11/17/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. He was never notified of the date and time when it was presented to the Commission; and -'-- 3. He never had an opportunity proposal to the Commission. to present his . The City Manager told the members of the Agency that the direct recommendation of the Commission to the Agency was to establish the date of December 15, 1981 for the public hearing to adopt a Resolution authorizing execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement in which all parties could be heard. Chairman Bricken informed the City Manager that the question that was being raised was whether such Public Hearing was heard before the Commission, and if it was, Mr. Des Rochers was not aware of it. . The Executive Director informed the members of the Agency that the Redevelopment Commission does not hold public hearings on Development Agreements, only the Agency does. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency sets the time and date of the Disposition and Development Agreement consideration for public hearing. Chairman Bricken then confirmed that it was not the Commission's function to hold the public hearing. Mr. Terry M. Moshenko, Moshenko, Bradley & Assoc., Douglas Plaza, Suite 102, 18952 MacArthur Blvd, Irvine, CA 92715, requested that the Agency postpone the setting of the public hearing for ninety (90) to one-hundred twenty (120) days to allow them to have further input in the process. He also mentioned that they had submitted a proposal to the Agency, but that the Agency never wrote or called him about their acceptance or rejection, and that he would like to have been told. Mr. Moshenko mentioned that this proposal violates Section IV. 6.b.(4)g. "Off-Street parkin~--Parking facili- ties shall be located on the same lot or slte or on a lot or site contiguous thereto. Any property used for required parking shall be under the same ownership as the uses served or shall be restricted in such a manner as to prevent the severance of the parking facilities and use by sale, trade, lease or any other conveyance." Chairman Bricken said that such dialog should be for the future public hearing. . Mr. Cooper suggested that Mr. Moshenko finalize his thoughts and submit them to his office and that he would be glad to go over them. Mr. Des Rochers stated that what was discussed last year and what was approved by the Agency was not Mr. Fainbarg's proposal. He also stated that the proposal did not ask that Mr. Fainbarg take his propery rights and it did not include the parking lot. 11 -3-