in its decision. He questioned what criteria the Council is using for including areas in the Plan and whether it is for the tax increment money. Mr. Council/Comm. Dev. Comm. Minutes 7/5/83 (adj.) -3- 9231 Santangelo also questioned the reasons for the Council's decision to include areas in the Plan. Councilman Barb stated this matter involves a situation where several groups have analyzed all of the properties and made different recommendations, and it is now the Council's decision as to which areas will be included or deleted. The Council appreciates the time', spent by the Project Area Committee, but the Council cannot be a "rubber stamp" for any committee, but must make decisions that are best for the community. Councilman Barb then commented on how properties can bene- fit from redevelopment by the use of tax increment money, as well as how hearing comments from the public is of assistance to the Council in making its decision. Area 8: It was moved by Councilman Cormack to remove Area 8. Don Jervis, with Red Carpet, suggested this be postponed until after the elec- tion so the Council can "run'on a rehabilitation platform" and let the voters decide. He requested Area 8 be removed. Councilman Davila indicated he will keep the promise he made to the voters who elected him to office. He then asked if there will be one final motion to accept or reject the entire Plan. Mr. Ovrom replied the areas are being acted on individually by a straw vote of the Council. In the end, the Council will pass one single motion to either refer to the Planning Commission for further work or reject the entire Plan. Olga May said people in Area 8 concur with the Council's feelings and recom- mendation to delete this section from the plan. Mario Delaco inquired whether people will be able to have a voice on the entire plan or just to their particular area. Mayor Quinn indicated the Council will make the decision on the entire plan. An unannounced speaker asked if people will have another chance to speak to the plan as a whole rather than individual portions, and Mayor Quinn replied no. Area 8 was removed from the plan by unanimous vote. Shelly Jones said she is not opposed to redevelopment but is opposed to this particular plan. Area 9: A totally conforming residential area that was deleted by prior action. Area 10: South of the island, originally under-utilized and blighted: It was moved by Councilman Jackman and passed by unanimous vote to remove Area 10. Area 11: Has already been deleted. Areas 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 19 were deferred to later in the meeting to be discussed all at one time. Area 16 (industrial area on the west side of the City): It was moved by Councilman Barb and seconded', by Mayor Quinn to include in the plan, which was passed by 4 AYES, with Councilman Davila voting NO. Area 18 - Developed with the School District administrative offices on one side of the street and some non -conforming residential on the south side. Lennie Whittington questioned why his property, which is zoned R-1 on Manatee Street, would be included in',a commercial area. He was informed it is in the General Plan for hospital use. He read a letter received from the Downey Community Hospital, dated October 1981, requesting it be informed of any change of ownership or any intentions to sell his property. He commented on a proposed plan of a Mr. Zweber to build a condominium medical building on property bounded by Manatee, Patton, Cleta and Brookshire, and of being assured by the then City Manager that he would not approve that plan, but now the area is included in a redevelopment plan. It was moved by Mayor Quinn to delete the residential from Area 18. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES: 2 Council Members: Cormack, Davila NOES: 3 Council Members: Jackman, Barb, Quinn Council/Comm. Dev. Comm. Minutes 7/5/83 (adj.) -4- 7a 3 a A gentleman asked if Area 18 includes Texas Street, and he was informed that area is in the existing Redevelopment Plan but is not part of the proposed amendment. Area 20 (including the County -arced Golf Course and two Downey schools): Mr. Jervis requested the County provide input on this matter so they can develop their property as they see fit. It was moved by Councilman Cormack, seconded by Mayor Quinn, and passed by the following vote to include Area 20. AYES. 3 Council Members: Cormack, Jackman, Quinn NOES: 2 Council Members: Barb, Davila Area 21 (including County -owned property): It was moved by Councilman Jackman, seconded by Mayor Quinn, and passed by 4 AYES to include Area 21; Councilman Davila voted NO. Area 22 (small commercial area fronting on Paramount just north of Conrad con- taining the boarded -up Boy's Market): Responding to an inquiry from the audience regarding development of the property, Mayor Quinn said the City would recommend builders to come in and present proposals, which would be reviewed to see that there is continuity along Paramount Boulevard, and this would then require a hearing. Eric Nordbak said people are telling the Council they do not want the Redevelop- ment Plan. Also, he mentioned that during the past two years, there has been little progress on redevelopment. He does not concur with reviewing the plan parcel by parcel unless there is a cohesive plan to address. Mr. Ovrom agreed there is not a parcel by parcel specific plan, but in order to start the project, it is necessary to define where the priorities are. Once the ares are defined, staff will be in a position to sit down with the property owners or developers to discuss specifics of a plan. It was moved by Councilman Cormack, seconded by Councilman Jackman, and passed by 4 AYES to include Area 22; Councilman Davila voted NO. Area 23 (commercial area on Imperial Boulevard, East): Marilee Seybold said an elderly lady resides in one of the houses in this area, and she asked if one of the businesses wants to add onto their parking lot or if a new business were to be built, would the lady be forced to move. She was informed owner -occupied residences would not be subject to eminent domain. It was moved by Councilman Barb and seconded by Councilman Cormack to delete the residential from Area 23, but leave the'Imperial Boulevard frontage. A gentleman explained he owns some residences on Imperial, which he would like to develop, and he would like them left in the ,plan. Area 23 was held pending discussion with the property owner who wishes to re- main in the plan, and for further review by staff. Area 26 (Rockwell and multi -family residential'- the conforming residential have been deleted): A gentleman referred to Rose Avenue and said the street has been improved through private money, and there are only two blighted areas on the street. It was moved by Mayor Quinn and seconded by Councilman Cormack to include Area 26, with the exception of the existing residential uses on Rose Avenue. An unidentified woman inquired if the residences on Elm Vista Drive are in- cluded in the motion, and she was told all of the residential in Area 26 will be deleted from the plan. The motion was then passed by 5 AYES. Area 27 (City Yard, Independence Park, and an elementary school included at the request of the School District). It was moved by Mayor Quinn, seconded by Councilman Barb, and passed by 4 AYES, with Councilman Jackman voting NO, to delete Area 27. Council/Comm. Dev. Comm. Minutes 7/5/83 (adj.) -5- 2.233 Area 28 (Columbus High School and residential on the south side of Imperial Highway): It was moved by Councilman Barb, seconded by Councilman Cormack, and passed by unanimous vote to 'include Area 28, with the exception of the residential (also the property occupied by Calvary Chapel). A gentleman came to the podium and discussed the Calvary Chapel property. Area 29 (includes Edith Unsworth Elementary School at the recommendation of the School District): It was moved by Councilman Jackman, seconded by Councilman Cormack, and passed by unanimous vote to include Area 29. Firestone Corridor (Areas 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 19): Mr. Ovrom commented on the Project Area Committee's recommendation that these areas be kept in the Plan with the condition that it be tied in to the widening of Firestone Boulevard and that the area on Paramount north of Firestone be deleted. Staff has recommended the widening not be committed --that it be considered as a separate action. A gentleman mentioned his mother, who owns Angeles Foods on Phlox Street in Area 19, applied for redevelopment of a warehouse, but was halted by the City be- cause there was no room for landscaping. Mr. Ovrom said a development has to conform to City standards, and it is important for the City to adhere to landscaping requirements. Responding to further questions, he explained the 'goal of the agency is to work with property owners. Diane Boggs suggested limiting expansion of the redevelopment program to the Firestone Corridor as recommended by the Project Area Committee. Guy Stonner said in 1978, he spoke in favor of redevelopment but against eminent domain. He asked why eminent domain is included in this plan and ques- tioned whether Downey Avenue is better off in 1983 than it was in 1978. He suggested eminent domain be removed from the plan. Joel Lubin suggested before going forward that the city have the necessary financial data to determine whether the City budget and cash flow can support redevelopment. Fernando Wong, representing the property owner at 9403 Firestone Boulevard, at the intersection of Area 14,questioned why the property is located in the "tail" section of the redevelopment area. He then commented on how the widening of Fire- stone Boulevard or any future proposal to make Third Street a through street to to Woodruff Avenue would have an adverse affect on the property. He urged deletion of this property from the plan. Bob Kiskadden, owner of property on the corner of Paramount and Firestone, concurred with the previous speakers that he is for redevelopment but opposed to the widening of Firestone Boulevard, as well as the concept of eminent domain. Ms. McCahill, owner of property at Firestone and Lakewood behind Allstate Savings & Loan in Area 17, requested her property and all residential be deleted. Bob Maniachi, indicated he is in favor of redevelopment but questions whether this is the right timing or plan. He inquired regarding preparation of the plans for this proposed project and indicated at his expense, he would like to create a newsletter to keep people informed. A gentleman speaker said he represents property owners in the Firestone Corridor and that there is real concern about eminent domain. He asked if the city would be willing to take a straw poll of the Council to pass the Firestone Corridor without the concept of eminent domain. Mr. Ovrom said eminent domain is not popular, it is economically prohibitive, and there are many protections written into the law. Therefore, eminent domain is one of the last things that should be used. However, it is not in the City's or the merchants' best interests to have it totally rejected out of the plan because there can be times when it would be significant for the community's needs, and there can be rare circumstances when it would be desirable to use the power of eminent domain. He has used eminent domain most frequently when it has been re- quested by the property owner. It was moved by Councilman Cormack to include Areas 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 19 in the Firestone Corridor, with the exception of the property in Area 14 on Paramount Boulevard north of Fifth Street, per the Project Area Committee's recom- mentation. (See motion later restated.) Council/Comm. Dev. Comm. Minutes 7/5/83 (adj.) -6- Frank Hohensee, concerning Area 17, said he does not feel the bottom triangle area has any value to the Firestone Corridor, and he would like to see it deleted. The majority of that area is commercial consisting of small businesses. Mr. Ovrom suggested the triangle area be held for additional review by staff to see whether it is logically part of the Firestone Corridor. A gentleman speaker questioned why some areas along Firestone were excluded and others were not. He particularly referred to Albertson's Market. During discussion regarding the request of Gallatin Medical Group to be left in the project area, Mr. Santangelo mentioned the Project Area Committee did not feel Gallatin was part of the Firestone Corridor --that it is private enterprise and should have the funds to redevelop their property. Mr. Ovrom said Rio San Gabriel Park is on a landfill which is subsiding, and the original recommendation was to include the park in the project area so that the redevelopment agency might help some of the park's problems. Speaking to the area north of Stonewood Shopping Center, Mr. Lang explained this was included primarily for the traffic that could be diverted to the north of Stonewood on a street which would be built in the future in accordance with the traffic study performed approximately a year ago, but that could be done with eminent domain on the part of the City without a redevelopment plan. The motion was restated by Councilman Cormack to include Areas 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 19, with the exception of Rio San Gabriel Park, the strip north of Stonewood Shopping Center, and to leave in the Gallatin Medical Group. Councilman Barb seconded the motion. Dominic Salimone, business property at 7649 Firestone Boulevard, Area 13, men- tioned his lot is only 150 feet deep and that the back of his property is an alley that borders on residential. Mr. Ovrom explained staff is attempting to define areas of concern and priority and then sit down with the property owners and develop a plan to everyone's mutual advantage. Yvonne Knickerbocker said she has turned in petitions for 7534, 7540, and 7550 Firestone Boulevard, which is the Regency Restaurant, muffler shop and a trailer park. She requested these properties be deleted until such time as there is a plan. She expressed concern about the tenants along Firestone who do not own property. An unidentified speaker requested the eminent domain provision be deleted from the plan, including the Firestone Corridor. It was moved by Councilman Davila to amend the motion by deleting eminent domain from the Redevelopment Plan. There was no second. The original motion was then passed by the following vote: AYES: 4 Council Members: Cormack, Jackman, Barb, Quinn NOES: 1 Council Member: Davila It was moved by Councilman Davila to reject the entire Redevelopment Plan Amendment No. 3. There was no second. it was moved by Councilman Davila to reject eminent domain from the entire Redevelopment Plan Amendment No. 3. There was no second. Mr. Santangelo mentioned that in Area 18, if the Hospital has an interest in this area, they have a right to the homes for medical purpose. He questioned why the Council would include this area in redevelopment because the agency would be subject to $320,000 relocation expense, plus the properties would come off the tax roll and there would be no increment to the City. Councilman Davila left the meeting at 11:39 p.m. Councilman Cormack indicated it is his understanding the only way the Hospital can exercise the right of eminent domain is with the concurrence of the local government agency. Mr. Whittington objected and was ruled out of order by the Mayor. Council/Comm. Dev. Comm. Minutes 7/5/83 (adj.) -7- Mr. Lang explained that if the Hospital wanted to develop a project on the pro- perty and the City agreed to condemnation of the property and the redevelopment agency entered into an agreement with them, absent an agreement with the agency, there would be no responsibility for relocation of the tenants on the site by the agency. Mr. Whittington read from the State Health & Safety Code concerning the right of eminent domain by the Hospital and said it would not require approval of the City. It was moved by Councilman Barb, seconded by Councilman Cormack, and passed by the following vote to refer the results of this evening to the Planning Commission. A gentleman inquired regarding the parliamentary procedure or rules of order used by the Council. Mayor Quinn declared a recess from ll=,47 p.m, to 11;55 p.m. The meeting re- sumed with Council Members Cormack, Jackman, Barb, Quinn present; Council Member Davila was absent. Roll call vote to refer to the Planning Commission: AYES: 4 Council Members; Cormack, Jackman, Barb, Quinn ABSENT: 1 Council Member: Davila It was moved by Councilman Cormack, seconded by Councilman Jackman, and so ordered to close the hearing. At the recommendation of the City Manager, it was moved by Councilman Cormack, seconded by Councilman Jackman, and passed by the following vote to refer the Council's findings to the Planning Commission, with the right to delete further areas upon return to the Council. AYES: 4 Council Members; Cormack, Jackman, Barb, Quinn ABSENT: 1 Council Member: Davila Mr. Ovrom said this will be referred to the Planning Commission at its meeting tomorrow night and it will come back to the City Council at its meeting July 12th. The Community Development Commission portion of the meeting was adjourned at _ 11:58 P.M. The City Council portion of the meeting was adjourned at 11:58 p.m, to 6:30 p.m., July 12, 1983, in the Council Chamber of the Downey City Hall. The meeting was adjourned in memory of Royal M. Sorensen, Downey's City Attorney for 25 years. Robert L. Shand, City Cler Treasurer //James T. Quinn, Mayor Council/Comm. Dev. Comm. Minutes 7/5/83 (adj.) -8-