Loading...
RA1987/09/22227 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY September 22, 1987, 1:20 P.M. PRESENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood and Bay ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None PRESENT: ACTING CITY MANAGER: William Griffith CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White SECRETARY: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency was posted at 3:00 p.m. on September 18, 1987 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Chairman Bay called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to order at 3:19 p.m. MINUTES: Agency Member Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held July 21, 1987 and August 25, 1987. Agency Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in the amount of $417,625.02, in accordance with the 1987-88 Budget, were approved. ,~.^ 161.107: INITIATION OF LITIGATION TO REMOVE TENANTS FROM AGENCY PROPERTY (BACKS HOUSE) REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA: Agency Member Bay moved approval of the following: Finding and determining the public interest and necessity to take appropriate action, including unlawful detainer action by Agency General Counsel for removal of the tenant of the Backs House, 225 North Claudina Street, as recommended in memorandum dated September 15, 1987 from the Community Development Department. Agency Member Ehrle voted no. Agency Member Hunter abstained. MOTION CARRIED. 161.107: CERTIFYING AN INITIAL STUDY - PROPOSED RELOCATION OF THE BACKS HOUSE AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO MOVE THE STRUCTURE: (1) Certifying an initial study for the proposed relocation of the "Backs House" from 225 North Claudina to 194 Vintage Lane amd making certain environmental findings with respect thereto and, (2) awarding a contract to the lowest and best bidder, Snow House Movers, Inc., in the amount of $30,240 to move a structure from 225 North Claudina Street to 194 North Vintage Lane (Backs House), Account No. 82-363-63257, and in the event of failure to fulfill all requirements, award will be made to the next lowest responsible bidder, younger Brothers Housemoving in the amount of $33,085. Submitted was report dated September 14, 1987 from the Community Development Department recommending the foregoing. The following people spoke against moving the Backs house. The main point(s) of their concern and comments were as indicated: ,~.. Mitchell Caldwell, Chairman of the Anaheim Neighborhood Association (ANA) 902 West Broadway. He first referred to the packet of information submitted to the 87_66 228 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY September 22, 1987, 1:20 P.M. Council. (See packet which contains 11 letters urging the Council not to approve the move of the Backs house to Heritage Square, one letter from a person who bid on the proposed move and an information sheet for immediate release announcing ANA's opposition - made a part of the record). The best solution for the development of Parcel 5 is to follow the recommendation of the Redevelopment Commission and the Project Area Committee and leave the Backs house on the present historical sight and issue a new request for a proposal which will retain the Backs house on its present location. If it is still the Council's intent after receiving input today to remove the Backs house, they are requesting that an EIR be done in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). William Delvac, Associate with the Law Firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton, representing the Anaheim Neighborhood Association. The matter before the Agency today is critical to the future of historic resources in Anaheim. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes a series of procedural minimums that cities must adhere to. As a matter of policy they would urge the Agency to consider its own policy to exceed the minimum in any "iffy" case. Mr. Delvac then briefed portions of the extensive information contained in the 11-page letter dated September 22, 1987 to the Mayor and City Council signed by himself and Jack H. Rubens, (made a part of the record). He emphasized that pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act which established the National Register, properties that are in the Register such as the Backs house will be delisted if those properties are moved to another site (see Page 2 of the September 22, 1987 letter). Moving the Backs house should be considered as a significant adverse environmental impact. To remove it takes it from its place of original and significant importance and this should be considered as a significant adverse environmental impact. The City has before it ample evidence that it is feasible to rehabilitate the building on site. The Agency has to act to keep the building on site, otherwise the Agency will cause more public dollars to be spent for relocation and redevelopment. Keith Oleson, 321 North Philadelphia, Anaheim. (See letter dated September 20, 1987 to the City Council signed by Keith and Judith Olson which gave detailed historical background information not only on the Backs house but also additional homes located on Adele Street and north Philadelphia Street). The Backs house is the "parent" of the historic homes in the area. To uproot one of cornerstones of that neighborhood for a development and move it to an artificial site seems .~. ludicrous. He does not want to see the house destroyed or dismembered unnecessarily. Cheryl Boyd, 607 North Zeyn, Anaheim. She referred to letter dated September 20, 1987 from Diann Marsh of Diann Marsh & Associates, Historic Preservation Consultants. 87-67 G~~ Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY September 22, 1987, 1:20 P.M. She was at the meeting to present the information contained in the letter (the letter was one of those submitted in the packet previously referred to - made a part of the record). She then briefed the Council on the most salient points of the letter - that the house is listed in the National Register, that it would be detrimental to move it from its present site, that it was designed especially for the corner where it is presently located and should remain where it has stood for over 80 years. Larry Torgerson, 216 North Claudina, Anaheim. (past President of the Anaheim Historical Society, Member of the Project Area Committee (PAC), Chairman - Central City Neighborhood Council, Vice Chairman - ANA). He has lived in the neighborhood for 10 years and is concerned about the pattern of negative declarations on historic resources in Anaheim. He then briefed portions of the information contained in his letter of September 20, 1987 (part of the packet submitted - made a part of the record). Attached to his letter was an Historic Buildings Survey and Planning Recommendations which survey was performed in 1978/79 at the completion of which the Council appointed an Ad Hoc Historic Committee to review the survey ~~ results. Bob McCorkle, 607 North Zeyn, Anaheim. (Past Secretary, Central City Neighborhood Council, Treasurer, ANA). He then addressed some of the economic aspects of the issue which were originally discussed at the joint PAC/Redevelopment Commission hearing held earlier this month. (He submitted copies of the feasibility study that was done by the Redevelopment Agency). The study was commissioned by the Agency to the Consulting Firm of Kaiser Marston & Associates, December 11, 1986, which considered four different cases. The schedule on the final page showed that the option that would be the highest increment to tax base was Alternative B which is the adaptive reuse of the building as office space. However, the study failed to address tax incentives to provide for the development. Donna Berry, 511 East Broadway, Anaheim. (Member of the Anaheim Redevelopment Commission - also see her letter dated September 18, 1987 listing her extensive background and qualifications in the area of Historic Preservation). She read and briefed portions of the information contained in her letter (see the last paragraph on Page 1, and also Page 2 of her letter which specifically addressed the areas of concern - that there was no proper study procedure followed, the economic feasibility of developing Parcel 5 with the Backs house in place, the original Request For Proposal (RFP) was "scrapped" and there was never an RFP issued which considered developing the entire parcel with the house remaining on site, that the blanket EIR for Project Alpha commonly cited for redevelopment projects is inadequate to comply with CEQA). She 8 7- 68 226 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY September 22, 1987, 1:20 P.M. is requesting that the Anaheim Redevelopment Commisson's recommendation of September 2, 1987 be adopted, thereby drawing up a new RFP on the property and that a new EIR be ordered at once. Sally Horton, 226 North Claudina, Anaheim. (Member of the PAC - see her letter dated September 20, 1987 which was part of the packet submitted). The vote at the joint meeting of the Commission and Project Area Committee was 6 to 4 to advise the Agency to reissue a new RFP that would include the Backs house. Leaving the house on site was the highest increase in land value which directly contradicts the initial study. Both William Taormina and Gary Masciel are interested in developing the parcel with the Backs house on site. (See letters dated September 8, 11 and 21, 1987 from William Taormina to Norm Priest, Director of Community Development & Planning which were a part of the packet submitted). None of the ill effects to the environment have been studied. She urged that the Agency uphold the recommendation of the Redevelopment Commission and the PAC and closely direct staff to issue an RFP on Parcel 5 that would include rehabilitating the Backs house on site. ~`~" Jack Rubens, Associate with the Law Firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton, representing the Anaheim Neighborhood Association and also a representative of the ANA. He would like to address the CEQA (see letter dated September 22, 1987) but first wanted to summarize a few of the facts. The neighborhood is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the Backs house where it is now. The two leading developers have both agreed that they would incorporate the house into their commercial development. The house has been used for commercial purposes for almost 50 years. The highest profitability of the property would be if the house remains on site and an office building goes up around it. There are a number of inadequacies in the initial study (see Page 9 of the September 22, 1987 letter). They received it last Friday which is clearly an inadequate amount of time to review an initial study. Further, it should have been referred to the State Clearing House and it was not. A minimum public review period of 30 days is required. The Agency has not received the kind of information that it should have about the environmental issues of moving the Backs house and, more importantly, the cumulative environmental issues. The Agency has already demolished a sizable number of structures. If those had all been demolished in one day, nobody could argue that would not have a significant impact but they have been demolished one at a time, each time claiming there is no significant impact. CEQA requires that the cumulative impacts be considered with the idea that a comprehensive plan will be derived of preserving what is left of historic buildings. That has not been done but piece-meal actions taken instead. The Neighborhood Association would like the chance to present the g7_ 69 223 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY September 22, 1987, 1:20 P.M. Agency with more information about historic preservation and adaptive reuse. Developers want to do this, neighbors want it, and they strongly encourage the Agency not to relocate the house. ADDITIONAL INPUT WAS GIVEN BY THE FOLLOWING: Mr. Doug Shively, 1631 East Redwood Avenue, Anaheim. (See his letter which was a part of the packet submitted). He was one of the bidders on the proposed moving of the Backs house to the Heritage Square lot. His letter refuted points upon which the Agency's decision to move the house were based. He believes that the staff's statements of urgency as well as its reporting of costs have been at the very least an exaggeration, even an outright misrepresentation of the facts. Alan Clendenen, 900 East Cypress, Member of PAC, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Historic Review Committee. He is interested in preserving the integrity of the structure as it was originally intended - as a residence, not as a reuse or some commercial venture. The Edwards Mansion in Redlands was moved and made into a restaurant. The house looks beautiful but upon entering it, there is only one room off to the side left of the original interior. He did not want to see that happen to the Backs house. Relative to moving the house, most of the houses built before 1985 have been moved at least once. His house (which is an historic home which he had moved to Heritage Square) is in its third location. As far as status on the National Register, he knows several places that have been moved and remain on the Register. THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE SPOKE IN FAVOR OF THE MOVE: Larry King, Member of PAC. During his past 10 years on PAC, the Backs house has been discussed amongst many other structures. it has been determined that the house, under the last owner before the City of Anaheim, has deteriorated considerably. If it is left in its present location, there is a strong chance it will have to be torn down because it does not sustain the value of the land on which it stands. He believes if they were to sell the house for what they paid for it ($250,000) it would be physically impossible. If the building is to be restored, he and many of his associates on PAC believe that it should be restored in a proper site such as Heritage Square. Henry Drevelow, Teacher at Zion Lutheran Church, 2400 East Lincoln. School children and families have had an opportunity to tour the home of the Clendenens. The home is going to be available to their families on November 14, 1987 for school purposes and family purposes. They will be able to tour the home and see it and enjoy their heritage. The Waltz family likewise invited them to do so if they are able to have the house moved to Heritage Square. They are appreciative that there are people who are trying to preserve these homes in 8 7- 70 224 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY September 22, 1987, 1:20 P.M. Heritage Square, thus enabling students and families in the area to be able to observe, appreciate and enjoy them in that location. Randy Fox, 210 North Pine Street, Anaheim. He favors the move of the Backs house to Heritage Square. Both sides want to see the home preserved and they have the opportunity to do that. Relative to the House being registered, he questioned if that is really where the value lies. By placing the house in Heritage Square, it will be conducive to more public enjoyment. Keeping it as a private home will maintain the integrity of the house. Ron Waltz, 225 North Rose Street, Anaheim (purchaser of the Backs house), resident of 22 years. There has been some question on the price of the move of the house. Snow House Movers quoted $29,000 for one of the families to move the house. What Snow Movers told him today, it would cost $30,240 to do everything on the house. On the other quote for the other people, they were going to cut the roof off, tear the foundation out, doing all the work themselves. He (Waltz) told the Snow Movers he wanted them to do everything because they were the professionals. He would like to see the house moved to Heritage Square. He has put his good faith money up front. He knows there is opposition but he hopes the Agency will make the right choice. However the matter turns out, he hopes the people will understand either way. At the conclusion of public input, Agency Member Pickler stated since there have been some allegations made, he is requesting a Closed Session; City Attorney White stated he assumes then that the Closed Session is for purposes of conferring with Legal Counsel regarding potential litigation on the subject matter. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Agency Member Pickler moved to recess into Closed Session, Agency Member Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:20 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (4:52 p.m.) Chairman Bay. At this time before the Agency comments and makes their decision, he would like to call upon staff to clarify any incorrect implications that they heard from their view during the public input. Lisa Stipkovich, Assistant Executive Director for Community Development. She clarified that in the information presented to her by staff there is an action requested that the Agency certify the initial study. On the third page of that initial study, the wrong box is checked. Instead of a negative declaration, it should be, the project is already covered under 87- 71 51 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY September 22, 1987, 1:20 P.M. the EIR, the final subsequent EIR updated in 1976. This is not a negative declaration. Implications were made by some of the people in the audience were that the staff was proceeding incorrectly and tried to mislead the Commission in information. In the beginning of this year, staff did go out with RFP's to the Commission on the "L" shaped parcel, Parcel 5, excluding the Backs house because they did not want to use condemnation considering its historical significance. At that time, the current owner. put a "For Sale" sign on the house. The Commission asked staff to go back and acquire the site if possible and look at incorporating the house into Parcel 5. They did that and acquired the site in December of 1986. Staff then asked their economic consultant Kaiser Marston to do a study which has previously been submitted. In reading the entire report, the highest and best use would be for the Backs house to be relocated and preserved somewhere else where its historical significance could be maintained and for the site to be developed as a commercial site. The preference and the highest and best use was to have the site developed as a commercial site with the Backs house being relocated to Heritage Square. This was discussed with the Commission and they directed staff to go out for another RFP, one for Parcel 5 including the land the Backs house was on as well as another RFP asking for proposals to move the Backs house to Heritage Square. Staff did so and presented the proposals to the Commission. At the joint meeting between the Redevelopment Commission and PAC, they met with quite a bit of opposition from the neighborhood, something they were not aware of until that point. Secondly on the move of the house there has been some dispute as to whether the cost of moving the house would or would not be increased by cutting it and moving it a different route. The two different proposals received from the same mover were including different things. In the bid that was given to the Shivelys, the mover was not including in the cost the preparation of removing the house from its current foundation, removal of the roof nor were the costs of utility line relocations included. That is a cost that would have to be incurred to the Agency. Snow Movers indicated to her today the cost of cutting the house whether in half or taking parts of it in order to make it small enough to go down Broadway would incur an additional cost of $10,000 to $20,000. In addition, the Agency would have to pay the relocation costs of utility lines which he estimated to be about $10,000 if taken down Broadway. He indicated taking it down Lincoln would be the most cost effective and simplest way to move it. Chairman Bay. There is also a deadline due to the construction involved on the underpass on Lincoln Avenue. That construction necessitates a 87-72 52 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY September 22, 1987, 1:20 P.M. choice by the Council/Agency on whether the house would have to be cut to be moved which has been a concern of the Council/Agency. Two of the present Council Members were very involved in redevelopment when the project set up Heritage Sctuare for the prime purpose of preserving historically significant homes in the City and preserving them for their existing use - private, single-family dwellings. He has been involved in the redevelopment since it started in 1974 and its redirection in 1976. The Agency and the Council, during the early years of redevelopment, came under a great deal of political pressure to stop redevelopment, change it, slow it, anything to keep it from moving along. Many used historical preservation as a front for delaying those actions which is a known fact. He is not saying that this issue is the same but it does have some appearances of the moves made in 1976, 1977 and 1978. When the Agency made the decision and told staff to purchase the Backs house, it was not to leave it where it is. The idea of using $250,000 of Agency tax money to purchase the house was to buy it, move it and preserve it as it is - but in Heritage Square. His feeling on the subject has not changed. He still feels the Backs house should be moved to Heritage square and preserved as it was originally used - as a .,.., single-family dwelling. Agency Member Hunter. He disagrees and feels they should leave the house where it is. It can be used for limited commercial and his law office is a prime example of what can be done. He sees a revitalization of downtown where young couples are becoming involved. He urged that they save what little they have left of historical significance. He is adamantly against moving the Backs house. City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session. RECESS: Agency Member Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Agency Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:11 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: Chairman Bay called the meeting to order, all Agency Members being present. (5:35 p.m.) Agency Member Bay offered Resolution Nos. ARA87-18 and ARA87-19 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. ARA87-18: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CERTIFYING AN INITIAL STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED RELOCATION OF THE "BACKS HOUSE" FROM 225 NORTH CLAUDINA TO 194 NORTH VINTAGE LANE AND MAKING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO. "'~ RESOLUTION NO. ARA87-19: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST AND BEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR MOVING A HOUSE FROM 225 NORTH CLAUDINA STREET TO 194 NORTH VINTAGE LANE. (CONTRACT N0. 87-3M) 87- 73 49 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY September 22, 1987, 1:20 P.M. Before action was taken, Agency Member Ehrle stated it is time to take a stand on some of the historical buildings they have in the City. There are only four on the National Register left in downtown Anaheim. He feels the parcel can be developed with the Backs house in place. By moving that home, Anaheim will be losing a little bit of its history. It will not hurt to keep one house on one parcel and build around it. He will strongly oppose the move. Agency Member Kaywood. Everyone is speaking about preserving .the house. That is exactly what she wants to do. As an old friend of Frances and Emma Backs, she knows they would have wanted the house to remain just as it was when they grew up in it. To preserve it as a house is the historic value. To leave it where it is, or to cut it up or change it to another use, that is not historic preservation in the use it was intended to be. There is no question in her mind that it should be moved to Heritage Square. What everyone wants is to preserve the house and that includes the Agency. Agency Member Pickler. It is necessary to recall that redevelopment has helped the young people to move into the area. The maintenance of the Backs home as a home is critical. If they are going to change in midstream and go in different directions, it is not a benefit to the City. By moving the house to Heritage Square it will enable the house to be maintained as it originally was. Chairman Bay. He would urge the Agency/Council publicly what he has been urging privately - to show some unity. His personal opinion is that these types of attacks on the redevelopment plan at the same time the Agency and the Council is being criticized for not getting Redevelopment Alpha moving, these are the kinds of things that cause much difficulty in doing so. The 30-year plan hashed around for months in 1976 is not that far behind schedule. There are some new beautiful developments coming into downtown on the immediate horizon. He is calling again for unity on the Council/Agency relative to Redevelopment Project Alpha in order to make it work, and it will when the Agency shows a unified position that it intends to take that plan and make it work. A Roll Call Vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolutions: Roll Call Vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Pickler, Kaywood and Bay NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Ehrle and Hunter ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None 87-74 50 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ September 22, 1987, 1:20 P.M. The Chairman declared Resolution Nos. ARA87-18 and 19 duly passed and adopted. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Alan Wagner, 622 B North Philadelphia. The Agency's inconsistency is what breeds public fear and resentment. It appears in Anaheim, when money talks, property owners balk. ADJOURNMENT: Agency Member Bay moved to adjourn. Agency Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:52 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, SECRETARY 87- 75