Loading...
1973/07/1373-570 Covenant Presbyterian Church of Anaheim 124 North Emily Street (Southeast Corner of Emily and Chartres Streets) Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13~ 1973~ 7:00 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the Community Redevelopment Commission met in Adjourned Regular Session for the purpose of continuing the hearing on Redevelop- ment Project "Alpha". PRE SENT: COUNCILMEN: and Dutton ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None PRESENT: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Robert M. Davis CITY ATTORNEY: Joseph B. Geisler CITY CLERK: Dene M. Daoust ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Don McDaniel ASSISTANT PLANNER: Christian Hogenbirk COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: PRE SENT: AB SENT: PRESENT: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley (Arrived at 7:05 P.M.), Thom Ronald Thompson COMMISSIONERS: I. Gene McDaniel, Lloyd E. Klein, Gaylen Compton, Kenneth N. Cotler (Arrived at 7:15 P.M.), Joseph A. Cano, Herbert Leo (Chairman Pro Tem) COMMISSIONERS: James L. Morris (Chairman) SPECIAL COUNSEL: Eugene Jacobs ASSISTANT TO SPECIAL COUNSEL: Murray Kane SECRETARY PRO TEM: Christian Hogenbirk COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: PRESENT: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley (Arrived at 7:05 P.M.), Thom and Dutton (Chairman) ABSENT: None PRESENT: ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert M. Davis SECRETARY: Dene M. Daoust Mayor Dutton called the meeting to order. Because of the apparent misunderstanding by many property owners of the objectives of the Redevelopment Project "Alpha" which has generated many incor- rect assumptions, Mayor Dutton requested Mr. Hogenbirk to recapitulate the pro- posal and the State interpretation of the term "blighted" as well. Mr. Hogenbirk stated that in attempting to analyze his presentation on July 10, 1973, and the reaction which it received, he also felt that there was still a great deal of confusion as to the purpose of Redevelopment Project "Alpha" and remarked that perhaps it should have been designated a "Plan" rather than a "Project". He explained that actually what it is, is a plan, or program, a set Of tools with which the Redevelopment Agency, through its Commission, can go into specific project planning. At this time there are no specific plans, but Project "Alpha" will enable these to come about. Prior to the inception of any specific project, detailed studies such as a traffic study and a marketing analysis of the downtown area, drainage plan and analysis of traffic circulation in the northeast industrial area will first be conducted. Project "Alpha" also provides a method for financing these studies and potential projects, he advised and utilizing a large exhibit again explained the tax increment financing to be achieved by freezing the assessed valuation. The exhibit illustrated the tax incremental process by proposing a hypothetical vacant property and showing the resultant incremental increase achieved through improve- ment of this property with a structure. Mr. Hogenbirk explained that if the tax rate is assumed to be $10.80 per $1,000 and the value of this hypothetical pro- perty is $50,000, a tax rate of $540 is generated on the vacant property. Mr. Hogenbirk outlined the 42 various taxing agencies which share the tax dollar and demonstrated that if this property were in the Redevelopment Project area and the assessed valuation frozen, then if the property were improved with a structure which increased the valuation to $100,000, it concomitantly would produce an in- cremental increase in the tax assessed on that property of an additional $540. This additional incremental portion of the taxes would not be distributed to the 42 various taxing agencies but would be retained in the community for use by the 73-571 Anaheim~ Califorina - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13~ 1973~ 7:00 P.M. Redevelopment Agency. This same rule would apply to the normal increases in assessed valuation made when the County Assessor surveys properties. Councilman Thom rephrased this explanation for clarification, stating that the valuation of the buildings and property is not frozen, but it is rather frozen on the taxing agencies. Because of the many inquiries received regarding the strip of land along Lincoln Avenue included in the Project area, also referred to as the "umbilical segment", Mr. Hogenbirk reported that additional research was con- dUcted and this has revealed that all persons having property in this portion of the Project have been duly notified of the public hearing in accordance with law. He advised that for purposes of clarification a map of this portion of the Project was enlarged and is shown in green on the diagram posted to the left side of the church. The project area extends from the centerline of Lincoln Avenue to the.property lines north and south of Lincoln Avenue only, he noted. Mr. Jacobs further advised that the petition submitted Tuesday, July 10, 1973 containing 27 signatures in opposition, on investigation revealed that only three of the signatures represented owners of property located within the Project boundary. He also advised that some people had received notices whose property was actually not included in the Project which led to further confusion. Mayor Dutton noted specifically that the one man who spoke on Tuesday, to the fact that he had not been properly notified of this public hearing,and it was ascertained in the interim that his property was not within the Project "Alpha" boundaries. ,I' (CONTINUED) THOSE IN OPPOSITION WHO WISH TO SPEAK: The next speaker was announced by the City Clerk: Mabel Betzold, 202 South Beechwood. (Mrs. Betzold was not present) Mr. Loren C. Fisher, 1013 West Elliott Place, Santa Ana, property owner in opposition,advised that he owns property within the downtown area included in Redevelopment Project "Alpha", and remarked that he felt sufficient monies had been spent already on surveys and studies whereas the City is proposing still more in connection with this project. He contended that if an equivalent amount spent on these studies were actually used in redevelopment of the downtown area, the result would put Beverly Hills to shame. He expressed the opinion that the entire public hearing proceedings were futile in that the electorate has no authority in this matter, that the authority is vested in the City . Council. Further he thought the public should be made fully aware that the term of the proposed Project is 35 years. Mr. R. L. Angle, 1341 Miller Street, property owner in opposition, stated that he has owned the property at 1341 Miller Street since 1950. He questioned the source of money for such property improvement as was described by Mr, Hogenbirk, to which Mr. Jacobs answered that property improvements could be undertaken by private developers or by the present property owners with financing from con- ventional sources. Mr. Angle contended that if redevelopment in the downtown area is so beneficial, it would seem to him that it would evolve through private develop- ment without any need for the additional tax expense of a Redevel'opment Agency. Councilman Sneegas replied that redevelopment financing procedure pro- vides for the funds to redevelop the downtown area to be raised by the natural development in the northeast industrial area. He further noted that some deci- sion must be made whether or not to intervene and halt the deterioration of the downtown section of the City, that most people agree that something has to be done, and that Project "Alpha" provides the City with the tool to accomplish this. Councilman Dutton remarked that when an area begins to deteriorate such as the downtown segment of Anaheim, the assessed valuation decreases, and because of this, the remainder of the taxpayers carry the burden of providing the necessary services for that particular area. 73-572 Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 131 1973,1 7:00 P.M. Mr. Angle explained that he owns property in the northeast industrial area and has experienced a practically 100% increase in his assessed valuation, and felt that with the implementation of this program his taxes would be higher. He further stated that he resents the use of taxpayers' funds to promote special interests, which is what this' redevelopment program amounts to in his opinion. He felt that this redevelopment program should have been paid for with funds which have been used by the City for such projects as the Stadium and Conveation Center which he purported cost the taxpayers additional monies to support yearly. Hayor Dutton corrected Mr. Angle's remark concerning the Convention Center, informing him that no tax funds ever were used to construct this facility and that in its fifth year, having paid all operational expenses and $930,000 in amortization, still contributed back to the City a net profit of $gg6,433. Mr. Angle cited statistics which he stated were from an Anaheim City Newsletter which would refute Mayor Dutton's remark, and continued his protest on the basis that he would not be anxious for a governmental body which is losing $2,000,000 per year on said facilities, to have any control oVer his property. Mr. Angle was of the opinion that it is illegal to utilize the large northeast industrial area to finance the redevelopment of the downtown area and recommended that the City Attorney closely review the Redevelopment Project in conjunction with Section 33000 of the California Health and Safety Code which cites cases in the courts against redevelopment agencies. Mr. Angle questioned the legality of the Project.in light of the envir- omnent impact report, which fails in his opinion to consider the impact of the taxing situation on the school districts and other special taxation districts. The Project will have an impact on the entire County and this was not considered in the report. He outlined various impacts which might be anticipated to be pre- cipitated by the increase in population and industrial/commercial activity and stated that these effects, i.e., additional sewage effluent, demands for addi- tional water, etc., will ultimately result in increased costs which will be borne by all Orange County taxpayers. He implied that the enviromnental impact report is not accurate, noting that the total acreage was not accounted for in one of the breakdowns into different types of land uses. He remarked that he personally would prefer Strawberry or flower fields to the most highly motivated development plans devised by man, and that growth is planned for in this project but not nec- essarily desirable. He noted that those people who were listed as having been~consulted on the formulation of the environmental impact report were basically the members of the Comnunity Redevelopment Commission and various City of Anaheim staff members, and these people he considered to be biased. Consultation should have been in- cluded from the Orange County Water District, Orange County Flood Control Dis- trict, solid waste disposal, groups, all surrounding cities, the Placentia Unified School District and all other special taxing districts in the area since all of these agencies and cities will be involved in the impact of development in Anaheim. He concluded that the Project would not be to the benefit of the major- ity of the property owners but rather milht submit them to paying the costs of lawsuits regardin$ the legality of the entire Project. Therefore he requested that the Redevelopment Project "Alpha" be dropped, or that the northeast indus-. trial area be deleted. He further expressed his willingness to meet with any interested property owners to discuss this prosram following the meeting. Mrs. Dorothy Angle, 1341 Miller Street, property owner at 1353 Miller Street, advised that the Placentia Unified School District has had to absorb, a large increase in costs due to higher assessed values. She noted that the 3,000 acres of the northeast industrial area included in Project "Alpha" comprise one-eighth of the total land in the Placentia Unified School District. She inquiredwhether any funds will be forthcoming to the Placentia Unified School District from the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Jacobs answered that this is possible under the Redevelopment Law and that contracts have been negotiated in many communities whereby the school district does benefit from redevelopment agency funds. He advised that Senate 73-573 Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13~ 1973! 7:00 P.M. Bill 90, recently passed by the California Legislature would mean that the Redevelopment Project would not be taking monies from the school districts and this should resolve any conflict which previously existed between these two agencies. He reiterated that the Redevelopment Agency can forward financing to the school districts for various purposes over and above their normal share through taxation. Mrs. Angle further objected to the proposed project since there are no specific details or plans which the property owners can review. She referred to the fact that proposed projects previously voted down by the voters could be undertaken by the Redevelopment Agency. In particular, she objected to the fact that there is no recourse for the electorate if they are not in favor of the method in which the Redevelopment Agency utilizes the tools given them under this program. Mr. Charles L. Ruby, 308 North Marwood, Fullerton, owner of property at 117 and 118 North Santa Fe Avenue, asked if the proposed redevelopment will include bus- iness, commercial and residential development or would it be limited to Just one or two of these categories. Mayor Dutton replied that the Project will include a broad range of development intended to bring the property within the Project area up to its maximum economic potential, thereby raising the tax base. Mr. Ruby asked what procedure might be used to determine property values in the Project area. Mayor Dutton assured Mr. Ruby that should the Redevelopment Agency purchase any properties, the fair market value would be paid the owner and not the assessed valuation as has been implied. Mr. Ruby asked if there would be any difference in terms of internal revenue status should an individual sell his property to a redevelopment agency, or have his property taken by eminent domain proceedings, as opposed to sale to a private buyer. Mr.'Jacobs replied that there is an advantage to the individual pro- perty owner to sell to a redevelopment agency in that, should he sell to a pri- vate buyer he would be required to pay tax on the difference between the price he paid for the property and the price at which he sold it; however if his pro- perty is bought by a redevelopment agency, so long as he reinvests the capital derived from the sale in similar property within two years, his tax base will remain the same, i.e., the value of the property at sale for tax purposes will be considered to be the same as the price for which it was purchased. Mr. Ruby stated that he has property which is in need of improvement, but that he as well as other property owners is hesitant to invest any money in the properties because of rumors circulating that the Redevelopment Agency will take their property over and demolish it. Mayor Dutton remarked that it is his personal opinion that a property owner should proceed with necessary improvements in the norm&l maintenance of his property, but not in an outrageous manner in the hope of inflating the price should the Redevelopment Agency wish to purchase it. He advised that the Redevelopment Program encourages owner participation and reiterated that should property be taken the highest fair market value will be paid for it. Mr. Ruby inquired as to what the status of lease and rental agreements would be should the Redevelopment Program be adopted. Mr. Jacobs replied that there is no one answer to this question, it would depend upon the type of lease or rental arrangement. In the event that a redevelopment agency purchased a property over which there is an agreement they could not obtain title until both owner and lessee or renter had relin- quished their rights. In some'instances where the lessee has a particularly good.lease at a low rate, (known as bonus value) he might have a claim to part of the proceeds on sale of the property. 73-.574 .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL HINU~8 - July 13~ 1973~ 7:00 Nr. Ruby asserted that there is no interest in purchase of property within a redevelopment area accordingto some realtors. Councilman Pebley related a personal incident to illustrate that pro- perties within the Redevelopment Project Area, if purchased by the Agency will net a fair market value, and therefore, will not be subject to any different factor than any other properties as it pertains to values. Hr. Jacobs concurred with this except in the event of a conspiracy between buyer and seller for the purpose of promoting more monies from the Redevelopment Agency than the property is truly worth. Usually, he noted a redevelopment project will generate sale and loans will be more accessible be-. cause the lending institutions will be aware that an effort is being made to- wards upgrading the area. Additional interest cards were passed out to those in the audience who wished to indicate their position or to speak at the hearing... Hr. Robert L. AnRle informed the assembly that he had not been sworn in on Tuesday as the others had, and then testified to the statements previously made on oath administered by the City Clerk. The City Clerk then administered the oath to all those persons in the audience who intended to address the Council and Commission at this meeting. The City Clerk called the next speaker. Mr. B. Thomas Lindley, Attorney for Cecil V. Chambers, 14891Yorba Street, Tustin. (Neither Mr. Lindley nor Mr. Chambers were present or represented at the meeting.) Mrs. Betty Lusk, 1207 North Hollydale, Fullerton, owner of the property at 123 North East Street requested that her property be omitted from the Redevelopment Project Area since this lot is located right at the edge of the boundary. She remarked that she could not imagine why her property was included since it is developed into an attractive apartment complex and the entire street has curbs and gutters and is developed with modern residential structures. Mr. Howard Lusk, 1207 North Hollydale, Fullerton, referred to the hypothetical situation posed at the beginning of the meeting and asked if it would be possible under this program for the property value to increase without the placement of a structure on the parcel as was the case in the given situation, to which Mr. Jacobs replied affirmatively, stating that the same rules would apply. Hr. Lusk then stated his position on this Project as being irrevocably opposed because of the principle involved, i.e., conveying complete control of 'all of the private property, within the Project area into the hands of a few men, and this type of govermnental power is Just as reprehensible in his opinion as it was in 1776. He remarked that this Project is a goverranental experiment, and the price for its failure will be paid ultimately by the private property owners. Hr. Earl B. Chambers, 2308 Paradise Road, spoke in opposition to the Redevelopment Plan primarily-because of the nebulousness of the program and the apprehension felt by so many citizens relative to placing these tools in the hands of a few men in~the. Redevelopment Agency. Although he agreed that the downtown area does need some !~provem~nt and that an attempt to remove this "blight" is commendable, he voiced his dis~reement on the inclusion of the residential and commercial area along LincOln Avenue referred to as the "umbilical cord" between the two 'larger segments of the An~heimRedevelopment Project Area. He invited the Council or Coa~nissioners to inspect this area and further offered to submit photographs which would prove his contention that the area is not "blighted". In conclusion he stated that if this Redevelopment Plan were presented in an objective ~nd understandable manner by a steering co~nittee composed of citizens of An~l~im, he did not think it would face as much opposition, however he advised that there is much apprehension regarding this program on the part of the citizens at this time. Mr. Ech~&rd O. Ninor, 220 North Vine Street, remarked that the people in his i~med- iate neighborhood very much resented the implication in the legal notice that their 73=575 An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 13~ 1973~ 7:00.P.M. property was "blighted" and feel that theirs is well maintained property. He requested a legal explanation of eminent domain proceedings and under what conditions these may be instituted in the Redevelopment Program. He referred to the fact that many of the people in his neighborhood have homes which are paid for and who could no longer purchase property; and others who have favor~ able interest rates compared to the current existing rates. Special Counsel Jacobs defined eminent domain as the power of a public agency to take private property, having paid Just compensation, for public pur- poses. In the past few years the law has provided that acquiring property for purposes of revitalizing an area is also a public interest for which eminent domain may be used. In this specific instance, because of the age and economic obsolescence of the buildings, the downtown area is in a position where no indi- vidual private owner could accomplish this rejuvenation, and the area cannot come back into economic focus without government intervention. Therefore the Redevelopment Project intends to revitalize the area and then put it back into private use. This Redevelopment Plan establishes strong priorities for.owners to retain their properties or to buy back into the area on a priority basis. Eminent domain proceeding is expected to be used very sparingly. He further advised that there is no reason to arbitrarily demolish and rebuild areas which are still in good condition. Mr. Minor stated that he is opposed to one area paying the expenses of redevelopment in another area; In addition he expressed his opposition to further studies mentioned as part of this program without any time limits on ssEle. CoUncilman Sneegas asked Mr. Jacobs to explain the differences in power of eminent domain which the City Council has presently and which it would acquire as a result of Project "Alpha". Mr. Jacobs replied that currently the City Council has the power to take by eminent domain proceeding only those properties which are going to re- main in public ownership afterward. Under the Redevelopment Program the City Council will be able to take properties as necessary to revitalize an area and then resell to a private market. II. OPPOSED = DO NOT WISH TO SPEA~: The City Clerk read the following names into the record of those parties opposed to Redevelopment Project "Alpha" who did not wish to speak: 1. Ann Armeson - 218 Beechwood 2. Mrs. B. P. Elster - 221 North Rose Street 3. Mrs. Ralph Beatty - 2862 Miraloma Avenue 4. Mr. and Mrs. C. Stoffel - 208 North Helena Street 5. Robert C. McGtnnis - 908 East Broadway 6. Paul Diordano - 512 East Lincoln 7. June Poor, C/o Eleanor Bell - 901 East Broadway 8.. Barbara J. Holman, et al., 718 South Resh '9. Elizabeth I. Potvin - 11381 Baskerville Road, Los Alamitos (307 West Broadway) 10. Vernard J. Rugg - 219 South Beechwood 11. Beth J. Minor - 220 North Vine Street 12. Theresa Braneschi - 214 North Harbor Boulevard 13. Diana Betts - 121 North Vine Street 14. Mrs. Maurice Schnitz - 11576 Hamlin Street, North Holly, Calif- ornia (205-20§~-207-207~ North Helena) 15. Oleta E. Wahlbring - 212 Beech~ood Street 16. B. Thomas Lindley, Attorney for Elba Davis, (Property at River- dale/Lakevtew area) 17. Pete Barton - 920 East Broadway 18. W. E. Helin, Division Manager - Union Ice Company, Vine Street. 19. Mr. Earl Chambers - 2308 Paradise Road (2300 and 2400 Paradise Road) 20. Roxie Love - 212 South Rose Street 21. Shirley N. Nichol - 214 South Rose 22. Donald L. Kirk - 535 South Helena 73-576 Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13~ 1973~ 7:00 P.M. 23. Anna Pietrok - 512 West Chestnut (315 West Broad. ay apartments) 24. Dibe,I. Matouk- 125 South East Street 25. Charles F. Smneson - 218 Topeka 26. Robert F. Waldron, Attorney for Earl Dahlman {Property at north- east comer of Sunkist and Lincoln) ,RECESS: Councilman Pebley moved for a ten-minute recess. the motion. NOTION CARRIED. (8:20 Councilman Sneegas seconded AFTER RECESS: Mayor Dutton called the joint meeting to order, all Councilmen and Commissioners being present with the exception of Commissioner I/orris. (8:40 P.M) III. THOSE IN FAVOR WHO WISHED TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: Hr. David A. Richardson, 279 East Lincoln Avenue, stated his approval of Redevel- opment Project "Alpha", remarked that the do~mtown area should be stressed in this Project, and noted that he has been waiting for nine years for such a program to develop. Mr. David S. Collins, representin~ property o~mers at 129 through 151 South Anaheim Boulevard, stated that he has been involved in the older section of Anaheim for some time and has watched it deteriorate and the property values de- cline. He congratulated'the City Council and Community Redevelopment Commission on the step foz~ard which is proposed by means of Redevelopment Project "Alpha". He noted that in the past many studies and analyses ~ere performed but' there was never the financial support to carry the program forward aS is 'provided under ' this program. He stated he is optimistic that this plan will attract new buyers and businesses to the do~nto~m area. The older part of the City needs to change its image he remarked so that it looks and acts like the eighth largest city in California. He disagreed with those ~ho objected because they felt their pro- perty values would decline, and instead voiced his opinion that these property owners will want to sell at the prices they will be able to get following a good redevelopment program. Mr. Ben Cutter, 218 West Lincoln Avenue, stated that he is very much in favor of Redevelopment Project "Alpha" and was in favor of such a 'project following the Gruen Report. He remarked that there is no specific downtown area of the City which one can identify with any pride, and felt it extremely important to revital- ize the older section. He suggested that when the Redevelopment Project is initi- ated that it proceed through to completion as a continuous program, block by block and not skip or leave one section to deteriorate as this would have a poor effect on the overall project. Mrs. Patricia Kenworthy, 824 Ken Street, First Vice President, Anaheim-Garden Grove League of Women Voters, spoke in favor of Redevelopment Project "Alpha" as it will provide planning measures which will afford a quality environment for all citizens within Anaheim. The League felt that the needs of persons who may be displaced by the Project and the plans to assist these families and businesses in the relocation process have been we11 considered and will be implemented accor- ding to law. The League members support development of central city renewal plans and urged the Council to approve the proposed Redevelopment Project "Alpha". The City Clerk called the next speaker: Mr. Merrill Skillin~, representing Northrop Corporation, 500 East Orangethorpe. (Nr. Skilling was not present) Hr. R. W. Cook, 3370 Niraloma. (Hr. Cook was not present) Mr. imil Shab, 521 North Lemon, property owner at 182 West Lincoln. (Hr. Shab was not present) IV. T~OSE Y.~ FAVO~WHO 'DID NOT WISH TO SPEAK: The City Clerk read into the record the following list of those who indicated they ~are in favor of the Project, but did not wish to speak at the hearing~ 73-577 AnaheimI California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 131 19731 7:00 .P.M. 1. Marian Veyna - 607 East Chartres Street. (Raquel Ivarra - 6074 Chartres Street) 2. Denis Lecuyer - 1775 West Juno Avenue. (116-118 South Olive) 3. Dora Treuino - ll7 North Olive 4. Cecilia R. Duckworth - 217 North Clementtne 5. Dorothy Lewis - 221 North Clementine 6. Teresa Filadelfia - 217 East Broadway 7. Barbara S. Bundy - 120 Gillis Street, Playa Del Ray (NE corner Anaheim Boulevard and Broadway) 8. D. R. Filadelfia - 217 East Broadway 9. Anaheim Chamber of Commerce - 130 South Lemon Street 10. County of Orange - Department of Education 11. Mrs. M. Clare Smalley - Stockton, California - interest in property within "Alpha" 12. Carlota Hernandez - 211 North Claudina Street 13. Oneida T. Copeland - 207 South Claudina (207-2074-209-209½ South Claudina) V. THOSE WHO TAKE NO POSITION AND WISH TO SPEAK: Mrs. Eugene Thomas, 2080 North Loara Street, indicated that the hearing was of interest to her because her parents own the property at 221 North Rose Street. She requested information regarding the prevailing occupancy rates in commercial and industrial buildings and apartment units, since it appeared to her that there are many vacant buildings existing at the present time within the City which she felt should realize full use prior to the promotion of new construc- tion which is proposed under the Redevelopment Project. She was further con- cerned as tOwhether the existing residential areas which are attractive and well kept would be removed and replaced with new structures under the Redevelop- ment Program. She further was concerned because of her parents' age and in- ability to purchase another home.should they be forced to leave their present property. Mr. Jacobs explained that if the basic economic pressures are moving these older residential areas to other uses, and if the Redevelopment Program makes it clear that for the forseeable future thi~ property is to remain in a particular zone, the project will remove that economic pressure from the area. It is possible under a redevelopment project that a use can be retained and density lowered. As far as generating buyers for new construction when there are vacan- cies in existing structures, Mr. Jacobs outlined that under this Project, un- like Federal projects, anything to be purchased by the Agency must have a buyer or developer interested in its ultimate acquisition. If economic conditions are such in Anaheim that there is no market for commercial, industrial or resi- dential instruction, then no new construction will take place until there is such a demand; however Mr. Jacobs expressed confidence in Anaheim as a "growth" city. Mrs. Thomas inquired if there were any estimates~of the cost of this project. Mr. Jacobs replied that this would be impossible to estimate, but would be dependent upon the amount of voluntary renovation and construction which will take place as opposed to properties to be taken through actions by the Redevelopment Agency and the more government intervention required, the higher the cost would be. He further coii~ented that the economic possibilities in redevelopment of an older area are an unknown factor. 'In answer to Mrs. Thomas' question regarding the relocation of older people from homes which are paid for~ Mr. Jacobs once again explained the grants which would be awarded in accordance with the law passed in March, 1972, which is absolutely protective of the rights and interests of moderate and low income families. Mr. Michael~Garan, 2310 East Romney&, owner of the property at 1775 East Lincoln Avenue and 122 South Olive Street, first requested clarification of the map on display at the meeting, noting that it does not show the same area as was indicated in the Redevelopment Project "Alpha" p~nphlet. 73-578 Anaheim~ C~lifornia - COONCIL MINUTES - July 13! 1973~ 7:00 P.M. Mr. Jacobs explained that the map on display at the meeting is an en- largement of one section of Project "Alpha" located between East and Rio Vista Streets along Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Garan voiced his concern regarding the fact that no specific plan has been presented in conjunctionwith the Redevelopment Project and that no time schedule or limit has been set. He referred to the fact that the City re- quires zoning applicants to have detailed plans prepared for submission prior to consideration of any zoning action, and in this instance the City intends to adopt a redevelopment program for which there is no existing plan. Mr. Jacobs advised that any land development or construction undertaken within the Redevelopment Project Area will be subject to the same zoning, land use and building permit process as is presently enforced in the City. Unlike a specific project such as street widening on which a time allotment can be calcu- lated, the Redevelopment Project time schedule is subject to a public-private venture which.is contingent upon economic conditions. The Mayor reiterated that the adoption of this Project is the first step toward acquiring the plan to which Mr. Garan refers. Mr. Garan inquired as to how a decision can be made regarding the po- tential conformity of a component part of the Redevelopment Project when it is presented for approval if there is no redevelopment master plan. Such things as widening of streets, traffic circulation patterns, etc., will have to have been established, he contended. Mr. Jacobs assured Mr. Garan that prior to any finite contracts,an urban design setting forth the general principles with which the developer will have to comply,will be formulated. He noted that priority will be givgn to those property owners currently in the Project area to develop their interests before any outside developers. Mr. Garan asked if there was such an urban design in progress within the City. , Mr. Jacobs stated that .the formulation of the .urban design plan is a costly process,and these were previously required preliminary to adoption of a redevelopment project,with the result that a city could spend as much as $600,000 on'an urban design without knowing for certain that'the redevelopment project would be adopted,or that they would have any financial capability to carry a pro- Ject forward. In answer to Mr. Garan's remark regarding the plans previously prepared by the City including the Gruen ~mport, Councilman Thom referred to that as a classic example of a plan without a vehicle, i.e., financial capability, to carry it forward. Mr. Garan next called attention to Page No. 12 of the Redevelopment Plan which refers to building permit, specifically: "No permit shall be issued for the construction of any new build- ing or for any construction of an existing building in the Project area from the date of adoption of this Vlan until the application for such per- mit has been processed in the manner herein provided. Any such permit that is issued must be in conformance with the provisions of this Plan." He asked whether this applies to the Redevelopment Program itself or to .the urban design plan. Further he inquired whether the adoption of Project "Alpha" will set up a reviewing body for projects within "Alpha" boundaries in addition to the City Planning Commission and the CitY Council. Mr. Jacobs answered that the paragraph 'refers to the redevelopment pro- gram under consideration at the hearing and incorporates general principles of land use, and no construction can take place which is not consistent with these. These general principles in turn are in conformance with the City's General Plan. He stated that the Redevelopment Project does not set forth an additional review- ing body, but a group which will work with the present owners and the ultimate 73-.579 AnaheimI California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13~ 1973! 7:00 P.M. developers to bring about the rehabilitation and to assist in processing these applications through City operations. He advised that the implementation of redevelopment agencies today is generally by havingthem work right, along side and in the planning department. He assured Mr. Oaran that development will prove easier within the Project area than it would outside since contractual relationships will be entered and once these are approved, the zoning will have to be changed to match the contracts. Mr. Garan asked if the status of properties conducting businesses under variances or conditional use permits may be altered as a result of the adoption of Redevelopment Project "Alpha".. Mr. Jacobs advised that this type of problem would have to be worked out individually but that it is possible for non-conforming uses to remain under certain circumstances so long as they are compatible. Should a business be forced to move the plan does provide for payment of expenses associated with the move and under certain circumstances, displacement payments. The City Clerk called the following names of persons who indicated they had no 'position and wished to address the hearing: Mr. Thomas O. Johnson, 20012 Royal Oak Court, Yorba Linda, concerning property at 5115 East La Palma. Andrew Deneau, 225 North Claudtna Brian Norkaitis, Mobile Oil Corporation, 9901 South Paramount Boulevard, Downey (Property at northwest corner Lincoln and West Street'and southwest corner Orange Freeway and Lincoln) Mr. Lawrence P. Benvia, 9642 Random Drive, concerning property at 112 Melrose. Evelyn S. Freiberg, 2772 East Vermont, concerning property at 125 South Rose and 125 South Bush. None of the above property owners were present when called. Mr. Harold Bastrup, 148 Paradise Lane, stated that he was confused over the in- clusion of his propertywhich is located along the Lincoln Avenue corridor por- tion of the Project. Although he has no objection to the revitalization of the downtown area,.he could not envisionwhy his residential neighborhood had been included and was concerned that the adoption of the plan would.increase his pro- perty taxes. Councilman Sneegas again explained the reason for originally including this corridor and that it is no longer necessary. He advised that on Tuesday, July 10, 1973, in order to assure the people living in the Lincoln Avenue strip that Project "Alpha" was not intended to have any specific effect on their pro- perty, action to delete this portion from the Project was presented for consid- eration. However, implications were made at that time that the deletion of this portion was being initiated simply to expedite the meeting and for this.reason the City Council voted against its removal. He assured Mr. Bastrup that his property valuation would not be increased simply because it is included within the Project boundary, but that those properties which are destined,because of economic presures, to be converted to other than their present use would face an increase in valuation because of the demand for the property. Because of the inflation in cost of materials and labor, Councilman Pebley expressed his opinion that the new County Tax Assessor will reassess all properties within the City at a higher value, Redevelopment Project "Alpha" not- withstanding. Mr. Jacobs added that if there is any increase in property values due to new development or rehabilitation, being in or out of the Project boundaries will not make any difference, but the proximity of the property to the area of new interest or activity would be the determining factor. In answer to Councilman Stephenson's statement that there were pro- perty owners represented at the meetingon Tuesday, who wished the Lincoln Av- enue corridor to be retained within the Project "Alpha" boundaries,Mr. Bastrup 73-580 Anaheim~ California - COONCIL MINUTES - July 13~ 1973~ 7:00 P.M. attributed this position to speculative activities which have bees going on for some time in his neighborhood. Mr. Bastrup indicated that there were many rumors that plans were to widen Lincoln Avenue and he was concerned regardin~what effect this would have on his property. Mr. C. T. Maxwell, 2443 East Lincoln Avenue, stated that he spoke with Mr. Hogenbirk some time ago regarding the widening of Lincoln Avenue and that he was informed that there is the possibility of a project not too far off to increase this road to six or eight lanes. Mr. Hogenbirk advised that several property owners had requested an absolute guarantee that Lincoln Avenue would not be widened and his response was, that a traffic study would be undertaken on the basis of the new interchange of the Orange Freeway, and if this study met the warrants for one or two additional lanes,this could happen. He further noted that this possibility would have no-. relationship with the adoption of Project "Alpha" and could occur whether or not the Project is approved. In answer to Mr. Maxwell's question, the boundaries of the proposed Project area alon~ Lincoln Avenue were described and the reasons for inclusion of this portion clarified. Mr. Jacobs explained the procedure which was initiated on Tuesday, July 10, 1973, to delete this portion and its current status. Mr. Maxwell was of the opinion that the inclusion of this segment in R~development Project "Alpha" would place a restriction upon his ability to sell his property and urged that it be deleted. Mr. Richard Cardin, 2318 Paradise Road (Mr. Cardin stated that he had not been sworn in previously and the City Clerk administered the oath at this time). Mr. Cardin stated his objection to inclusion in Project "Alpha" of properties located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue between Olana Way and Sunkist Street on the basis that this is a well kept residential area which is not necessary to the fulfillment of the Project. VI. NO POSITION' WHO DID NOT WISH TO SPEA~: The City Clerk read the following names into the record of those people who indicated no position on Project "Alpha" and did not wish to address the hearing: 1. Victor H. Peltzer - 5061 Stone Canyon, Yorba Linda 2. Dorothy Carter - 2433 East Lincoln 3. Valbour E. Rennet - 729 Clementtne Street - (SQR Store, 202 West Lincoln) 4. Thomas I. childs - 114 North Helena Street 5. Albert Ramm, 2034 West Broadway (308 East Cypress) 6. W. D. Aitken - 801 East Broadway 7. Divine Science of the Soul - Ruhani Satsan~ - 221 West Broadway 8. The Union Ice Company - property on Vine Street VII. q~EST~S REGARDIN~REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT "ALPHA": Mr. Harold Bastrup questioned the validity of the petition submitted Tuesday, July 10, 1973, as an accurate canvass to reflect the opinion of property owners in the'corridor alon~ Lincoln Avenue. The City Clerk reported that this petition contained 27 signatures, and upon investigation it was ascertained that only three of these were signatures of property owners who would be affected by Project "Alpha". Mr. Michael Saslow, representin~ Hansen Development Company, owners of the East Anaheim Shoppin~ Center, (Mr. Saslow had not been sworn in previously and the City Clerk administered the oath at this time) remarked that he basically feels the Redevelopment Project is a good one but was concerned that such a large portion was included in the Project area on the south side of the Lincoln Avenue corridor, particularly as it affects the property he represents. He indicated the parcel 73-581 .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 13~ 1973~ 7:00 P.M. to which he was referring, the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, on the map, and noted that there is a much larger section in- cluded in the Project area at this point than there.is on the north, side of Lincoln. He inquired as to why it is shown in this marmer if, as stated pre- viously, the corridor is no longer needed to complete the Project. Further he advised that plans are.pending to remodel one structure in the shopping cen- ter to create two stores and he wished to know what effect the Redevelopment Project would have on their ability to obtain building permits. Commissioner McDaniel pointed out that the definition of the boun- daries of the Lincoln Avenue corridor is the north and south property lines, and if the property Mr. Saslow represents is recorded as one parcel, this is the reason the total parcel area is shown on the Project "Alpha" map, since no parcels were split for the corridor strip, or segregated, the parcels north of Lincoln Avenue happen to be smaller. Mr. Jacobs assured Mr. Saslow that it should take no more time to ob- tain a building permit under the redevelopment plan than it would without it. Mr. Paul Giordano, (Mr. Giordano was not sworn in previously and the City Clerk administered the oath at this time) advised the Council that he owns property in the downtown area, the dimensions of which are 50 by 100 feet and although he would like to develop or improve his property, he is unable to because he could not meet the commercial parking requirements on this lot. His predicament is that the property is not usable for .either residential or commercial as it presently stands. Councilman Sneegas pointed out that there are many properties in the downtown area in a similar situation and that one of the purposes of the Redevelopment Project is to eliminate this problem. He remarked that the pro- perty owners stand to benefit as a direct result. Councilman Sneegas suggested that Mr. Giordano consult the Develop- ment Services Department to obtain guidelines for development of his property, and assured him that he would be assisted in realizing the potential uses for his parcel. Councilman Dutton informed Mr. Giordano that he would be in much better position to obtain a loan for improvement of his property if the Redevel- opment Project is adopted. Mr. Giordano insisted that he could not proceed with development until the City sets forward some sort of plan, or he has some knowledge as to the in- tent of the Project. Mayor Dutton stated that it is doubtful that a property with the dimen- sions of Mr. Giordano's could be utilized commercially but it is likely that the Redevelopment Project will be of benefit to him. He further advised that this particular problem is not relevant to the discussion of Redevelopment Project "Alpha". Mrs. Eugene Thomas, 2080 North Loara, inquired whether the adult book stores presently located on Lincoln Avenue are incorporated into the redevelopment plan and whether they would be allowed to continue operation. Councilman Sneegas answered that an attempt to remove these operations has been made and will most likely be~continued. Mr. David A. Richards, 279 East Lincoln Avenue, apprised the Council of the parking problem which he is experiencing while conducting business from this address, noting that the new location of the Senior Citizens facility has fur- ther encroached on the street parking spaces, and asked ti the plan will in- clude parking for the larger buildings. Mayor Dutton advised him that no specific plan has been drawn for redevelopment in the downtown area, but.that parking would certainly be one of the integral considerations in the urban design. Mrs. Bonnie Robinson, 118 South Philadelphia Street, (Mrs. Robinson had not previously been sworn in and the City Clerk administered the oath at this time) 73-582 inaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13~ 1973, 7:00 P.M. stated that she purchased the property located at 118 South Philadelphia Street and has made extensive improvements to it, some of which may not be recovered in the market value of the structure. She inquired as to what compensattqn.they might expect should the property be taken in conjunction with Redevelopment Pro- ject "Alpha". Mr. Jacobs concurred that there are some types of home improvements which would not be reflected in the fair market value and explained the relocation grants of up to $15,000 might make up this difference. In answer to Mrs. Robinson's question regarding any further investment in the property, Mr. Jacobs suggested that she consult the Development Services Department prior to doing so as they could advise her on what type of investment would not be reflected in the market value of the home, also they may be able to determine the probability of her property being taken or not, Mrs. Robinson inquired what the status of repayment penalties on newer - loans would be should property be taken by eminent domain. Mr. Jacobs replied that this would be paid by the Redevelopment Agency, but under the Law in the State of California prepayment penalties under threat of condemnation could not be collected by the lending institution, so that pro- tection is afforded for the property owner in either instance. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to address the Council'with a statement or question and hearing no response, declared the public hearing on Redevelopment Project "Alpha" closed. RECESS: Councilman Dutton moved for a five-minute recess. Councilman Stephenson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:15 P.M.) AFTER I~.CESS..~ Mayor Dutton called the joint meeting to order, all Councilmen and C°~nissioners being present with the exception.of Commissioner Norris. (10:20 P.M.) Mayor Dutton asked if the Council had any further questions or required any further clarification of the proposed Redevelopment Project "Alpha". No further information was requested nor questions asked. T_c_o IssIoN RESOLUTION.NOS: PC73-153 ANo pc73-145, corem R VELO NT <OMMIS$ION I~SOLUTION NO. 73-7. The City Clerk reported that there were two Planning Commission resolutions and one Cor~nunity Redevelopment Commission resolution to be received as follows: City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC73-153 - recommending changes in the proposed Redevelopment Plan by adding thereto a new Section 1000 entitled "Nei- ghborhood Impact Element" and a change in boundaries excluding therefrom that por- tion bounded by East Street and Rio Vista Street and from Lincoln Avenue along the Orange Freeway right-of-way to the Riverside Freeway. City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC73-145 - recommending adoption of the environmental impact report prepared in conjunction with Project "Alpha" as statement. Community Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. 73-7 - recommending change in Redevelopment Project "Alpha" by adding thereto a new Section 1000 entitle "Nei- ghborhood Impact Element". WAIVER 0FP~ING - ORDLN~aNCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Thom moved to waive the re~ding'"in full'of all ordinances and resolutions, and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Councilmen unless, after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Councilman for the reading-of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Dutton seconded the motion. MOTION UNANI- MOUSLY CARRIED. RE$OLIITIOI~ NO. 73R-284: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 73R-284 for adoptl~, receiving Resolution Nos. PC73,153 and 73-7 and approving the changes therein'recommended, adding Section lO00,"Neighborhood Impact Element" (Exhibit No. A) to the proposed plan. 73-583 Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 13~ 1973~ 7:00 P.M. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A CHANGE IN THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA. Roll Call Vote: AYE S: COb-NC ILMEN .- NOES: COUNC II24EN: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-284 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 73R-285: Councilman Dutton offered Resolution No. 73R-285 for adoption, receiving City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC73-153 and ap- proving a change in boundaries of Project "Alpha" therein recommended, to exclude a strip of land extending from East Street to Rio Vista Street follow- ing property lines along both sides of Lincoln Avenue to the centerltne of said avenue, and a portion of the proposed Orange Freeway right-of-way from Lincoln Avenue to the Riverside Freeway. Refer to Resolution Book. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEiM APPROVING CHANGE IN BOUNDARIES OF THE PROJECT AREA OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA, WHICH CHANGE EXCLUDES LAND FROM SAID PROJECT AREA. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: Stephenson, Sneegas, Pebley, Thom and Dutton COUNCILMEN: None COUNCILMEN: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 73R-285 duly passed and adopted. · CO~4UNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 73-8: Commissioner Klein offered Resolution No. 73-8 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner McDantel, "A Resolution Of The Community Redevelopment Com~ mission Of The City Of Anaheim Approving And AdoptingThe Enviromnental Impact Report For The Redevelopment Project "Alpha" And Approving The Redevelopment Plan For Redevelopment Project "Alpha" As Changed." AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: McDaniel, Klein, Compton, toiler, Cano and Leo COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Morris ENVIRONNENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: On motion by Councilman Sneegas, seconded by Councilman Stephenson, the City Council received the recommendations of the City Planning Commission (Resolution No. PC73-145) and Community' Redevelopment Commission (Resolution No. 73-8) and adopted the environmental impact report prepared in conjunction ~ith Redevelopment Project "Alpha" as the Environmental Impact Statement of the City Council. MOTION CARRIED. 0RDI~ANCE NO. 3190: Councilman Thom offered Ordinance No. 3190 for first reading. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE I OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO A NEW CHAPTER 1.20. 73-584 inaheim~ California . COUNCIL NINUTES - July 13~ 1973~ 7:00 P.N. ADJO ~,,~NT~ Councilman Pebley moved to adjourn the Joint mee~.ing. seconded the motion NOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 10:30 Councilman ~hom City Clerk