Loading...
1975/02/1775-139 Management Control Center, 114 South Claudina Street Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17~ 1975~ 7:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Thom ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pebley and Sneegas PRESENT: REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS: Leo, Cotler, Oseid, Fry, and Morris ABSENT: REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS: McDaniel and Mendez PRESENT: CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Tolar, Gauer, Farano, King, Morley, Johnson, and Herbst ABSENT: CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Frank A. Lowry, Jr. DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Mac Slaughter CITY CLERK: Alona M. Hougard REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Knowlton Fernald ASSISTANT REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Christian Hogenbirk DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS: Thornton Piersall CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald T-homp$on ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts PLANNING SUPERVISOR; Don McDaniel CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR: Dan Van Dorpe Prior to the meeting a packet of materials including memorandum from the Redevelopment Director regarding Agency responsibilities on projects in the industrial area of Project Alpha, together with attachments includ- ing portions of the State Community Development Law, Anaheim Redevelopment Plan for Project Alpha, and memorandum from the City Attorney's O££ice regarding "powers of Redevelopment Agency to approve or withhold approval of proposed developments" was submitted to Council, Redevelopment and Planning Commission Members. Redevelopment Commission Chairman Morris called the Redevelopment Commission to order. Planning Commission Chairman Herbst called the City Planning Commission to order. Mayor Thom called the adjourned regular Council meeting to order and advised the purpose of this work session is to conduct discussion between Council, Planning Commission and Redevelopment Commission regarding what appeared to be some problem areas with respect to the technical operation of these three bodies in the urban redevelopment project area. He noted that the' City Council has become aware of this from one particular project and, therefore, desired this opportunity to sit down and discuss the matter. Mayor Thom pointed out that the problem seems to have arisen due to the fact that the generally accepted conception was that urban redevelopment would take place in the downtown area of Project Alpha, and it was not expected that problems would arise in the northeast industrial and canyon areas as these areas relate to the City Planning Commission. Mr. Knowlton Fernald remarked that perhaps a portion of the problem which is being experienced is due to the fact that the Redevelopment Agency, Commis- 'sion and staff are the relatively new component of city government and are, therefore, just becoming acquainted with their jurisdiction and its possibil- ities. He remarked that in discussing the Redevelopment Commission and Agency, it must be realized that the Commission is an extension of the Agency and conducts much of its business. The Commission does, in fact, spend more time on Redevelopment business than the Agency, but is empowered only to make recom- mendations to the Redevelopment Agency. Further, to understand the Agency and its business, Mr. Fernald suggested it be viewed as a public developer interested in developing and redeveloping areas of the City. The Agency, in its role as developer has special tools and powers with which to perform its job. The Agency's purpose is to bring new development into the City and to accelerate and improve the quality of develop- ment, and in doing so, to redevelop and rehabilitate those areas in which this 75-140 Management Control Center, 114 South Claudina Street Anaheimz.' California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17~ 1975~ 7;30 P.M. activity is needed. Mr. Fernald commented that areas such as the canyon and northeast industrial areas would not have been included in Redevelopment Project Alpha unless there were existing problems when the project was put together. He advised that blight is not defined only as deteriorating buildings and economic situations~ but includes those conditions which may contribute to future blight such as faulty planning, inadequate access, flooding, inadequate utilities and circulation problems. Mr. Fernald referred to the situation which prompted the work session, the Rinker and Freeway Commercial Properties projects and advised that in this case the Redevelopment Commission and Agency became aware of the project and its prob- lems too late to effect any good solution, but felt that had they been involved early in the project, they would have been able to resolve the situation. Planning Commissioner Gauer brought up the question of duplication of efforts between the City Planning Commission and Redevelopment Commission. Mr. Fernald responded that he felt there is a difference in direction and not a duplication of efforts. He stated that the Planning Commission's responsi- bility is well known and defined, traditionally they review and approve plans submitted for zoning changes, conditional uses, and variances from site develop- ment standards set forth in the zoning ordinances off, the City. The Redevelopment Agency is to review all projects within its project area to insure these are in conformance with the Redevelopment Plan, whereas the City Planning Commission would review only those which require a zone change or a use permit. Mr. Murdoch commented that the primary responsibility of the City Planning Commission is to actually determine, or at least recommend to the City Council, what land use is appropriate for any given area. The Redevelopment Agency then takes up from that point, after the land use has been determined, and has the responsibility of encouraging development in any given portion of the project area in which there is a problem. Planning Commissioner Farano noted that the Planning Commission approves specific plans and imposes certain conditions and inquired whether the Redevelop- ment Commission grants their approval subject to these same specific plans and conditions and how these two bodies interrelate into the scheme of things. Redevelopment Commissioner Morris referred to the drainage ditch located at Blue Gum which was constructed with tax increment funds as a Redevelopment Agency project. Since a developer could not economically construct buildings where these would require a drainage ditch, the construction of that ditch by the Redevelopment Agency encouraged development of the area. He noted that it is this special ability to step in and accomplish these projects with tax increment funds which differentiates the Redevelopment from the Planning Commission. Mr. Fernald expressed the opinion that the Redevelopment Commission's purpose would best be met if its staff were to review projects before the Planning Commission and supply information to the Planning Commission on these matters, perhaps including recommendations. He noted that this would not change the position of the Planning Commission in relation to any activity in the Redevelopment Project Area. Further, he pointed out that the Redevelopment Commission in its attempts to expedite redevelopment activity may propose additional changes or recommendations, but these would be subject to City Planning Commission approval as well. In reply to Commissioner Farano's question, Mr. Watts advised that under the current procedure~ the Redevelopment Commission would act pursuant to whatever has been approved by the Planning Commission insofar as the particular development involves approval of precise plans. He pointed out, however, that this is not to say that the Redevelopment Agency does not have the ability to impose greater conditions even though up to the present they have not done so. Planning Commissioner Farano stated that from his interpretation o£ that section of the memorandum which describes the powers and duties of the Redevelop- ment Commission, if he understands this correctly, it would appear the Redevelop- ment Commission has practically all of the same powers as the Planning Commis- sion, and more. For the sake of clarity and to avoid future jurisdictional problems, he felt it necessary to establish some working order and relationship for the two Commissions. 75 -141 Management Control Center, 114 South Claudina Street Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17~ 1975~ 7:30 P.M. Planning Commissioner Herbst recalled that the northeast industrial area was placed in Project Alpha primarily for tax increment purposes. He indicated that his main concern regarding this situation is that the developer not be required to go through three governmental processes, but rather he wished to see private industry develop the northeast industrial area with the least amount of problems. For these reasons he would like to see a set of guidelines established so that the developer will be clearly aware of his position. Redevelopment Commissioner Cotler reminded the other members present that the entire City of Anaheim is a project area and the Redevelopment Commission was not formed solely for redevelopment of the central City area, although that is the primary goal at present. Their responsibility reaches to areas where blight may occur because of certain conditions and is directed towards the prevention of same. He voiced the opinion that this is a sequential problem in that the Redevelopment Agency, through its Commission, is required to develop a plan which cannot be adopted without approval by the City Planning Commission and City Council. Further, any change in that Redevelopment Plan must also have approval of the Planning Commission. He concluded, therefore, that it seems logical to him that the sequence be that the Redevelopment Commission review the project prior to the Planning Commission. In regard to the specific problem which prompted the meeting, Redevelopment Commissioner Cotler commented that he felt it was his responsibility to preclude the situation which would have occurred, and which would have created a tremendous problem of access. He stated that had the Redevelopment Agency and Commission more tax funds to work with, his recommendation would have been that the Redevelopment Agency purchase this property and offer it to the developers. Councilman Seymour stated that there is a philosophical difference between Redevelopment Commissioner Cotler's and his own viewpoint regarding the use of the powers of eminent domain or condemnation. Councilman Seymour indicated he would not be in favor of this type of action unless it was specifically intended to "redevelop" that property. He concurred that if the Redevelopment Agency owned the entire City of Anaheim, certainly they could assure the best and highest degree of development possible. However, philosophically, he could not accept the City of Anaheim being in a role like that of the Irvine Company, especially and specifically in the Northeast Industrial Area. Councilman Seymour remarked that he felt it necessary that government become aggressive in the downtown area, but that he is philosophically opposed to taking the vehicle of redevelopment and applying it to that land which has the highest potential for quality development which remains in the City. Redevelopment Commissioner Cotler voiced the opinion that had Councilman Seymour attended the Redevelopment Commission meeting and observed, as he had, the two developers each trying to accomplish their own project, he would feel differently. He contended that had they started on an even keel, the problem would not have evolved, however, one developer had a slight edge which was given him inadvertently by the City because it was not known that access would be necessary for the other property, as it was part of the State freeway project. Planning Commissioner Farano related that when the Planning Commission dealt with the project under discussion, the only advantage the one property had was that it had an application pending and previously approved for two years. Further discussion of the Rinker and Freeway Commercial Properties situ- ation ensued which Mayor Thom interrupted~ notin§ that the discussion was not addressing the problem at hand, i.e., sequential order in which applications are to be processsed before the three bodies. Planning Commission Johnson noted that he was aware of the Redevelopment Commission's position from the materials presented, but asked how Council feels about the overall concept. Mayor Thom responded that the City Council's prime concern has been focused on the Redevelopment Project in the downtown area and consequently they have tended to overlook and were not aware of what the procedures would be to handle development applications for the industrial and canyon areas, as they came before the three bodies involved. He indicated that what needs to be accom- plished is to establish some sort of sequence which would minimize time lost in processing of development applications to the greatest extent possible. 75-142 Management Control Center, 114 South Claudina Street Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17~ 1975~ 7:30 P.M. Redevelopment Commissioner Leo expressed the opinion that if Redevelopment Commission staff were involved in the early stages of these applications, these problem situations might be prevented. He stated that if Redevelopment input is given in the early stages of planning, the developer would be spared the appearance before both Commissions. He clarified his statement for Redevelop- ment Commissioner Morris, noting that he means Redevelopment and Planning Commission review a project concurrently. Mr. Ron Thompson suggested that to expedite the situation perhaps a member of the Redevelopment staff should attend the Interdepartmental Committee meet- ings at which a project within the Redevelopment Project Area is discussed. He might then report back to the Redevelopment Commission if there are any problems foreseen. He further noted that in the very near future the Redevelopment Commission is planning to prepare a more detailed master plan for the northeast industrial area. Mr. Fernald felt that everyone is saying approximately the same thing, but that it will take some time to trace the steps to be followed. However, basically when a project comes about which is located in the Redevelopment Project Area, both Planning and Redevelopment staff should review this together and work with the developer, and a procedure could be. established whereby either staff or Commission might recommend conditions to be imposed. In reply to Planning Commissioner Herbst's inquiry regarding the plan for the northeast industrial area and whether this would interfere with private development of that area, Mr. Fernald advised that the Redevelopment Commission will most likely recommend to the City Planning Commission a study considering such factors as poor parcelization, flooding, landlocked parcels, the need for additional utilities, road and circulation systems and perhaps minor changes in zoning. This study would be submitted to the City Planning Commission for review. He assured Commissioner Herbst that the study will deal with existing problems. He indicated that the purpose of the plan is to find ways to provide new opportunities for development. Redevelopment Commissioner Morris pointed out that it is the primary responsibility of his Commission to either develop or redevelop to prevent blight in the future or to correct existing blight. Mr. Ron Thompson gave as examples of how the Redevelopment Commission might accelerate development in an area, a problem with access which the Planning Commission has wrestled with for some time, (1) if a street were constructed it would provide access to about 40 landlocked parcels; (2) by preparation of a master environmental impact report for the northeast industrial area, this would save the developers the cost and time delays associated with the E.I.R. process. Mr. Thompson pointed out the further example in which the Redevelopment Agency assisted in encouraging development by the construction of a storm drain at Blue Gum which the Redevelopment Commission recommended and was approved by the City Council. The construction of this storm drain, which cost approximately $60,000 in tax increment funds, has allowed industrial developers to proceed with construction and the tax increment which will be generated as a result of their development will more than off-set the cost of the storm drain. Mr. Fernald stressed that there is no one in the City who wishes to see acceleration of these activities more than himself. He emphasized that the majority of the projects which are proposed will not have these problems and the concurrent staff review should be sufficient. Commissioner Cotler pointed out that part of the present problem is that the Redevelopment Commission/Agency has only recently brought in staff and consultants and has not yet formulated a redevelopment plan. Mayor Thom summarized that from the discussion so far it appears when an application is proposed for development in the Project Alpha Area as it is presently defined, said project will be tagged by Development Services Depart- ment, and the Redevelopment staff brought in to review and confer on said project on or before the Interdepartmental Committee's meeting; an action in some form will be then taken by the Redevelopment Commission prior to the 75-143 Management Control Center, 114 South Claudine Street Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17.~ 1975~ 7:30 P.M. application proceeding to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will then make its recommendation to the Council, and the City Council Members, acting as both City Council and Redevelopment Agency, will make the final decision. In reply to Mayor Thom's question as to whether the Redevelopment Commis- sion is required by law to take some action on all such applications, Mr. Watts indicated that there is no requirement for the Commission to do this, but there is for the Agency. He advised that the procedure as outlined by the Mayor would be satisfactory from his viewpoint. Mayor Thom requested comment on this sequence from the Members of the Redevelopment and Planning Commissions. Planning Commissioner Herbst felt it would provide the input necessary; Planning Commissioner King stressed the importance of expediting development and keeping the City progressive; Planning Commissioner Tolar noted that with the sequence as outlined, a developer's project might be approved by the Redevel- opment Commission and then denied by the Planning Commission and/or City Council, and whether this would not create a problem for the developer by virtue of the additional level of bureaucracy, through which the developer is given to believe his project will be approved and ultimately is not. Mayor Thom agreed it might create a problem, however, the law does not permit latitude from this requirement. Planning Commissioner Herbst inquired what the sequence of events would be if a developer meets all the requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code for the particular area and consequently the application need not be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Watts replied that those applications would come before just the Redevelopment Commission and Agency to determine whether or not they are in compliance with the Redevelopment Plan. Planning Commissioner Herbst stated that this situation bothers him in that the developer who reviews the City's Zoning Code and designs a project which meets these criteria could then find that since the property is located within Project Alpha, he still has to go before a Commission and comply with plans. He noted that this developer could have expended a great deal o£ money prior to coming to the Redevelopment Commission with a project. Redevelopment Commissioner Morris advised that once the Redevelopment Plan is formulated this will also be available to developers for use in planning their projects. Mr. Dan Van Dorpe stated that there is a definitive procedure spelled out in Project Alpha Plan, Section 424, for notification to potential builders and developers of Redevelopment Project Alpha. He advised that there is currently a map of the Project Alpha Area posted in the Building Division, together with a statement outlining what the developer has to do to obtain Redevelopment approval of his project. Councilman Seymour made reference to the powers of the Redevelopment Commission described in the City Attorney's memorandum of January 30, 1975, Page No. 3, which states that the Redevelopment Agency "within the limits, restrictions and control established in the Plan, is authorized to establish heights of buildings, land coverage, design criteria, traffic circulation, traffic access..." He advised that this appears to be inconsistent inasmuch as he always believed that the responsibility of the City Planning Commission was to administer the best development possible for the City of Anaheim. He stated that the formulation of the Redevelopment Plan by the Redevelopment Commission and Agency may devise more strict standards, however, in reference to such portions of the City as the northeast industrial he felt these standards should be applied by the City Planning Commission rather than the Redevelopment Commis- sion. Setting aside for a moment the provisions of the Redevelopment Law, in order to discuss the situation philosophically, Councilman Seymour stated that the Redevelopment Project is divided into two distinct sections, the Downtown Area and the Northeast Industrial Area, and in his opinion, the purpose for the 75-144 Management Control Center, 114 South Claudina Street Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -.February .1..7~ 1975~ 7:30 P.M. tie, as originally presented, was money. He noted that he finds it difficult to move away from that original philosophy, and if this is to be the emphasis, then why could not the City comply with the law and at the same time insure rapidity in processing, by adopting a process whereby if redevelopment funds are to be used for capital improvements in the Northeast Industrial Area, the Redevelopment Commission would then be involved to a great degree, but in those situations where no funds or capital improvements are to be made in the Northeast Industrial Area then the project should be "rubber-stamped" and left to the Planning Commission for decisions. Further, Councilman Seymour stated that he could anticipate potential con- flict in the downtown area wherein the Redevelopment Commission will have a developer and project they feel to be appropriate, but the Planning Commission will apply their values and judgment and perhaps not concur. He voiced the opinion that the Members of each Commission, Redevelopment and Planning, should carry forward their respective duties and attempt not to intervene in each other's purview. He summarized that he would not envisage the necessity for a full blown Redevelopment Commission hearing on a project in the Northeast Industrial Area unless there are capital improvements to be made with tax increment funds; conversely in the Downtown Area he would expect the City Planning Commission would likewise cooperate with theRedevelopment Commission. Planning Commissioner Farano pointed out that the Council has appointed two bodies whose statutory authority substantially, but not completely, overlaps with certain differences in their end purpose. Me stated that while the sequen- tial order outlined above may resolve the situation for the moment, he wondered if it would not be difficult for the Redevelopment Commission to ignore its statutory authority and whether eventually, the Planning Commission will instead be a zoning commission. He indicated the proposed solution would be fine for the present but suggested there will be a need for clarification at a later date. Mr. Slaughter did not think that the positions of the Planning and Redevel- opment Commissions and their respective powers and duties were in direct con- flict, rather he pointed out that the Planning Commission has formulated and adopted a General Plan for the City of Anaheim, and the Redevelopment Plan will be in conformance with that General Plan. The Redevelopment Commission should be viewed as another tool to carry out the adopted General Plan, a tool which will enable some acceleration of private development. Mr. Thompson suggested that himself, Mr. Fernald, Mr. Watts and Mr. Slaughter get together and draft some processing procedures for the review and approval of the two Commissions and Council, which would minimize the red tape and hopefully accomplish the objectives of all three bodies. Mayor Thom concurred with this suggestion and requested also that this draft address itself to the respective areas of responsibility of the two Commissions. Redevelopment Commissioner Morris replied in answer to Councilman Seymour's comments regarding the Redevelopment Commission's area of responsibility in the Northeast Industrial Area, that he was not sure this is in compliance with the provisions of the law, and the Commission must follow the dictates of the law establishing their authority. Mr. Watts corroborated Commissioner Morris's statement, however felt that Councilman Seymour's statement only intended that the Redevelopment Commission review those situations where redevelopment funds are to be used, more inten- sively than others. Discussion ensued during which Councilman Seymour and Commissioner Morris took opposing viewpoints on the rationale behind the inclusion of the Northeast Industrial Area in Redevelopment Project Alpha. Councilman Seymour stated he was on the City Planning Commission during the formulation of Project Alpha and his thoughts at that time were that the Northeast Industrial Area was a part of Alpha for no other reason than money. Several Planning Commissioners voiced the same opinion. Redevelopment Commissioner Morris stated it had always been his thinking the inclusion was because of the amount of blight in that area. 75-145 Management Control Center, 114 South Claudine Street Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 17~ 1975~ 7:30 P.M. Commissioner Cotler pointed out that while seeking a financial base for redevelopment of the Downtown Area, it was simultaneously recognized that there were some problem conditions which could be rectified with tax increment funds in the Northeast Industrial Area. Mayor Thom pointed out that it is essential that staff quickly formulate the procedure to be established so that this can be reviewed and established as a working guideline which will help the City to accelerate and not decelerate development. Commissioner Herbst stated that he would not want to see the developer having to abide by two sets of rules, to which Mayor Thom reiterated that if the Redevelopment Commission comes up with more restrictive or different site development standards, these would be recommended for adoption by the City Planning Commission. At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Thom inquired if any Member of the Council, staff, Redevelopment or Planning Commissions had any further remarks to make at this time. Councilman Seymour felt Council would be negligent if they did not express their sincere gratitude for the many hours of work that the Redevelopment and Planning Commissions have devoted to their respective duties. He remarked that all of these individuals are dedicated to the same final objective, and there is no reason why everyone cannot be pulling in the same direction. He advised all of the Commissioners that the Council supports their endeavors. Planning Commissioner Gauer related from his experience that in 1946 the City Planning Commission had a "blank piece of paper" as far as the City was concerned since it was all orange groves and two-lane roads, and the primary factor in the way the City did evolve was the development of private property by individuals. Anaheim could have been like San Marino. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: On motion by Commissioner Farano, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, the City Planning Commission adjourned to Wednesday, February 19, 1975 at 1:30 P.M. for the purpose of holding their regular meeting. MOTION CARRIED. (9:10 P.M.) REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: On motion by Commissioner Leo, seconded by Commissioner Cotler, the Redevelopment Commission adjourned. MOTION CARRIED. (9:10 P.M.) ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 9:10 P.M. SIGNED City Clerk~