Loading...
RA1981/06/2381 -61 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY JUNE 23, 1981, 1:00 P.M. Council Chambers Anaheim Civic Center PRESENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Roth PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins SECRETARY: Linda D. Roberts EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman J. Priest Chairman Seymour called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to order at 1:16 p.m. MINUTES Approval of minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in the amount of $57.54, in accordance with the 1980 -81 Budget, were approved. 161.158: RELOCATION COSTS - CASE NO. ARA TB -121 On motion by Agency Member Overholt, seconded by Agency Member Bay, payment of relocation costs was authorized in an amount not to exceed $67,907 in Case No. ARA TB -121 as recommended by the Executive Director. Mr. Roth was absent. MOTION'CARRIED'. 161.107: AWARD OF CONTRACT - TEMPORARY PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE, CONTRACT NO. D81 -4 : In accordance with the recommendations of the Executive Director, Mrs. Kaywood offered Resolution No. ARA81 -16 for adoption, accepting the low bid of R. J. Noble Company for reapplication of oil to a parking area located between Anaheim Boulevard and Claudina Street, north of 'Old" Lincoln Avenue, in the amount of $1,500. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. ARA81 -16 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR TEMPORARY PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Roth Chairman Seymour declared Resolution No. ARA81 -16 duly passed and adopted. 161: MONTHLY STATUS REPORT - MAY 1981 On motion by Mrs. Kaywood, seconded by Mr. Overholt, the Monthly Status Report covering Redevelopment activities for the month of May 1981 was ordered received and filed. Mr. Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 81 -62 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, JUNE 23, 1981, 1:00 P.M. 161.157: APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS - MASONIC LODGE PROJECT Construction drawings were submitted for the proposed Masonic Lodge develop- ment to be located on the north side of realigned Lincoln Avenue at Claudina Street. Mr. Gary Bastion, representing the architectural firm of Dan Rowland and Associates, was present and reported that the first floor of the proposed structure would be for retail use, with general office space on the second floor. In accordance with the recommendations by the Executive Director, Mr. Seymour moved that the.construction drawings be approved. Mr. Bay seconded the motion. Mr. Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 161.123: EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE AGREEMENT - RAYMOND A. MASCIEL: A proposal to authorize a ninety -day Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement with Raymond A. Masciel for development of land located on the east side of Harbor Boulevard between Cypress and Chartres Streets to the alley, was submitted (portion of Redevelopment Parcel 1A). Executive Director Norman Priest reported that two unsolicited proposals for development of the parcel had been received, one for a residential development from Mr. Masciel, the other for commercial development from W-M Mr. Robert Bentley, the former being recommended for approval in accordance with the Agency's 1976 redirection for development, emphasizing that residential neighborhoods be restored wherever possible. He pointed out that a change to commercial designation for this property would necessitate an amendment to the General Plan, which would take approximately six months. At the invitation of the Agency, Mr. Ron Bevins, Attorney representing the principals, introduced Mr. Masciel and his son, and advised that they had resided adjacent to the property in question for approximately twenty years and had owned their lot within the subject parcel for ten years. In 1979 the City acquired most of subject property by eminent domain proceedings and widened Harbor Boulevard. Out of the eight lots included in Redevelopment Parcel 1A, theirs was the only one not yet owned by the City, and they were proposing to retain that lot, acquire the other seven, and erect a thirty -unit resi- dential complex. He pointed out that Mr. Bentley utilized a similar owner - participation method for the adjoining property to the south where the new E1 Camino Bank Building was located. He noted they had held many meetings with Planning and Redevelopment Staffs since September of 1979, and the proposed development conformed with the Redevelopment Plan,as well as to the City's Zoning laws. Mr. Dale Sexton, Architect for the Masciel family, addressed the Agency stating that the Project Area Committee (PAC) at their meeting voted to retain residential development designation for the area in question, after requesting a show of hands from those present who were in favor of a change to commercial designa- tion, with no hands being raised. This was the basis on which the Masciel proposal was prepared, and they were requesting the right to °retain their land, and to be granted an exclusive right to negotiate for purchase of the seven additional lots. However, if it were determined that commercial development was appropriate, they would have to adjust their proposal accordingly. 81 -63 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, JUNE 23, 1981, 1 -00 P.M. Mr. Gary Masciel stated he was representing his family, which had owned the property on Harbor Boulevard for approximately twenty years. If their residential proposal for development were approved, the family planned to own, manage and maintain the complex themselves. At this time they could not stipulate as to whether the proposed development would be limited to adults, however the units were designed to be most suitable for older or single persons. Research in the area had shown that there was a considerable demand for residential apartments, and they had no plans to convert to condominium use at this time. Responding to questions by Agency Members, Mr. Sexton stated that the proposed parking provisions met Code requirements, with two spaces for two - bedroom units, one and one -half spaces for one - bedroom units, and all except three spaces were to be covered. Guest parking would be located along the alleyway, with "tuck- under" tenant parking on the two short streets along the sides of the development. There would be a total of twenty two- bedroom units. The section across the rear of the development would be three- stories,but would meet height limitations. There would be approximately 28 feet between the 3 -story portion of the development and the property lines to the east; the park- ing lot would be improved and additional lighting installed. There should be a minimum of noise emanating from the complex since it was oriented away from the residential area to the east, and was not designed for families with children. The need for additional parking for Pearson Park had been discussed previously, and Mr. Sexton pointed out that if subject property were to be utilized as a parking lot, it would accommodate only 160 cars. The residential development was designed to allow ingress and egress only through the alley. Chairman Seymour asked if a representative of Robert Bentley wished to speak. Brian Jenette, Newport Beach Architect, submitted a letter dated June 23, 1981, from Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, tenants in the E1 Camino Business Center, indicating their preference for commercial development of subject property. He stated that the most important aspect was the land use, and they felt the property was unsuitable for residential use because of the noise. In order to mitigate the noise problem, the residential development proposed to utilize insulated glass, however, this would do little good. when windows were opened for circulation. In addition, the three -story portion of the residential development proposed would cause the residents to the east the loss of the ability to install solar collectors in the future. Each apartment resident would have a car, which would equal a number closer to a 2:1 ration of cars, creating a problem in an area alreadly lacking in sufficient parking facilities. Mr. Jenette further advised that they thought commercial development was the best possible solution, and they projected a 16,000- square foot commercial facility in two buildings, one a single -story 5,000 - square foot structure, and the other two -story 11,000 square foot building, with sixty -four parking spaces, which would be available for other use on evenings and weekends for residents and park visitors, and would be patrolled twenty -four hours a day. The proposed commercial structures would be placed approximately fifty -five feet from the alley and seventy -five feet from the single - family residential dwellings to the east. 81 -64 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, JUNE 23, 1981, 1:00 P.M. Mr. Jenette stepped to the area plan posted on the west wall of the Council Chambers and noted the commercial properties at La Palma Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, and the nine existing conditional use permits and variances along the west side of Harbor, in addition to the multiple- family uses at La Palma Avenue. He advised that they did not feel the subject property offered a suitable residential environment, and perhaps the Masciel interests should prepare a commercial proposal and both be considered on a competitive basis. In reply to questions by Agency Members, Mr. Jenette advised that access to the commercial development would be through the alley at the rear of the property, where most of the parking would be located. . Mr. Tom Clark, Attorney of Stradling Yocca Carlson and Rauth, Newport Beach, came forward to state he respectfully disagreed with Mr. Bevin's earlier statement that the issue was one of owner- participation. The residential designation and the zoning existed, however,the Bentley people proposed commercial development; the issue was land use. Mr. Dale Sexton pointed out that many residents had moved out of the Downtown Redevelopment Project Area to make room for new development, and provision for new, close -in residential facilities was needed to support the new commer- cial areas, so that people could reside within the working environment. .�. Regarding the insulated windows, he advised that air - conditioning of the units was proposed, and the project was not oriented to Harbor Boulevarct but rather, inward to the central court. The properties to the east would not be close enough to be affected by any shading effect. A legitimate number of parking spaces was provided in accordance with discussions with Planning Department staff. The site was shaped like a long rectangle, and it was their belief that the plans for their residential project were the best solution. Mrs. Nettie Koskondy, 209 N. Clementine Street, addressed the Agency calling attention to the additional parking needed for Pearson Park and the Ebell Club. If this could not be provided, then she and several other area residents preferred residential development on subject property. Presently, there were several empty commercial buildings in the vicinity, with the addition of the Hurst Jewelers and Masonic Temple buildings about to be constructed. Mr. Stanley Pawlowski, Chairman of the Board of the E1 Camino Bank, noted the bank's interest in the progress of Downtown Redevelopment and of the City in general. They were in favor of commercial evelopment of the parcel in question, with ample parking, which would extend commercial use from Broadway Street to Pearson Park. The bank had been successful at their new location to the south of the subject property, where they were tenants, and believed the commercial use should be continued into the next block of Harbor Boulevard frontage. He noted all the axisting commercial buildings were filled with tenants, and he believed the demand was present. In response to question by Mr. Overholt, Mr. Pawlowski advised that there were 110 parking spaces in the E1 Camino Bank Center, and if subject property were developed with a two -story commercial building, there should be another 100 spaces provided. He stated he was not opposed to residential development, but the location should be appropriate. 81 -65 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, JUNE 23, 1981, 1:00 P.M. Mrs. Martha Schumacher, 213 N. Helena Street, addressed the Agency advising that she had resided at that address since 1943. It was a good area with good neighbors who were concerned about development of subject property. The boulevard had been widened twice along the east side, leaving a narrow strip of land. The main problem seemed to be the traffic congestion and the lack of sufficient parking. Cypress Street was the only one extending through to Anaheim Boulevard, and presently there was diagonal parking on the north side for the park, and parallel parking on the south side, making it difficult for a car to get through, especially with recreational vehicles, vans and trucks on the streets. She had noted that people parked on the east side of the park all day long, which precluded park visitors from parking there. She felt subject property could be developed in such a way as to provide additional parking for this popular park, and she was in favor of a parking lot for the property, along with other members of the community who had signed a statement recommending parking lot use for subject property. (Statement, signed by approximately twenty residents, was submitted for the record.) In reply to questions by Agency Members, Mrs. Schumacher stated if she had a choice, it would be for the development which provided more parking and open space. Chairman Seymour stated that a good cross - section of input from interested parties had been obtained, and he thereupon questioned the staff on the economic results, should the property be left vacant and converted to a parking lot. Executive Director Norman Priest reported that no study of that possibility had been conducted, and the major cost would be that for the land. Another consideration was that tax increment from either of the other two developments proposed would be lost. The last acre sold by the Agency cost approximately $6 to $7 per square foot; based on that, the land in question would cost $300,000 to $400,000. Discussion was held by Agency Members; Mr. Seymour pointed out that the primary issue was that of land use: parking lot, residential or commercial. The secondary issue was who should develop the property. In his opinion, the party who had owned a portion of the land for the past ten years should have the first opportunity to develop. As for the use of the land, he was inclined toward commercial.development of this specific vacant parcel, and of the high quality evidenced on the Bentley property to the south, which would also provide for extra parking space on evenings and weekends for Pearson Park and the Ebell Club. If commercial development was to be considered, it would require public hearings on a possible amendment to the General Plan and Redevelopment Plan, which would provide for additional input from the public. Mr. Seymour thereupon moved that staff be directed to prepare an amendment to the General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan, and to schedule public hear- ""` ings to consider whether subject property,a portion of Redevelopment Parcel 1A, should be designated for commercial development. Mrs. Kaywood seconded the motion, commenting that she felt both plans presented were well thought out, however she was concerned that it was not the best location for residential development due to the traffic on busy Harbor Boulevard. .. ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, JUNE 23, 1981, 1:00 P.M. Mr. Priest outlined the procedures which would be necessary to consider the amendments, and advised that if the result were that the designation of residential development should remain, the Agency would assess the situation and then go forward. The process would take approximately six months. The motion was re- stated; Mr. Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Mr. Overholt moved to adjourn. Mr. Bay seconded the motion. Mr. Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 2:35 p.m. LINDA D. ROBERTS, SECRETARY