HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAY 18,1976
ROLL CALL
1 MINUTE
APPROVAL
HEARING
1
M I N U"T'E ,S
ARCADIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 18, 1976
The Arcadia Redevelopment Agency met in regular session on May 18,
1976 at 9 p.m. in the Arcadia City Hall Council Chamber.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
Members Gilb, Margett, Parry, Saelid, Lauber
None
On MOTION by Member Saelid, seconded by Member Gilb and carried on roll
call vote as follows the minutes of the regular meeting of May 4, 1976
were APPROVED.
proposed Participation Agreements between Raymond and Norma Link and
Frank L. Winnaman and the Agency in connection with property located
at 130 E. Santa Clara Street. This matter was continued until after
a joint meeting with the Planning Commission concerning _
parking and a definitive plan for property in the entire redevelopment
area. The outcome of the meeti~g held May 17 indicated a preference
for a parking structure to take care of parking problems in the downtown
area instead of acquiring additional land to remedy the critical
situation.
In discussing the subject matter before the Agency at this time Member Saelid
stated in part that 'he was' con'cerned with the lots which would be retained
by the Agency after the" transaction had been completed.... would they be sold,
remain in the City inventory and for how long, etc... and would the present
proposals be compatible with what would later be developed in the area.
The Economic Coordinator summarized the contents of the proposed
Participation Agreements as set forth in detail in a staff report dated
Msy 4 and which Council reviewed on that date. He said in part that the
objective is threefold - 1st, make possible the construction of new
industrial development and provide for the expansion of the existing
businesses.. 2nd, demolition of a number of nonconforming buildings which
are eyesores; 3rd, the benefit through its increased tax revenue.
In response to an inquiry by Member Parry it waS stated that the Agency
would pay for demolishing the buildings, however, if the purchase price
of the property were reduced perhaps the participating parties would
consider demolishing at their expense. Mr. Parry also asked about the
actual price that Mr. Winnaman is paying for the entire property and
Mr. Pollard explained the figure which is in escrow and that it works
favorably in terms of the breakdown. With regard to the use of the
property if the City were putting the parcels together itself the City
Attorney said in'part that if the City took title it would have to be
for a public use, park, playground, public swimming pool 'and the like,
but it would not be proper to purchase property and encourage industrial
development. He explained the legislation in this regard.
During further considerations Member Margett referred to possible
drainage problems due to the elevation of the Link portion of the subject
property and the Director of Public Works explained that he does not
foresee any more problems than already exist. Mr. Margett continued in
part that it appears to him that to proceed under these conditions would
only be perpetuating past mistakes. It was explained by the Economic
Coordinator that as part of the agreement the drainage plan must be
approved by the Director of Public Works before building permits would
be issued.
5-18-76
ARA
- 1 -
RESOLUTION
NO. 26
NOT ADOPTED
(See R-26
adopted
6-1-79)
ADJOURNMENT
Discussion continued on the' 'Environmental Impact Report and the City
Attorney presented, explained the content and read the title of
Resolution No. 26 entitled: "RESOLUTION FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT
A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEED NOT BE PREPARED FOR THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS ON CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY IN THE CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT."
It was MOVED by Member Gilb, seconded by Chairman Lauber that the reading
of the full body of this resolution be.waived and that same be adopted.
The resolution was not adopted as indicated by the following roll call
vote:
A'iES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Members Gilb, Lauber
Members Margett, Parry, Saelid
None
1
Member Margett stated in part for the record that he does not object to
the use of the Agency to achieve what is beneficial for the community and
he would be more receptive if the subject proposals conformed more to
good planning principles. Member Saelid said in part that one of the
reasons he voted negatively on the resolution was that the environmental
impact report was not sufficiently definitive.... that it was based on
the General Plan. He also felt the subject project could be worked out
without the use of the Agency. Member Gilb submitted in part that
perhaps what is needed is one Environmental Impact Report which would
Cover all aspects, otherwise every project could be voted down because
of the EIR. Chairman Lauber observed in part that one of the major
points in favor of ARA is the control the Agency would have over the
improvements.. that when left to private developers they almost always
pursue the most economical way which can lead to landlocked parcels and
poor developments. She expressed disappointment that the subject projects
were not approved as in her opinion it would have removed one of the
eyesores in the area and such an opportunity isn't often presented.
Chairman Lauber then discussed the consensus emanating from the joint
meeting of Council and the Planning Commission and staff was directed
to draw up some alternatives for major development areas.
The meeting then adjourned sine die.
~L~
Secretary
7~- - k ~___t<
Chairman, ARA
'-I
1
ATTEST:
~~~Zi# ~
Christine Van Maanen /
5-18-76
ARA