Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-17-1992 ORA MinutesAPPROVED BY DIRECTORS ON APRIL 14, 1992. ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING 93 ORANGE, CALIFORNIA March 17,1992 The Orange Redevelopment Agency of the City of Orange, California convened on March 17, 1992 at 3:00 p.m. in a Regular Meeting in the Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. 3:00 P.M. SESSION 1. ROLLCALL PRESENT ABSENT Steiner, Barrera, Chairman Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon None 1.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None 2. CONSENT CALENDAR - Tape 1065 2.1 Declaration of the Clerk of the Orange Redevelopment Agency, Marilyn J. Jensen, declaring posting of Orange Redevelopment Agency Agenda of regular meeting of March 17, 1992, at Orange Civic Center Main Library, the Police Facility at 1107 N. Batavia and the Eisenhower Park Bulletin Board; all of said locations being in the City of Orange and freely accessible to members of the public at least 72 hours before commencement of said regular meeting.ACTION: Accepted Declaration of Agency Posting and authorized its retention as a public record in the Office of the Agency Clerk.MOTION SECOND AYES Steiner Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Chairman Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon All items on the Consent Calendar were approved as recommended.END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 5.1 Report on the disposition of the Queen Anne House. Tape 1087 (C23OO.I)The Project Manager reported the onlybid received on the house was for $1.00 from Old Towne Preservation Association. They requested Agency assistance of $ 25,000 to place the house on its foundation. They have a site at 222 E. La Veta. If Redevelopment Agency funds are used to assist OTPA, the unit must be used for low and moderate income housing for a period of 15 years. If OTPA ceases to exist at a later date or does not comply, the house would revert back to the Agency. Should this happen, the house may need to be moved again.PAGEl 94 ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES March 17, 1992 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS (Continued) The Project Manager cautioned that this loan might be precedent-setting, and this should be taken into consideration. Another expense to be incurred by the Agency is the asbestos report, whether the house is sold to OTPA or demolished. The survey will cost approximately $4,500.00; other costs dependuponthecontaminationofthehouseitself. Staff felt the Agency should be responsible for the removal of the asbestos, if there is any, because of state law. Demolition costs range from $5,000-10,000.00. Staff is looking for direction from the Agency on whether to proceed with the sale of the house to OTPA, to go out for bid again, or to demolish the house. Council asked the size of the lot, which is 3,500 square feet.The house isapproximately 1,400 square feet.The following people addressed the Council in favor of saving the house:Shannon Tucker, 556 E. Culver Avenue, representing Old Towne Preservation Association.Stephen Tebo, 931 E. Grove Avenue.Drew Hoffman, 1222 E. Walnut.Bill Leming, 506 E. Chapman A venue.Lisa Blanc, 368 S. Orange Street.Tom Grochow, 163 N. Pine Street.Russ Barrios, a citizen of Orange.Dan Slater, a citizen of Orange.They made the following points:OTP A is proposing a community rehabilitation project involving the talents and craftsmanship of this City's tradesmen. They have commitments for a vast array of donated services for the restoration of the Queen Anne house.They are asking for a one-year rehab loan, with no deed restrictions on the land.Perhaps this loan could come from the general fund. Some interest was expressed in bidding on the house, should it be put out for rebid. However, they didnothavealotavailable. This is the biggest problem, with few lots available.They feel demolishing the house is the wrong thing to do.A compromise was offered by OTPA: if Redevelopment lets them use $15,000 of demolition money,they will waive any asbestos liability on the house, which is not against the law.An indemnity agreement could be worked out on the house.Time needs to be spent in the demolition procedure process. Why not allow this same amount of time to try to same the house.An offer was made by Russ Barrios, on behalf of several people, to pay for the blocks the house is standing on for the next 30 days or so, so the City can make a responsible decision, without considering this cost.They asked if theRedevelopmentAgency could loan the money to the City.One citizen cited an example of an asbestos inspection for a much lower cost, so he did not understand why the cost was so high.OTPA representatives felt they could raise the $25, 000 moving costs within 60 days.PAGE 2 95 ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES March 17, 1992 S. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS (Continued) The following people spoke in opposition: T. J. Clark, 811 E. Chapman Avenue. Alice Clark, 205 N. Pine Street. Corrine Schreck, 446 N. James. They made the following points: This project has been in limbo for the past 8-10 months. Its time to take action. If OTPA wants to restore this house, why don't they come up with some money?They feel the house is worthless, an eyesore, and should be demolished.They feel the bid should not be accepted. The house should be demolished.These citizens feel betrayed on this matter, since promises have not been kept.Enough taxpayers' money has been spent on this house.They are not in favor of public funds for a private project on a private lot.It sounds like mansionization of a lot to put this house on such a small lot.They would like to know what the setbacks will be.This is precedent-setting, especially with no deed restrictions.How will this be affected by the La Veta widening, which has not been finalized?The Directors discussed spending the same amount of money on moving the house as would be spent on its demolition. The Directors did not feel any money could be loaned from the City general fund,especially in view of the current budget shortfall. The Directors considered using Community Development Block Grant money, but Staff indicated the same restrictions on low-moderate income housing prevail. The City Attorney and Agency Staff indicated any time the housing set-aside funds are used, the affordability restrictions apply. This would eliminate the possibility of the Agency loaning money to the City, who would in turn loan it to OTPA. The Executive Director feels set-aside funds can be used for the demolition, because the property holding the house will be prepared for senior,affordable housing, although this needs to be confirmed by Agency Legal Counsel. The use of these same funds for other purposes would need to be approved by Legal Counsel.Discussion ensued relating to the length of time for the demolition process to be completed. The demo process could be initiated and running parallel with the OlPA proposal, or perhaps a new bidder,allowing them that period of time to move the house. Director Coontz felt if the bidding was extended,there should be a stipulation that Planning approve the plot plan.The Executive Director and City Staff did not know how long the demolition process would take, since there is the historical aspect, AQMD permits, etc. The City Attorney felt acceptance of the bid could be delayed until it is known if OTPA can raise the funds to move the house.NOTE: Chairman Beyer reported he owns property about 150 feet from the property being considered for relocating the house. The City Attorney recommended he disqualify himself from voting, if the motion is concerning the property located at 222 E. La Veta.PAGE 3 96 ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES March 17, 1992 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS (Continued) MOTION SECOND AYES Steiner Spurgeon Steiner, Barrera, Coontz, Spurgeon Chairman Beyer disqualified himself pursuant to the City Attorney's advice.Moved to proceed with demolition of the house. Concurrently, Old Towne Preservation Association to proceed with their fund raising efforts for 60 days. If they are successful in raising money to move the house, it shall be moved to the proposed location at 222 E. La Veta. If they are not able to raise the funds, the house will be demolished.7. LEGAL AFFAIRS 7. 1 RESOLUTION NO. ORA-0245 A Resolution of the Orange Redevelopment Agency authorizing the execution of a Public Works Cooperation Agreement with the City of Orange relating to public improvements (the formation of an Underground Utility District No. 12 on The City Drive from Route 22 Freeway to approximately 2,200 feet north - Southwest Funding). (RA21oo.0 A.1930)MOTION SECOND AYES Steiner Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Chairman Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon That Resolution No. ORA-0245 as introduced be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.8. ORAL PRESENTATIONS Alice Clark, 205 N. Pine Street, said she had no problem with OTPA raising funds for a private enterprise project, or with the delay given. However, she was concerned about the La Veta widening,and whether they might need to be paid. She also asked if this would be developed as a single family house, or a 2-unit apartment, making 3 units on an R-210t.PAGE 4 91 ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES March 17, 1992 RECESS The Orange Redevelopment Agency recessed at 5:00 p.m. to a Closed Session for the following purposes: a. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (b) (1). b. To consider and take possible action upon such other matters as are orally announced by the General Counsel, Executive Director, or Agency Members prior to such recess unless the motion to recess indicates any other matters will not be considered in closed session. ADJOURNMENT MOTION SECOND AYES Chairman Beyer Barrera Steiner, Barrera, Chairman Beyer, Coontz, Spurgeon The Orange Redevelopment Agency adjourned at 6:10 p.m.MARILYN J. JENSEN Marilyn J. Jensen, C.M.C., Agency Clerk BY~..&" r1uA.~Cassandra Cathcart, C. M.C.,Assistant Clerk PAGE 5