Loading...
RA1980/02/0580 -12 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY February 5, 1980, 1 :00 P.M. Council Chamber Anaheim City Hall PRESENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins SECRETARY: Linda D. Roberts REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER: Robert Lyons Chairman Seymour called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelop- ment Agency to order. MINUTES On motion by Mrs. Kaywood, seconded by Mr. Roth, minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency regular meeting held January 22, 1980, were approved. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in the amount of $713,159.28, in accordance with the 1979 -80 Budget, were approved. 161.158: RELOCATION CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY No relocation claims pending over a ninety -day period were reported. 161.118: CLAIM AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: On motion by Mrs. Kaywood, seconded by Mr. Roth, claim of Pacific Telephone Case No. H940 -810U, for damages to conduit run and buried cable sustained purportedly as a result of work operations for the Redevelopment Agency on or about November 16, 1979, was denied and referred to staff, as recommended by the Redevelopment Agency General Counsel. MOTION CARRIED. 161.112: EMPLOYMENT OF HAASE & HEINEMANN, ORANGE G'OUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASES NOS. 27 -82 -20 AND 29- 71 -63 In accordance with recom- mendation by the General Counsel, Mr. Overholt moved that the law firm of Haase & Heinemann be allowed to represent Fremont Indemnity Co. on its assumption of the defense of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency in the case of Simpson vs. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency et al, and also be allowed to represent Fremont Indemnity Co. on the cross - complaint by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency against Fremont Indemnity Co. in the case of Contreras vs. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency et al. Mr. Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 80 -13 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FEBRUAR 5, 1980, 1:00 P.M. RECESS Mr. Bay moved to recess to 3:00 P.M. for a joint meeting with the Anaheim City Council to consider a proposed agreement with the Masonic Building Association of Anaheim. Mrs. Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:13 P.M.) AFTER RECESS Chairman /Mayor Seymour reconvened the regular meet- ing of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency at 5:04 P.M. for the purpose of holding a joint public hearing with the City Council to consider a proposed agreement with the Masonic Building Association of Anaheim for sale of certain real property located north of realigned Lincoln Avenue, east of Helena Street, south of Chartres Street and west of Clementine Street, within Redevelopment Project Alpha. 161.123: PUBLIC HEARING - SALE OR PROPERTY MASONIC BUILDING ASSOCIATION OF ANAHEIM: Public hearing was held by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency City Council to consider proposed disposition and development agreement with the Masonic Building Association for sale of certain real property within Redevelopment Project Alpha. �--- Chairman /Mayor Seymour asked if a representative of the Masonic Building Association wished to address the Redevelopment Agency /City Council. Mr. S. F. Roberts, representing said association, indicated their satisfaction with the proposed disposition and development agree- ment. Chairman /Mayor Seymour asked if anyone else wished to address the Redevelopment Agency /City Council; there being no response, he declared the joint public hearing closed. Mr. /Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. ARA80 -8 and ARA80 -9, and further offered Resolution Nos. 80R -50 and 80R -51 for adoption, approving the proposed disposition and development agreement and finding no additional Environmental Impact Reports are required. Mr. /Councilman Bay reported that he failed to see in subject agree- ment any wording to insure that a provision of free parking for employees, members and guests would be carried on to any tenants of the proposed facility so that there will be no impact on the surrounding neighborhood. He was of the opinion that there should be a parking agreement included for all new downtown developments to avoid the problems which could be created by parking charges. 80 -14 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FEBRUARY 5, 1980, 1:00 P.M. Dan L. Rowland, 1000 W. La Palma Avenue, Architect for the proposed development, addressed the Agency /Council noting that although such a parking agreement might have no impact on the Masonic building now or in the foreseeable future, this might not be the case for other possible projects in the Redevelopment area, and such a parking agreement should not be imposed on future projects. He called attention to other developments in the vicinity having pay parking, such as the Bank of America building at the southeast corner of Broadway and Harbor Boulevard, and was of the opinion that if such a parking agreement was to be a standard condition, the same should be imposed on a community -wide basis and include such facilities as Disneyland. Redevelopment Manager Susan Schick noted that if too many conditions were imposed, the City's Redevelopment land could become less desirable; she felt that the issue could be more feasibly addressed to the City's Redevelopment areas south of Lincoln Avenue,rather than setting a precedent in the area in question, where the majority of parking will be for the Masonic Lodge. In reply to question by Mr. /Councilman Bay, Ms. Schick reported that leasing of a portion of the Civic Center parking structure was involved in the Heil and Stookey agreement for the Willdan Office Building at the northeast corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard, approved by the Redevelopment Agency and City Council July 3, 1979. Although no charges would be made for those using the parking struc- ture, tenants of the Willdan Building could be charged a use fee as a condition of their lease. Mr. /Councilman Bay pointed out that when the agreement for the Willdan Building was approved,it was made very clear that, in order to avoid any additional parking in the surrounding area, employees and customers could not be charged for parking. He noted that when the Bank of America commenced charging for parking in their struc- ture, a parking impact was noted both at the Central Library and the Police Department in the vicinity. In looking at the overall development area, he felt guidelines should be established for future parking. Ms. Schick was of the opinion that imposition of a parking condition on smaller developers might be a hardship. She further noted that the development in question had been actively in progress for approximately one and one -half years. —* Mr. Rowland noted that the development in question has reached the disposition and development agreement stage and the project is fixed; although it is not anticipated at this time, if future con- ditions required paid parking, the developer would return for consideration thereof by the Redevelopment Agency and City Council. 80 -15 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FEBRUARY 5, 1980, 1:00 P.M. Chairman /Mayor Seymour suggested that if the parking restriction issue were to be considered, studies be made and public hearings held by the Community Redevelopment Commission and Redevelopment Agency to consider standardizing the parking requirements in the Redevelopment area. In reply to question by Mr. /Councilman Roth, Redevelopment Manager Susan Schick stated groundbreaking should take place in the fall of 1980. Resolution Nos. ARA80 -8 and ARA80 -9, previously offered by Mr. /Councilman Roth, were restated. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. ARA80 -8 : A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOP- MENT AGENCY AND THE MASONIC BUILDING ASSOCIATION OF ANAHEIM FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY. RESOLUTION NO. ARA80 -9 : A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSIDERATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURSUANT TO A DIS- POSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE MASONIC BUILDING ASSOCIATION OF ANAHEIM FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY; APPROVING THE PROPOSED SALE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY AND THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SAID DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None Chairman Seymour declared Resolution Nos. ARA80 -8 and ARA80 -9 duly passed and adopted. City Council Resolution Nos. 80R -50 and 8OR -51, previously offered by Councilman Roth, were restated. Refer to Resolution Book. .._. RESOLUTION NO. 80R -50 A RESOLUTION CITY OF ANAHEIM MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE MASONIC HEIM FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM BUILDING ASSOCIATION OF ANA - THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY . ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, FEBRUARY 5, 1980, 1:00 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 80R -51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSIDERATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURSUANT TO A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE MASONIC BUILDING ASSOCIATION OF ANAHEIM FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY; APPROVING THE PROPOSED SALE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY; CONSENTING TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS BY THE AGENCY; AND APPROVING THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour Mayor Seymour declared Resolution Nos. 80R -50 and 80R -51 duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Mr. Roth moved to adjourn. Mr. Over- holt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 5 :22 p.m. LINDA D. ROBERTS, MCRETARY