ARA1987-011}
RESOLUTION NO. ARA87- 11
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RECEIVING THE
PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE KATELLA
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND RATIFYING THE ACTION OF THE ANAHEIM
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APPROVING THE SAID REPORT
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33344.5 of the California Community
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. the Anaheim
Community Redevelopment Commission (the "Commission ") and the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency ") have prepared a preliminary report for
transmittal to the affected taxing agencies on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan
for the Katella Redevelopment Project Area, and
WHEREAS, the Commission approved and adopted the Preliminary Report on
the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Katella Redevelopment Project Area at
its Regular Meeting of April 22, 1987, subject to ratification by the Agency,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT BE RESOLVED BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Preliminary Report on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan
for the Katella Redevelopment Project Area is hereby received by the Agency, in
the form attached hereto as Attachment A.
Section 2. The Agency does hereby ratify the action taken by the
Commission at its Regular Meeting of April 22, 1987, A.) Approving and
adopting the Preliminary Report on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the
Katella Redevelopment Project Area, and B.) Authorizing and directing the
Executive Director of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to transmit the
Preliminary Report to each affected taxing agency.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE ANAHEIM
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY this 28th day of April , 1987.
� a2 %�
Chairman, Anaheim Redevelovment Agency
ATTEST:
GL_
Secretary, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency
2005C
-1-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, LEONORA N. SOHL, Secretary of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ARA87 -11 was passed and adopted at a
regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency held on the 28th day of
April, 1987, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: AGENCY MEMBERS: One
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Chairman of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency
signed said Resolution on the 28th day of April, 1987.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 28th day of
April, 1987.
SECRETARY OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
(SEAL)
Attachment A
Preliminary Report on the
Proposed Redevelopment Plan for
the Katella Redevelopment Project Area
Katz Hol I is
PRELIMINARY REPORT
on the
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
for the
KATELLA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Prepared by
Katz, Hollis, Coren &. Associates, Inc.
for the
ANAHEIM COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
and the
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
April, 1987
1016.anh /5
041587/bl
Ai A 7 - -1 (
Katz Ho11 is
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART
Page
INTRODUCTION.......................................................... ..............................1
I. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF PROJECT AREA ......... ............................I -1
II. DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS EXISTING IN PROJECT AREA ............... ...........................II -1
A. Existing Physical Conditions .......................... ...........................II -1
1. Project Location .................................... ...........................II -1
2. Land Uses and Structures ................... ...........................II -1
3. Predominantly Urbanized Area ............. ...........................II -2
4. Properties Included for Planning Purposes ...................II -2
5. Buildings and Structures ..................... ...........................II -3
a. Deterioration and Dilapidation ...... ...........................II -3
b. Defective Design and Character of
Physical Construction ................... ...........................II -5
C. Age and Obsolescence .................. ...........................II -5
d. Mixed Character of Buildings ....... ...........................II -7
e. Shifting Uses ................................ ...........................II -7
f. Faulty Interior Arrangement and Exterior SpacingII -8
g. Inadequate Light, Ventilation and Open Space ......II -8
6. Properties ........................................... ...........................II -8
a. Lots That Are of Irregular Form, Shape and Size II -9
b. Inadequate Public Improvements, Facilities and
Utilities ......................................... ...........................II -9
1. Transportation and Circulation Deficiencies.II -9
2. Water System Deficiencies . ..........................II -12
3. Sewer System Deficiencies .......................... II -13
4. Storm Drainage Deficiencies ........................II -13
5. Electrical System Deficiencies .....................II -14
6. Parks /Recreation Deficiencies .....................II -14
B. Existing Social Conditions ........................ ............................... II -14
1 .
Population .......................................... ..........................II
-15
2 .
Income ............................................. ...............................
II -15
3.
Education Levels and School Population .......................II
-16
4 .
Housing ........................................... ...............................
II -16
5 .
Infectious Diseases .............................. ..........................II
-17
6 .
Crime ............................... .......................... . . . ..
TT-17
7. Lack of Open Space and Recreation Facilities ..............II -18
KatzHollis
PART Page
C. Existing Economic Conditions ................... ............................... II -18
1. Prevalence of Impaired Investments ... ..........................II -19
2. Prevalence of Economic Maladjustment ......................... II -19
3. Existence of Inadequate Public Improvements,
Public Facilities, Open Space and Utilities ................... II -20
Attachments 1 - 4 .......................................... ..........................II -20
III. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING
REDEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT AREA, INCLUDING ASSESSMENT OF
- ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT AND REASONS FOR INCLUDING
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING .............................. ............................... III -1
A. General Financing Methods Available to Agency .................... III -1
B. Proposed Redevelopment Activities and Estimated Costs ....... III -1
C. Estimated Project Revenues ..................... ............................... III -2
1. Tax Increment Revenue .................. ............................... III -3
2. Loans, Grants and Contributions from City,
State and Federal Government and from
Private Developers ............................... ..........................III -3
3 . Land Sale Proceeds ........................ ............................... III -3
4 . Special Assessment Districts .......... ............................... III -4
5. Development Fees .. ............................... ..........................III -4
D. Proposed Financing Method and Economic Feasibility
of the Project ................................................ . ......................... III -4
E. Reasons for Including Tax Increment Financing in
Proposed Redevelopment Plan .................. ............................... III -5
F. Tax Increment Use Limitations and Requirements ..................III -6
IV. DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS PROPOSED BY AGENCY
IN PROJECT AREA ................................................... ...........................IV -1
V. DESCRIPTION OF HOW PROJECTS PROPOSED BY AGENCY IN PROJECT
AREA WILL IMPROVE OR ELIMINATE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN
PART II OF THIS REPORT ................................... ............................... V -1
No.
MAPS
Following
Page
I -1 Project Location Map .............................................. ............................I -1
II -1 Project Area Quarter Sections ................................ ...........................II -2
a«� ii
KatzHollis
MAPS (con't)
Following
No.
TABLES
Page
II -2
Community Development Block Grant Target Areas within
No.
.......
Project Area ............................................................ ...........................II
-4
II -3A,
3B, 3C Public Improvements and Facilities Deficiencies -
II -2
Presence of Blight Conditions ................................ ...........................II -3
Transportation, Traffic and Street Improvement
Residential Structure Deficiencies .......................... ...........................II
-3
Projects (3 maps) ................................ ..........................II
-10
II -4
Intersection Capacity Deficiencies ......................... ..........................II
-10
II -5
Projected Key Intersection Volume /Capacity Ratios
II -7
Residential Structure Ages ..................................... ...........................II
and Levels of Service ............................................ ..........................II
-10
II -6
Public Improvements and Facilities Deficiencies - Water
Major Crimes in Project Area, 1984- 86 .................. ..........................II
-17
System and Other Infrastructure .......................... ..........................II
-13
II -7
Public Improvements and Facilities Deficiencies - Storm
Taxable Motel Receipts, 1980- 86 ............................. ..........................II
-20
Drain /Sewer System ............................................... ..........................II
-13
II -8
Public Improvements and Facilities Deficiencies - Electrical
Estimated Project Costs .......... ............................... ..........................III
-2
System ............................................................... ...............................
II -14
PLATES
... ...............................
Following
No. Page
......... _..........
Plates 1- 31 ....................................................................... ..........................II -20
iii
TABLES
Following
No.
.......
Page
...........
II -1
Existing Land Uses and Acreages .....................................................
II -1
II -2
Presence of Blight Conditions ................................ ...........................II -3
II -3
Residential Structure Deficiencies .......................... ...........................II
-3
II -4
Non - Residential Structure Deficiencies and Ages .. ...........................II -3
II -5
Structural Conditions Rating Criteria .................... ...........................II
-3
II -6
Off - Street Parking Deficiencies, Including Garage Conversions ......II -5
II -7
Residential Structure Ages ..................................... ...........................II
-6
II -8
Infrastructure Deficiencies ..................................... ...........................II -9
II -9
Major Crimes in Project Area, 1984- 86 .................. ..........................II
-17
II -10
Retail Business Activity in Project Area ............... ..........................II
-19
II -11
Taxable Motel Receipts, 1980- 86 ............................. ..........................II
-20
III -1
Estimated Public Improvements and Facilities Costs ......................
III -2
III -2
Estimated Project Costs .......... ............................... ..........................III
-2
III -3
Estimated Net Project Costs ............................. ...............................
III -2
III -4
Projected New Development .............................. ...............................
III -3
III -5
Tax Increment Projection ........ ............................... ..........................III
-3
III -6
Capital Improvements Program Funding Gaps ....... ..........................III
-5
PLATES
... ...............................
Following
No. Page
......... _..........
Plates 1- 31 ....................................................................... ..........................II -20
iii
Katz Hollis
PRELIMINARY REPORT
ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
KATELLA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
INTRODUCTION
This Preliminary Report ( "Preliminary Report ") on the proposed
Redevelopment Plan ( "Redevelopment Plan ") for the Katella Redevelopment
Project Area ( "Project ") has been prepared for the Anaheim Community
Redevelopment Commission ( "Commission ") and Anaheim Redevelopment Agency
( "Agency ") pursuant to Section 33344.5 of the California Community
Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code, Section 33000 et seq.). Section
33344.5 was added to the Community Redevelopment Law by a 1984
amendment which became effective January 1, 1985.
The purpose of this Preliminary Report is to provide the following
information to the governmental taxing agencies (the "affected taxing
agencies ") which levied a property tax on all or any portion of the property
located within the boundaries of the Project (the "Project Area ") within the
last fiscal year:
a) The reasons for the selection of the Project Area;
b) A description of the physical, social and economic conditions
existing in the Project Area (blight conditions);
c) A preliminary assessment of the proposed method of financing the
redevelopment of the Project Area, including an assessment of
the economic feasibility of the Project and the reasons for
including a provision for tax increment financing in the proposed
Redevelopment Plan;
d) A description of the specific project or projects proposed by the
Commission in the Project Area; and
e) A description of how such project or projects will improve or
alleviate the blight conditions described in b) above.
The provision of the information contained in this Preliminary Report
is to assist the affected taxing agencies, and the Fiscal Review Committee
composed of a representative from each of such agencies, should one be
established, in determining the fiscal impact of the proposed Project upon
such affected taxing agencies.
1016.anh /5
041587/bl
Katz Hol l is
PART I. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF PROJECT AREA
The City of Anaheim has been concerned about declining physical,
social and economic conditions in the Project Area for some time. The
Commercial- Recreation area to the west of the Santa Ana I -5 freeway is an
international tourist and convention destination, but the attractions and
visitor facilities are set in an area experiencing increasing physical
deterioration and crime, and inadequate public improvements. The portion of
the Project Area that lies to the east of the Santa Ana I -5 freeway and
surrounds Anaheim Stadium is also a source of concern for the City,
burdened by incompatible land uses, noticeable vacancy rates and
underutilization of properties, and inadequate public improvements. In
December, 1983, the Anaheim City Council contracted with Phillips Brandt
Reddick to conduct a comprehensive study of the Stadium area's land use,
traffic and market conditions to develop guidelines for the area's future
growth and development. The adoption of a General Plan Amendment that
reflects the results of that study was adopted by the City Council on March
17, 1987.
�- The Project Area is generally bounded by Santa Ana Street and Ball
Road on the northwest and north, respectively, by the Santa Ana River on
the east, along the southerly City limits on the south, and generally west of
Walnut Street on the west, as shown on Map I -1.
On September 15, 1986, the Anaheim Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. PC 86 -243 that selected the Project Area, established the
boundaries and adopted the Preliminary Plan.
The selection of the Katella Redevelopment Project Area was in
response to the problems of the area and the need for public participation
and assistance to solve those problems. In general, the goals and objectives
of a redevelopment program in the Project Area are as follows:
1. The elimination and prevention of blight and deterioration and the
redevelopment of the Project Area in accord with the General Plan,
specific plans, the Redevelopment Plan and local codes and ordinances.
2. The elimination or amelioration of certain environmental deficiencies,
including substandard vehicular circulation systems and other similar
public improvements, facilities and utilities deficiencies adversely
affecting the Project Area.
3. The achievement of an environment reflecting a high level of concern
-- for architectural, landscape, and urban design and land use principles
appropriate for attainment of the objectives of the Redevelopment
Plan.
4. The enhancement of major, region - serving thoroughfares to provide a
quality design identity and smooth, safe circulation.
Project Location Map
KATELLA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Katz Hol l is KATE
PROJECT AREA REDEVELOPMENT MAP 1 -1
Katz Hol l is
5. The replanning, redesign and development of undeveloped /vacant,
underutilized and underdeveloped areas which are stagnant or
improperly utilized.
6. The encouragement of investment by the private sector in the
development and redevelopment of the Project Area by eliminating
impediments to such development and redevelopment.
7. The provision for increased sales, business license, hotel occupancy
and other fees, taxes and revenues to the City and other taxing
bodies.
.. 8. The expansion and upgrading of the community's supply of housing,
including opportunities for low- and moderate- income households.
9. The establishment and implementation of performance criteria to assure
high standards for site design, environmental quality, and other
design elements which provide unity and integrity to the entire
Project.
10. The promotion and creation of new local employment opportunities.
11. The encouragement of uniform and consistent land use patterns.
12. The provision of a pedestrian and vehicular circulation system which
is coordinated with land uses and densities and adequate to
accommodate projected traffic volumes.
13. To encourage the cooperation and participation of residents, business
owners, public agencies and community organizations in the
development and redevelopment of the area.
14. The encouragement of the development of a commercial and office
environment which positively relates to adjacent land uses and to
upgrade and stabilize existing commercial and office uses.
15. The examination of assisting in the undergrounding of unsightly
overhead utility lines.
16. The provision of adequate off - street parking to serve current and
future uses within the Project Area.
Redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the above goals and
- �- objectives will attain the purposes of the California Community
Redevelopment Law by: (1) elimination of areas suffering from economic
dislocation and disuse; (2) replanning, redesign and /or redevelopment of
areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized, and which could not be
accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without public participation
and assistance; (3) protecting and promoting sound development and
redevelopment of blighted areas and the general welfare of the citizens of
the City be remedying such injurious conditions through the employment of
appropriate means; and (4) installation of new or replacement of existing
(I -2)
Katz Hollis
public improvements, facilities and utilities in areas which are currently
inadequately served with regard to such improvements, facilities and
utilities; and (5) other means as determined appropriate.
(I -3)
Katz Hol 1 is
PART II. DESCRIPTION OF P SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
EXISTING IN PROJECT AREA
..... .... _.__ ............. ...____.___.__._._.._..._.._..._..______.._..._............_ .._...__..__..._..._.._._......
Information presented in this Part II of the Anaheim Community
Redevelopment Commission's Preliminary Report on the Proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Katella Redevelopment Project Area was compiled
from various sources, including:
1. A field survey of the Project Area conducted by Planning Department
and Redevelopment Agency staff in July and October, 1986.
2. Interviews with Agency and City staff and officials, and businesses in
the area.
3. A review and analysis of various reports, documents, plans and other
background data provided by staff, including but not limited to, the
following:
- City of Anaheim General Plan
- "Anaheim Stadium Area Study: Land Use Strategy Plan ", Phillips
Brandt Reddick, August 22, 1985
- "Anaheim Stadium Business Center: Proposed General Plan
Amendment: General Plan Amendment No. 214: Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report #274," City of Anaheim, June 1986.
- "Anaheim Commercial /Recreation Area Transportation and
Circulation Management Study ", JHK and Associates, June, 1980.
Where appropriate, sources of data are cited throughout this
Preliminary Report.
A. Existing Physical . ............................. _ .... _.....
1. Project Location
As described in Part I of this report, and as shown on Map I -1
therein, the Project Area is generally bounded by Santa Ana Street and Ball
Road on the northwest and north, respectively, by the Santa Ana River on
the east, along the southerly City limits on the south and generally west of
Walnut Street on the west.
(II -1)
2. Land Uses and Structures
...................._.._..............__..._.........._.......... ................._.............
The Project Area contains approximately
4,387 acres.
As detailed
in Table
II -1, the developed area of
the Project
Area is
devoted nearly
equally
between residential, commercial
and industrial
uses
(25 percent, 24
percent
and 19 percent, respectively).
One -fifth
of the
total acreage is
devoted
to transportation, 5 percent to
agriculture,
3 percent to community
services
and 4 percent is vacant.
Examples of
vacant
properties are
- exhibited in Plates 25 through 29.
(II -1)
Table II -I
Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
Iatella Redevelopment Project Area
Katz Hol l is EXISTING LAND USES - AND ACREAGES
ACREAGE
TCITAL 1103.9 1035.2 821.3 146.3 218.0 876.9
- % OF - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - --
TOTAL 25.2% 23.6% 18.7% 3.4% 5.0%
artial inclusion and approximate numbers
Q.S. = City Quarter Section Map number, as shown on Map 1I-1
:10. 0%
VACANT TO?AL
0.0
4 - 9.2
0.0
10.8
COMMUNITY
AGRICUL-
TRANS -
O.S.
RESIDENTIAL
COWERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
SERVICES
TURAL
PORTATION
554
26.9
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
12.3
564
3.6
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
3.7
574
30.0
2.7
0.1
4.7
4.5
15.9
634
12.1
8.0
1.9
1.4
0.0
13.3
64
i@6.1
1.6
8.0
3.8
4.0
45.2
65
64.2
42.4
0.0
4.1
29.3
24.3
66
50.3
49.2
0.0
0.4
9.7
31.8
67
86.6
18.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
33.5
734
44.3
4.1
0.8
9.8
1.7
24.2
_ 74
68.3
33.9
0.0
11.2
6.6
44.9
75
8.0
150.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.9
76
0.0
151.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.7
77
25.3
114.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.0
78
6.8
8.4
8.0
0.0
0.8
5.9
844
58.3
9.9
24.7
3.8
3.0
31.1
85
71.4
31.2
8.1
7.7
0.1
39.5
86
68.8
29.9
2.1
8.8
0.0
48.6
87
0.0
69.3
27.6
19.8
0.8
38.4
88
47.6
16.1
0.0
0.7
57.4
14.8
89
75.7
18.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
28.1
954
9.6
0.4
8.5
8.0
8.0
7.5
%
0.0
24.2
105.3
0.4
2.5
29.9
97
0.0
21.3
72.6
0.9
15.9
44.9
98
75.8
18.2
17.4
0.0
0.0
39.9
99
52.6
0.8
0.0
7.0
0.0
19.8
106
0.0
0.9
131.2
0.0
11.4
21.4
107
0.8
12.3
80.8
0.0
33.8
29.2
108
0.6
8.9
119.3
8.0
0.0
20.4
109
21.0
5.7
0.0
21.1
0.0
6.8
116
37.1
12.8
61.2
0.5
28.6
24.9
" 117
0.0
24.7
92.6
0.0
8.4
30.4
118
0.0
126.0
16.7
0.5
0.0
11.2
119
0.1
20.7
25.0
3.7
0.0
10.5
126
49.8
0.5
13.4
9.5
0.3
38.7
127
11.0
2.0
20.0
22.6
7.4
42.3
128
0.0
11.6
0.0
2.4
0.0
11.9
129
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.1
TCITAL 1103.9 1035.2 821.3 146.3 218.0 876.9
- % OF - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - --
TOTAL 25.2% 23.6% 18.7% 3.4% 5.0%
artial inclusion and approximate numbers
Q.S. = City Quarter Section Map number, as shown on Map 1I-1
:10. 0%
VACANT TO?AL
0.0
4 - 9.2
0.0
10.8
1.4
59.3
2.0
30.7
0.5
161.2
0.0
164.3
20.3
161.7
0.0
130.8
0.6
85.5
2.2
160.5
0.5
165.1
0.0
168.5
i.5
157.8
0.0
21.1
0.6
131.4
10.0
168.8
7.5
165.7
13.3
160.4
22.8
159.4
16.9
138.8
0.8
26.0
2.9
165.2
4.7
160.3
7.8
159.1
0.0
80.2
0.6
165.5
4.3
160.4
10.0
159.2
4.s
58.9
0.0
165.1
3.9
160.0
5.1
159.5
1.1
61.1
52.5
144.7
0.1
105.4
5.8
31.7
0.0
0.3
183.2 4386.8
4.2%
Sources: 1986 Land Use Survey Acreage Data: City of Anaheim Planning Department
July 1986 Dwelling Unit i Population Statistics, City of Anaheim
1016- lanh /4
Katz Hol I is
The data contained in Table II -1, as well as statistical data
presented in other tables in this report, has been aggregated by numbered
areas called "quarter sections." The City as a whole is currently divided
into 238 quarter sections, each a half mile square. The Katella
$- Redevelopment Project Area encompasses portions or all of 37 contiguous
quarter sections. Map II -1 identifies the location and identification number
of these 37 quarter sections.
° Population and dwelling unit statistics developed in July, 1986 by
the Anaheim Planning Department indicate that the Project Area contains
just over 31,000 residents living within 12,559 housing units. This includes
3,972 single family homes, 1,539 mobile homes, 780 condominiums and 6,268
multi - family units.
3. Predominantly Urbanized Area
Section 3320.1 of the California Community Redevelopment Law
requires redevelopment projects selected after January 1, 1984 to be
- "predominantly urbanized," which means that: 1) not less than 80 percent
of the privately owned property has been or is developed for urban uses
(uses which are consistent with zoning or otherwise permitted by law); or 2)
the area is characterized by certain defined blight conditions; or 3) the area
is an integral part of an area developed for urban uses. The Project Area
qualifies as a predominantly urbanized are under all three of the given
criteria.
First, although there is some land currently vacant in the
Project Area (less than five percent), at least 80 percent of the privately
owned property has been or is developed for urban uses.
Second, as discussed in a later section of this report, the Project
Area contains lots that are of irregular form and shape and inadequate size,
which has contributed to the economic deterioration, dislocation and disuse
of the area. This is one of the specified blight conditions which qualify
areas as being predominantly urbanized.
Finally, since the Project Area is located in an area of Orange
County which is completely urbanized, is now totally surrounded by
developed urban uses, and is served by streets which serve such uses, it
qualifies as a predominantly urbanized area in that it is manifestly an
integral part of an area developed for urban uses.
4. Properties Included for Planning Purposes 11, ....
Certain properties within the Project Area are not blighted
properties. Such properties have been included: (1) in order to plan and
carry out the Project as a uniform whole; (2) to impose uniform
requirements over a geographically defined and identified area of the City;
(3) because such properties are impacted by the conditions of the blight
existing on surrounding properties, and correction of such conditions may
require the imposition of design, development of use requirements on the
(II -2)
— �;aq
Katz Hol I is
unblighted properties in the event they are rehabilitated or redeveloped by
their owners; and (4) because such properties will share in the physical,
social and economic benefits which will accrue to the area through the
elimination of blighting conditions, including the replacement or provision of
new public improvements and facilities serving the Project Area.
5. Buildings and Structures
..........__......._... ............... ...
The Project Area contains examples of buildings and structures,
used or intended to be used for living, commercial, industrial, or other
purposes, which are unfit or unsafe to occupy for such purposes because of
any one or a combination of the factors described below and illustrated in
- part by the photographs appearing in Plates 1 through 31. In July, 1986
staff from the Anaheim Planning Department surveyed all Project Area
properties to rate structural conditions and to note the presence of blight
conditions. The results of this survey (with the exception of structural
conditions) is presented in summary form, by quarter section, in Table II -2.
Survey results are discussed in more detail below.
a. Deterioration and Dilapidation
There are various examples of buildings and structures
within the Project Area that suffer from deterioration, some appearing
dilapidated. During the July, 1986 Planning Department survey, buildings
and structures were rated according to five categories of condition which
included "well maintained ", (category 1), "minor maintenance required"
(category 2), "poor maintenance" (category 2 -), "major repairs" (category 3),
and "dilapidated /demolition" (category 4). Rating criteria developed for each
category generally centered around the existence of observable or probable
building code violations. Survey findings, which include both residential
- and non - residential structures, are presented in Tables II -3 and II -4.
Structural conditions rating criteria used in the survey are contained in
Table II -5.
As determined during the survey, over 38 percent of the
Project Area's residential structures contained deficiencies. One out of
every 10 residential structures is in need of major repairs. Examples of
deteriorated residential structures, single and multiple family, can be seen
in Plates 1 and 2. Survey findings also determined that over half (56
percent) of all non - residential structures contained some deficiencies,
including three percent exhibiting major deficiencies.
In addition to the structural deficiencies noted in Tables
II -3 and I1 -4, many of the Project Area's buildings and structures contain
numerous housing, health, zoning and other code violations including faulty
plumbing, hazardous electrical wiring, lack of heating or hot water,
insufficient off - street parking and /or loading space, signage deficiencies, set
back and landscaping irregularities, poor vehicular access, insect and
vermin infestation, and nuisances (abandoned autos, graffiti, trash and
debris accumulation).
(II -3)
Katz Hol l is
Table II -2
Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
Katella Redevelopment Project
PRESENCE OF BLIGHT CONDITIONS
-
SMALL
SMALL AND /OR
EXCESSIVE
LOT
IRREGULAR.
LOT
SHIFTING
MIXED
OBSOLETE
OVERCROWDED
SECTION! NO.
SIZES
LOTS
COVERAGE
USES
USES
USES
HOUSING
CRIME
GRAFFITI
TRASH
NOISE
56
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 *1
[ *1
57
64
65
-
-
-
[ #)
-
-
-
-
-
1 *1
f *J
[ *l
[*]
-
73
[ *]
[ *1
[ *l
[ *]
[ #1
[ *1
-
[ *J
-
[ *]
f *l
74
[ *]
[ *l
[ *l
1*1
[ *l
7.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
76
-
77
-
0
s5
-
06
-
-
[ *1
1*1
[ *1
-
f *1
f *]
[*]
[*]
[*]
9E
[ *
[ *]
[ *l
1*1
f *l
[ *l
[ *l
1*1
[ *l
1*1
f *1
106
-
,�.
-
109
116
-
117
-
-
110
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
119
-
_ 126
-
129
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NO. OF SECTIONS
(OF 37 SECTIONS).
7
14
19
12
13
7
S
13
9
20
15
Section No. = City
Quarter
Section Map
number, as shown on Map
II -1_
Source: City of A nahelt Planning
Department survey,
July, 1906.
@��^�������0
~~~~�~~~~^'~~~^^
N °��
Table Il-3
Anaheim Community Hedevelupmpot Commission
Kotclla Redevelopment
Project Area
—
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE
-------------------------------
DEFICIENCIES
~--
CONDITION
(l)
-----------------------------------------
--------------�����---�
2,2-
--
��������---
3,4
����-------
���-�-----
�'- ��- ��----
TOTAL
UNITS (2)
'— SECTION H0'
�—
SF
— --
MF
--------
TOTAL
----����
SF
MF
TOTAL
SF
NF
�'--
CONDOS
---------------
M08'HOMES
TOTAL
53
|l
92
103
l
21
22
93
231
0
O
324
— 56
0
0
0
D
0
8
lV
O
0
0
19
57
17
U
17
l
D
l
164
O
U
O
164
63
3
K
J
6
U
6
77
O
U
U
77
64
83
O
83
34
U
34
624
O
U
U
624
— 65
16
0
16
l
0
l
167
130
290
U
587
66
22
480
422
l
339
340
164
739
U
0
903
67
19
20
39
D
U
U
448
162
0
U
610
-- 73
60
U
60
36
U
36
425
0
U
O
425
74
45
U
45
24
501
525
190
587
Q
D
777
75
U
U
U
U
8
0
D
0
0
0
0
76
0
0
0
D
O
D
O
0
U
D
U
77
0
O
U
U
U
U
38
O
221
U
259
78
2
U
2
U
U
U
l
352
8
U
353
84
78
47
125
V
4
13
350
179
22
D
551
-- 85
74
107
281
l8
2
20
363
367
U
45
775
06
62
0
62
l
345
346
225
410
U
285
920
87
0
U
U
U
D
0
D
D
D
8
0
_- 88
0
528
528
O
0
D
0
957
U
0
957
89
83
144
227
5
72
77
289
346
218
0
853
95
lU
U
10
3
U
3
36
04
0
U
140
96
0
U
0
0
O
U
U
0
U
U
0
-- 97
O
0
0
U
0
0
U
U
0
0
0
98
7
895
902
l
8O
81
5
975
D
379
0
99
27
8
35
U
U
U
184
213
29
0
426
^~ 106
U
O
0
0
U
U
U
0
U
0
D
107
0
U
0
0
0
O
0
U
0
0
U
108
0
0
0
8
0
0
U
U
U
U
O
09
0
U
U
U
0
0
0
0
0
189
l89
ll6
0
U
0
0
U
0
0
516
U
215
731
ll/
0
U
0
0
0
O
0
U
U
0
U
118
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
-~ 119
0
O
0
0
0
0
l
D
0
0
1
126
427
O
427
D
U
U
07
U
0
426
533
127
0
U
0
0
O
0
2
U
0
0
2
128
0
U
0
D
U
0
U
0
U
U
0
DY
0
0
___
8
___
U
____
0
___
U
____
U
U
U
0
0
TOTAL
1.046
2,241
-
3,287
-
141
— -
- —
1,364
'- Z.
1,505
--
___
3.972
'
___
6,268
- -
___
780
- -
___
1,539
___
12,559
PERCENT W yK0FCT
__- ______-____________________________-_____-__-________-
AREA:
26'172
11'991
J\.Q%
49'912
6'213
12.251
00.001
-_
Section No = City
0oorbr Hop
Section number
as
shown on
Hoy II -1.
Source: City of
Anaheim Planning Department
survey, July,
198L'
-- (l) Key to Condition
Ratings:
Table I1-5.
(2) Includes units rated as Category l'
Table II -4
Katz Hol l is Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
Catella Redevelopment Project Area
NON- RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE DEFICIENCIES AND AGES
CONDITION PREDOMINANT AGE OF STRUCTURES
SECTION NO. 1 2,2- 3,4 TOTAL t15 YEARS 15+ YEARS 20+ YEARS 25+ YEARS
wh 55 0 0 0 0 - - - -
56 0 9 0 9
57 0 0 0 0 -
63 1 1 0 2
64 4 1 0 5
65 5 3 0 8 -
66 3 8 0 11 -
67 2 6 0 8 -
73 0 1 0 1 -
74 26 8 0 34
75 2 9 1 12
76 0 16 0 16
77 8 12 1 21
78 1 9 0 10
84 4 57 2 63
85 11 19 0 30
86 4 31 0 35
87 11 46 2 59
88 4 12 1 17 -
89 9 9 0 18 -
95 3 6 0 9 - -
96 17 44 1 62 - -
97 18 23 0 41 - - ( *]
98 9 43 10 65 - -
99 0 1 0 1 [ * - -
106 14 19 0 33 - - [ *) -
107 26 20 3 49 - - []
108 87 8 3 98 - - ( *]
10 4 2 0 6 [ *] - -
116 46 7 5 60 - -
111 42 14 0 56 - - [ *)
118 7 3 2 12 -
119 0 23 0 31 [*] - - -
126 7 3 0 10 [ * - -
127 20 6 0 26 [ * - -
12o 0 1 0 1 [ *] - - -
129 0 0 0 0 - - -
- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --
TOTAL 403 480 31 919
- - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - --
------ - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - --
PERCENT OF
PROJECT AREA_ 43.851 52.231 3.371 100.001
-------------------------------------------------
13 1 5 16
Section No. - City Ouarter Map Section number, as shown on Map II -i.
key to Condition Ratings: Table II - 5.
Source: City of Anaheim Planning Department from survey of July, 1986, and City building permit records_
Katz Hol l i s Table II -5
Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
Katella Redevelopment Project Area
STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS RATING CRITERIA
(Relates to Tables II -3 and II -4)
Category
....................... ...... - ......
Definition
1 "Well Maintained" Structure is recent construction or a well - maintained older
construction. No noticeable deficiencies in the structural
condition of roof, walls, or foundation. Structure appears
to be in compliance with current building codes.
Structure appears to have adequate plumbing and
electrical service and is subject to a regular program of
maintenance. Exterior walls and other surfaces are well -
painted and clean, and windows and doors are intact.
2 "Minor Maintenance Less recent or older construction, with slight to moderate
Required" structural deterioration. Structure may show signs of
deferred maintenance such as peeling paint, broken
windows, and cracked plaster. Roof may show signs of
minor water leaks. Does not appear that significant
deterioration would continue with normal maintenance.
Usually exhibits several minor code deficiencies.
2- "Poor Maintenance" In addition to the maintenance deficiencies of 2, structure
is suffering severely from deferred maintenance, and
there is evidence of one or more major code deficiencies.
May show signs of small cracks requiring repair, some
settlement, minor roof on structural repairs, and work may
„- be required of porches, patios and stairs.
3 "Major Repairs" Older to very old construction with several major and
minor code deficiencies. Structure show signs of
structural deterioration such as sagging roof or walls or
crumbling and cracking foundations, offset of leaning
columns and posts, window or door frames which are out
r- of alignment and sagging roof eaves. Structure may have
inadequate plumbing or hazardous electrical service, wood
or inadequate foundations, and holes may be apparent in
- roof or walls. Paint may be largely peeled or faded or
even non - existent, and broken windows are often
apparent. Major costs would be incurred to bring
structure into conformance with current building codes.
4 "Dilapidated/ Building is structurally unsound with numerous major
Demolition" code deficiencies. Maintenance is non - existent.
Structure's fitness for human occupation is highly
questionable, and the state of deterioration and neglect is
such that it is a candidate for demolition.
Source: Anaheim Planning Department, 1986.
Katz Hollis
Approximately two - thirds of the residential portions of the
Project Area are within census tracts included in the City's Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) target areas. To qualify for the special
federal financial assistance available to such areas, more than 50 percent of
the area residents must be at or below 80 percent of the area's medium
income, and the area must exhibit certain defined blighting conditions such
as deteriorated housing and infrastructure. Three these CDBG target area
neighborhoods within the Project Area account for a disproportionate amount
of the City's housing, crime, drug, and other social problems. General
descriptions of these areas are: 1) the Lynne Avenue /Jeffrey Drive area
located south of Cerritos Avenue and west of Walnut Street; 2) the
Wakefield Avenue /Leatrice Lane /Pearson Avenue /Sprague Lane area located
- east of Haster Street and north of Orangewood Avenue (across from
Ponderosa Park); and 3) the Palais Road /Midway Drive /Guinida Lane /Palm
Street area located west of Anaheim Boulevard and north of Cerritos Avenue.
CDBG target areas within the Project Area are shown on Map II -2.
Housing conditions within the Lynne /Jeffrey area have
become of such concern that by City Council action the area has been
targeted for an intensive code enforcement effort. Code Enforcement
Department records indicated that nearly 2,300 inspections were made within
this small 40 -acre area in 1986, which accounted for nearly 10 percent of all
inspections made city -wide. Inspectors report that they frequently
encountered instances of severely over - crowded living units.
The City Fire Marshall reports that fire department
personnel have experienced the following problems in all three
neighborhoods (to a lesser degree in the Palais /Midway /Guinda /Palm area
than the other two):
1. Significant anti - social behavior from residents
2. High incidence of drug usage, resulting in frequent
overdose calls by paramedics
3. Instances of arson from the above, and from homeless
people living in garages and carports
4. Overcrowded living conditions (three and four families
in one apartment)
5. Garages rented or loaned out as living quarters
6. Uncooperative attitudes from both owners and tenants
concerning compliance with fire regulations, especially
in the more deteriorated properties
7. Discarded furniture and debris in alleys, causing
access problems, and occasional arson cases.
The grounds of many properties in the Project Area are
poorly maintained and have a deteriorated appearance with accumulated
trash, brush and debris. Examples of deteriorated site conditions on
residential and commercial properties are exhibited in Plates 3 through 5. A
number of multifamily residential properties lack enclosures for trash
receptacles, which has led to trash becoming scattered about the property;
Plate 6 contains four examples. Graffiti, shown in Plate 23, also contributes
(II -4 )
1
CIL
s
sj •- S !f
4MOw
�
u +s NUiou+J�—
O
ifINN —o —
_ ,nrso� 1 1 Mnloru i V. u
is
M.
sA�N,ii Ar rni
7NN7N I • 4o
M_
W W rlinoaI
Q W am.l
F Soy AsA,
AN s;11 saris 7 *� ,,,, 4 - I
LU
00' }. t
$ u SWAM u wAn 1 W
1L .'
JS MCMK
I S 7[ O
LU
1X 2:11 -J mil
...... 8 � rNbrsro • � `
Ta s s � ► � l
.��
O
,� asu.so
- OW / ,aaeN — 10 F I W
W
LU
- I Z 4 � � s r ■ .sww E J
` \ 1 t, i -Y 1 I I 115Mtf N1 I IINM7 g
t ' W99 s ®�� Ii f sari 1 _ wn s sia wi iriwu f1 W
1' ma '— r
i >.sop N
- s NQ' I t�. a i s .ov on is ®i
t � s wo9- p �1a ' .s .I C ` N + � is tf i b� aw,�� wro.ow N, wrvww w: Q
n 1 1 � s < Y – ` V LSJA�
► +` S ,. �a 'f>K I .f n
z y � I y B oou■a �, lS'• x t
lf,if
'1 I
...„.x. TN /a 11 Ji -I � i 7 �r 1 r N: – Y � S i Ni � ,_„ � .rW . ) = 7�t►W ,
Z I N,
.o n.sAw >r
s •�v `�• a �r I r: z SS7Lr. 1 j . t �G:_.tl!•4 a1NArr s .G
fu,.. F I
.� ,' I•: so,lr t Nof . z I g I I • I x S i u t,"! t!�� : 3 L" u Yl Nrur
-
—
_;, 01 Noll US$
T
r.r , y u r yi yyN r• ��. !S. r15 =• 3= J lml !s 3 nro\
�i� y n.o,
Is rlw z .r A 0
e m mnr� N
j N c qsSx(� !s GMs T IS a a {"it= o.,iw.s M `�� - - a w.aszi� a N.� ^ rds.�lnc.
i2Sss tt ,OSw.3. awn Y sa`s o -s �� �s�•
j : � 8 . u .A,. � ,,s 3 1 ' i l � � ,,, $M>< � � • � � sZ � 0 r n � N � �.I:- o € _ _ - NS.p1� i � z E; � •��
u ran.. '°•��I I II I Iuwr� `� � . i _ a{ r',-'!-G swwl.s z I i I....e b �: f' � f � S a 3 � e =� ��
�' - •,. � •• - 1L I r-r l`- I' IZ _ r f'X z IiwnA .., _1L ► �'" � ,. -
MOO
Katz Hol 1 is
to a deteriorated appearance. As shown in Table II -2, twenty of the 37
quarter sections have properties with excessive trash.
b. Defective Design and Character of Physical Construc-
tion
Buildings of any type may suffer deterioration or disuse,
or may contribute to such problems in other buildings, because of inherent
defects in design or character of their physical construction. Such defects
- may exist from the moment a given building is completed; or, they may
evolve as uses within the building or within surrounding buildings change
over a period of time.
Within the Project Area, for instance, many of the
buildings, particularly residential structures, are defective in terms of
modern code standards. Such defects are not technically code violations
(although most older buildings suffer from many of these, too), but rather
are substandard and sometimes unsafe inadequacies in such areas as
plumbing, heating, electrical service and even structural characteristics
because of evolutionary improvements in the code standards which have
occurred since the building was constructed. A classic example of this
problem is the existence of 2 -line electrical service connections in many
older buildings. This poses definite limitations on the number of circuits
and the total amperage which may be drawn from any single circuit --
limitations which are all but eliminated in the more modern 3 -line service
connection. A number of the older residential buildings within the Project
Area are served with outmoded, unsafe 2 -line electrical service connections.
Another example of defective design is the existence of
limited off - street parking facilities, which can contribute significantly to
circulation system deficiencies, as discussed in a subsequent section of this
report. Plates 6 and 21 provide several examples of properties where off -
street parking is inadequate. Table II -6 documents the Project Area's off-
street parking and garage deficiencies by quarter section. Nearly two -
thirds of the quarter sections (23 of 37) suffer from an insufficient supply
of off - street parking facilities; 740 single family residential units have only
a one -car garage and 180 units have no garage now because of conversions
to create separate residential units or to add space to existing residential
units. Most multiple family units also have only one garage or carport, and
many have no garages at all. Seventeen quarter sections experience
excessive daytime on- street parking, suggesting that commercial properties
have an inadequate supply of parking for employees and customers.
...,..
C. Age and Obsolescence
Older buildings, unless modernized, are more likely to
contain structural problems and code deficiencies than newer buildings.
Generally, the older the building is the more problems and deficiencies it
will have. The following tabulations illustrate how these problems and
deficiencies increase with age:
(II -5)
Katz Hol
t i s
Table II -6
Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
Katella Redevelopment Project Area
OFF- STREET PARKING DEFICIENCIES, INCLUDING GARAGE CONVERSIONS
Presence of Presence of
Single Family
Sing. Fan. Units
Insufficient Excess Daytime
Units with
Pith Garage
Section No.
Off- Street Parking On-Street Parking
1 Car Garages
Conversions
56
- -
0
0
57
- -
2
2
63
(] -
11
1
64
[ #] -
18
22
65
- -
1
5
73
[$] [ #]
121
43
74
[$} []
24
5
75
[$} -
0
0
76
[ #] -
0
0
77
[ #} -
0
0
78
0
0
84
174
54
85
[ *] []
118
25
86
[$] [ #
106
12
87
[ #] -
0
0
89
[ *] ($}
150
5
95
[ #] [f]
14
1
96
[$] [ #]
0
0
98
[ #] []
0
0
99
( #] []
1
4
106
- -
0
0
101
- -
0
0
108
[ #] [$]
0
0
109
- -
0
0
116
- -
0
0
117
- -
0
0
118k
- -
0
0
119
- -
0
1
126
- -
0
0
127
- -
0
0
128
- -
0
0
129
- -
0
0
TOTAL
740
- - - - - --
180
- - - - - --
NO. OF SECTIONS
--
(OF 7 SECTIONS):
23 17
Section No. = City
Ouarter Section Map number, as shown on Nap II - 1.
Note: Garages converted
to separate residential units or
additional
space in residential
units_
Source: City of Anaheim
Planning Department survey, July
1986_
Katz Hol 1 is
Structures Aged 25 -35 Years:
1. Energy preservation code requirements lacking
2. Improper egress from bedrooms or rooms used for
sleeping
3. Gas pipes below concrete slabs
4. Inadequate plumbing (moisture barriers, drains, piping
too small, etc.)
5. Asbestos prevalent acoustic ceiling and heat ducts
6. Lack of garbage disposal
7. Improper glass treatment (plate glass vs. shatter-
proof shower doors and sliding doors)
Structures Aged 36 -60 Years:
1. All deficiencies noted above for structures aged 25 -35
years
2. Inadequate windows preventing fire escape from
bedrooms and sleeping areas
3. Slab -type construction lacking moisture barriers
4. Roofing not fire - proofed
5. Improper fire separations
6. Inadequate laundry plumbing
7. Inadequate or lack of insulation
8. Inadequate, 2 -wire electrical wiring and insufficient
number of circuits
Structures Aged in Excess of 60 Years:
......... .............
1. All deficiencies noted above for structures aged 25 -35
years and 36 -60 years
2. Improper foundations
3. Inadequate, substandard room sizes and lack of
closets
4. Inadequate light and ventilation (smaller and fewer
windows)
5. Inadequate heating facilities
6. Improperly sized plumbing pipes and /or pipes clogged
with lime deposits. Lead piping
7. Substandard water heaters (location and heater)
8. Lack of sewer hook -up (septic tank, drain field,
seepage pit)
9. Lack of sprinklers, proper ingress and egress and
other fire safety items (commercial and industrial
structures)
Project Area residential structures include a large
percentage of the older buildings in Anaheim. As shown on Table II -7, two -
thirds of the residential buildings are in excess of 25 years old, including
52 percent between 25 and 35 years, 8 percent over 35 years, and 6 percent
over 60 years old. Of 767 residential buildings over 60 years old, 588 (77
percent) are single family residences.
(II -6)
Katz Hol 1 i s
Table I1-7
Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
Eatella Redeyelopment Project Area
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AGES
(25 YEARS 25+ YEARS 35+ YEARS 60+ YEAP,S TOTAL
SECTION NO_ SF HF TOTAL SF HF TOTAL Sr HF TOTAL SF HF TOTAL SF HF TOTAL
55 0 0 0 93 231 324 0 0 0 0 0 0 93 231 324
56 0 0 0 19 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 19
57 63 0 63 101 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 0 164
63 0 0 0 42 0 42 35 0 35 0 0 0 77 0 77
64 6 0 6 618 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 624 0 624
65 0 420 420 0 0 0 167 0 167 0 0 0 167 420 507
66 0 0 0 0 739 739 164 0 164 0 0 0 164 739 903
67 0 0 0 4433 162 610 0 0 0 0 0 0 448 162 610
73 0 0 0 0 0 0 210 0 210 215 0 215 425 0 425
74 0 'o'0' 86 190 501 691 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 5 87 777
75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 " 77 0 221 221 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3R 221 259
78 0 240 240 1 112 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 352 353
81 0 22 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 179 529 350 201 551
85 45 40 85 0 327 327 340 0 340 23 0 23 400" 30'7 775
80 0 0 0 51D 410 920 0 0 0 0 0 0 510 410 920
87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 0 805 065 0 92 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 957 957
- 24 504 5833 205 0 205 0 0 0 0 0 0 289 504 853
95 0 5b 50 36 48 84 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 104 140
90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0
97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 1 0 5 0 5 372 975 1,354 0 0 0 0 0 0 384 975 1
99 4 ISO 190" 136 92 228 0 0 0 0 0 0 184 242 426
~� 1 D0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
107 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0
109 189 0 189 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189 0 189
110 215 510' — 1) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 215 516 731
117 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
119 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
126 533 0 533 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S33 0 533
127 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
120 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12''9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IOTAL 1,128 3,180 4,308 2,841 3,uoi 6,530 954 0 954 5M 179 767 5,511 7,048 12,559
-- -- -- - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - -- - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - ---- - -- - -- ---- -- -- - --- -- - - -- -- - - -- --- - -- -- - - --
------ - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - -- -- --- - -- - ----- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- --- --- - - - - -- - - - - -- ------ - - - ---
PERCENT OF TOTAL: 34.30 51.99 7.605 6.1114 43. 882 56.1214 100.001
" Section No. = City Ouarter Hap Section number, as shown on Hap I1 -1-
Swrce: City of Anaheim Planning Department from building permit records.
KatzHollis
Older buildings may have their usefulness diminished as
newer more efficiently designed buildings are constructed, as market
conditions change, or as other factors important to the function for which
the buildings were designed change. Such buildings become, in effect,
obsolete in terms of their original functions or purposes. Obsolete uses
were noted as prevalent within seven of the 37 quarter sections in the
Project Area during the 1986 Planning Department Survey.
d. Mixed Character of Buildings
Buildings and structures are generally characterized by
the uses that are made of them. A building used for living purposes is
characterized as a residential building. A building used for business
purposes is of commercial character. And a building housing manufacturing,
fabricating, or processing functions is considered industrial in character.
When more than one use is made of a building, or when two buildings of
different uses exist on the same parcel, or adjacent to each other on
abutting parcels, then such buildings are considered to be of mixed
character. Mixed character buildings often have different but compatible
uses. Frequently, however, they have incompatible uses, with all the
accompanying aesthetic (physical), social, and sometimes economic problems
- such mixing can generate.
The Project Area is characterized by numerous examples of
industrial uses among commercial and transient residential uses, as shown in
Plate 7. This presence of industrial uses among hotels and motels is
particularly troublesome because of Anaheim's role as an international tourist
destination. The top photograph of Plate 8 contains an example of a
commercial use in a predominantly residential area. Table II -2 shows that 13
of the 37 Project Area quarter sections contain excessive and harmful mixed
uses.
e. Shifting Uses
.................................. ...............................
As noted on Table II -2, 12 of the 37 quarter sections
within the Project Area contain evidence of shifting uses. One of the more
prevalent and troublesome of these shifting uses is the conversions of
motels to longer -term or even permanent residential apartments. Such
conversions are seldom accompanied by the architectural modifications
appropriate to meet building and housing code standards for residential
uses. A typical motel apartment lacks appropriate kitchen facilities and
other living amenities. Children, in particular, can suffer from motel
occupancy when yard space is lacking for recreation, and they are
(II -7)
An area which is declining or stagnating
is
usually marked
�-- by (1) an
increased turnover in business operations and
tenancies (i.e.,
start -ups
and failures), accompanied and evidenced
by
corresponding
changes in
the uses of buildings, and (2) by conversions
of
buildings from
the uses for which they were originally constructed to
uses
inconsistent
- with their
design. Business turnovers will be discussed
in
Part II. C. of
this report.
As noted on Table II -2, 12 of the 37 quarter sections
within the Project Area contain evidence of shifting uses. One of the more
prevalent and troublesome of these shifting uses is the conversions of
motels to longer -term or even permanent residential apartments. Such
conversions are seldom accompanied by the architectural modifications
appropriate to meet building and housing code standards for residential
uses. A typical motel apartment lacks appropriate kitchen facilities and
other living amenities. Children, in particular, can suffer from motel
occupancy when yard space is lacking for recreation, and they are
(II -7)
Katz Hol 1 i s
subjected to noise, overcrowding, and lack of privacy. The superintendent
for the Anaheim City Elementary School District recently identified 501
W " students with living address at Project Area motels and other transient
occupancy quarters.
Examples of shifting uses, especially transient occupancy
shifts, are seen in Plates 8 and 9.
f. Faulty___ Arrangement and Exterior Spacing
Buildings may be constructed too close together, they may
be improperly spaced, or they may be of such size as to leave insufficient
space or no space at all between them. These conditions are examples of
faulty exterior spacing. They may result in impairing the appearance and
use of the buildings themselves, and may have a substantial adverse impact
on the surrounding neighborhood.
Some of the older commercial and industrial buildings
within the Project Area were constructed with little regard to lot coverage,
setback and side yard space. The original building may have had sufficient
open space, but this was frequently negated by subsequent construction of
additional rooms or buildings. In some locations, buildings cover 90 to 100
percent of their parcel area, such as the one shown in Plate 10. Table II -2
indicates that 19 of the 37 Project Area quarter sections contain cases of
excessive lot coverage.
An example of faulty interior arrangement is the poor
vehicular access and traffic circulation, lack of plumbing facilities, light and
ventilation and other adverse consequences that usually result from
conversions of garages to separate dwelling units or additional living space.
The Project Area contains 180 such garage conversions. Similar problems
result from the conversion of motels to semi- permanent or permanent
residential occupancy.
Several problems arise from faulty exterior spacing of
buildings. When lot coverage is excessive, the principal casualty is the
space needed for off - street parking. Insufficient off - street parking in the
Project Area occurs in 23 of the 37 Project Area quarter sections. This can
be and is often a major contributor to traffic circulation problems because
motorists must search longer to find parking, or, in some cases, park
illegally thus impeding other traffic.
g. Inadequate Light, Ventilation and Open _Space
. ..........
As noted above, the Project Area contains many examples of
garage and motel conversions, resulting in adverse living conditions,
including inadequate light, ventilation and open space.
6. Properties
- The Project Area is characterized by properties which
suffer from deterioration and disuse because of the factors described below
(II -8)
Katz Hol l is
and illustrated in part by the photographs appearing in Plates 1 through
31.
a. Lots that Are of Irregular Form, Shape and Size
The Project Area contains lots (parcels) that are of
- irregular form or shape and size in terms of contemporary development
standards. This often results in hindering or even prohibiting development
or redevelopment of such parcels because of economic infeasibility. The
- configuration or small size of many of these parcels is attributable to the
construction of the Santa Ana I -5 Freeway, slicing through large parcels
and creating dead end cul -de -sacs in former thoroughfares. Table II -2
shows that nearly one -fifth of the Project Area's quarter sections contain
small and /or irregularly shaped lots often resulting in inadequate ingress
and egress, inadequate parking, and in some cases, landlocked parcels.
b. Inadequate Public Improvements, Facilities and Utilities
Properties in the Project Area are impacted by deficiencies
in the transportation and circulation system (vehicular and pedestrian), in
infrastructure utilities such as water lines, storm drainage, sanitary sewers
and undergrounding of utilities, and in public facilities such as parks and
fire stations. These problems are described in general terms below, and in
more detail in the Project environmental impact report (EIR). Table II -8
contains a summary of local (non- regional) infrastructure deficiencies in
each quarter section of the Project Area.
1. Transportation and Circulation Deficiencies
.... .......... .... ..............
The Project Area suffers from severe transportation
and circulation problems. Three attractions in the Project Area (Disneyland,
Anaheim Stadium, and the Anaheim Convention Center) draw the majority of
the area's 15,000,000 annual transient vehicles. Disneyland is characterized
by distinct and substantial fluctuations in seasonal demand with peak
visitation occurring in the summer and certain days at other times of the
year also showing such peaks. The California Angels and the Los Angeles
Rams occupy Anaheim Stadium for approximately nine months of the year,
- while numerous other events make it a constant traffic generator. Finally,
the Convention Center has gained national prominence as a convention
location with annual attendance exceeding 2,500,000 people. Traffic
-° congestion is compounded when events occur simultaneously, both because of
the higher volume of vehicles involved as well as the inadequate number of
parking spaces.
The Project Area is traversed by Interstate 5 (the
Santa Ana Freeway), the major north -south route from Orange County north
to Los Angeles County and south to San Diego County. Within the Project
Area, I -5 has six travel lanes (three in each direction) with various auxiliary
lanes and ramps at major interchanges. Major interchanges with on and off
ramps providing freeway access into the Project Area are located at Ball
Road /Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim /Katella /Haster (this split interchange
intertwines on and off ramps among several streets), State College
(II -9)
.. Katz Hol 1 i s Table II -8
- Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
latella Redevelopment Project
INFRASTRUCTURE DEFICIENCIES
'
Parks and
Curbs and Gutters
Sidewalks
Curbs I
Railroad Grade
Section
Start
Recreation
and /or Sidewalks
in Poor
Gutters in
Separations
No. Streets
Drains
Sewers
Facilities
Lacking
Condition
Poor Condition
Needed
55
-
-
-
-
-
57
-
63
- 64
-
f #]
-
f #]
f #]
f#]
-
-
65
67
E #]
[ #]
-
73
-
-
[ #]
-
[ #1
[ #]
[ #]
t #]
74
-
75
{ #}
-
-
[ #J
[ #}
-
-
-
76
-
70
-
84
-
-
f #]
[ #]
t #]
[ #]
[ #]
[ #]
85
[ #]
f #]
[ #]
[ #1
[ #]
[ #]
[ #]
[ #]
86
87
-
s9
-
95
-
[ #1
E #]
[ #1
E #]
[ #1
[ #1
[ #]
96
N
97
[ #1
E#]
-
[ #]
fxl
98
[ #1
Exl
99
It]
lob
107
[ #]
[xl
-
[ #]
[ #]
108
[xJ
[ #1
-
[ #1
[ #]
-
[ #}
[x]
!09
[ #1
f#]
-
[xl
[ #}
-
-
-
116
117
118
-
126
-
-
-
[x]
E#]
E #J
-
-
127
-
-
-
[x}
[x]
-
-
-
128
-
129
-
- - - --
- - - - --
- - - - --
- - - - --
- - - - --
- - - - --
- - - - --
-
- - - - --
NO. OF SECTIONS
(OF 37 SECTIONS):
-
------
18
- - - --
24
- - - - --
- - - - --
4
- - - - --
- - - - --
33
- - - - --
- - - - --
32
- - - - --
- - - - --
14
- - - - --
- - - - --
11
- - - - --
- - - - --
14
- - - - --
- - - - --
----------------
Section No. : City
Ouarter Section Map
number, as shown on Map II -1.
Source: City of Anaheia
Planning
Department
survey,
July, 1986.
Katz Hollis
Boulevard /The City Drive (also a split interchange) and Chapman Avenue
(southerly end of Project Area). This freeway contributes the majority of
transient traffic into the Project Area. It currently operates .beyond its
capacity level, and the overflow adds to the traffic congestion on the
arterial connectors.
To alleviate adverse freeway traffic circulation
conditions within the Project Area, which conditions heavily impact existing
commercial and industrial uses and constitute a substantial barrier to the
- private sector's ability to upgrade and redevelop, three key interchange
improvements have been determined to be necessary, including 1) a new
interchange at I -5 and West Street (including realignment of West from Ball
to Broadway), 2) widening of the Harbor Boulevard /I -5 bridge, and 3)
reconstruction of the interchange at Katella and I -5. In addition, the
following major Freeway - related improvements are needed in connection
with the Santa Ana (I -5) Freeway, and the SR57 Freeway: 1) access ramps
at Orangewood and I -5; 2) reconstruction of I -5 from SR22 to SR91; 3)
increase capacity of SR57 from SR91 to SR22; and 4) increased ramp
capacities at SR57 and Orangewood, Katella and Ball. Maps II -3A, 3B and 3C
locate and identify these and other needed transportation, traffic and street
improvement projects described below.
The Project Area contains a network
of arterial
- streets on an orthogonal grid one -half mile apart. These streets have had
high vehicular volumes for a number of years, particularly before and after
events at Anaheim Stadium. Map II -4 illustrates the 1980 "level
of service"
ratings for 30 Project Area intersections, calculated prior to
a stadium
event. Nine of the intersections (nearly one - third) were operating at a
level of service D, half (fifteen) were choked to level of service
E, and one
- fifth (six) were clogged completely at level of service F.
"Level of
Service" is a term used to indicate the general acceptability of a
roadway or
an intersection in accommodating given volumes of traffic. The
alphabetical
designations "A" through "F" describe "best" to "worst"
conditions,
calculated according to the "critical movement analysis"
procedure
documented in Circular 212 of the Transportation Research Board
using peak
hour turning movement counts, the existing intersection lane geometry,
u_ signal phasing, truck percentages, bus frequencies and other
peak hour
factors. A level of service F generally means that traffic volumes exceed an
intersection's ability to handle it.
" From 1980 to 1987, traffic circulation conditions have
continued to deteriorate. Current volumes on Project Area arterial streets
are rapidly approaching maximum capacity, even without the impact of
periodic stadium events. If intersection and other traffic circulation
improvements are not made, traffic engineers predict that conditions will
continue to deteriorate to the point where key intersection capacities will be
met or exceeded. As shown on Map II -5, of 24 key intersections east of and
including Harbor Boulevard, eight (33 percent) are projected to deteriorate
to level of service D, six (25 percent) will drop to level of service E, and
three will fall to an F level of service. Thus, over 70 percent of these key
µ intersections will experience nearly total congestion. Conditions in several
(II -10)
O
O
W w S6
OC W
c IA
z -1 w
4c
O
LL.
fY
O
z
jil
oglq-q
m P-MRS
--
o
u
> r
L u
i d
O < ❑
4 4
co
I
r.
ui
LU
ui
Lr
�. ✓ � fit. / � ;�` j � _� � , � � � O � I r - uj �r��'��_!- It j
47
_1 Q II W
F7
4 pi
j
ui
0
CL
LU
ui
Lr
�. ✓ � fit. / � ;�` j � _� � , � � � O � I r - uj �r��'��_!- It j
47
_1 Q II W
F7
4 pi
j
W
O
W
W
O
OC
d
M
W Wlv
FAO
N W N
G � W
it st
V H
O
J
Z
O
t
0
d
_
Sa
W
<W
U
b W
' Y
rq, a •i._
�l�v rte• _
_...
I j
T '
��- `
a�na oa
onions oa
I _
31
x
ON"
O
z
a
C
j �
Y
i
0
m
M
CL
Q
i �
W
W
-,
a
ui
r
W
>
J=
W
ui
'L-j s'`_
ui
— –
J
W
_
Q
e
W
W
d
W W
� W
W �
0
W � �
V W W W
� 1
N
of W
W V V
J
O
m �
d ~
� Z
- o
J
m 0.r
� o
d d
z
s
0 _
CC '
� � 1
,
1
l _
1 -
' 1M/fAIOOY� O1 ___
b g
Q
W
u m
7�
A
I
1
.
z
S
u
J
�
�
N
a
II
z u
o i
5. z
z
zi
w
z i
a
z
<
u r u
z
u
zz iW
N< u
a? 0 1 4
w < N
6
z_
`
J
�u
8a uW
ui 1J
0 _
CC '
� � 1
,
1
l _
1 -
' 1M/fAIOOY� O1 ___
b g
Q
W
u m
7�
A
I
1
II
M e
■
r.
W
L Q
r
W
Cc
a
Z
LU
2
IL
0
` i
LU
LU
0
LU
Ir
LU
J
J
H
Y
O
iL
■
�zz
J 0�
t
S
r
O
I rT,
n
LEGEND
i S 9 e ILCCCI N AVr
P CITY BOUNDARY •• —' —• —• _
�, r C�wC•)LV pIE STUDY AREA ■1 ■1 ■1■
Y
PL ,
P �
S pG w
ti- SPhtP pt•P ' SOUTM ST SG+I.E
MILE
ti
S��t... 0 1C00 3000 5000 FEET
m
" r w WAGNER AVE
O N =
-�- N ,.Its vEF..nvt P . t c 1� i W _ W n
> S �
N
_ iL _ 3ALL RD 2 -
o r
w y 7� 1 a t TAFT AVC
i u~i y 5 v .n
z y r
coot--; ' t � ;� �•
CE <R
9y :T E
0 N t
•.,__ icy, < I
OKEL •7
DISNEYLAND FREEMAN AVE 17
WAY �\ 0 'NS AVE
' KA 'ELLA TS 110 T
INAMEI-V ^� A NI•', CofKA
CONVEY i70Y A SR•
CENTER PAC!FIC"
0VANEMA STADIUM
.��AY . ANAHEIM
r WALNUT AVc
ORANGE
.- GARDEN GI.z'. -
CCAfMIftl" r
�c CNURCN rhE �C.••Y' n \
_ CEY R
I O s
GARDEN GROVE
ETR�= CLITAtI � .� yr -t -
N � �
t ales,
i ^ , SANTA
ANA
LEGEND
1 O Level of Service D
Z � P
'? Q Level of Service E
1 % / • Level of Service F
ANAHEIM COMMERCIAL/ RECREATION AREA
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
MANAGEMENT STUDY INTERSECTION CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES
1980 DEMAND - PREGAME EVENT
jhk .,,.d...
.Katz Hol l is KATE P REDEVELOPMENT MAP 11-4
PROJECT AREA
Key Intersection
Volum / R.atioa
LOS
O 0.00 - 0.89
A -C
O 0.90 - 1.14
D
4 1.15 - 1.39
E
• 1.40 - UP
F
Katz Hol 1 is
PROJECTED KEY INTERSECTION
VOLUME /CAPACITY RATIOS AND
LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS)
Source Ananeim Stadium Business Center. Proposed
General Plan Amendment. Draft EIR, June 1986
KATELLA REDEVELOPMENT MAP 11 -5
PROJECT AREA
Katz Hol l is
key arterial streets, including Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue, are
shown on Plates 11 through 14.
City traffic engineers have identified 22 critical
intersections needing major traffic circulation improvements. Eight of these
intersections also require construction of "flyovers" to facilitate
uninterrupted turning movements. In addition to these improvements, if
relatively free traffic flow is to be restored and future gridlock prevented,
the signals at Katella, Ball, Anaheim Boulevard /Haste r, and State College need
to be coordinated; other signals need modification or upgrading; signal
interconnects are needed at 28 local controllers; pedestrian overcrossings
are needed at five locations, for pedestrian safety as well as for vehicle
circulation; and a one - way couplet needs to be constructed paralleling I-
5 /Manchester /Anaheim Boulevard. A people mover system and a master
pedestrian circulation system have also been proposed as key improvements
required to mitigate pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation deficiencies
in the Project Area.
Insufficient street width, abrupt jogs, dead -ends, and
lack of or inadequate medians are additional problems contributing to poor
traffic circulation in the Project Area. In some cases, street widths may
vary from one block or parcel to the next, such as on Ball Road shown in
the left photograph on Plate 12. Fourteen prime segments of arterial streets
w have been identified for widening. One major street realignment is
required, and one street extension is needed. Extensive median
improvements are necessary at one location.
The surfaces of many local and arterial streets in the
Project Area are deteriorated and cracked or in need of repair, as
determined by a City survey conducted in 1985. Freeway bridge
- overcrossings are another problem; three are substandard and characterized
by a reduction in lane width or lane number, with nonexistent sidewalks
making pedestrian crossing of extreme concern.
There are thirty -three railroad street crossings in the
Project Area. Two examples are shown in Plates 15 and 16, and Plate 15
- shows an instance of a train in the middle of the street. The crossings
create delays in traffic, add to congestion, and create a hazard for vehicles
traveling over them. At a minimum, grade separations are needed at seven
key locations to alleviate this problem.
Insufficient off - street parking, both in residential and
non - residential areas, also contributes to traffic congestion. The resultant
curb -side parking eliminates a lane needed for vehicular circulation and
often creates vehicular - pedestrian conflicts. Details concerning insufficient
off - street parking are provided in Table II -6. Several examples of this
condition in the Project Area are provided in Plates 6 and 21. At least
10,000 additional spaces are needed within the Commercial Recreation portion
of the Project Area (the area in the vicinity of Disneyland and the Anaheim
Convention Center).
(II -11)
Katz Hol 1 is
There were 673 reported traffic accidents resulting in
injury in 1985 on the Project Area's major arterial streets. Non - injury
accident statistics (property damage only) are not recorded, thus under -
representing the seriousness of the problem. City Traffic and
Transportation Engineering staff attribute the high accident rate to traffic
congestion and deficiencies in the circulation system.
The City's Department of Public Works surveyed the
alleys of the Project Area in 1985 and determined that one -third of the
�- Project Area's quarter sections, containing approximately 65 alleys, need
reconstruction or maintenance, ranging from slurry seal to removal and
reconstruction. An example of an unpaved alley is depicted in Plate 20.
Curbs, gutters and sidewalks are lacking in various
places in the Project Area, jeopardizing the safety of pedestrians,
particularly tourists making their way from their accommodations to tourist
attractions.
In those areas where sidewalks are non - existent, there
are no pedestrian overcrossings to separate pedestrians and vehicles. At
times pedestrians are forced onto the road due to the lack of sidewalks.
Two examples of the absence of curbs, gutters and sidewalks are depicted in
Plate 18. Plate 19 contains examples of sidewalks that are non - continuous or
non - existent. As described in Table II -8, 11 of the 37 Project Area quarter
sections have curbs and gutters in poor condition, 14 have sidewalks in
poor condition, and in 32, curbs and gutters and /or sidewalks are lacking.
Another condition contributing to hazardous vehicular -
pedestrian interface is a lack of properly placed traffic signals for
pedestrian crossings. A key example is on Harbor Boulevard north of
Freedman Way, south of Manchester Avenue, depicted in Plate 17.
2. Water System Deficiencies
Because portions of the Project Area were developed
over 50 years ago, some water lines need replacing because of inadequate
size, deterioration from age, maintenance problems or poor quality
construction and defects in initial design. Willdan Associates recently
studied the Project Area to determine where water lines need to be replaced
or installed. The following locations were identified:
Walnut Street (Santa Ana to Katella); Crone Avenue (Walnut to
Hampstead); Cerritos Avenue (Walnut to Ninth); Ninth Street (Well #36 to
Cerritos); West Street (Santa Ana to South and PR -19 in Ball to
Cerritos), Illinois (Santa Ana to South); Indiana (Santa Ana to South);
Ohio (Santa Ana to South); Water Street (Olive to West); Ball Road (I -5
Freeway Overcrossing); Harbor Boulevard (Ball to Orangewood);
Clementine (Katella to Orangewood); Pacifico (Hilton Hotel to State
College); Katella Avenue (I -5 Freeway Overcrossing); Manchester (Katella
to Orangewood); Lewis Street (Katella to Pacifico); State College (Katella
to Orangewood); Lemon Street (South to Vermont); and Citron (Santa
Ana to Water).
(II -12)
Katz Hollis
located on Map II -6.
Needed water system improvements are identified and
3. Sewer System Deficiencies
Table II -8 identifies four Project Area quarter
sections with sewer line deficiencies, including deteriorated physical
condition, improper design, and inadequate capacity. Willdan's evaluation
identified several Project Area locations as requiring sewer line replacement
or installation. These are identified and located on Map II -7.
Underutilized /vacant properties on the east side of the I -5 Freeway that
develop in accordance with the land uses permitted under the General Plan
and Redevelopment Plan will require the installation of additional sewer
lines.
4. Storm Drainage Deficiencies
More than two - thirds of the Project Area quarter
sections have inadequate storm drains, as shown on Table II -8. Plate 22
contains three examples of poor drainage and the concomitant damage to
street surfaces.
Willdan Associates also analyzed the storm drainage
system. In the portion of the Project Area west of the I -5 Freeway, 13 key
locations were identified with storm drainage deficiencies requiring either
.. replacement, installation, construction and /or other improvements: Vermont
Street (east of Anaheim Boulevard to SPRR); Cerritos (the ABC Channel to
Walnut); Orangewood (east of 9th Street, Jackalene Lane including the
Jackalene Lane and Gail Lane laterals); Walnut (Cerritos to Goodhue); Harbor
(north of Orangewood to Convention Way); Clementine extension (north of
Orangewood to end); Haster (Leatrice to Wakefield and alley extension to
Mountain View); Orangewood (Spinnaker to Anaheim Boulevard); Midway Drive
to Santa Ana Freeway (open channel east of Palm Street); the Katella -
Anaheim- Barber City Channel to Haster; Harbor (Katella to Manchester
including Manchester to Santa Ana Freeway); Harbor- Chapman to Katella; and
Ball Road to Walnut to South Street to Olive.
In the portion of the Project area east of the I -5
freeway, six locations were identified with storm drainage deficiencies
requiring either replacement, installation, construction and /or other
improvements: Katella (east of Lewis Street); Lewis Street - ATSFRR to Ball
Road; Anaheim Boulevard (Cerritos to Palais); Anaheim Boulevard (Spinnaker
- channel Northerly); Orangewood Avenue southeast Anaheim Channel (west of
State College Boulevard); and State College Boulevard (Orangewood to
Pacifico). Other miscellaneous deficiencies throughout the Project Area were
also identified.
Map II -7 identifies and locates the above - described
storm drainage deficiencies.
(II -13)
o Z
8
W >
z
Eu
3
16
W IC Q z R
al-
o e
N
p
IL z
(A
0 in
cc LU
:
U.1
LU
' 'SI '� I
LU
U s
U.1
U.1
LIU
A
---- ----- --
�k
ji - 1 1
W
- --- ------
-------------------- ---- ----------------
7 �77 ----------
X
I ,-
- ------------
LiIJJL7��
!IL
Is L
vwwo� o.L
i
o e
a ;
#A W
W
W ?
? c
Z 0
0 ' t
V �
� o
116 °
° C .
C W e
e g p
p a
N N �
�; o
o
J W
W �` J
J
v w a
a i
H
1
Q
W
Q.
H
V
W
2
O
a
H
W
a
O
J
W
� 0
I � W
Q If —�
W
Q
Y
x
O WN
N
2
Q
z9
r
m
M
llatzHollis
5. Electrical System Deficiencies
The Project Area is criss- crossed by overhead
electrical distribution facilities creating a sense of urban clutter, as visible
in Plates 10, 14, 15, 16 and 19. Undergrounding of these unsightly facilities
- is important because their presence, along with other blight conditions, is a
deterrent to Project Area development. Locations where utility
undergrounding is needed are identified on Map II -8.
6. Park /Recreation Deficiencies
The Project Area has over 1,100 acres of residential
uses containing over 12,000 housing units with an estimated population of
31,000 people. There is only one park within the Project Area, Pondrosa
Park, a nine - acre neighborhood park located at Orangewood Avenue and
Haster Street at the south end of the Project Area. There are also two
�. other neighborhood parks, located on the periphery of the Project
boundaries, that have service radii overlapping the Project Area. These are
Palm Lane Park, a seven - acre school /park facility east of Euclid between
Ball Road and Cerritos Avenue, and Stoddard Park, a 9.4 - acre school /park
facility located west of 9th Street between Katella Avenue and Orangewood
Avenue. The smaller facilities of various other schools are also available
within the Project Area. City Park Department staff have stated that these
parks are operating at capacity, and that additional park space is critically
needed, especially in the Citron area north of Ball Road.
Of the 37 quarter sections in the Project Area, 33 are
deficient in terms of park and recreation facilities. (See Table II -8). The
City's minimum standard for park facilities is two acres per 1,000 residents.
Based on the estimated 31,000 Project Area population, and accounting for
the service areas of Ponderosa, Palm Lane and Stoddard Parks, the Project
Area needs an additional 56 acres of park /recreation facilities. Development
of a park of this magnitude within an urban area would be disruptive and
- costly; however a 10 - acre facility at an undefined location in the northern
portion of the Project Area is appropriate.
B. Existing Social Conditions
.................. ._........................... ...._ ............ ..............
The California Redevelopment Law bases the need for
redevelopment in part on the existence of physical problems that contribute
to blight, that is the impairment of utilization of an area to the extent that
it constitutes a serious physical, social, or economic burden on the
community. In addition, the law also specifies that a prebalance of social.
-- -- and economic maladjustment may be a contributing cause of blight. Social
conditions which contribute to lowering the general welfare of an area's
inhabitants give rise to economic liabilities that cannot be alleviated by
private enterprise acting alone. The purpose of this section of the report
is to present the facts which show the existence of social raladjustment in
the Katella Redevelopment Project Area.
For this purpose, the identification of appropriate indications of
social maladjustment is critical. No single measure can provide an adequate
(II -14)
W
0
W �
r m
r
f
e g d
J J � •
U t
a � '
o 0
J
67
�M
Q
W
Q
H
V
W
O
a
F-
z
W
a
O
J
W
W
D
W
Q
J
J
W
I—
Q
Y
x
...i
0
N
t�
2
U
Z ZS
O
N NW�
W
W 32
< uo
c$
° e
�
z
�
ro
V.
� aW
�
_zz
w
dto;
N
o=
�W
r
f
e g d
J J � •
U t
a � '
o 0
J
67
�M
Q
W
Q
H
V
W
O
a
F-
z
W
a
O
J
W
W
D
W
Q
J
J
W
I—
Q
Y
x
...i
0
N
t�
KatzHollis
sense of the way in which society treats the many groups in a diverse
community. However, there are a number of generally recognized indicators
of social and economic performance that may be taken as a basis for
assessing social functioning. In this report we focus on population, income,
housing, and indicators such as crime, education, and disease.
Data from the 1980 U.S. Census, although seven years old,
provides the most accurate information available on the ethnic background,
income and education levels of Project Area residents. Data from 10 Census
tracts which fall roughly into the Project Area was compiled by
Redevelopment Agency staff and is sumarized below. Using more current
data, the Planning Department staff estimated Project Area population and
dwelling units in conjunction with its July, 1986 Dwelling Unit Population
Statistics Report.
1. Population
The estimated population of the Project Area is 31,009
persons. The ethnic composition of this population is 66 percent white, 27
percent Hispanic, 1 percent Black, 8 percent Asian and 3 percent other.
The total proportion of non -while classifications in the Project Area is 39
percent compared to the City -wide percentage of 26 percent. Hispanics are
the dominant minority, comprising 27 percent of the population, while they
are 17 percent of the City -wide population. These figures are probably
underestimates, as the Census either substantially undercounts or does not
include the large number of resident aliens who are without legal status.
-- Approximatly 22 percent of Project Area residents are foreign born as
compared to 13 percent City -wide. For approximately 26 percent of Project
Area residents English is a second language or not spoken in the home
compared to about 17 percent City -wide. The implications of these
population characteristics are that there is an increasingly high demand for
services, especially bi- lingual employment and educational services.
Approximately 28 percent of the Project Area residents are
under 19 years of age; 63 percent are between 20 and 64 years of age; and
about 8 percent are over the age of 65. These percentages generally mirror
„- the City -wide population age percentages.
2. Income
More than 59 percent of the Project Area's residents are
classified "low or moderate" income, in contrast to the City as a whole with
33 percent. Of the Project Area's total population, 12.8 percent is below the
- -. poverty level, compared to 7.6 percent City -wide and 5 percent county -wide.
Of the 3,905 households in the area that have children, 1,056 (27 percent)
are headed by single females, compared to 9.2 percent that are headed by
single females City -wide. The Project Area's 1980 median household income
of $16,650 contrasts sharply with the City's 1980 median household income of
$20,026.
As noted earlier in this report, approximately two - thirds of
the residential area in the Project are located within the City's Community
(II -15)
llatz Hol l is
Development Block Grant target areas. Low income and blight conditions are
required in targeting areas for CDBG assistance.
3. Education Levels and School Population
The percentage of people in Anaheim 25 years or older who
have completed four years of high school is 36 percent.
The high school age population of the Project Area attend
three high schools: Anaheim, Katella, and Loara. While the percentage of
minority students district -wide is 35.4 percent, these three schools contain
an average of 43 percent minority enrollment; Anaheim High School has a 66
percent minority students enrollment. Anaheim High School leads the
- district with the highest dropout rate: 43 percent in 1984 as against 31
percent district -wide.
The junior high school enrollment is drawn primarily from
two schools- -Ball and South Junior High Schools. Minority students in
junior high schools in Anaheim comprise 38 percent of the student
population, while minority enrollment at these two Project Area - serving
schools is an average of 41 percent.
The elementary school age population of the Project Area
- attends seven schools in the Anaheim district. The average minority
population for these schools is 59 percent; the district -wide minority
population is 54 percent.
A portion of the school population is drawn from the
Project Area's long -term transient occupancy motels. The Anaheim City
Elementary School District superintendent recently estimated over 500
elementary students are drawn from these facilities.
4. . ............................
Of the 12,559 housing units in the Project Area, 54 percent
are rental units and 45 percent are owner - occupied. City -wide, 47 percent
of the housing units are rental units and 50 percent are owner occupied.
The relatively lower owner - occupancy rate in the Project Area may be
influencing the maintenance and operating behavior of property owners.
Indeed, studies conducted in other cities have concluded that regardless of
area, resident ownership is the keystone to good maintenance and that
resident owners are less likely than absentee owners to abandon properties.
The substantial proportion of housing rated in the previous section as in
need of repairs and /or maintenance points to the prevalence of such a
situation in the Project Area.
The condition of Project Area housing units and living
conditions was described in detail earlier in this report, and presented
statistically in a number of tables. Many of the housing units are older, in
poor condition, and exhibit major code violations. Certain neighborhoods
„ account for a disproportionate percentage of the City's code enforcement
activities. Although current rent levels in the Project Area are comparable
(II -16)
KatzHollis
to those City -wide, the income levels of residents are such that it is
unlikely that current market conditions in the area would support the
higher rent levels that would be necessary to offset reinvestment into the
housing stock. The median 1980 rent in the Project Area was $293 compared
to $307 City -wide. The median 1980 house value was $82,500 compared to
$93,000 City -wide. These numbers have increased substantially since the
1980 census. More importantly, the differences between Project Area and
City - wide rents and values have also increased.
Additionally, a number of motels have been converted to
and used as living quarters, almost always without providing necessary
living amenities. Insect and rodent infestations are frequently found. Many
units accommodate three, four or more families, conditions resulting in
serious overcrowding.
5. Infectious Diseases
Physical and social well being are strongly associated with
health status. One of the measures of the health of an area that is
._ specifically identified in the CRL is disease rates. The data pertaining to
this measure of public health are reported below and indicate that the
Project Area does have health problems, many of them related to its social
conditions.
Infectious diseases occur at higher rates in the population
of the Project Area than in Anaheim's City -wide population, according to
statistics provided by the County of Orange Health Care Agency. In the
area north of Katella Avenue, east of 9th Street, west of I -5 and south of
Ball Road, gonococcal infections (venereal diseases) occur at the City's
- highest rate, 1,266 cases per 100,000. While the Project Area contains 13.1
percent of the City's population, 17 percent of the Hepatitis A cases, 21
percent of the Salmonella cases and 26 percent of the tuberculosis cases in
Anaheim were reported from the Project Area in 1985.
6. Crime
One of the most significant social problems within the
Project Area is crime. Table II -9 compares crime rates within the Project
Area to City -wide rates in eight major crime categories. While the Project
Area covers only 15.6 percent of the City's land area, and includes only 13.1
percent of the total population, during the last three years the Project Area
has had 19 to 26 percent of the City's robberies, 65 to 89 percent of the
City's assaults, 20 percent of the City's burglaries, 23 to 25 percent of the
City's larcenies, 22 to 27 percent of the City's auto thefts, and 20 to 31
percent of the City's rapes. Of the eight major crime categories, only
homicide appears to be in proportion to population and area. The
significance of these statistics can be more easily seen in the bar chart
following Table II -9.
Within the Lynne Avenue /Jeffrey Drive neighborhood alone,
the Anaheim Police Department reports that on the average over one - half
of one percent of all the City's major crimes have been committed there
(I1 -17)
Katz Hol 1 is
Table II -9
Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
Katella Redevelopment Project Area
MAJOR CRIMES IN PROJECT AREA, 1984 -1986
1984 1985 1386 (1)
No. of Crimes As 1 of No. of Crimes As 1 of No. of Crimes As I of
Type of Crime in Project Area Total City in Project Area Total City in Project Area Total City
------- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- -------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - --
HONCIDE 2 141 1 61 1 71
RAPE 2i 251 34 311 19 201
ROBBERY 16) 261 118 191 141 251
ASSAULT 471 741 395 651 425 891
BURGLARY 1009 201 1126 211 884 201
LARCENY 2262 241 2235 231 1923 251
AUTO THEFT 396 271 461 2711 368 221
ARSON 12 141 21 241 12 201
Note: The Project Area contains 13.11 of the City's population in 15.661 of the City's land area.
--------- - - - - --
(1) January - October only
Source: Anaheim Police Department, November, 1986
1016ann1 /4
0311x- /bi
hatzHollis
Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
Katella Redevelopment Project Area
MAJOR CRIMES IN PROJECT AREA AS PERCENTAGE OF
CITYWIDE TOTALS FOR 1984, 1985 AND 1986(
HC- WC IDE R.A. RE
nr�
ASGAULT BURGLARY
�
1954
LL i
70
0
0
c�
a3
L
4
Q�
CL
t �•ilo
0%
HC- WC IDE R.A. RE
ROBBERY
ASGAULT BURGLARY
LARCENY AUTO THEFT ARSON
1954
LL i
Note: The Project Area contains 13.1% of the City's population and 15.7% of
the City's land area.
-----------------
(1) January - October, 1986
Source: Anheim Police Department, November, 1986
1016a.anh /4
022787 /tmc
hatzHollis
during the past three years. The neighbor hood comprises only six one -
hundredths of one percent of the City's land area. Moreover, since 1984,
there has been a 500 percent increase in arson cases, assaults have
increased 89 percent, burglaries have increased 19 percent, and larceny has
jumped 13 percent in the Lynne /Jeffrey area.
In addition to the major crime problems, the Lynne /Jeffrey
area has been targeted by the police department as one of two major
narcotics trafficking areas of the City. In early 1986, a new unit "Street
Crime Action Team" (SCAT) was formed to deal with this and other
problems. In one four -month period 148 arrests were made by SCAT in the
Lynne /Jeffrey area, primarily for narcotic- related offenses.
The police department also reports heavy narcotic
trafficking in the vicinity of Olive /South Streets in the Project Area. In
addition, the department has identified the neighborhood south of Ball Road
- and east of Harbor Boulevard as the territory of the Hispanic street gang
"Anaheim Vats Locos ". Residents have reported acts of malicious mischief,
assaults, intimidation, and narcotic trafficking. In the southerly portion of
the Project Area along Harbor Boulevard to the City limits, vice
investigators report a high concentration of prostitution arrests. In the
Ponderosa Park vicinity, three percent of all the City's robberies occurred
during a two - month period in mid 1986. It is also an area of street gang
- activity, both Black and Hispanic. Prostitution and narcotics trafficking
arrests have also been made at various motels in the vicinity of Disneyland,
including some of the motels that have been converted to permanent
residential apartments.
Table II -2 indicates that 13 of the 37 Project Area quarter
sections have been determined to have higher than average crime rates.
Table II -2 also shows that graffiti is a problem in 9 quarter sections.
Evidence of graffiti and vandalism can be seen in Plate 23.
In summary, it is evident that the Project Area is a
dangerous place. All types of crimes are prevalent in the area, but felony
crimes of personal assault, crimes against property, and narcotics offenses
are especially common. From the perspective of the environment of the
area, the impact of crime on street life and businesses that are client -
dependent in these areas are particularly problamatic.
7. Lack of Open Space and_ Recreation Facilities
.. ..........._...._.............. .........................._..._ ........... . �.._ ................................... _ .......
.
Table II -8 documents that seven of the Project Area's 36
quarter sections have insufficient parks and recreation facilities to serve
the resident population. This is discussed in detail in Part II. A. above.
C. Existing Economic Conditions
The physical and social conditions described above have
contributed to economic decline in the Project Area. One -third of the
Project Area's developed land is devoted to commercial uses and another
third to industrial uses. According to City business license records, there
(II -18)
KatzHollis
are 453 active retail businesses in the' Project Area. Table II -10 compares
the retail business license activity of the Project Area to that of the City
from 1980 to 1986 and the percent change each succeeding year. While the
Project Area and the City experienced steady increases in the numbers of
retail businesses each year except for 1986, the increases in the Project
Area businesses are about two - thirds that of the City's increases.
1. Prevalence of Impaired _Investments
The prevalence of impaired investments is indicated by the
increasing vacancy rates in the Project Area, and inappropriate uses of
buildings or land. A recent economic conditions survey by the Agency's
economic consultant indicated that approximately 20 percent of the
commercial space east of the I -5 freeway and 20 percent to 30 percent of
the commercial space west of the I -5 freeway is vacant. Examples of vacant
buildings are depicted in Plates 27 and 28. As shown on Table II -1, 5.0
percent,. or 218 acres, of the Project Area is still devoted to agricultural
uses, despite its setting in an urban area, even adjacent to modern multi-
story office buildings. City staff indicate that much of this land is under
Williamson Act protection. Plates 30 and 31 show some of the agricultural
properties among commercial and industrial uses. Examples of inharmonious
uses of buildings include the industrial uses among retail commercial uses
shown in Plate 7, the commercial use in a residential area shown in Plate 8,
the transient occupancy businesses converted to permanent housing in a
commercial area shown in Plates 8 and 9, and businesses inappropriate for a
wholesome family- oriented commercial- recreation area, as shown in Plate 24.
2. Prevalence of Economic Maladjustment
m The prevalence of economic maladjustment in the Project
Area is evident from the extent of building turnover, vacant and
underutilized properties, the cost of public services vs. tax revenues,
stagnation in retail sales tax revenues, decline in motel revenues, and the
inability of property owners to bear additional special assessments.
While no firm statistics are available concerning business
- failures vs. move -outs, the vacant buildings throughout the Project Area
demonstrate the existence of business failures and turnover in buildings.
Plates 27 through 29 depict numerous examples.
Vacant and underutilized properties are also common
throughout the Project Area. The Project Area's vacant acreage is 183.2
acres, or 4 percent of the total Project Area. Examples of vacant properties
are illustrated in Plates 25 and 26.
The cost of providing public service within the Project Area is
disproportiontely high compared to the remainder of the City and is in
excess of the property tax revenue generated by the area. Crime statistics
comparing the Project Area to the City as a whole in eight major crime
categories show that the Project Area's percentage of the City's total crime
occurrences ranges from 14 percent to 89 percent (averaging 21 percent),
although the Project Area contains only 13.1 percent of the City's population
(II -19)
Katz Hol l is
Table II -10
Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
[atella Redevelopment Project Area
RETAIL BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN PROJECT AREA
Source: terser /Marston Associates and City of Anaheim Finance Department, 1987
1010 -11A%4
� 031107/bI
Project
Area
City
-----------------------
- - - - --
-----------------------
- - - - --
Project Area
Z Change
1 Change
Businesses as
from Prior
from Prior
Z of City Total
No. of Businesses
----------- - - - - --
Year
---- - - - - --
No. of Businesses
----------- - - - - --
Year
-- - - - - --
Businesses
-------- - - - - --
- 1980
180
-
1110
-
16.2Z
1981
225
25-OZ
1472
32.6Z
15.31Z
1982
294
30.71Z
2073
40.8Z
14.21
1983
383
30.3Z
2814
35.OZ
13.6Z
1984
436
13.82
3487
24.OZ
12.52
1985
463
6.2Z
3824
9.7Z
12.12
1986
453
-2.2Z
3790
-8.72
11.92
Source: terser /Marston Associates and City of Anaheim Finance Department, 1987
1010 -11A%4
� 031107/bI
Katz Hol l is
in 15.6 percent of the City's land area. The Lynne /Jeffrey residential area
(Plates 2, 3, and 6) keeps two code enforcement officers occupied full time.
An analysis of annual revenue levels for Project Area motels from 1980
to 1986 (Table II -11) shows that the average annual increase in total
revenues is only 3.17 percent. When this figure is converted to 1980
dollars, an average -1.74 growth rate results. These figures would be even
lower were it not for an uncharacteristic 12.6 percent increase for the 1985
year. Respondants to a recent economic conditions survey by the Agency's
- economic consultant uniformly estimated that current motel occupancy rates
are at a sub -par 60 to 70 percent.
Physical deterioration, together with the social and economic problems
that exist in the Project Area, have had an impact on business activities.
The Agency has received numerous letters from the business community in
the Project Area voicing their concerns. A sample of these letters is
attached as Attachments 1 through 4 to this Part II, and include compelling
correspondence from Disneyland, hotel managers, and property owners.
Overall, their concerns focus on infrastructure and transportation /circulation
deficiencies in the Project Area, the high turnover of marginal businesses in
the area, community safety and crime, and other physical, social and
economic conditions that are jeopardizing the economic viability of their
current and planned business activities. It appears that the businesses
most affected by conditions in the Project Area, are tourist dependent
businesses which are a major portion of the City -wide business community.
3. Existence of Inadequate Public _Improvements, Public Facilities,
........._ ..............I...... .
Open Space and Utilities
The deficiencies of the public improvements, public facilities,
�. open space and utilities in the Project Area are documented in Section A.6.b.
of this Part II and exhibited in Plates 11 -22. The deficiencies in the
transportation circulation system are a critical factor inhibiting the Project
�. Area's economy. The majority of the respondents in a recent economic
conditions survey stated that traffic circulation problems and insufficient
off - street parking are of high significance and in part responsible for the
area's unfavorable conditions. The undersized or deteriorated water and
sewer lines may be inhibiting the full utilization of the vacant and
underutilized properties. The inadequate storm drainage is another negative
element impacting the Project Area.
(II -20)
Katz Hol 1 is
Table II -11
Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
Katella Redevelopment Project
Area
TAXABLE HOTEL RECEIPTS, 1980 -86 (1)
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL 12 NO
TOTAL I CHANGE
12 NO
-------------- - - - - --
I CHANGE
----- - - - - -- -------------
1980 DOLLARS
- - - - --
1980 DOLLARS
---------------
1980
!10,788,001
$10,788,001
1981
$11,322,692
4.961
$10,258,592
-4.911
1982
$11,890,845
5.021
$10,151,022
-1.051
1903
$12,613,599
6.082
$10,432,427
2.771
1984
$11,736,609
-6.951
$9,310,816
- 10.751
1925
$13,690,700
16.65
$10,486,855
12.632
1986
$12,772,248
-6.711
-------- - - - - --
$9,528,993
-----------------
-9.131
�. AGGREGATE 1 CHANGE
3.171
-1.741
- (1) Includes
representative sample
of 24 Project Area
motels
Source_ Keyser /Marston Associates
and City of Anaheim
Finance Department, 1987
1016 -13/4
041587/bl
OWRATHER
BY MESSENGER
March 19, 1987
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency
76 South Claudina Street
Anaheim, California 92805
Attention: Norman J. Priest
Executive Director
RE: Proposed Katella Redevelopment Area
Gentlemen:
M AR 3 01987
w �'= 8 COREN
Wrather Corporation realized the potential and promise of
the Katella area in Anaheim more than 30 years ago when we
developed and opened our Disneyland Hotel. Over time, the
hotel has grown from the 100 -room facility that first welcomed
guests in the summer of 1955 to the 1,174 rooms and full service
recreational and convention facilities of today. To a large
extent this progress was possible because the City of Anaheim
has worked to create an environment which encourages growth and
success.
As Wrather Corporation plans for the future development of
its property interests in Anaheim, it has become apparent that
along with the prosperity that has accompanied the ambitious
growth in the Katella area have come some less fortunate side
- effects, such as inadequate access and circulation systems and
an overburdened public infrastructure. We feel that these
problems which are area -wide in nature require area -wide
solutions.
Although we have not yet had an opportunity to review the
Redevelopment Agency's plan for the Katella area, we firmly
support the redevelopment process and feel that it can provide
an excellent mechanism to facilitate the resolution of these
area -wide problems. We look forward to working with you in the
future on these issues.
Sincerely,
Eugene L. Saenger, Jr.
Executive Vice President - Development
ELS:kmm
Attachment No. 1
to Part II
270 \OR: H CANON DRIVE, BE% ERL1 HILL, CALIFORNIA 0 0- 2 10 213 2-7 - P.O. BOX 111, BEVERL: HILLS, CALIFORNIA UI) -211
BL SINTESS PROPERTIES
DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
17631 PITCH P. 0. BOX 19589
IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 98713 -9689 (714) 474-8900
March 9, 1987
Norman J. Priest
Executive Director of Community
Development and Planning
City of Anaheim
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Suite 244
Anaheim, California 92805
Reference: General Plan Amendment Number 214
Anaheim Stadium Business Center
Dear Mr. Priest:
As a major property owner in the Anaheim Stadium area, I
am vitally concerned over the efforts being made by the
City of Anaheim in developing a plan that insures the
vitality of the business community. I have reviewed the
proposed general plan amendment and the establishment of
a redevelopment district as referenced to above and wish
to make the following comments.
The establishment of a redevelopment district is essential
because I believe it is the only way in which private enter-
prise can participate on a sensible economic basis to bring
the needed and necessary corrective elements of the redevelop-
ment plan into being. Without this development plan in place,
there will be continued physical deterioration and a definite
slowness of desirable business growth environment. You and
your staff are to be congratulated for your progressive
redevelopment plans. Along with other members of the business
community, I congratulate you for your efforts. I believe you
have properly analyzed the future development problem and have
come up with the only solution that makes sense in the competi-
tive economic environment that currently exists.
Very truly yours,
BUSINESS PROPERTIES
MGP 1 '87
L. C. Smull
LCS:dt Attachment No. 2
to Part II
t It
�
-Jfi :....
,.•.t_�..
J)Isnegland, 0M
OFFICIAL HOTEL OF TH MA KIN
A MOBIL * *** AND AAA * *-** RESORT
March 19, 1987
Mr. Norman J. Priest
Executive Director
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Dear Mr. Priest:
As Chairman of the Anaheim Visitor & Convention Bureau's
Executive Committee, and Board Member for many years, I
wanted to write to you about the proposal for the Katella
Redevelopment Project.
We believe that redevelopment is necessary in this area
to correct the following:
• Deteriorated housing.
• Traffic congestion.
• Inadequate street system throughout the area.
• Rapid turnover of marginal businesses.
• Hotels and motels oriented toward weekly and monthly
family housing.
• Inadequate parks and recreational facilities.
• Crime; particularly drugs and prostitution.
We are very concerned that conditions such as these will
indeed jeopardize the strength of our recreation and tourism
area -- one of the showcases of Anaheim.
I know these problems cannot be corrected by private business
alone. We need to work with Government to arrest the present
decline in the area.
Re gaIr ds'
Michael A. Bullis
SAAR ^ -
President - . - - -.
MAB: J
cc: 'William F. Snyder, President
Anaheim Visitor & Convention Bureau
Attachment No. 3
to Part II
i � A sNcp Development Company
March 5, 1987
Mr. Norman J. Priest
Director
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency
Civic Center
Post Office Box 3222
Anaheim, California 92803
Dear Mr. Priest:
The Walt Disney Company, Disneyland, Incorporated, and Disney Development
Company urge the City of Anaheim to make the strongest possible commitment
- to approve and adopt the Stadium /Katella Redevelopment Project Area Plan.
We firmlq believe that significant advantages are to be gained from this
commitment and the implementation of the overall plan is absolutely
necessary to preserve and enhance the long -term viability of Anaheim and the
Disneyland area.
The substantial benefits received from the stated objectives of the
redevelopment plan to improve the existing strain on infrastructure traffic
congestion, removal of blighted conditions and an improved community safety
and pedestrian environment, will insure the opportunity for Disney to
maintain and strengthen its existing base in Anaheim.
At present, we have a significant financial investment and commitment to our
Disney operations and would like to continue to have the business option to
enhance our base of operation over time. Therefore, from a corporate
planning perspective, the proposed Redevelopment Project Area Plan is
critical to preserve that option for possible future development expansion.
Sincerely,
Peter S. Rummell
President
PSR /dp
RECEIVED
M I '$7
xxxYxxx (818) 846 -4034
Communt; Cav ?i : prr nt
Ranwnv
tip
AM
E
A3
Attachment
No.
to Part II
4
CI
a
I
as
.■
0
M "
am
r1
i
s
It
'00 -,
oj
"oll
RESIDENTIAL PROPER -
1 =V=Dwi1 VKIKIM eo
a-J WA
. _ _ mss,..,` • ,
z _
s n ,
� • � � "� � � � � � lc-�� z in F ��i� �� � .
-.- t
A T
r
t
State College Boulevard, south of Orangewood
Winston Street off of West Street
Katzliollis
KATELLA REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
PLATE 5
"z
� o
..1
i- Q z
a 0
W C3
� W
W �
x
cn
cn
Q
Q W AM;"
cc F-
o�
ac o
o_
U. M
cn W
W
� 0
cn 0
0 1—
V
z_
W
U. D
om
Q z
�o
V
co
W
a
J
CL
w
Q
U
W
13
0
cc
a
Z
M.
0
J
W
W
cl
W
J
W
9
MIXED OR SHIFTING USES
(Plates 7 -9)
INDUSTRIAL AMONG COMMERCIAL AND TRANSIENT
RESIDENTIAL USES
Katz of l is KATE PROJECT AREA PLATE 7
East side of Anaheim Boulevard, south of Katella
On Lewis Street, north of Anaheim Boulevard
n
I
KatzlIollis KATELLA REDEVELOPMENT PLATE 8
PROJECT AREA
Commercial in a residential area around Santa Ana Street
Motel in commercial area shifted to long term apartment use
w
Motels converted to long term residential use on the
east side of Anaheim Boulevard, south of Katella Avenue
f
H o l l i S
atz KATELLA REDEVELOPMENT PLATE 9
ii t PROJECT AREA
H o l l i S
atz KATELLA REDEVELOPMENT PLATE 9
ii t PROJECT AREA
INADEQUATE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
(Plates 10 -22)
View north on
east side of Harbor
Boulevard, south of
Manchester
View south on
Harbor Boulevard
at Orangewood
Harbor Boulevard,
at Wilken Way
DEFICIENCIES IN CIRCULATION SYSTEM:
HARBOR BOULEVARD
Katz - col l i s
KATELLA REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
PLATE 11
At Haster Street
KATELLA AVENUE DEFICIENCIES
au _ o f i i KATE PROJECT AREA PLATE 13
At West Street, view northwest
West Street.
Irregular width.
Katella Avenue
at Katella Way
I
Orangewood
at Mallul
Crossing of
Anaheim Boulevard,
south of
Katella
KATELLA REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
Anaheim Boulevard
Olive Street
PLATE 16
f j
`M
v
�i
1
!+
i
r HkW
■
.�.- Via.- -- +- ^— "..� -� •
-.'mil
•
•
t
�
i
.r r
l w
s r
�. r f
i
rw
E 4 _ vim
gLATInn ltl?
s
-
R -.
te
K-I
T Al
F
Ing
1
a
{
i
h
1 R J 1f ':.
i �
1 4t
AL 19
a,
i. idL
PA
D=V/1 VKIKI= AD=,A
rinr% Inf%"r' A Mn A I PLAC
Olive Street,
view southeast
at Water Street
North side of Katella
Avenue, west of
Harbor Boulevard
East side of
Vernon Street,
south of Winston
Road
A
IL
At
10
-4f
USES INAPPROPRIATE FOR WHOLESOME
FAMILY - ORIENTED COMMERCIAL -
RECREATION AREA: KATELLA AVENUE
AND ANAHEIM BOULEVARD
MOTEL
SPARKING
, tz llol l is KATELLA REDEVELOPMENT PLATE 24
fir, i PROJECT AREA
VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED
PROPERTIES
( Plates 25 -29)
Katella, east of Walnut Street
,
- Katz H0l l i s
4
fill
KATELLA REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
PLATE 25
Harbor Boulevard, south of Katella Avenue
o
r -
0
.a
� z -
h
ma
t -
at
UWAI =Vi :
ti
N
W
Q
J
CL
U
N
Q
ui
LO
M
T
E
O
m
E
L
co
c
El
O
C
i Co
O O
U a:
N
cu
O c
Un co
c
Q
cc
Y
o
L
W
O
Q
�
U
>
W
7
O
(n
CO
o
�R
a
Z
cc
=
GN
W
J c
N
m"
a
o
Zp
W
>
Q �-
W
U
0
Q
w
>
a
�
�
J
J
n
Q
W
a
Y
Y
O
L
w
7
O
y
cu
O
7
J/
O
m
•�
O
cz
=
r
S
co
N
W
o
L
C
O
cc
cc
z
—
m
0
m
n
E
a)
W
cu
cu
Q
c
c aD
Q
w c
H
_
O
m
o >
mQ
U
W
--
:O_ O
7
N
N
O
cn —
(t
°'
cc
W
W Y
d
H
z
W
2
CL
O
W
i
W
W
ii Z ii t
1i
Q
0
>
LU
_
_
=
Q
Y
mo
a�i
E
O
m
r
L
F
n�
E
Q
L
cc
cu
a�
a
r ; _
L
o
Q)_cu
>
a
N �
U
cd
boom
ire
vay
�K
C S
0
V
{
L
O
cri
L
>
Q�
M 0
W
L
O
L
cu
c N
0
N c
N �
a� >
c Q
�c
a� Cc
= Y
LL o
N
W
Q
J
a
a
W
a
U
W
'7
O
a
H
z
w
CL
O
J
W
L is
W
Q
ui
o
J
-0
L
J
C°
W
2
�
a
o
Y
vs
c
N
t
C
I
L
N
O
i
C
L
�^
y/J
«
•�
Cl)
N
w�
N
N
Noma
t_
C
cr
- f
LL
..�
OBSOLETE, INAPPROPRIATE LAND USES:
AGRICULTURE AMONG COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL USES
(Plates 30 and 31)
Katella Avenue
east of West
Street
Katz Hol f I s KATELLA REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
Middle and bottom:
Harbor Boulevard,
south of
Katella Avenue
PLATE 30
T
M
W
_
a
-
J
i
W
F _
:F
cc
W
m
w CU
O a
�
L N
Q
53 E
y 0
0
a
°
N o
Z
L
p
o
E
W
O
Q
o
o cZ
J
W
a)
m cU
>
W
.r
�.
!
cu
c o
cn
c�
(D
W
cc
ui
as co
W
E _
Y
s
NEW
w..
Katz Hollis
PART III. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING
REDEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT AREA, INCLUDING ASSESSMENT OF
_....._ ......................_....._........_......... _._......_._................__. _.. ..........!__ ............. _._.. .................. ....... __ ...... _ ....... --- ........................ --- ._....___._.........
�° }3CONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT AND REASONS FOR
.................._.........._.. .._..__..._..........._...._... ._..................._................__.. _..............................
INCLUDING TA% INCREMENT FINANCING
A. General Financing Methods Available to Agency
The proposed Redevelopment Plan authorizes the Agency
to finance the project with financial assistance from the city, State of
California, federal government, tax increment funds, interest income, Agency
bonds, donations, loans from private financial institutions, the lease or sale
of Agency -owned property, participation in development or any other
available source, public or private.
The Agency is also authorized to obtain advances, borrow
funds and create indebtedness in carrying out the Redevelopment Plan. The
principal and interest on such advances, funds and indebtedness may be
paid from tax increments or any other funds available to the Agency.
Advances and loans for survey and planning and for the operating capital
for nominal administration of the project have been and will continue to be
provided by the city until adequate tax increment or other funds are
available, or sufficiently assured, to repay the advances and loans and to
permit borrowing adequate working capital from sources other than the city.
The city, as it is able, may also supply additional assistance through city
loans and grants for various public facilities and other project costs.
B. Proposed Redevelopment Activities and Estimated Costs
As detailed in Part II of this report, the Project Area is a
blighted area suffering from certain problems which cannot be remedied by
private enterprise acting alone. The area's problems center around a
number of issues, including: poor vehicular and pedestrian access and
circulation, and insufficient off - street parking; buildings and structures
characterized by deterioration, mixed and shifting uses, and other adverse
physical conditions such as inadequate public improvements and facilities;
adverse social and economic conditions such as substandard housing, high
crime rates, underutilized properties, and other such conditions leading to
economic maladjustment. The Commission proposes that the redevelopment
process be used, to the extent possible, to alleviate these problems in order
to provide a proper environment for revitalization and controlled growth to
occur. Such activities will facilitate the full utilization of property and will
enhance the economic vitality of the Project Area and the city as a whole.
Proposed redevelopment activities required to promote and
achieve the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and to address
the Project Area's problems will include: 1) a program of reconstruction,
replacement and installation of needed public improvements and facilities; 2)
a selective land assembly and disposition program; 3) a structural
rehabilitation program; and 4) a program addressing the Project Area's (and
city's) low and moderate income housing needs.
(III -1)
Katz Hollis
The Commission's proposed public improvements and
facilities program for the Project Area, and its estimated cost in current
dollars, are detailed in Table III -1. Local and freeway transportation, traffic
and street improvement projects needed to remedy the area's major traffic
access, circulation and parking deficiencies total $1.12 billion, of which
$329.5 million is proposed for project funding. Storm drain, sewer and
water system improvements will cost an estimated $33.1 million. Of this
amount $24.9 million will be funded by the project. Just over $72.1 million
in electrical system improvements are proposed, with $49.8 million to be paid
from project funds. Finally, a $14.7 million neighborhood park is proposed
to be fully funded by the project. The relationship between the various
components of the public improvements and facilities program can be seen
on the chart following this page.
The proposed land assembly and disposition program will
focus on three areas: 1) non - conforming and other blighting uses; 2)
property -owner or developer - initiated efforts where public assistance is
required to assemble property needed for the expansion of existing uses or
to create a fully developable site; and 3) "opportunity" acquisitions in which
an existing owner desires to sell. It is estimated that the Redevelopment
Agency may acquire up to 120 acres of property over the life of the
project, at a cost (in 1987 dollars) of $263 million. In addition, the Agency
may be required to acquire portions or all of some parcels of property for
public improvement purposes.
A structural rehabilitation program is proposed to assist
- residential and commercial business owners to eliminate code deficiencies and
otherwise improve their properties. This program is estimated to cost $82.5
million.
Up to 20 percent of total project costs will be devoted to
increasing and improving the community's low and moderate income housing
stock are required by state law. This program will involve an estimated
cost of up to $198.3 million.
Administrative costs over the 35 -year life of the project
will total approximately two percent of project costs. With the addition of a
ten percent contingency factor and an escalation factor of 15 percent to
cover inflation over the life of the project, total project costs, exclusive of
debt service and issuing fees, are $1.25 billion. Estimated project costs are
detailed in Table III -2.
In Table III -3 projected land sale proceeds of $120 million
are netted against total project costs, and, based on assumed bond
issuances totaling a cumulative $500 million, debt service and issuance costs
of $1.62 billion are combined to give a total estimated net project cost of
$2.26 billion over the life of the project.
C. Estimated Project Revenues
...... ... - -_ .....- .- ___..._
Potential revenue sources to fund project costs include:
tax increment receipts and proceeds from tax increment bonds; loans, grants
(III -2)
Katz Hollis
Anaheim Community Development Commission
Katella Redevelopment Project Area
PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES PROGRAM
.......... . .......
(in millions)
---------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.......... .
4 ..............
..........
$24.9 .........
..........
..........
................
. .............
...................
$329,5
.. . .......
.................
$73.5
...............
............
$14,7
------------
---------------
Program Components
1. Transportation, traffic & street improvements
A. Critical intersections
B. Flyovers
C. Grade separations/overcrossings
D. Street widening s/ realignments/exte nsions
E. Freeway, signalization, median & other improvements
2. Neighborhood park
3. Electrical system improvements
4. Storm drain, sewer & water system improvements
C
$55.9
E
$139.3
A
$19.2
6
Source: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency
hatzHollis
Table III -
1
Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
Katella Redevelopment
Project Area
ESTIMATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
............ _ ............................................. .................................... _ ..... .... ........... ....... .._ .......... ..... ..............
AND FACILITIES COSTSM
_ ..... ...... _ ........... _ .... .......................... __ .............. ..._..........................
Portion
Proposed
for
Project
Funding
Estimated
Total Cost
Amount
Percent
I. Transportation, Traffic and Street
Improvement Projects (Local and Freeway)
11
Freeway, street and alley construction,
reconstruction, widening, signalization,
curbs, gutters, sidewalks and other
improvements as necessary to upgrade,
modernize and improve the following:
A. Grade Separations /Overcrossings
......................... .................. ............................... _...
1. Pedestrian overcrossing
Orangewood w/o Rampart $ 1,224,000
$367,000
30%
2. Pedestrian overcrossing
State college @ Pacifico
1,224,000
367,000
30%
- 3. Pedestrian overcrossing
Katella @ Convention Ctr.
1,224,000
367,000
30%
4. Pedestrian overcrossing
Harbor @ Disneyland
1,224,000
612,000
50%
KK_ 5. Pedestrian overcrossing
West St. @ Disneyland
1,224,000
612,000
50%
6. Bridge overcrossing
Cerritos @ I -5
20,400,000
10,200,000
50%
7. Grade separation, Katella & SPRR
12,240,000
2,448,000
20%
8. Grade separation, State College &
SPRR
8,925,000
1,785,000
20%
9. Grade separation, State College &
ATSFRR
12,240,000
2,448,000
20%
m� 10. Grade separation, Ball & ATSFRR
12,240,000
2,448,000
20%
-- 1090.anh /5
040987/bl
Katz Hol 1 is
[Table III - 1, Page 21
Portion
Proposed
for
P................. ..................................
..................._....._..... .
Estimated
Total Cost
Amount
Percent
11.
Grade separation, Ball & SPRR
$12,240,000
$2,448,000
20%
12.
Grade separation, Cerritos &
m-
ATSFRR
12,240,000
2,448,000
20%
13.
Bridge separation, Orangewood
e I -5
18,707,000
3,741,000
20%
14.
Bridge Overcrossing, Pacifico
B I -5
23,113,000
23,113,000
100%
15.
Grade Separation, Cerritos & SPRR___12
240,000
2,448,000
20%
Subtotal
A
$150,705,000
$55,852,000
B. Flyovers
........................................
1.
Harbor Q Katella
$ 8,160,000
$8,160,000
100%
2.
Harbor e Ball
8,160,000
8,160,000
100%
3.
Pacifico @ St. College
8,160,000
4,080,000
50%
- 4.
St. _College A Orangewood
8,160,000
3,264,000
40%
5.
Cerritos Q St. College
8,160,000
3,264,000
40%
6.
St. College e Katella
8,160,000
3,264,000
40%
7.
St. College Q Ball
8,160,000
3,264,000
40%
8.
Katella @ Howell
8,160,000
.... _........_._..._......._.......
8,160,0000
.... ..................__._......... .
100%
Subtotal
B
$65,280
$41,616,000
C. Critical Intersections
..... _ ............................................................ ...............................
1.
Ball Rd. Harbor
$ 1,786,000
$1,340,000
75%
2.
Katella B Harbor
1,786,000
1,340,000
75%
3.
Katella B St. College
1,786,000
393,000
22%
4.
St. College @ Orangewood
1,786,000
393,000
22%
Katz Hol l is
D. Street Widenings /Realignments /Extensi .
1. Widen St. College Blvd.
(N /O City Dr. to Rt. 91) $ 3,978,000 $995,000 25%
2. Realign /widen Lewis /East
Streets (Pacifico to Rt. 91) 38,887,500 9,722,000 25%
[Table III -
1, Page 31
Portion Proposed
for
Project Funding
._ ........................................ ...._.._...._........._........
Estimated
Total Cost
Amount
Percent
5.
St. College @ Ball
$1,786,000
$ 572,000
32%
6.
Orangewood @ Harbor
1,786,000
1,340,000
75%
7.
Raster @ Katella
1,786,000
1,340,000
75%
8.
Cerritos @ St. College
1,786,000
393,000
22%
9.
Lewis A Katella
1,786,000
393,000
22%
10.
Cerritos @ Anaheim Blvd.
1,786,000
393,000
22%
11.
Ball @ Anaheim Blvd.
1,786,000
393,000
22%
12.
Katella @ Howell
1,786,000
393,000
22%
13.
Ball @ Lewis
1,786,000
393,000
22%
14.
City Dr. @ St. College
1,786,000
393,000
22%
15.
St. College @ Pacifico
1,786,000
393,000
22%
16.
Harbor @ Convention Way
1,786,000
1,340,000
75%
17.
Ball @ Euclid
1,786,000
1,340,000
75%
18.
Ball @ West
1,786,000
1,340,000
75%
19.
Katella @ West
1,786,000
1,340,000
75%
20.
Katella @ Clementine
1,786,000
1,340,000
75%
21.
Raster @ Convention Way
1,786,000
1,340,000
75%
22.
Raster @ Orangewood
1,786,000
1,340,000
75%
Subtotal C
$39,292,000
$19,242,000
D. Street Widenings /Realignments /Extensi .
1. Widen St. College Blvd.
(N /O City Dr. to Rt. 91) $ 3,978,000 $995,000 25%
2. Realign /widen Lewis /East
Streets (Pacifico to Rt. 91) 38,887,500 9,722,000 25%
Katz Hollis
[Table III - 1, Page 41
3. Katella widening
(Euclid to 57 Fwy.)
4. Orangewood Ave. widening
(9th St. to 57 Fwy.)
5. Ball Rd. widening
(Euclid to 57 Fwy.)
6. West St. widening
(Convention Way to Ball)
7. Cerritos widening
(Sunkist to Anaheim Blvd. and
Euclid to 9th St.)
8. Pacifico widening
(St. College to I -5)
9. Convention Way extension
(Harbor to I -5)
10. Harbor Blvd. widening
(Broadway to Orangewood)
11. Walnut St. widening
(Cerritos to Ball)
12. Anaheim Blvd. widening (Ball
to SCL - including I -5 Bridge)
13. Clementine widening (Katella
to Freedman Way)
14. Douglass Road widening
(Cerritos to Katella)
15. Sunkist widening
( Ball to Lincoln)
Subtotal D
2,303,000
Portion
Proposed
2,302,000
for
50%
Project
........................ .. ........
Funding
_ .... ..............................
Estimated
2,269,500
1,702,000
Total Cost
Amount
Percent
$14,871,000
$7,436,000
50%
8,282,000
2,070,000
25%
12,485,000
6,242,000
50%
1,591,000
1,193,000
75%
8,589,000
2,147,000
25%
2,303,000
1,152,000
50%
2,302,000
1,151,000
50%
15,483,000
7,741,000
50%
2,269,500
1,702,000
75%
30,906,000
30,906,000
100%
673,000
673,000
100%
216,500
108,000
50%
303,000
227,000
75%
$143,139,500
$73,465,000
KatzHolfis
(Table III - 1, Page 5]
Portion Proposed
for
Project Funding
............................ . ............. .. . ... ...... -
Estimated
Total Cost
Amount
.... . ............ .......... ..
Percent
.... ....... .............
E. Freeway, Signalization,
....................
' * Trans " - "' " -* - p * 6 * ri a t' * i' o' n' Projects
.......... . ..................... .................... ............. ....... .............. ............. ............. ......
1.
Construct Interchange - 1-5 @
West St. (Including realignment
of West from Ball to Broadway)
37,409,000
$37,409,000
100%
2.
Bridge widening
Harbor @ 1-5
7,784,000
5,838,000
75%
3.
Reconstruct interchange
Katella @ 1-5
12,730,000
6,365,000
50%
4.
Reconstruct Ball Rd. (Anaheim
Blvd. to St. College)
714,000
357,000
50%
5.
Reconstruct Ball Rd.
(Brookhurst to 1-5)
1,020,000
204,00
20%
6.
Reconstruct Orangewood
(Anaheim to St. College)
174,500
87,000
50%
7.
Median upgrade - Katella
(1-5 to Santa Ana River)
342,000
171,000
50%
8.
Increase ramp capacity
SR 57 @ Orangewood
2,040,000
510,000
25%
9.
Orangewood/I-5 access ramps
7,013,000
1,753,000
25%
10.
Upgrade/modify existing
signals - misc. locations
2,270,000
1,702,000
75%
11.
Coordinate signals on Katella,
Ball, Anaheim Blvd./Haster, and
St. College
893,000
670,000
75%
12.
Upgrade and install signal inter-
connects - 28 local controllers
in So. Central Anaheim
796,000
597,000
75%
13.
Construct one-way couplet paralle-
ling I-5/Manchester/Anaheim Blvd.
28,560,000
8,568,000
30%
14.
People mover system
450,000,000
15,750,000
3.5%
KatzHollis
[Table III - 1, Page 61
Portion
Proposed
for
Project
............. _. ....... ......... .....
Funding
. ......... .._ ........ _........
Estimated
Total Cost
Amount
Percent
15. Master pedestrian circulation
system (Commercial Recreation
Area)
$ 5,100,000
$ 5,100,000
100%
16. Commercial Recreation Area parking
structures (approx. 10,000 Spaces)
89,965,000
44,982,000
50%
17. Assist in reconstruction of I -5
from SR22 to SR91
53,761,000
5,376,000
10%
18. Miscellaneous alley
reconstructions
1,530,000
1,530,000
100%
19. Increase capacity of SR57
(SR22 to SR91)
13,515,000
1,351,000
10%
20. Increase ramp capacity
SR57 @ Katella
2,040,000
510,000
25%
21. Increase ramp capacity
SR57 @ Ball
2,040,000
510,000
25%
Subtotal E $
...................................
719,965,500
...............................
$139,340,000
......................... ...............................
Subtotal I $1,11
_............................ _..
.............................
II. Storm Drain . Impro . vements
............................................................................................. ...............................
Installation, construction, upgrading,
reconstruction, replacement and /or other
improvement of or to storm drain facilities,
as follows:
1. Vermont Street - E/O Anaheim
Blvd. to AT & SFRR
$ 475,000
$ 475,000
100%
2. Cerritos- Anaheim - Barber-
City Channel to Walnut
408,000
408,000
100%
3. Orangewood - E/O 9th St.,
Jacalene Ln; including Jacalene
Ln. & Gail Ln. laterals
673,000
673,000
100%
4. Walnut - Cerritos to Goodhue
546,000
546,000
100%
Katz Hol 1 is
[Table III - 1, Page 7]
Portion Proposed
for
Project Funding
...._ .. ............................... _....... _.................
Estimated
Total Cost
Amount
Percent 11
5.
Harbor - N/O Orangewood to
Convention Way
$ 255,000
$ 255,000
100%
6.
Clementine - N/O Orangewood
to end
204,000
204,000
100%
7.
Haster - Leatrice to Wakefield and
alley extension to Mountain View
204,000
204,000
100%
8.
Orangewood - Spinnaker to
Anaheim Blvd.
408,000
408,000
100%
9.
Open Channel E/O Palm - Midway
Dr. to Santa Ana Fwy.
306,000
306,000
100%
10.
Katella- Anaheim - Barber -City
Channel to Haster
2,040,000
2,040,000
100%
11.
Harbor - Katella to Manchester
including Manchester to Santa
Ana Fwy.
1,020,000
1,020,000
100%
12.
Harbor - Chapman to Orangewood
816,000
816,000
100%
13.
Ball Rd. - Anaheim- Barber -City
Channel to Walnut to South St.
to Olive Storm Drain
1,530,000
1,530,000
100%
14.
Katella - Lewis to .3 miles
E/O Lewis
422,000
84,000
20%
15.
Lewis St. - ATSFRR to Ball Rd.
612,000
184,000
30%
16
Anaheim Blvd. - Cerritos to Palais
255,000
255,000
100%
17.
Anaheim Blvd. - Spinnaker Channel
N. to 440' S/O Katella
352,000
352,000
100%
18.
Orangewood Ave. - S.E. Anaheim
Channel to 100' W/O St. College Blvd.
281,500
56,000
20%
19.
St. College Blvd. - Orangewood
to Pacifico
255,000
77,000
30%
KatzHollis
[Table III - 1, Page 81
Portion Proposed
for
Project Funding
.__ .............._....__._.. ......_......_.................
Estimated
Total Cost
Amount
Percent
20. Miscellaneous other
system deficiencies
10,200,000
5,100,000
........... .. .............
509
Subtotal II $21,262,500
$14,993,000
III. Sewer Projects
.... _ ............ .............. ...............................
Installation, construction, upgrading,
reconstruction, replacement and /or other
improvement of or to miscellaneous local
sewer line facilities
$4,264,000
$4,264,000.
100%
Subtotal III
$4,264,000
$4,264,000
......... .....
IV. Water System Improvements
..........._.I....... ....... .
- Installation, construction, upgrading,
reconstruction, replacement and /or other
improvement of or to water line facilities,
as follows:
1. Walnut St. - Santa Ana to Ball
$ 398,000
$ 298,000
759
2. Walnut St. - Ball to Katella
324,000
243,000
75%
3. Crone Ave. - Walnut to Hampstead
136,000
102,000
75%
4. Cerritos Ave. - Walnut to 9th St.
102,000
77,000
75%
5. 9th St. - Well #36 to Cerritos
125,500
94,000
759
6. West St. - Santa Ana to South
265,000
199,000
75%
7. West St. - PR -19 in Ball to Cerritos
294,000
220,000
75%
8. Illinois - Santa Ana to South
128,500
96,000
759
9. Indiana - Santa Ana to South
128,500
96,000
75%
10. Ohio - Santa Ana to South
128,500
96,000
75%
11. Water St. - Olive to West
211,000
158,000
75%
12. Ball Rd. - I -5 Fwy. overcrossing
377,500
283,000
75%
Katz Hol 1 is
[Table III - 1, Page 9]
Portion Proposed
for
a _
Project Funding
Estimated
Total Cost
Amount
Percent
13. Harbor Blvd. - Ball to Orangewood
(including I -5 overcrossing)
$1,224,000
$ 918,000
75%
14. Clementine - Katella to Orangewood
178,500
134,000
75%
15. Pacifico - Hilton Hotel to Manchester
632,000
474,000
75%
16. Pacifico - Manchester to St. College
(including I -5 overcrossing)
1,224,000
918,000
75%
17. Katella - I -5 Fwy. overcrossing
691,500
519,000
75%
18. Manchester - Katella to Orangewood
303,000
227,000
75%
~ 19. Lewis St. - Katella to Pacifico
153,000
115,000
75%
20. St. College - Katella to Orangewood
321,000
241,000
75%
M 21. Lemon St. - South to Vermont
153,000
115,000
75%
22. Citron - Santa Ana to Water
... _.............. 85 .x 500
... _.64,000
75%
Subtotal "IV"
$7 58000
,4,
0
#5,687,00
V. Electrical System Improvements
........................ ............................... ............. .. ........
Installation, construction, upgrading,
- reconstruction, replacement and /or other
improvement of or to electrical system
facilities, as follows:
1. Undergrounding of overhead
distribution facilities in area
bounded by Ball Rd., Katella,
- Walnut, & Manchester $16,932,000
$16,932,000
100%
2. Conversion of individual
services for above area
3,327,000
3,327,000
100%
KatzHollis
[Table III - 1, Page 101
Portion Proposed
for
. .................... .._ ......... ........ . ................ _ ......
....
Estimated
Total Cost Amount Percent
............__......._........ . ............................... ..........................
3. Construct new S.E. Anaheim
substation $ 4,849,000 $ 970,000 20%
4.
Undergrounding of overhead
$14
$14,650,000
$1,238 1 244 1 500
facilities in S.E. Anaheim area
bounded by Orangewood Ave. on the
south, Anaheim Blvd. on the west,
Katella from I -5 to Euclid, and
St. College Blvd. from Katella to
the ATSFRR tracks
10,200,000
10,200,000
5.
Underground SCE facilities on
R/W from Walnut St. to I -5
18,666,000
9,333,000
6.
Underground balance of SCE
facilities in area W/O I -5
3,032,000
1,516,000
7.
Underground telephone, CATV,
Western Union in conjunction with
above undergrounding work
15,096,000
7,548,000
Subtotal V
$72,102,000
................... I..............I..........._...
$49,826,000
..... _............................................
- VI. Other Public Facilities Improvements
Provide following new public facility
within and serving the project area:
1. Citron Area neighborhood park
Subtotal VI
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS
$14,650
$14,650,000
$14
$14,650,000
$1,238 1 244 1 500
$418
100%
50%
50%
50%
100%
33.8%
Where necessary, estimated costs include right -of -way acquisition.
Source: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency.
Katz Hollis 04/13/87
Table III-2
Anaheim Community Redevelopment Cmission
Katella Redevelopment Project Area
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
------------------------------------------
(000's Omitted)
Proposed Public Improvements and
Facilities Projects (Table III -1)
=418,935
Land Assembly:
Acquisition 120 Acres 8
$1,600,000 /Acre
$192,000
Site Occupant Relocation 30.00%
of Acquis. Cost
$57,600
Demo. and Site Prep. 7.00%
of Acquis. Cost
$13,440
-------- - - - - --
Total Land Assembly Costs
263,040
Structural Rehabilitation Program
Residential 5000 Units E
$15,000 /Unit
$75,000
Commercial 300 Units 0
$25,000 /Unit
$7,500
-------- - - - - --
Total Structural Rehabilitation
Program
82,500
Administration
Years 1 - 14
$1,000,000 /Year
$14,000
Years 15 - 25
$800,000 /Year
$8,800
Years 26 - 35
$600,000 /Year
$6,000
-------- - - - - --
Total Administration
28,800
Lou and Moderate Income Housing (20% of total below) 198,319
-------- - - - - --
Sub -Total $991,594
Plus: Contingencies 10.00% 99,159
-------- - - - - --
Sub -Total $1,090,753
Plus: Escalation 15.00% 163,613
-------- - - - - --
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $1,254,366
-------- - - - - --
--------------
= Estimated Project costs do not include payments to affected taxing agencies to alleviate
financial detriment, if any, caused by the Project, or for deposits into the Project Lou and
Moderate Income Housing Fund as a result of such payments. In addition, the cost of providing
replacement housing for low and moderate income dwelling units demolished by the Project is
not included in the estimated Project cost total. It is assumed that any replacement housing
cost obligations incurred by the Agency would be funded by moneys deposited into the Project
Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund.
---------------
Sources: Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
Katz Hollis
Katz Hol l is
Table III -3
Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
Katella Redevelopment Project Area
ESTIMATED NET PROJECT_ COSTS
...................... ._....._.._._._................ _........._... _...._......._._.._........__..
(000'S Omitted}
Total Estimated Project Costs (Table III -2) $1,254,366
Less: Estimated Land Sale Proceeds() <120,000>
Less: Bond Proceeds( <
Total Costs Not Funded with Bond Proceeds $ 634,366
Plus: Debt Service on Bond Issues(Z) 1,593,750
Plus: Bond Issuance Costs( ...... 25,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED NET PROJECT COSTS $2,253,116
Round to t2
......................................
(1) 120 acres Q $800,000 /acre, plus 25% contingencies and escalation.
(2) Assumes series of $20 million issues totaling $500 million in principal A
12% interest and 25 -year terms.
(3) 5 percent of bond principal amount.
Sources: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency
- Katz Hollis
Katz Hol l is
and contributions from the city, state or federal government and from
project developers; proceeds from the sale of Agency -owned land; special
assessment districts; and development fees.
1. Tax Increment Revenues
Table III -4 shows Agency staff's projections of the
scope, type, and pace of potential new developments that may occur within
the Project Area over the life of the project. Given the physical, social,
and economic conditions existing in the Project Area and described in
Section II of this report, it is unlikely that these new projected
developments would occur but for redevelopment activities, that is,
redevelopment activities either directly relating to and assisting these new
developments, or ancillary redevelopment activities that provide
infrastructure and other improvements necessary for such developments to
occur. A description of how these and other specific projects proposed by
the Commission will improve or alleviate blighting conditions in the Project
Area is more fully discussed in Part V. of this report.
A projection of annual estimated tax increment
revenues that would be generated within the Project Area over the 35 -year
life of the project is presented in Table III -5. The projection total, $3.71
billion, is based upon: 1) new developments and values included in Table
III -4; and 2) underlying annual growth rates of two percent for years 1 -15,
and five percent for years 16 -35 to reflect transfers of ownership and other
new construction. Other assumptions on which the projection is based are
noted in footnotes to the projection.
2. Loans, Grants and Contributions from City, State
......... _ .................................._ . . ..._.........._............._..._....._....._..---....._....................................._..._.................._ ..........._...._.............. .
and Federal Government and from Project Developers
.......................... ... ............ .... _ ........... ................... .......................................................................... __ ............... ... .................... .............. _ ......... _................................
Currently, Commission and Agency administrative
costs are being partially funded by city advances and loans, a situation
which will continue until other sources of revenues are available. It is
u likely that additional city funds or other loans will be necessary if all the
implementation activities and programs identified above are to be timely
completed. Such loans may include loans and advances from future Project
Area developers.
A major component of the Project Area's existing
- blighting conditions is the existence of inadequate public improvements,
facilities and utilities. Local and freeway transportation, traffic and street
improvement projects needed to alleviate the area's major traffic access,
circulation and parking deficiencies total over $1.1 billion. As detailed in
Table III -1, nearly two- thirds of this cost is proposed to be borne by
sources other than project funding. Such sources will include the city's
general fund and various public improvement funds, some of which are
funded by contributions from state and federal programs.
3. Land Sale Proceeds
(III -3)
Katz Hollis
Table 111-4
Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
Ratella Redevelopment Project Area
PROJECTED NEW DEVELOPMENT
. ......... . ............. . .. ........... .............. .... ............... ..
...........
Construction Completion
. . .........
Period
.................. ..... ......
... .... ... .... .... . . . ... .......
1986 -87 to . . ....... ib . 92 - . .. . 93 to
1998-99
1991-92 1997-98
...... ..........
to End
.... . ........ —.—
Total
.. . ............... ................
Office (square feet)
3,337,000 3,992,000
9,403,000
16,732,000
Hotel (rooms)
1,650 3,900
450
6,000
Motel (rooms)
920 2,640
440
4,000
Food and Beverage (square feet)
150,000 150,000
50,000
360,000
Light Industrial/office
47,600
(square feet)
47,600 -
Residential:
Condominiums (units)
270 1,130
2,170
3,570
Apartments (units)
470 950
2,170
3,590
Disneyland:
- Upgrading and New Attractions
$265 million $332 million
$597 million
- Separate Gated Attraction
$900 million
$900 million
Note: All development includes necessary parking spaces
Source: Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency
Katz Hollis 04 /17/87
Table III-5
Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
Iatella Redevelopment
Project
Projection of
Incremental
Tax Revenue
-------------------------------------
(000's Omitted)
Increment
Fiscal
Real
Other
Total
Over Base
Gross Total
Year
Property (1)
Property (1)
Value
$2,471,913
Revenue (2)
Cumulative
1986-87
2,171,760
300,152
2,471,913
0
N/A
N/A
1987 -88
2,303,725
306,637
2,610,362
138,449
N/A
N/A
1988 -89
2,552,559
317,608
2,870,167
398,255
4,008
4,008
- 1989-90
3,012,799
324,488
3,337,287
865,375
8,656
12,664
1990-91
3,501,184
352,670
3,853,854
1,381,942
13,819
26,484
1991 -92
4,093,672
384,559
4,478,231
2,006,318
20,063
46,547
1992 -93
4,602,360
418,777
5,021,138
2,549,225
25,492
72,039
1993 -94
5,177,422
461,103
5,638,525
3,166,613
31,666
103,705
1994 -95
5,957,506
485,548
6,443,054
3,971,142
39,711
143,417
1995-96
6,782,787
519,965
7,302,751
4,830,839
48,308
191,725
1996-97
7,739,082
548,019
8,287,102
5,815,189
58,152
249,877
- 1997 -98
8,190,132
576,356
8,766,488
6,294,576
62,946
312,823
1998 -99
8,667,669
598,180
9,265,848
6,793,936
67,939
380,762
1999 -00
9,012,008
620,629
9,632,637
7,160,725
71,607
452,369
2000 -01
9,475,238
630,488
10,105,726
7,633,813
76,338
528,708
2001-02
10,002,961
666,317
10,669,278
8,197,365
81,974
610,681
2002 -03
10,560,408
691,001
11,251,409
8,719,496
87,795
698,476
2003 -04
11,149,336
716,394
11,865,730
9,393,817
93,938
792,414
2004 -05
11,772,072
742,547
12,514,619
10,042,707
100,427
892,841
2005-06
12,429,682
769,424
13,199,106
10,727,194
107,272
1,000,113
2006 -07
13,124,726
797,077
13,921,803
11,449,891
114,499
1,114,612
2007-08
13,859,441
825,530
14,684,971
12,213,058
122,131
1,236,743
2008 -09
14,636,746
854,839
15,491,585
13,019,673
130,197
1,366,940
2009 -10
15,458,097
884,967
16,343,064
13,871,152
138,712
1,505,651
2010 -11
16,326,713
915,971
17,242,684
14,770,771
147,708
1,653,359
2011-12
17,245,450
947,878
18,193,328
15,721,416
157,214
1,810,573
2012-13
18,217,981
980,752
19,198,732
16,726,820
167,268
1,977,841
2013 -14
19,244,445
1,014,551
20,258,996
17,787,083
177,871
2,155,712
2014 -15
20,269,151
1,049,340
21,318,491
18,846,579
188,466
2,344,178
2015-16
21,353,538
1,085,151
22,438,689
19,966,776
199,668
2,543,846
2016 -17
22,485,278
1,122,051
23,607,329
21,135,416
211,354
2,755,200
2017 -18
23,490,106
1,158,894
24,649,001
22,177,088
221,771
2,976,971
2018-19
24,553,890
1,183,771
25,737,661
23,265,749
232,657
3,209,628
2019 -20
25,680,528
1,209,519
26,890,047
24,418,134
244,181
3,453,809
2020-21
26,874,188
1,236,168
28,110,356
25,638,443
256,384
3,710,194
TOTAL
3,710,194
See Footnotes on Attached
Page.
Katz Hol l is
Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
Satella Redevelopment Project
Footnotes to Projection of Incremental Tax Revenue
............... ..I.........__._...._ ......._.. .............................._.......... ._... .. ...... ... _ ........... .._ ..._.... ........._.__...___..__.._..... ._ 1...._........11..........__1
(Relates to Table III -5)
1. The 1986 -87 base year assessed valuation of the Project Area has been
determined based upon local secured and unsecured values reported
by the Orange County Auditor - Controller for fiscal year 1986 -87.
State assessed public utility assessment records as reported by the
State Board of Equalization were incorporated in the base year
valuation total.
Real Property values (i.e. land and improvements) reflect an annual
.................................. ...............................
two percent increase as allowed by Article XIIIA of the California
Constitution and, an additional increase to reflect unidentified
transfers of ownership or new construction as follows:
Years 1 through 15: 2 percent
Years 16 through 35: 5 percent
Other Property values (i.e. personal property and State assessed
property) are assumed to increase as a result of unidentified new
construction as follows:
Years I through 15: 2 percent
Years 16 through 35: 3.5 percent
New Development (real and other property) reflects taxable value
_ ............1111 _ .... ............................... _1111
added as a result of identified new developments and includes an
annual four percent inflationary growth factor to reflect assumed
market increases to development costs and tenant improvements. New
development real property once on the tax -rolls is increased two
percent annually as allowed by Article MIA of the California
Constitution.
2. Gross tax revenue is projected on the basis of a representative area
11 11._..__.....11..... ._ ._ 1111_ . 1 11
tax rate which includes the basic $1 per $100 rate plus an override
rate. Future override rates reflect an assumed annual decline
equivalent to the average annual decline of the override tax rate
between 1980 -81 and 1986 -87.
KatzHollis
The proposed implementation program contemplates
the acquisition of privately owned parcels to be sold for development in
accord with the Redevelopment Plan. For purposes of this report it is
assumed that sales prices from the Agency to private developers will
average $1.0 million per acre (including allowance for contingencies and
escalation) and will total an estimated $120.0 million.
4. Special Assessment Districts
The use of special assessment districts is not
presently considered a viable alternative to the use of tax increment
revenues to fund project costs. By definition, and as described earlier in
this report, the Project Area is a blighted area. Existing owners and
potential outside private developers are reluctant to invest in such areas
without substantial public assistance. It is believed that requiring
contributions above and beyond the normal costs of land acquisition and
private development may become a self- defeating disincentive to private
development. Under current conditions it is also unlikely that existing
businesses and owners could afford to participate in an assessment district
to finance major project activities.
5. Development Fees
Current and future developers will bear a portion of
the cost of addressing the Project Area's public improvements and facilities
needs. In late 1985, the Anaheim City Council adopted, by ordinance, an
interim development fee program for the area within the Project Area
bounded by the Southern California Edison easement on the north (which
generally runs parallel to and north of Katella Avenue) the city limit line on
the south, the Santa Ana River on the east, and the Santa Ana Freeway on
the west. Under this program, a fee of $4.12 per square foot of -gross
building area is assessed against all new development in the area except
industrial buildings, which are exempted. Fees raised from this source will,
along with the other local, state and federal sources noted above, pay a
substantial portion of the Project Area's public improvements and facilities
costs.
- In addition, it should be noted that all future
Project Area commercial and industrial development will be subject to
development fees of 25 cents /sq. ft. and $1.50 /sq. ft., respectively, which
- per AB 2926 effective 1/1/87, will be levied by local school districts to assist
in building new and renovating existing schools.
D. Proposed Financing Method and Economic Feasibilit .....
Project
.............................. .
As shown on Tables III -2 and III -3, the Commission
proposes a program of redevelopment activities that total an estimated $1.25
billion. The Agency will have funding resources of $120 million in land sale
proceeds, and will incur an estimated $1.1 billion in bond interest and
issuance costs. The estimated net project cost of $2.26 billion includes an
assumed full 20 percent deposit into the project Low and Moderate Income
(III -4)
Katz Hol 1 is
Housing Fund from annual increment allocations and from the proceeds of
bond issues. With estimated tax increment resources totaling $3.9 billion
over the life of the project (Table III -5), all costs are fully fundable.
Because tax increment revenues build up slowly in
early years, the Agency will likely continue to use city loans to finance
initial activities. As revenues increase, such loans may be repaid, and the
Agency may choose to fund the activities through other financing sources
secured by tax increment. Bond issues are likely to be sold by the Agency
in order to leverage future revenue flows. Because of the 1986 federal tax
act, such issues, if tax exempt, may be restricted to essential government
purposes such as the construction of public improvements and facilities.
Based on the financing method discussed above, the
Commission has established the following tax increment and bond limits in
the Redevelopment Plan, as required by the Community Redevelopment Law:
1) the total tax increment bonds which may be outstanding at one time may
not exceed $500 million in principal amount, and 2) the total amount of tax
increment revenues which may be allocated to the Agency from the Project
Area may not exceed $2.255 billion. Both of these limits exclude any
_ payments made by the Agency to affected taxing agencies to alleviate
financial detriment caused by the project. Any such payments the Agency
may be required to make could potentially reduce the funds available for
project activities, especially in the project's early years.
E. Reasons for Including Tax Increment Financing in
..................................................................................._......................................._................._......_................................................ ...............................
Proposed Redevelopment Plan
A redevelopment program, in addition to providing a
proven method of securing desired developments in locations otherwise not
attractive, also provides a financing tool in tax increments. The Agency and
the city must look to this source of funding in order to assist in solving
the Project Area's problems. Both entities have and will consider every
alternative source of funding available to finance project improvements prior
to considering the use of tax increment revenues. (See Section F below.)
The financing method envisioned by the Commission for the project, as
described above, places heavy reliance on all such sources, including
substantial contributions from the city and state and federal sources. It is
believed that neither the city nor the private market could bear costs in
excess of those assumed in the financing program. In the city's case, a
4- cut -back in capital improvements and services needs in other areas of the
city would be required. In the case of the private market, once the
anticipated investment return on a property is reduced below a rate
comparable to alternative investments, the development of the property is
jeopardized.
Like most cities, since the passage of Proposition 13 in
1978 Anaheim has experienced funding shortages in the provision of services
and particularly in the installation and maintenance of public improvements
and facilities. This problem has been compounded by state and federal
cutbacks in local government funding programs. Table III -6 summarizes
requested and funded amounts within the city's capital improvements
(III -5)
KatzHollis
_
Table III -6
Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission
Ratella Redevelopment Project Area
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, FUNDING GAPS
._.__ ..... ...
(000'8 Omitted)
Capital
1982 -83 1983 -84 1984 -85
Improvement Projects
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Average
Amount Requested
$42,837 $48,108
$43,056
$44,667
- Amount Funded
$36,319 $19,779
$27,634
$27,911
- (Percent Funded)
(84.8X) (41.1X)
(64.2 %)
(62.5 %)
Amount Unfunded (Gap)
$ 6,518 $28,329
$15,422
$16,756
- (Percent Unfunded)
(15.2 %) (58.9 %)
(35.8 %)
(37.5 %)
- Source: City of Anaheim
Katz Hol l is
program during the 1984 -85 fiscal year and the prior two fiscal years.
During this three -year period, on the average, less than 62 percent of the
cost of requested projects was approved for funding.
F. Tax Increment Use Limitations and Requirements
As noted above, the proposed Redevelopment Plan
establishes the following tax increment and bond limits, as required by the
Community Redevelopment Law: 1) the amount of bonds supportable in whole
or in part by tax increment revenues which may be outstanding at one time
may not exceed $500 million; and 2) the total amount of tax increment
revenues which may be allocated to the Agency from the Project Area may
not exceed $2.255 billion. Both of these limits exclude payments which the
Agency may make to affected taxing agencies to alleviate fiscal detriment, if
any, caused by the project, and the 20 percent low and moderate income
housing set -aside required relating to such payments. Any such payments
�- the Agency may be required to make would potentially reduce the funds
available for project activities.
In addition to tax increment and bonded indebtedness
limits discussed above, there are several other statutory requirements
relating to the Agency's use of tax increment funds. The Agency is
cognizant of such requirements and intends to fully adhere to them to the
-- extent they are applicable to the Agency and to the project. A summary of
these requirements is presented below.
1. Prior to paying all or part of the value of land for
and the cost of installation and construction of any publicly owned building,
facility, structure, or other improvement within or outside the Project Area,
the Agency will request the City Council to consent to such payment and to
determine:
a. That such building, facility, structure or
improvement is of benefit to the Project Area or the immediate neighborhood;
and
b. That no other reasonable means of financing
the building, facility, structure or improvement is available to the
community.
-- 2. Prior to committing to use tax increment funds to
pay for all or part of the value of the land for, and the cost of installation
and construction of, a publicly owned building (other than parking facilities)
the Agency will request the City Council to hold a public hearing and to
_.. make the above determinations. In connection with such public hearing a
summary will be prepared to:
a. Show the estimated amount of tax increment
funds proposed to be used to pay for such land and construction (including
interest payments);
(III -6)
Katz Hol 1 is
determinations; and
b. Set forth the facts supporting the Council's
C. Set forth the redevelopment purposes for
which such expenditure is being made.
3. The Agency will not, without the prior consent of
the City Council, develop a site for industrial or commercial use so as to
provide streets, sidewalks, utilities or other improvements which the owner
or operator of the site would otherwise be obligated to provide.
4. Prior to entering into any agreement to sell or lease
any property acquired in whole or in part with tax increment funds, the
Agency will request the City Council to approve such sale or lease after
holding a public hearing. In connection with such public hearing the
Agency shall make available a summary describing and specifying:
a. The cost of the agreement to the Agency;
b. The estimated value of the interest to be
conveyed or leased, determined at the highest uses permitted under the
Redevelopment Plan; and
r
C. The purchase price or the sum of the lease
payments, and, if the sale price or total rental amount is less than the fair
market value of the interest to be conveyed or leased determined at the
highest and best use consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, an explanation
of the reasons for such difference.
(III -7)
hatzHollis
PART IV. DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS PROPOSED BY COMMISSION
IN
_ ... RO ...._._...._.__... ......._. _......_.....__......- -- ......_........_....._.._.._.._...._..._ ........ .....I...._...._........_._._.. _ .... .....
..._.__..._._._._..- - .........._...........
AREA
As described more fully in a previous section of this report, the
Commission and Agency propose to acquire some properties within the
Project Area, relocate some existing occupants, demolish some existing
buildings and improvements, and to provide certain street and other
improvements needed to serve the area. Details of the proposed program of
activities, estimated Agency costs, and proposed financing methods are set
forth in Part III of this Preliminary Report.
(IV -1)
Katz Hol l is
PART V. DESCRIPTION OF HOW PROJECTS PROPOSED BY COMMISSION IN
PROJECT AREA WILL IMPROVE OR. . ALEVIATE CONDITIONS
""` DESCRIBED TN PART II OF TAIS REPORT
Existing physical, social and economic conditions within the
Project Area are described in Part II of this report. It is shown that the
area suffers from a multitude of problems of such nature and degree that it
may be found to be a blighted area under the criteria established in the
California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL). As required by the CRL,
and as demonstrated in Part II, the problems affecting the Project Area are
of such nature and degree that they cannot reasonably be expected to be
reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone without public
participation and assistance.
The Commission proposes a program of redevelopment activities
that will systematically address the conditions of blight within the Project
- Area. Financial assistance for rehabilitation and conservation of structures
in need of minor to moderate rehabilitation, coupled with selective property
acquisition, demolition, and relocation as necessary would serve to remove
the conditions of buildings suffering from deterioration and dilapidation, age
- and obsolescence and defective design and character of physical
construction. The lots that are of irregular form, shape and size can be
acquired by the Agency for assembly into parcels suitable for development.
- The Agency can selectively acquire key properties to solve the problem of
mixed character of buildings. and to eliminate inappropriate shifted uses.
The alleviation of specific blighting influences in the Project Area should
work to create in investment environment in which private developers and
property owners would have the incentive to redevelop their properties.
The Agency's program of public improvements and facilities is intended to
comprehensively address the inadequacies of the public improvements, which
are not only a physical blight problem, but contribute to the economic
maladjustment, depreciated values and impaired investments. The public
improvements and facilities listed in Table III -I will correct the deficiencies
in traffic circulation, pedestrian safety, storm drainage, sanitary sewers,
water lines, and overhead utilities. Alleviation of these specific blighting
influences in the Project Area will create an investment incentive and the
means to redevelop properties. The Agency's program of activities will
remove the current inhibitions to development in the Project Area.
Projected new developments, in addition to other redevelopment programs
(i.e., rehabilitation, low and moderate income housing subsidies), will improve
social and economic conditions in the Project Area by creating jobs,
expanding and improving housing, and stimulating the economic base of the
Project Area.
(V -1)