Loading...
RA1975/04/2975 -32 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY April 29, 1975, (10:30 A.M.) Council Chamber Anaheim City Hall (Special Meeting) PRESENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Sneegas and Thom ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Pebley PRESENT: REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERS: Morris, Moss, Oseid, Fry and Leo (arrived 10:35 A.M.) ABSENT: REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERS: Cotler and Mendez. PRESENT: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Keith A. Murdoch SECRETARY: Alona M. Hougard CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Knowlton Fernald DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Malcolm Slaughter RELOCATION DIRECTOR: Angela Ramirez REDEVELOPMENT STAFF ECONOMIST: Sybil Silverman DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson Chairman Thom called the special meeting of the Redevelopment Agency to order at 10:30 A.M., notice thereof having been given in accordance with Section 54956 of the Government Code. Said meeting called for the purpose of considering: 1. the proposed boundaries of Redevelopment Project Beta; and 2. general problems concerning Redevelopment Project Alpha. Chairman Morris called the meeting of the Community Redevelopment Commission to order. INTRODUCTIONS - NEW PERSONNEL Redevelopment Director Knowlton Fernald introduced the Department's new Relocation Director Angela Ramirez and the Staff Economist Sybil Silverman to the Agency Members. PROJECT -BETA - STAFF REPORT TO THE AGENCY Mr. Knowlton Fernald presented an extensive packet of informational materials to the Agency Members together with a narrative on the subject of Redevelopment Project Beta, and its impact on the Alpha Project. (Complete statement and informational materials on file in the Office of the City Clerk /Secretary) Mr. Fernald read the accompanying narrative statement, explained the several exhibits posted on the wall of the Council Chambers and summarized the basic reasons Project Beta is necessary as follows: 1. So that our planning and citizen participation efforts can be consolidated to represent the central City area and transportation corri- dors rather than just a segment of the central City. 2. So that primary areas of blight are encompassed. 3. So that required income may be generated to rectify these additional areas of deficiency. 4. So that flexibility can be provided in the location of new projects avoiding removal of viable residential communities. 5. So that additional areas can be.provided for the construction of new housing units close to downtown. 6. So that a marketable and viable development area can be obtained. Without Beta,redevelopment at worst cannot be accomplished, and at best will proceed very slowly. The exhibits reviewed included overlays showing transportation corridors, proposed transportation systems and their interfaces. He also reviewed the various sub -areas proposed for Project Beta and the specific reasons these were included, i.e., necessity for grade separated railroad crossings; defi- ciencies in curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lighting; revisions to freeway interchanges; housing constructed prior to 1939. He directed the Agency's Redevelopment Agency, April 29, 1975 75 -33 attention to the photographs of individual properties which show blight and to the Redevelopment Project Beta schedule. The last exhibit reviewed was the future image for downtown Anaheim including a transit loop, a new loop boulevard with the focus of major development centered downtown and indicating major traffic corridors leading to the downtown area. At the conclusion of the presentation, Chairman Thom called for ques- tions or comments from the Agency Members. Mr. Seymour stated that his concern with Project Beta as proposed lies in the large numbers of single - family residences which are incorporated into the project area. He specifically indicated that he felt the entire area " E " , entire sub -area labeled "A -2" and those single - family residences in sub - area. "A -1" which are bounded by Santa Ana Street on the north and are just east of the project boundary line,as well as those in sub -area "B -5" should be excluded. He indicated that he could justify the need for area "C" because of the stated necessity for reconstruction of freeway off -ramps to improve access into the downtown area. He concluded that he could accept as a portion of Redevelopment Project Beta areas "C" and "D" as well as the large industrial areas labeled sub -areas "B -1, 2, 3 and 4." Mr. Seymour stated that he has now seen a schedule showing revenues which can be expected from Project Alpha and, therefore, the need for addi- tional revenues from Project Beta. However, he indicated that he has a very difficult time accepting the fact that the housing and neighborhoods in these proposed areas mentioned above need to be redeveloped. He acknowl- eged that these areas may need some rehabilitation but that he could not see the need for placing them into a redevelopment project area. Mr. Fernald reviewed the various proposed areas and sub -areas and advised that area "E" which contains.800 residential units, has the smallest amount of blight but does have a certain amount of income generating capability. Mr. Fernald advised that although the corridor along Lincoln Avenue, which this area "E" provides, will ultimately need some improvement and widening, it would be ranked about fourth on the priority list since it is felt that the Agency can realize more mileage for their money by improving those corridors which lead to the closest freeway points, and it would appear the City of Anaheim receives most service from the Riverside Freeway. Mr. Fernald added that area "A -2" also has very little blight and not much income generation capacity, however, it contains a railroad and Anaheim Boulevard, and is primarily included because of Anaheim Boulevard. He stated that the area between Vermont Street and South Street, up to Santa Ana Street, contains quite a bit of blight since there are areas of inadequate street lighting, a large amount of housing constructed prior to 1939, and a large amount of area without gutters. He stated that the sub- areas were ranked as to their importance to Project Beta and although "E" was not included in this list because it was incorporated after the list was compiled, it would rank near the bottom of the list, sub -areas "B -5" and "A -2" are currQntly at the bottom. Mr. Seymour asked the Director of Development Services about the possibility that Community Development funds could be utilized in sub- area A -1 to correct the conditions just outlined by Mr. Fernald. Mr. Thompson replied that these funds could well be utilized for this purpose and that many of the homes in that area would be candidates for rehabilitation which could be accomplished either through the Community Development or Redevelopment process. He added that it is his under- standing that Community Development funds can be used in Redevelopment Project areas. Mr. Seymour emphasized that his whole point is that he thinks the citizens of Anaheim are eagerly waiting for the day that there is some visible evidence of redevelopment in Project Alpha, but each time one more single - family residence is added to a Redevelopment Project it creates a fear for those citizens living in that area. Admittedly, it is fear of an unknown quantity, but nevertneless'it is real, and, therefore, he felt it encumbent upon the Redevelopment Agency to find a way to exclude every single- family residence they can until such time as the planning for Alpha is completed sufficiently to indicate a clear direction as to where the City is headed with redevelopment. 75 -34 Redevelopment Agency, April 29, 1975 Mr. Seymour added that it appears to him the alternative would be to use Community Development funds for the necessary rehabilitation. Secondly, the time frames he has heard described indicate that it probably will be 7 to 10 years before any actual redevelopment occurs in the Project Beta areas, and therefore, the citizens living within these designated Project Beta areas should not be required to live with that fear over the next 7 to 10 years. Commissioner Leo stated that if Mr. Seymour's concern regarding the number of single- family residences proposed for Project Beta is prompted by the powers of eminent domain which are vested in the Redevelopment Agency over a project area, these powers can be waived by the Agency prior to the establishment of the project area. Mr. Seymour stated that the.fears he alluded to will be dismissed when the City starts to supply answers to the many unknown variables for redevelopment, and then the citizens will be more involved in the process because their fears as to what will transpire and how it will affect their personal futures will be relieved. He reiterated that, in his opinion, the need for including these single - family residences has not been demon- strated. Commissioner Leo pointed out that the "A -1 sub -area includes a section of Anaheim Boulevard from Santa Ana Street down to Katella Avenue which contains four constrictions. Further, that if the eastern section of sub - area "A -1 "is not included,the Southern Pacific Railroad would not be in a'redevelopment project. Mr. Seymour interjected that he would agree that the eastern section of sub -area . "A -1" should be included, but it is the western portion which he has problems justifying. Commissioner Moss voiced the opinion that the Redevelopment Agency could provide a coordinating force for rehabilitation as well as redevelop- ment where it is necessary in these areas. He pointed out that the basic, problem is one of communication and that a public relations activity is necessary and should be directed to the citizens in terms they can under- stand. He did not feel that the Redevelopment Department or Agency has supplied any but the most basic information to the public, and that a specific effort should be made to inform the individuals within the project area as to what might happen to them as a result of the redevelopment program. Mr. Thom agreed with Commissioner :foss that proper communication with the citizens is very important. He indicated that he felt this is a real political problem and that adding this -many residential units to Redevelop- ment Project Beta area makes communicating a super -human task which will overwhelm the Redevelopment Department and Agency and dilute the implementa- tion of redevelopment in other portions of the project area because all attention will be diverted towards this communication effort. Commissioner Morris gave an example of the type of public input and two -way communication currently being used'by the Community Redevelopment Commission. Mr. Thom advised that he would be agreeable to the inclusion of all the areas in question, but at the public hearing stage, if the public indicates they wish these areas excluded, he would be amenable to excluding those portions at that time. In reply to Mr. Seymour's question as to why the need for including those residential areas outlined, Commissioner Morris pointed out that the Community Redevelopment Commission is charged with the responsibility of eliminating blight or preventing future blight in the City; that some of the residential structures in these sub -areas are over 50 years olu ar�u most likely do not meet the building code. He questioned how these can be rehabilitated if not placed in a project area. Mr. Seymour pointed out that there is a viable alternative in the Community Development Program. Redevelopment Agency, April 29, 1975 7:, -35 Mr. Fernald noted that part of the redevelopment process would be to review what should be done of a historical nature, identifying viable neighborhood communities.and determining whether they should remain and the blight be removed. He commented that the basic difference between community development and redevelopment is that the latter provides more options for the residents, who in some cases would welcome the opportunity to relocate. Mrs. Kaywood pointed out that the situation is summarized clearly in the conclusion in Mr. Fernald's narrative statement which indicates that approval of the Project Beta area boundaries at this time does not consti- tute final approval, but sets in motion a sequence of events which will culminate in a joint public hearing of the Agency and Commission in June, at which time final adoption of Project Beta will be considered. Every property owner within the designated boundaries will be informed of the hearing, a project area committee will be formed to report at the hearing and at the time of this public hearing, the boundaries of the project area can be modified to exclude portions, but cannot be extended because of the notification requirements. Therefore, if the Agency would like people to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to be included in a redevelop- ment project area, this area should be left in now and after public input at the hearing finaldecision as to whether or not it should be removed can be made by the Agency. Mrs. Kaywood advised that she could see an advantage to including those citizens living in the middle or in between a redevelopment project because these individuals would then be informed as to what is going on around them and have the opportunity to participate on the project area committee. Mr. Sneegas agreed that the citizens would be the best judge as to whether or not they should be included in the project. He reiterated for the record that he does own property within the proposed Project Beta area. Mr. Thom again advised that he has a lease -hold interest in.property in area "D ". Mr. Fernald described some of the efforts undertaken by the Redevelop- s ment Agency to explain the redevelopment process, compensation and relocation requirements to individual citizens on a one to one basis. Mr. Slaughter indicated his support of Commissioner Leo's statement that the Agency may, if it wishes, during adoption of the Redevelopment Plan waive condemnation powers. He pointed out that if the Agency is considering deletion of areas prior to or at the public hearing, the Agency must first have a report on concurrence from the Planning Commission, which means they will also have to be in session. At the conclusion of discussion, Mr. Thom moved for adoption of Redevelop- ment Project Beta areas as submitted, with the elimination of.area "E ". He! advised that he wishes to eliminate this area based on the Redevelopment Director's statement that this would be a lower priority corridor and,secondly, because this area was already once considered for inclusion in Project Alpha and subsequently removed. Mrs. Kaywood seconded the motion. To this motion Councilman Seymour voted "no ". (Councilman Pebley absent) MOTION CARRIED Councilman Seymour wished it, to be clearly set forth in the record that he is not opposed to redevelopment, that his ".no" vote is registered in ob- jection to the inclusion in Project Beta of over 2,000 single - family resi- dences because to him,there has been no need demonstrated nor has it been demonstrated that there is going to be substantial tax incremental financing coming out of these single - family residential areas; secondly,because it has been reported to him that the time for redevelopment in these areas is 7 to.10 years away; and thirdly, because there is a viable alternative to accomplish the same objective of rehabilitation of these residential areas the use of Community Development Funds. Mr. Murdoch questioned whether it is the Agency's intent, in conveying the reasons for exclusion of area . "E" back to the Planning Commission, if it would be appropriate to point out that the Agency's feeling is that the linkage with the Orange Freeway (Route 57) can be readily obtained since the inter- change is ali wady present, without incorporating t.:is as part of the rzd,..v,�lop- ment area. Mr. Thom concurred that this point should be emphasized. 75 -36 Redevelopment Agency, April 29, 1975 AIR- CONDITIONING - CHARTRES RECREATION CENTER In connection with the proposed air - conditioning at the Chartres Recreation Center, Mr. Seymour noted it was his understanding that this particular area, upon redevelop- ment, would remain in some type of residential use; and, if this assumption is correct, the only factor which would stop him from wanting to assure that air- conditioning is installed in the Chartres Recreation Center before the summer months would be if that structure itself were determined to be unsafe. He indicated that he would appreciate it if the Redevelopment Department would undertake the necessary research to find out if it is a sound building. Mr. Fernald reported that the Commission has made a recommendation on this matter which will be presented at the regular Redevelopment Agency meeting of May 6, 1975. He concurred that a structural engineer's analysis should be performed to determine whether or not the building is earthquake sound, although it appears that the building is substantial. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADJOURNMENT Mr. Thom moved to adjourn this special meeting to 10 :30 A.M., Tuesday, May 6, 1975. Mr. Seymour seconded - the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:00 Noon) COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Fry moved to adjourn. Commissioner Leo seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:00 Noon) Signed: Secretary, Redevelopment Agency ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY May 6, 1975, (10:30 A.M.) Council Chamber Anaheim City Hall Adjourned Special Meeting -PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: Mrs. Kaywood, Mr. Seymour, Mr. Sneegas and Mr. Thom REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Knowlton Fernald ASSISTANT REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Christian Hogenbirk Mr. Pebley EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Keith A. Murdoch DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: William Hopkins DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Malcolm Slaughter SECRETARY: Alona M. Hougard . Chairman Thom called the adjourned special meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to order at 10:30 a.m.; said meeting having been called for the purpose of discussing a) the proposed boundaries of Redevelopment Project Beta; and b) genexal problems concerning Redevelopment Project Alpha, on April 29, 1975 and adjourned to this date. AUTHORIZATION - EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS - JOINT STUDY PARTICIPATION, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS' ASSOCIATION: Mr. Fernald presented a recommendation from the Community Redevelopment Commis- sion that the Agency authorize the expenditure of $1,000 for participation in a study to be performed by financial consultants, .Anderson, Heiss & Hughes, for the Southern California Executive Directors Association. This study -is proposed to include a questionnaire and will review all California Redevelopment Agencies, their problems and their use of tax increment funds. The informa- tion so obtained will be distributed to all participating agencies and also wiil L,-. presented to the Senate Committee on local govt-: _- ment which is currently considering modifications and redevelop- ment law.