CITY OF
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE
MINUTES
AGENDA POSTED:
ITEM NO.
(1) CALL TO
ORDER: The meeting was called to order at
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair
Vera Robles DeWitt, Vice-Chair Joe Acosta. Committee Members: Pamela
Acosta, Lois Caldwell, Dennis Calkins, Terry Everett, Anna Narez, Brad Pearl,
Absent: Joe Palicte
Also Present:
ITEM NO. (2)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (
Chair Robles DeWitt: Any corrections, additions, change?
Perrett: The word “technology” was left out. (bottom page 1, sentence #2 under “Approval of Minutes”)
Perrett: Need to change the street name referenced on page 9, par 5 from “Molina” to “Moneta”
Perrett: The statement (not really a correction) relative to Infrastructure improvements on page 9, paragraph 10. Mr. Perrett commented that “the sewers belong to the LA County Sanitation District, not the City.”
Minutes were approved as corrected
Chair Robles DeWitt: Will future minutes be verbatim? She did not see the need to have them verbatim. Committee member Rogers suggested that minutes reflect action items from business discussions; verbatim minutes would be good for presentations made by guest speakers.
3.1 Staff referred to the revised PAC meeting schedule, GRC Consultant Glover explained the reason for the revisions. He stated that a seventh meeting was added to the schedule, in case it was necessary, and that a “Special Meeting” may be required after the Public Hearing by City Council.
3.2 Development Services General Manager Gallant was scheduled to discuss both items in this section, however, due to conflicting obligations, she is unable to attend. Ms. Gallant requested that the meeting be moved up to 6:00 p.m. to accommodate a teaching obligation she has on Thursday evenings at 7:00 p.m.
4.1 PAC COMMITTEES Members agreed to a separate meeting to handle filling current vacancies.
4.2 A consensus among PAC COMMITTEE Members was to discuss, at the same separate meeting, Urban Design and Development, due to the unavailability of the Development Services General Manager.
Cruz: Introduced Representatives from Perkowitz and Ruth Architects hired by staff to give an “Architecture 101” presentation to PAC Committee Members, to assist in understanding the need for redevelopment and how it can enhance the community. Legal issues will be later discussed regarding eminent domain. She then introduced Allan Pullman and Dave Sabunas (Perkowitz & Ruth).
Mr. Pulman gave
a list of general approaches on arterial design, using large posters of
possible designs for Carson. (
Perrett: What is the background of Perkowitz & Ruth Architects? (and wanted to see some credentials). How do we know that they are capable of doing the job; we as PAC members should have some knowledge of other similar projects they have done. He also asked Glover about recent projects GRC had completed or been involved with.
Cruz: Let me take this opportunity to give some background information. She stated that the arterial design in Cerritos Mall and in Long Beach were projects done by Perkowitz and Ruth Architects firm. Margarita added that a more detailed resume would be made available at a later date.
Allen Pullman informed PAC Members that he would present steps on how to achieve goals of successful arterial design for the City and distributed information on his presentation for PAC members to follow. He stated that the information and arterial design concepts are not actual goals for Carson, but were generic concepts of things that could be considered or have been done in other locations. Mr. Pullman added he would open the floor for comments and questions after the presentation. Listed below are the four main goals presented to the PAC:
1. Nodes of Activity
2. Create Development Opportunities
3. Encourage Feasibility and Desirable Mixed-Use Development
4. Creating Memorable/Desirable Places
Comments/Questions:
Caulkins: Commented that some retail stores have requirements on what other stores can be in the same development. (He referred to the concept in Step #3)
Allan: Responded that compatibility is the ultimate goal for developers.
Audience: A member from the audience asked where the development would be located.
Allan: Where it is developmentally viable throughout Carson. (He referred to the concept in Step #4)
Chair: Commented that the concept illustrated for creating memorable/desirable places (Step #4) seemed to be the same as the proposed Development from Watson Land, at the 93-Acre BEDI Site. She expressed a concern that the same concept everywhere would saturate the City.
Allan: It is similar, but the 93-acre site is proposed as a “big box” development; Carson Street is a smaller project involving a 600 ft. radius from Carson Street.
Glover: There are other similar projects that could also be used. These illustrations are only conceptual.
Chair: If the Villaggio is not fully leased, how can other developments on Carson Street be successful.
Allan: The cities of Brea and Costa Mesa (Triangle Square) have completed similar arterial design projects.
Everett: Who did Down Town Long Beach?
Allan: That was a Redevelopment Project using various architects; no single developer was solely involved.
Our architect firm was involved in this project. Added that the Long Beach Convention Center was economically located within the City of Long Beach.
Audience: What about personal property, specifically eminent domain?
Cruz: Stated this issue would be addressed when we get to it on the agenda.
Audience: Why is Carson Street being redeveloped?
Allan: Economic feasibility is best on Carson Street. The library, restaurants and freeway access are on Carson Street.
Audience: What about congestion issues, like downtown Los Angeles. Why not put the redevelopment project on Avalon Boulevard?
Cruz: Stated that the Carson Mall is now up for sale. The property is considered “clean” property –no environmental issues. Therefore, the potential for the Mall being bought for any future development is very high.
Pearl: I hope not high-rise business structures, in regards to density issues.
Allan: If so, the maximum is 2-3 story buildings, so density would not be a major problem.
Audience: What about overcrowding the City.
Cruz: This is why we are working on developing a design and concept for Carson that will include these issues and areas of concern.
Audience: Commented that the City of Long Beach is really built up.
Glover: Maybe a good idea for PAC Members to go and look at some of the different cities where redevelopment has been done (Cerritos, Costa Mesa, Brea, Santa Ana) and look at the design concepts.
Allan: Perkowitz and Ruth did the retail component on South Street, in the City of Cerritos. It would be good for PAC Members to see.
Chair: Committee can take a tour or go individually.
Perrett: It would be good to have a map of the sites so PAC Members can take a self-guided tour.
Allan: I agree that would be worthwhile.
Chair: I like the idea of a self-guided tour.
Perrett: PAC Members should take a walk on Carson Street from Avalon Boulevard to Figueroa Street to get an up close look at what already exists.
4.1 PAC Vacancies – Special Meeting to Conduct Interviews
PAC Member Caldwell resigns, due to her mother being ill, bringing the total number of vacancies to four. Categories are as follows:
2-Community Organization
1-Resident-Tenant
1-Resident-Owner
Vice-Chair Acosta acknowledged that the application deadline was April 1, 2002, and would like to see vacancies filled soon.
Cruz: PAC membership is a 3-year commitment. The plan is to schedule a “Special Meeting” for election of candidates to fill vacancies.
Rogers: Noted that there is no residential candidate to vote on.
Chair: Asked for a motion to schedule a Special Meeting to fill vacancies.
Caulkins: I motion to appoint applicants and set a Special Meeting
Ferguson: Second
Chair: Recruitment for applications of Residential-Tenant vacancy is open
and asked audience if anyone was interested to fill out an application.
Perrett: Can we have alternates?
Chair: Council sets guidelines
Further discussion brought up the issue of continuing Item 3.2
at the Special Meeting.
4.2 Eminent Domain Policy Discussion
Glover: Gave information on the process of eminent domain and used the Proposed Project Area No. 4 Boundary Map to show audience the proposed location. He explained colors of locations on the map as it related to the possibility of eminent domain. He also addressed the concern about the position of Shearer Street on the map appearing to be in the location for eminent domain (blue area on map). His response was that the authority to commence eminent domain proceedings is, at best, only a last resort. However, there are no powers of eminent domain in the Keystone area (yellow area on map). He added that eminent domain proceedings are very rarely used; 5% is a result of redevelopment projects.
There was some concern about the map from residents in the
audience.
Narez: According to the map, Keystone area is located in the “blue” zone, which is targeted for eminent domain; not in the “yellow” area, which is not targeted for eminent domain. The majority of the audience live in the Keystone area and is very concerned.
Cruz: Referred to the last meeting where discussion disclosed that a two/thirds vote must exist before commencement of eminent domain powers and the reason for eminent domain must be a public benefit, before a developer is contacted to take over a property. The City cannot take over land. A negotiated sale is the process used to acquire land. There are laws that protect the resident. Staff’s intent is to find a buffer to avoid using Shearer Street. Maybe a different kind of residential could be considered.
Acosta: Stated Shearer Street is a residential area and residents in the audience mainly live on the back side of Main Street. Main Street/Shearer Street was rezoned to commercial and is no longer considered residential.
Chair: Can staff give clear status of this?
Cruz: Staff’s intent is to keep the location as residential zone.
Pearl: Will General Plan be modified to restore the area to a residential zone?
Cruz: An update is planned. Main Street is not in the Proposed Project Area # 4 for eminent domain.
Glover: PAC may recommend to Council the preference of land uses on Shearer Street, east side of Main Street, that this area should be residential. The Preliminary Plan does indicate that a PAC can recommend a change.
Members in the audience stated they received information that there would be eminent domain in the Keystone area and that a broad statement was passed out at a Planning Commission meeting.
Glover: Stated rumors are untrue and that he does not know the origin.
Chair: Rumors generate interest in what government is doing in the community.
Audience: Title of map set up confusion and should not be called “Eminent Domain” Map. Name should be changed.
Pearl: Could a simpler map be made and distributed with a letter of explanation?
Audience: What if you don’t want to sell your property? What are your options?
Glover: If the court issues a “writ,” then it is up to the court to direct the sale of private property under eminent domain.
Audience: This only applies if the purpose of eminent domain is for a freeway or a school; not for retail and beautification.
Glover: I am just speaking on what might be needed.
Audience: Numerous residents expressed concern about the possibility of being forced to move; some residents are elderly.
Perrett: Does a study exist (at least 5 years) where eminent domain was done and the effected people were contacted and asked about their status, since eminent domain proceedings.
Cruz: Nothing in Redevelopment law requires such a study. However, I worked in the City of El Monte with relocation issues, as a result of eminent domain, and was instrumental in getting renters to become owners and helped provide Section 8 assistance for senior citizens. I am willing to meet with the residents on Shearer Street.
Pearl: I suggest that a copy of the last minutes, where eminent domain is discussed in great detail, be sent to those residents.
Caulkins: Eminent domain was proposed in the Keystone area 10 years ago?
Audience: If your home is paid for, what happens if you have move? How would financial issues be handled?
Cruz: I will create scenarios using this situation to provide an answer.
Audience: As a board member for an organization, the same situation existed. The Board voted to pay for a home. With the real estate market as it was, at that time, a nicer home was bought and we relocated the resident. My suggestion is to include in the Eminent Domain Policy that the Agency pays for a home that is equal or of better quality, based on the market value.
Chair: Legal Counsel will write language for this recommendation.
Cruz: Staff will give scenarios to relocation consultants and get feedback on possible answers.
5.1 Both the Preliminary Report and Draft Redevelopment Plan were distributed to PAC Members. Glover (GRC) explained the information within, and the purpose of both documents. He also confirmed that the Preliminary Report was the updated version from last year. He further recommended that PAC Members read Chapter 3 – Property Acquisition, in the Draft Redevelopment Plan. He added that the revised EIR would be issued in 7 days. PAC Members will also receive a copy of the Owner Participation Rules in the Implementation Plan.
PAC members Rogers and Perrett attended the “Introduction to Redevelopment” 2- day conference, sponsored by the California Redevelopment Association, held in Costa Mesa. PAC Member Rogers gave an overview of her experience in attending the conference. She specifically felt the session on “What the PAC Can Do” was very informative.
PAC Member Perrett also gave an overview on his experience in attending the conference. He commented the lawyers speaking at the conference tried to downplay the PAC. He attended various other sessions, i.e. Simon Levi – Helm Bakery Museum, Washington Street improvements in Culver City (he suggested the Committee go see these improvements), the Santa Ana School of Arts Project, and a presentation by Architect Doug Suisan.
None
8.1 A Special Meeting is scheduled for 4/25/02 at 6 PM; staff to notify PAC of location
Meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
bjh:c:PACMinutes 4/18/02