Loading...
RA1988/07/1919? Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIAI REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY July 19, 1988, 1:20 P.M. PRESENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood, Pickler and Bay ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGEit: Bob Simpson CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White SECRETARY: Leonora N. Sohl DEVELOPI•iFNT SERVICES MANAGER: John Buchanan A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency was posted at 2:15 p.m. on July 15, 1988 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 1:33 p.m. MINUZES: Agency Member Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held June L1, 1988. Agency Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in the amount of 21 ,254.91, in accordance with the 1988-89 Budget, were approved. 161.157: MASTER DEVELOPER FOR PARCELS 14, 22 AND 4(d) - PROJECT ALPHA: "~ Selection o one o t following companies as Master Developer or the development of Parcels 14, 22, and 4(d) in Downtown Project Alpha, and authorizing staff and Legal Counsel to prepare an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with the selected company for a period of 120 days: Anaheim Development Group, Kaufman & Broad Land Company, Lincoln Properties, and Linpro Company. This matter was discussed at and continued from meeting of June 14, 1988. (See minutes of the meeting of June 14, 1988 where each developer gave a 15-minute presentation on their proposed project). Chairman Bay. He has reviewed all of the materials supplied to the Agency on all of the developments. He has a problem with making a selection of a developer today since some major things have changed since starting action on a Master Developer. He has always felt that the parcels in this residential development, planned in the 1975-7(i era, are key to supporting what is eventually developed in central Anaheim. He has said before, to develop Parcels 14, 22 and 4(d) prior to knowing what will be developed in the large open area in the central business district might be a serious mistake. He considers Parcels 14 and 22 informally reserved to supply the demand for residential for people who would be part of the new development in the central business district. If a major corporation or financial center were developed, there will be a demand for residential to support the people involved. Serious negotiations had taken place with Hyundai to locate in the central area, but since that has not happened, he feels the pressure to get the residential area has lessend. A problem could be created if they proceed with the residential development and it does not fit with what will eventually be developed downtown. He is, therefore, going to move that the Agency continue 88-49 198 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY July 19, 1988, 1:2U P.M. its decision on the Master Developer Selection for Parcels 14, 22 and 4(d) for the following reasons: (1) To build and occupy those parcels before further downtown redevelopment would leave a problem for housing in the future; and (2) Anew consultant has been hired by the Agency to take a new view of the whole redevelopment plan and the marketing of downtown to what is best for the City. It would be a mistake to proceed on the development of those parcels before the Agency knows the consultant's opinion. MOTION: Agency Member Bay moved to continue the Selection of a Master eve Teoper for Parcels 14, 22 and 4(d) to December 6, 1988 to give adequate time for changes that will no doubt occur in the redevelopment plans as the new consultant is brought on board. Agency Member Pickler seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Agency Member Hunter. He is strongly opposed to the motion. The subject parcels call for residential and hopefully they will be approved for residential development today. It will be a big step in the much needed revitalization of the downtown area. He does not favor waiting until something is done with the big parcels in the central area. It is vital that young families move back into the area. It is what is needed in Anaheim. It is not putting the cart before the horse. He has been waiting for nine years for something to happen. It is time to do something today and not wait until after the Election. Agency Member I:aywood. She has a problem with the move to continue the matter. She feels the credibility of City government is at issue. In all good faith, the Agency put out a Request for Proposal (RFP) and four or five major developers responded. If the Master Developer Project is done now, it will be an incentive for developments to come into the vacant portion and not the other way around. She wants to see people who will be living in the area also working in the area as well as providing recreational amenities so that it will be a vital 24 hour a-day place to live, work and play. Agency Member Pickler. The Agency has hired the consultant who must be given the opportunity to analyze the revitalization of downtown Anaheim. The development of one area is contingent upon the other and the consultant must have time to look at the whole picture. Extensive discussion followed with Agency Members Pickler and Bay expressing their strong opinions why the selection of the Master Developers should be delayed and Agency Members Hunter and Kaywood adamantly expressing the opposite view. Agency Member Ehrle. Both sides have valid arguments. This should not be a political issue. Two weeks ago he was ready to make a decision even then, but things have changed. The Agency has retained one of the finest consultants on the west coast if not the United States and she should have an opportunity to talk with everyone involved and analyze the plan in order to bring the best 88-50 195 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHt;IM REDEVELOPMENT AGENC`i July 19, 1988, 1:2U P.M. project to the City. He has no reservations voting on the matter before the November Elections and he will support the motion that a decision be continued. Agency Member Hunter. He disagrees. The Project Area Committee, Redevelopment Commission, staff - many people have spent a great many hours working together to this point and all the Agency has to do today is vote. If not, they will be taking a step backwards. City Manager, Bob Simpson then clarified for Mrs. Kaywood that the consultant was starting on Monday, July 25, 1988 but he cannot speculate how much time she would need to evaluate the matter. He would guess 30 days to six weeks. She could review the plans underway at this time including the Meyer plans. Chairman Bay. He suggests that the Agency continue the matter to the December 6, 1988 date. If the consultant decides she has enough information before that time, three members of the Agency can vote to put the item back on the agenda before that date. Agency Member Kaywood. She suggested instead that the Agency choose the Master Developer today and put a short hold on it to give the consultant an opportunity as her number one priority on Monday to look at the plans. It is her (IZaywood's) feeling that she will have a much easier time marketing the '~ business area if the residential area is ready to go. Agency Member Pickles amended the motion to change the date of continuance from December 6, 19823 to September b, 19813. Agency Member Ehrle seconded the amendment, September 6, 1y88 being a night meeting. Agency Members Kaywood and Eunter indicated they were opposed. Agency Member Pickles thereupon moved that the decision on the Master Developer be continued to September 6, 1988 instead of December fi, 1988. Agency Members taunter, Kaywood and Bay voted no. The motion failed to carry. Councilman Pickles moved to amend the original motion to continue the decision on the Selection of the Master Developer to September 13, 1988. Agency Members Hunter and Kaywood voted no. MOTION CARRIED. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Cott amp, est ar Central, Orange, with a home in escrow in the City of Anaheim. Although it was reported that the City is mid-way through the 30-year development period, that is only in time but not progress. It is a mistake to plan commercial first and then residential on the premise that all or a large portion of the people involved in that commercial will live downtown. The Agency has recommendations from everybody and now they are saying not to pay attention to all of those recommendations. This is not an economic decision, but a political decision because the Agency will not decide. Sally Horton, 22b North Claudina (Member of Anaheim Neighborhood Association). She is extremely disappointed in what has happened today. It is "pie in the sky" to think there is going to be commercial downtown that will bring people with it. The new consultant could have her input during the 120 days Exclusive Right to Negotiate, and then market the downtown with a 88-51 196 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY July 19, 1988, 1:2U P.M. quality developer in her hand. She does not know why six more weeks are necessary for the consultant to look at the situation and then 120 more days. It is not just one downtown group but 143,000 citizens of the City who want to see the development get going. Continuance after continuance is not what they want. Bob N~cCorkle, b07 North Zeyn. He made the single biggest investment in his life in a home that needed a great deal of rehabilitation and continues to hope for the revitalization of the neighborhood. He has been pleased in the last year with the progress and strides that have been made relating to the Central City which he feels has been a direct result of groups like ANA working within the system. Continuances such as the one today raise his frustration level as well as that of the rest of the City. Agency Member Kaywood interjected and recommended that since it is a 120-day Exclusive Right to Negotiate that the Agency make a selection on a developer today and during that time the new consultant can make her decision well before the end of that period. Agency Member Hunter. The number one developer was Linpro by all concerned people in the City. The problem is, there are some members of the Council/Agency wno do not like that and want to continue the matter and have done that. That is the basic problem. He believes some members of the Council/Agency have been lobbied by other developers to continue this matter so that they can come in with some type of revised plans and perhaps change the vote and that is very upsetting to him. Donna Berry, 511 East Broadway. She is speaking as an individual member of the Redevelopment Commission. Under discussion is an Exclusive Right to Negotiate only, which means there is a great deal of leeway. They can then work with the developer to put together the xind of development they want. Ttie Meyer Project has changed from the original concept and it is continuing to change. As Commissioners, they are being reminded if they do not make prompt decisions, it is unfair to developers who may not come back, perhaps not all, but the high-quality developers. She hopes the trend is not going that way. Agency Member Kaywood moved that the Agency vote on the Selection of a Master Developer today, and during the 120-day Exclusive Right to Negotiate, that the new consultant make this her number one priority and work with the Redevelopment staff, the developers and the Agency, thereby freeing up the remaining developers and keeping faith. Agency Member Hunter seconded the motion. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: Roll Ca11 Vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Hunter and Kaywood NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Ehrle, Pickler and Bay ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None 88-52 193 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REllEVELOPMENT AGENCY July 19, 1988, 1:20 P.M. ADJOURAIMENT: Agency Member Bay moved to adjourn. Agency Member Hunter secon e t e motion. MOTION CARRIEll. (2:35 p.m.) LEONUKA N. SOHL, SECRN,TARY 88-53