Minutes-PC 1975/09/15 (2)~
~I
~
LJ
City Hsll
Anaheim~ Callfornla
SG~tember 15~ 1975
ADJOURNFQ REGULl11t MEE71~~G OF 'iHf•. ANAl1El-1 CITY PL~~~NING CAMMISSION
AUJ~URf'~D - An adJournod reaular meetinc~ of the Anehefm City Plenning Canmission
REGULAR was cnlled to order at 7:3~ P.m, on September l~, 1975~ ~n the
MEET I Nf C~unc f I Ch;imber ~ a quorum b~~ i ng present .
PRESENT - C11I11RMAN: Faran~
- COMMISSIO~IFRS: B81'nCSs Herbst, Johnsnn, Kin~~ Morley, To:ar
ABSE"~' - C~N'11SSI~NfRS: None
AL50 PRESENT - Frank Lowry
Malcolm Slau~hker
Knowlton Fernald
Don McDaniel
Annika Santalahtl
Ronald Contreras
Eugene Jacobs
Patricia Sc~nlan
D~puty Gtty Attorney
Deputy CiCy Attorney
Redevelopment Qlrectoi•
AsSistant Plnnning Dircctor-Pla~ning
Zoning Supervisor
Redevelorment Planning Supervlsor
/1tt~rney (Legal Counsel)
Plannfng Commission Secretary
PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Barnes led in the Pledge of Allegiance to tfie Flag of Che
AL~EGIANCE United States oF Amerlca.
PUSLIC M~ETING ON THE PRQPOSED EXPANSI0~1 OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA
Chairman Farano reviewed the history of the propased expansion of ftedevelopment ProJect
Alpha~ notinq that in defining the boundarie~ of Pro)ect Seta which was to Frovide
corridors for Alpha, studies were conducted which revealed that the boundaries were too
broad and, further, that Beta would not be necessary if an amendr~ent to Alpha v:as enactcd;
that the Redevelopment and Pianning 5taffs a~d the Plan~ing Commission had held numerous
meetings to define the expanded boundaries ahich were felt necessary and the Redevelopment
Staff had drawn up area maps to represent the best lhinkin~ for publlc review at this
meeting; that the maps were by no me~ns finai and the Planninc~ Commission was seekin~
public input in arder to be able to make recnmmendatlons to the C(ty Counc~l or
Redevelopment Aaency; that the present meeting was not a public he.arinc~ since the Planning
Commission was neither requlred nor permitteci to hold public hearings for the purpose of
defining redevelopment project area boundaries; that tF~e Planning Commissian felt very
strongly that the only way it could intelligently approach the problems involved and make
an tntelliqenk recommendation to the City Council was to get as much ~~ublic input as
possiblA on the matter; that, if necessary~ addition~.i meetings woul~i be held prlor to
makinc~ a recommendatlon; tf~at the newspapers had public~zed this meeting and had rece(ved
the desired results, with the Coun~fl Chamber beina fllled to capacity and overflowing;
that to date Che Pianninq Commission had received little or no input from the public; that
the Plannin~ Commission recognized that tfie subJzct matter was a very emational item for
the property owners and residents in tne redevelopment area; that he had polled each and
every Planr~in~ Cor~,missioner, personally~ and found that none of thern owned property in the
proposed Amendment to ProJect Alpha, however~ Commissioner Johnson had awned property For
approxirr~3tely i5 years located in th~ Nortf~east Area of the oriqi~ally-adopted ProJect
~\lpha; that n~ne of the Planning Commissioners and none of the members of the audience
enJoyed immunity from ~~rosecution or from civil suit and, although there may be some
d(sa9reenents concerning what may or mny not be said at this meeting, it was the (nte~tion
of the Plannin~ Commission that the meeting would be conduct~d in a businesalike manner to
afford nublic input to the Commission c~ncerni~y the sub.;ect matter.
Redevelopment Director Knowltc~ FernAld explatned a map on display which indicated tho
existing FroJect Alpha and tne prop~sed Pro~ect Al~ha Amendment, n~tinn that the Northeast
~rea af ProJect Alpha~ consistinq of Approximately 2600 net acres in the Santa Ana Canyon
area~ was not shown on the map. Mr. Fern~ld pre5ented Exhibit "D" which indicated the
land use statistics for tli~ existing ProJect Alpha (dc,wncown area) dn~ the proposed
ProJec; P.lpha Amendmen~ (corrldor areas)~ noting th~t the Amendment ii~..luded 340 single-
fami'.y houses, 251 mobilehomes, and F~-) m~tltiple-family units, totallinq 1282 residentlal
dwelling units; thal• the Amendment included a98 residential structures~ 387 cortunercial
75-437
. ~ •
MINUT£S~ CITY PIANNING ''.OMMISSION~ ~eptnmh~r 15~ 1g75
REDfVELOPMENT PR~JECT ALPHA (Conttnuedl ~5-~~~
structuros~ 13~ in~iustrinl atructur~s ~+nd Iq publlc structures (Includinq schcx~is)~
totnlling 1~~42 structure:s; that the Amendment Includecl net acrer+qr, exclud'n~ ~~ ~llc
rl~~hta-~f-w~y~ oF 11~~.; res~dentl~l~ ?.3~•1 comme~relal, 17n,7 in~tustrinl; 1~.i publlc~ 1.3
pnrking and ~1;.~ vacant; anrl the 1~17~~-75 net ASSPSSCt~ vnluntic-n of th~. ~:in~ASC(I I~1TICfl(~IflCflt
aren WAS S2F~~i~~~~12f~,
Mr. Fernnlrl tnen desr.rihed t-~e boundiriAS oF the Ame~ndment whicli was t~ provide corridors
for ProJact Alphn~ notinn th.~t no resid~ntinl inn~l was ~nr.lucle~l othcr than thit an whfch
the structures frnnt:e~l on the corridor; and that whcn the ~tructure~s sl~fed-on the
corrldor~ the praperty w~~s not incluclecl in tlie Amen<finent.
Cha 1 rman Farano 1 nqu I re~- f f the r r.mbers of thc aud I ence unde rg t~~i thc houn~tar i es bc i ng
dtstussed an<I ane qentleman from tlie audience Inquired why the Northeast Area whlch was
port of Alpha, was not slinwn on tf~e maps; whereup~~n, Chnlrm~n FarAno advtsed thnt sald
areA was alre~~dy adoptecl as p~~r~ of Alpha and was not a p~~rt nf the Amendment.
A ledy nnd gentlerr~n fr~m the audlen~e (nquired why all of thc Cast An~hrim Shopping
CenCer was Included in the Amen~lment (g~ner~lly, south of Lincoln and east ~: St~te
College Baulevarcl); whereupan~ Mr. Fer•nald advised that the Amendment included the
shoppinc~ center only and w~uld n~t include any restdr.ntial property nnd, In Fact~ the area
Includnd ln the Amen~lment was atready developed comnx:rciAl. Chairman Farano noted Ch~t it
was not the intent ta inclucle ~nythlnc~ In sald are~ that was not cummerclAl property. The
gentleman further inquired wiiat woulci st~p ~~~yonc From addtng ta gaid area. by taking
addltional property, if tl~ey were intcrested in doing s~,
Mr. Rrthur Scheiber~ 2~h South Beechw~od~ Annhefm, appeareci heFore tha Pl~nning Commissl~~
and further inquired why all of the East Anaheim Sh~pp(ng CCnter w~s needed in the
Amendment~ and if it was for the purpose of wid~ning Lincnln Averue. In response~
Chairman Farano advise~l that the Commisslon hacl suggesteci th~t Lincoln Avenue be extended
aast to the Oranc~e Freeway for the purp~se o~ prov(riing a c~rridor to the downtown area
and it was thought~ logic~lly~ Yhat Lincoln Avenue should be lnclude~i and~ although the
Amendment could he made to include )usk the street, it was f lt that the tax base to be
galned from including the shoppinn center was irt~portant~ ~lso. M,r. Fernald added that
when parcels of property were included in praJect areas, it dfcf not mean tl~at any of the
property would be clearecl ~r acquired; that he waa aware there were some very fine
builclings included in the proJect area which the redevelopn-ent pro9ram would not be
Interested in acqu(ring, however~ through redevelopment programs the people in the area
may be assisted to provtde more opportunities. Mr. Fernald further advised that there was
no specific plan for widenin~ of Llncoln Avcnue; however, approximately an additional 70
feet m~y be req~iire.d lf and when said street was widened.
In response to the lady's further questioning cc~ncerni~g assurances of detailed
development and improvements along the corridors~ e~:., Mr. Eugene J~cobs, Attorney (L~gai
Counsel)~ advised that the Gity was pr~esently in the throe~ of estaFlishing the boundaries
only an' it would be many months before any decicions wouid be made as to street wtdening,
landscaping and beautifir•tion, etc. Chairman Farano addecf that the Amendment area along
Llncoln Avenue was one loC or parcel wide. The lady (nquired what would happen to the
second and third houses away from Llncoln un ~ ~ide street; whereupon, Chairman Farano
advised that nothing would '.,~ppen to those parcels since they were not included in the
Amendment area; and that althoucih, following adoption of said Amendment, the siz~ of the
parcels (ncluded in the Arendment may be reduced~ none of the parcels may be enlarg~d upon
except threugh the procedures presently being exercised t~ amend or add to a proJect area.
Commlssio~ier' Tolar raised questi~ns concernfn~ the Broadv~~y Shopping Center and the
freeway eKChange at Lincoln Avenue and Euclid Street~ which he felt were ma)or problem
areas related to corridors. Mr. Fernald ~dvised that the Broadway Shopping Center was no
longer tnctuded in the Amendment~ although the freeway exchange was included in the
M~endment with the intent to have maJor improvements thereto; a~d th~at they would like to
conside.r the ~ossibl~ity of wor~ing with the State oF Calif~••~.~a '.^ connection with the
access to the Dro~dway Shopping Center from the frecway~ but nnt as part of the
redeveiopmen: ~roJect boundaries.
Mr. Tim Smith, 102R South ~ambr(dge~ Anaheim, appeared before the Planntng Commisslon and
stateci his properry backeci up to the praper~y o~ Hart~ar Boulevard at Bali Road~ which was
lncluded in the l~aendment~ anci ht wanted to know lf the proJect are~ b~undarles would be
right up to his property llne. Chairman Farano advised that his un~lerstanding was that
the boundaries would not include any of Mr, Smith's property but would end at Mr. Smith's
property line.
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION~ Saptember 15~ 1975
13COEVELOPME PROJEG T ALPNA (Continuod) 75'439
Mr. Ear) Chambera, 23n4 Par~cfise~ Annhe(m~ a~peared b~efore the Rlannlnc~ Commisslon and
stated hn was luoktng for ,:Inrlficntiun of tho cr-!-t pro)ect boun~larles, noting Lhat hls
property wes in the whlte area of the m~ps belnc~clispl~+y ed (Note: ProJect Alpha
boundarics were lndic,~ted ln yellow; prop~sed Pro~ect Aiphe Amendment boundarles were
Indlcetecl in blue; and tho rem.~inclcr oF ihe City of Anaheim was sh~wn in white) and,
e 1 though he was not nsk. i ng to have h I s pro~,~~rty i nc 1 uded i n the boundar i es , the proposed
Amendment boundrrles bncke~l up to the ed~a af his prope rty. Mr. Ghambers stated he falled
to ~ee the r~tion+~l~ of only Including thasc peopertles whlch fronteclcm Lincoln Avenue.
Nr. Fernald acivise~l that most of tl~e pr~~ertles Included (n thc propoeed Amendment
b~undariee a~lonq Ltncoln Avenu~ were e(ther ~~re-zoned rs cor.~merciAl ar w~re earmarked
under ttie An~helm General Plan for convcrsic+n t~ corr~m~rcial property; that if any of thn
property owners inclucle~l in the Amenclmant bound~ries alo~g Linc~ln Aven~ie were ta request
commarcial use of their property, they would undouht~dly be gtven p~rmission to do ~~
since ther~ h~d bee n some pre-determinatlon aa to whlch properYtes would b e likely and
easfly adoptable ta commerciel uses; f~c~waver, Mr. Chambcrs' property dld not fall in that
cetegory.
Mr. Chambers further stated tl~Pre was property along the proposed Am~sn~iment strip on
lincoln Avenue which had been Include~l in thr. boundAries ancl for whlch the properLy owners
had been trying for Ilter~lly years to obtain a comrr~rcial desi~natfon; th at he and other
surrounding p~operty owners had opposed thc c~mmercial designation and falled to see why,
rtxir~ly because a property faced on Lincnln Avenue~ a p~operty must he Included. Mr.
Chambers stated he assurr~eci thaC the plan would certninly not .jog aroun~l a pr•operty that
had a stde- or rear-on Lincoln Avenue. Chalrman Farano respon~.led that an answer to Mr.
Chamb~rs' question could not be given at this meeting; however, said question would be
answered (n the nea r future; that ~he Commissian was n~ t aware of any properties being
i nc I uded f n the prop~secl Amen~imenC bouncl~r i es whl ch were not commerc I a 1 or des i gnaCed i n
the Anaheim Peneral Plan for commercial; ancl that If any properties sliould be ellminated
fram Che proposed Amendmer~t boundaries, that would be done.
Mr. Fornald furthe r adviseci that certain criteri~, had b~er establlshEd t~ arrive at the
proposed boundarles; however, there was some breakdown ln said criteria an d he was
prnsently flware of some inc~nsistencies to the proposal.
Mrs. Russell Bausman, f-~7 North Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, appeareci before the Planning
Comm~~s(on and stated there were botli residenti~l anc' commercial properties s~irrounding
her property and she inquirecl what was intencleci along Anaheim Boulevarcl. Mr. Fernald
rasponded that at the present point in time, there were no plans for dcvelopment along
Anaheim Baulev~rd, except to include it i~ the pro_Ject area bound~rlPs; that after the
pr~operty was included In the proiect area, the property owners would en.joy the benefits of
the r~iev~°lopment program if they wished to make changes to thelr property. Mrs. Bausman
then ~tated she wa s trying to 9et a busine_s started on her property within about one
year. Mr~ Fernald advised that following th~ establ6s hment of boundarfes for the
Ame~dment, the pla nn(ng proqram would commence~ 3nd he invited Mrs. Bausman to come into
the Redevelopment Ofr'Ices tc> talk about her property on an individual basis~ noting that
she mtght be abie to procee~' with her own plans, Chai r~man Farana added that in ths event
the proposed Amend ment was finalized~ a cttizens committee from the AmendmenC area would
be formed to particlpate in tt~e pl~ns and goals for th e area.
Mr. Jacobs commented th~t there was no way t~ ma~e the world st~ncl 5ti11 while thE
boundaries were being formulated; that if Mrs. Dausman was intPrestcd in pursuing I~er
bus i ness 1 mmed t a te 1 y, ~he shou 1 d c~me tu tl~e Redevel opmr.n t Of f i ces to d i scus s her p 1 ans
and~ In all probabil(ty, she wnuld be able to proceed if her plans were not totaliy
inconslstent with ,yeneral planning. Thereupon~ Mrs. Bausman stdted her plans had already
been approved by the Planning Department; however~ if there was a possibility that the
City would buildoze the properties al~ng Ar.aheim Boulevard in the future, she wanted to
know about it prio r tu proceeding with her b~~siness plans.
Chalrman Farano no ted that the laN ~equire that a red evelopment prAJect area be deffned
and that was the purpose of the public mee~irsg aresently being conducted; and that once
the area was defined~ the pZanning could comrr~nc~ which might take several years.
Mr. Jacobs further expla i ned that no lancl in the pro.ject area was propos~d to bt purchased
by the Ctty; that, ln qener~l, the redevelopment pro~e ct would be operate d wlth private
dect3lans And fun~is,and the bulk of all the l~nd incl~.~~ied in the proJect area would be
worked through the hancls of individ~ial owners and private pe~ple; and that no bulldozing
was proposed. He further noted that wher.~ bullc'.ozing was done~ a proJect would be very
cos t 1 y •
•
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Septc ~bar 1~, 1975
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPNA (Continucd)
~~^r
~
y5-4G0
Mr. John hSagnuson ~~ppmared beforc the Plannin~t Commigslon an~i inyuired if there was money
aveilable to fln~nce the re~ievelopment prnject Impr~vrme~nts an~l whetever wos p~ennnd for
the nrea withtn tho propose~l bounciaries. In response~ Mr, Jacobs advisc~l thern wos ~ome
money availnble~ hc~wever~ rra~t ot tlie r~~l~velopment would cnmo about es a pe~son wanked to
dovelop his property en~l the nesw dQVSl~~ment would hrtny in A c~renter amount of property
taxes to be usacl for strert Improvements ~ etc.; anci that if the lAnd was purchased by the
Redevelopment Agen~~, ther~ wouid in all prc~bahlli~y he ~nnther pu rcha~er and t.he two
escrcwis would be bac{:^to-hack (n tlint insta~ce.
Someone from the Au~iier-ce inquired ah~ut increased costs whiGh would develop~ stating that
no ar;e was seying how ihc young people were going t.o pay to live (~ newer npnrtments~
homes~ etc.; th~it more stores were not neec~ed; and `hat the historical values of existing
developmcnt should he retaln~d. In response, Mr. ~acc.hs aclvisecl that low-Income housing
was needed 1 n the C i ty of Annhe i m; lhat . f r~~ccord~nc~ ~~ th nea~ 1 eg i s l,~ture ~ any 1 aw or
n~derote housing w(thin the re~levelopment proJect shall be repl~~ced within the Clty and~
therefure~ the chances of deskroy(ng or elimtnating the Inw or mc~~lerate Income housing was
not very ~reat; ~nd that hinher commercial use, wo~!d result from the redevelopment
pro)ects.
Ms. Mary Salazar o~ the Patt Street area appeared before the Planning Commission and
(nquirecl if the property hettveen La Palma Avanue ancl the Rtverside Freeway was reside~tlal
or commercial. Zoning Supervisor Annik~ Sant~~t~hti advised that s atd area was multiple-
f~imily. Mr. Fcrnald advisecl that the City would like to work to p ~eserve said community
and plan iC. Ms. Salazar lhen stated that some apartmi:nts had heen constructed in satd
area and she was~ therefore, uncertain whether the area was planne d for commerclal or
residentfal development; whereupon, Mr. Fernal~ advlsed that the a rea w3s pre-zoned for
residential or apnrtment development~ however~ the Anahe(m Generat Pian desl~nated said
property for industrial development at such time as chanqes were p roposed for the existing
structures~ etc.; and that the timing fnr inciustrial devel~pment would depend upon when
chianges were proposed. Ms, Salazar then stated she had lived in the area for IS ycars;
that some of tiie hu(~dings ar.ross from her h~d heen knocked down a nd the property was
creating a dust problem for the nelyhborhood; ar~d that sald adJace nt property was owned by
the City and had been orfered for sale for a numher of years, Mr. Fernald advised that he
assumed thr City was offering the property for sale since there wc e no plans for
develcpment for its own use; however~ sald property would probably be developed
i ndus t r i a 1; and tha t the C( ty wou 1 d 1 i ke ta work w i tli the peop 1 e i ii the commun i ty
concerning that development. Thereupon~ Mr. Fernald presented his business card to Ms.
Salazar and requested thit she contact him concerning the foregoing matter.
Chairman Farano read a letter from Coneerned Anaheim Taxpayers, a capy of which ts
attached ; to and made a part of the minutes. ~See ExhiN'.t "A")
In response to the questions raised in the above letter, Mr. Fernald advised that the
Fremont Schoo) was separated from its plr.yground by Broadway and there was a possibility
of moving either tFie school or the playground through the r~development program; that the
school property was prohably included in the pr~posed proJect bo undaries s~nce it was one
large parcel and one parcel off Harbor Boulevard~ although there was a possibility thax
the schoul property c~uld be excluded frrxn the boundaric;; that the churches and the area
west of South Street ancl Cltron were not in the proposed Amendmen t area; that m~ny
properties fronttng on North Harbor Boulevard were excluCed from the Amendment area on the
basis that the City Staff and Planning Commission felt said prope rties were not sulted for
conversion to ccxnmercial, said properties having nice homes on them and it being not right
to include the area.
A gentleman `rom the audienc~ inquired why exclude the nlce homes; whereupon, Mr. Fernald
a~vised that was not the rcal G~iteria~ but that said properties prese~.~,y developed with
the nice homes were not iikely to be converted to commercial us es. Chairrnan Farano noted
that through the redevelopment proJec t, the reSidential characte r of an area could be
maintained~ but improved, Mr. Fernald further advisP' that the redevelopment proJect
rscognized that every road leading into the downtown area and in cluded in the Amendment
boundariss did not nced impr~vements; and that tf~rough tt,e redevelopment proJect, proper
and better traffic flnws could result by arranger.~ent nf traffic corridors, etc. Chairman
Farana noted that if Lemon Street was developed in the pr•oper manner~ its character could
bc changed somewhat.
Mr. Frec Brown~ b12 Wast B~•~adway~ Anaheim. apNeared yefore the Ptannin~ Commisslon and
stated, as he underst~od c, that t~~e la~~ reyuired that before thc planning of the praJect
areas could take place~ tlie p~o)ect boundaries must be set. He ttien inquirrd whan ProJect
Alptia'c boundaries were defined, ancl Deputy Gtty Attarney Fran k Lowry advised that ~nid
boundaries were estahllshe~~ approximately July 1-~, 1'~7?..
EY,HIPIT'~~
spptRmbsr .l5 , 1 `~75
N.r. F].oyd Farano
Cha~rnwn, planni.n~; ~ oma~is~fon
Nr. ~arano,
ThPre la an Arr~ ~r. th~ pro~a~~+d A1Pha pmmendme+nt t,hat hae
many hnmeownArs puzr.led. h'e hAVS hea M~ numbAr of rumore
concerning thie arPa and hop~+ you aan oisriry tr~~.s for ua.
TM a arAa ia bounded by liarbor Plvd .~ Broadway ~ ~itran ar~d
Santa Ana Str~+e4.s. ThA ~rea containa the Library~ thr.~ Polioe
St.ation and thR Frc•mnnt Jr. EiiQh Sahool athletic field. In
o~her words~ tY~ere is na tax inore~ment tha~t ia or wi11 Ue ro-
ceivod from thi9 area. ?L a.eo bordera re~idenaea cn ~itron
Stra:+t. Why inelude thie arHa~ Why not have the boundary
(~ on Harborl Ia it true thAt Fr«mont xi11 be condamned and than
~Pip cit,y can uae t!-~at ar~+a for whatever thty wantT
plso, why include the area on W. South Stree~t west of :?arbo~r to
Citron that ine],udee the new ChriytiAn Church~ a new•Apartn~ent
Q bui]ding and thp Grace tutt~eran CtiurohZ The churehae aleo do
nnt bring in tax increment ~nd the area is not b.liqhted.
~Why i.s north Farbor whiah is a natursl aorridor com;ng ~nto
~ ~Anaheim froi~ the nort.h excludpc34
a
~,,1e r,ope the ~lanninq Comm~saion will tal<e a long ~ok at the map
of thp propo4ad Alpha additian and cheok out All the areae.
~oncerned Anaheim Taxpayera
~
~
A
~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Scptember ~5~ ~975
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALFNA tContinuedy
75-~~41
Mr. Drown continue~~ by st~tfng the cltir.ens stfll did rn~t know whae was clUing into the
ProJect Alpho pinn; th~~t the City wes ~sklncl for en amendmPnt to the boundarles foi
corriclors ond the cltizons h~d no re~il way of kn~~wing whethcr their hames would be caken
or if c~mmercial development would be mnved or added, or lf wide roads would be. put
through; nnd that th~ citizens were InCerestc~f to I:now how lann it would he after the
boim darleS were astablished before they would kn~~w what ~vould be taking plece.
In raspanse~ Cha{rrtk~n Farano advised th~t Mr. Brc~wn's questlon wAS also befng aaked by the
Commisslon; that since the public mectinc~ at the Chartres Recreation Center on May 14~
1975~ there had been some apparent evldence of organized lhink,ing in connection with the
proposed expans(on of Pro.)ect Alpha; that Mr, 8~rn+n sliould be provicled wlth a copy of the
"Deaign Workbook"; and that sald workbook pr•esentcd some vcry good Ideas~ c+lthnugh it was
not thG final word sinr.c th~t would du~encl ~in what the dcvelopers were willin~ to do.
Mr. Fernald advised th~t Mr. Brown had held a meetln~ IasL' Wednesd~y evenin~ ~nd had
access to al) of the materials in t'lie Reclevelopment Office; thit workshops were befng
scheduled and ideas for the makeup an~' appe~rince af the clowntow~ are~ were being
formulated; that the City wanted t~ ~ek everyone lnv~lvecl ~n the ~lanninc~; and that a
schedule of wor~shops and other n~eetinc~s, etc,~ would be printed in the local newspapers.
Commissi~m er Herhst expliined that althouqh Pro.Ject Alrha had ber_n in existence since
1972~ the redevelopment was not hap~~enin~ and thie reason t~ic. clevelnpers were not coming
into the area was because of disappointrient with the corridors t~ the downtown area; and
tf~at the City was trying to resolvc those problems by adding an Amenciment ~rea which was
basically corridors.
~1r. Jacobs noted there were many pro.ject areas adopted by cities wherein nothing happened
because therr was no opportunity for the cfevelopers to coma in; that the City needed
someone to come in an~l invest their money, however~ if the prlvatE de~ision was not made~
then nothinc~ would happen; tliat until recently there was a perlod when most construction
was slowing d~wn~ hc~wever, some interest w~is takinc~ place presently; and that the s~cCess
of the proJect would depen<1 upon a series of ~ubllc and private der.isions,
Mr. Brown then inquired if the 12"1 dw~llings withln the Amen~ nt boundarles represented
an increase or a decrease in the n~imbf.~ of citizens inclucied i~ the prevlously-proposed
ProJect Beta, Chairman Farano advised th,~t there had been a substantial decrease in the
number of affected citizens since the original discussions concerning expansion of the
project area.
Mr. Brawn inquired if it was within the powers of the Planning Commission to take
addit(onal lands surrounding th~, proposed Amendment boundaries at. their leisure or at
other expense in thc future. Chafrman Far~no advised that the laws uf eminent domain or
cnndemnatlon :iere always present and the proposed boundary changes would not change that
fact; however~ the Planning Commission was nnt involved in eminent domain proceedings~
which were a City Council function. Mr. Lowry added that subsequent amendments or project
areas could be adopted. Chairman Farano noted that once the AmendMent boundaries were
establlshed, said hounclaries may not be enlarged except by another proceeding exactly like
the proceedings presently un~lerway; however, folloa~inc~ Planninc~ Commission determination
of the bounc'aries~ the City Council or Agency would he able to reduce tl~em, but they ma;~
not enlarge them without additional Planning Commission determination,
Mr. 8rown statecl it appe~red the redevelopment pr~cess could drag on for 20 to 30 years.
Mr. Jacobs responded that it took 1.0 to 3~ years for a huildinn to deteriorate, also.
A gentlemars from the audience inquired what would happen to the people living in Project
Alpha on fixed inco~es; whereupon, Mr, Jacohs reiterated that any low or naderate incom~e
property moved or destroyed must be replaced in the City; that for people living on fixed
(ncomes and owning their homes, those penple could not t>e moved unless they could aFford
the naw I~ome; and that in some cases payments wduld be made by the City over the sales
price of the Former home to assist the people in obtalning new homes.
Nr. Geor~. Rauch~ ~~06 South Ohio Street, Anahclm~ appeared before the Planning Commission
and stated f~e was a member of the community for D.A.T.A. (Downtown Area Taskforce
Associatlon) graup; that no ane in the group had taken a stincl against redevelopment but
the group was interested in the directi~n that reclevelopment would tak~; that if D,A.T.A.
felt thnre was completa ignoring of the will of the peopl~~ then tliey would be agaYnst the
redevelopment; that the group was interested in def(nin~ and clearly understanding the
program in a c~operative manner to come ctoser to what will be done to the anw~n~~n aoints
that D.A~T.A. had held its `irst meet(n~ ~n Wednesday~ September 1~~ 197>, Y P
of the progran, wcre ambiguous to the group at that time; th~t for the relevant benefit of
~ ~ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNIMG fOMMISS10f~~ Septamber 15~ 1975
REDEVElO('MENT PR4JECT ALPI~~ (Contlnucd) ~5~~~42
those present fn the au~llence~ the mAp on ditiplfly shawinct the exi~ting and proposad
proJect b~un~~ries shcyuld AI50 inr.ludc the 26n~ acres In thc Sant.i Ana Canyon ar~a to show
perspective of the Arefl involve~l; +~nd that the Amendmcnt woulcl hrln~ the ~ra,ject areo to
appraximately R~1~ ncres for the dnamtown are~ on~1 corridors.
Mr. Rauch re+viewr~l the map an~i stc1CC(~ a portfon of prapcsrty In the area of West Street Fnd
Braadway hnd heon excluclecl from the proposeci 6oundnries; wl~ereupnn~ Mr, Fernald advlsed
that droAdway was a cross~tav~~ street which was a heAVy traff(c carrler; that the plan
would dlvcrt the traffic nartherly~ ha:~evcr, eruadway wa~ n ~orrid~r ~~hctl~er It was in the
proJect areA or not; thet Br~adway was dcvelc~ped alrr~st completely with lovely hort-c~ ~'
that by lenving it fls n cul-de-sac strcet ne~r the frecvr~y there was e good poss(bi~ ,
that thraugh-traffic coulcl be diverYed northerly so as to avotd going through that section
of the community,
Mr. R~uch then reviewed ltems from the Oesign Workboolc which indicated that the
realic~nment of Broadway west of downtown was necessary to protect the resldential
community and he noteci tliat a r.onsiderahle number of homes would be destroyed far Che
purpose of the reallgnn~ent~ lnclu~lnc~ six or seven homes al~n~ Broadw.~y itself. Chairman
Fareno inqulred lf Mr. Rauch had any s~i~~estions in connection with~ the proposal~ and M~.
Rauch st~ted the group was cor:.erne~l abaut the financial liability which the Clty was
involved in -- what the forec,~ste~l cost was for the pro~ram as it relate~l to •he ~nter-
changes~ f.e.~ Anaheim Boulev~~rd at the San[a Ana Freeway, Linco~n Avenue near the
Broadway Sh~pping Center~ and at Patt Street an~l the Riverside Freeway; that they were
interested to know what the overall costs t~ the rec~evelopment funds would be to work on
those freew~y Interchannes ~o chat said interchan~es would make Project Alpha work to be
marketable; and~ additl~nally~ what would it cost f~or the act~a~l street improvements. Mr.
Fernald advised thiat th~ :lestnn decisians would t~e publfc decisiors take~ in a series of
logical steps~ ancl the .~est of the four alrernative desiqn ideas would probably be decide~i
upon prior to the City Council's consideration of the proposeci Amenciment boundaries.
Mr. Jacobs notecl th~it questi~ns which had not been askeci were, "how much would it cost not
to amend Che boun<laries~" anc~ "hoa~ much had the lack of corri~tors already cost the City."
Chalrman Farana addeci that~ as he unclerstood it~ until the bound~ries were established by
recommendation of the Planning Commission and ado~tion by the Redevelopment Agency (City
Counc+l), questions relating to definitive cost5 could not be answerecf. Mr. Rauch took
exception~ stating that he did not underst~nd how the baundaries could be adopted without
knaaing the financlai ramific~~stions which would be involved, P1r, Jacobs further advised
that first there was a need to know if indeed there was a proJecr. area; then, for
instance~ if only one-half of the corridors were used, the c~st woul~i be r~duced
accardingl;~ etc,; that the choice of the boundaries upon which to begin the cost studies
was all that was being considered at this time; that a lengthy report and EIR, e+tc., would
be forwarded to the Rec'evelopment Agency (City Council) prior t~ the consideration of the
boundaries, Chalrman Far~no further noted that feasibility studies anci financial studies
had nnt yet been made.
•~~, Ra~ch requested to know tlie calendar of steps to be taken ta execute the proJect area,
ard Chairman Farano noted that a chart of the steps t~ be taken had bQen formulated and
wo~~1~1 be made avai lable tc~ Mr. Rauch; whereupon, Mr, Rauch statecl his organizatian was
desir~~us to being kept informed regardii:~ the redevelopment plans, Mr. Jacobs added that~
ofFicially, tf~e proJect area was not in any motion staqes yet since the first stage had
not taken place, Chairman Farano expl~ined that the tlmin9 fc~r implementing the amended
proJect area had been relaxect in order to be able to have the time and public input
necessary to arrive it viable boundaries and/or corridors~ etc,~ ~nd in so doing had
allowed a tax '~crem~^~ period to go by, Mr. Fernald ac~visect tl~at probably the earliest
that the Redeve~~pment Agency public hearing c~uld be held w~uld be c:ither December~ 1975
or January~ 197(>.
Mr. Rauch stated that the D.A.T.A. ornanization had stemmed from the previausly-proposed
2500-acre Pro]ect Beta; that the corridors, as presently pro~~osecl~ would be of more
benefit to everyone; ttiat nane of tlie D.A.T.A. members ownecl property in the downtown area
to hfs knowledge and had no speclal interest; t.h~t concerning the persons who had appeared
at this r.~eeting from the minority community, their homes were conclemned and the property
cleared and prlor to the clearing~ the people h~~+d re~uested something similar to Qivera
Street; that those peo~le lia~1 been relocated and the cleared property placed in the
redevelopm~nt pro.~ect are~; tf~at there shoulci be a concerr~ for those people; that in the
defining of tha corridors~ therr_ had been very careful excluslon of residential property
and the Incluslon af other resiclential propert/; th~~t many resldentiAl propertles wzre
involved in the Amendment houndaries; tha~ he felt si~re the peoplc would like to have
tneir homes excl~+ded from the Amendment ~oundaries; that the [I.A.T.A. organizaCion was
propos~ng that the Amenciment t~ ProJect Alpha be droppeci entirely; that D.A.T.A. had met
~
•
`IIt~UIES~ CITY PLAPJNING COMMISStON~ Septmmbcr r5~ ~y75
REpEVELOPMF.NT PROJEC'T ALF'NN (Continued)
~
s
75-~~43
when Beta ~vas Pr~posad, whlch was much larger than the proposed Amandment to Pro.jact
Alpha; thnt D.A.T,A. woulci llke the City to cons(dPr the nm~nclm~nts, etc.~ ~~nd then drop
the whole Ic1e.~; that the re~~l hl inhted area was cinwntown ancl evcryone would l ilce It to be
cleaned up; however~ they wrul~l not like t~ see the corridor~ increaae~l nor estnbllshed;
that they werp In f'avor of a culturAl civlc center ancl nc~t mnss(ve use of lond; that some
cl~anges could bc mr+~ie to the assembly af land with .~ rr~ster pl~n wh(ch was sc~mething
ft~irly ecor^~nlcfit ~ ~d reasonnhle; that thc appro~~ch being exercised shou~d be de-
escalated; that ~~ome citles wer~• ~Jc~in~ b~~nkru~t with their redeveloprnPnt plans; that they
would hape th~t ~~: CitY ~~~u~~~i 1 would consi<~cr another alternatfve thAt had not been
brought up yet -- ~ very small civic cnnter with a cultural environment~ and with the
ideas of his ~ryar~izatinn and the G~iturally-oriented people ~f Che communiry~ such an
alternative coul~l b~ developed; tl~at one af the l~idies present at this meetlny was a
member c~f the ~ommunity when the AnAhelm City Hall was c~nstructecl; that many people were
concerned abc,ut the frucl~) attitude of tli~ City; that he was aware that for anything to
work, there must be productivity~ hrnvever, he was conccrned et,ar tlie money would be
avaflable when neecieci to pursue the r•edevelopm~:nt; tliat all of the talk about spending
money for freeway interchan~es~ sirer.ts~ etc.~ was only speculation; tfiat the City had not
been to~ comfortablc with its speculiti~n in regard to the Anaheim Stadium~ the Anahe(m
C~nvention Centcr or the golf course; anJ that the peoplc wanted to see an imrnediate
downtown area and that a proJect ar .~ad already been approved for rhat.
Chalrman Farano not~d that on one hanl Mr. Rauch~ was stating that the peaple he
represented and those to whom he had spoken realizecl th~~t Project ~lpha needed corridor:,,
In response~ Mr, R~uch stated tfiey agreecl that the immcdiate dovrntnwn area in the vicinicy
of Olfve~ Chartres~ Elm and to Harhor Boulevard sh~uld be straighlened out and made a~
place to visit as a dnwntown c(vic centrr~ however~ they would not llke to see it as a
mass of high-rise office ~c~d apartment buildings~ with 12,0~~ people coming in and out of
the downtown area -- ancl 12,Q~0 pe~ple would have to get fn an<1 out somehow.
Chairman Farano then nc~ted that much time ancl effort had been de~iicated to the intent of
bringing development into the City; that~ historically, Project Alpha was adopted withouk
ths corridor approach and~ after a rather substantial period of tirt~e and deep eFfort~ it
was determined that without any other alternative, Alpha would not be successful slnce the
City would be unable ta br(ng in the investors it would take to make it succ~~ssfu!; that
the invrstors that woulcl be capable and willing to do any of the things mentfoned by Mr.
Rauch were not ivallable uncfer the presently-adopted boundaries, alth~ugh the
redevelopment area was availabl8; that the City did not reach its present condition
overnight~ but had t~een deterlorating slowly toward it; and that he would suggest to Mr.
Rauch that he spend some, time evaluating sorr~e of the attempts that had been made and if
some useful ideas could be ofFered, perhaps everyane could benefi .
Mr, Rauch then stated there were people who were interested in a scaled-down version of
the corridors, etc.~ and his organization felt that could be accomplished in a de-
escalated form.
Commissloner Fierbst noted that the size of the original redevelopment area, including the
Northeast Industrial Area~ was to give ProJect Alpha a start with tax increment financing;
that r•edev~lopm~nt was accomplished through tar, money; that the Northeast Area was bare
ground and viith growing development it was giving the downtown a chance to develop; and
that the construction in the Northeast Area was to suppart the doN!ntown area by tax
increment -- new development to support redevelopment.
Mr. Fernald nated that the opinions of Mr•. Rauch and his orclani~ation were sirtiilar to the
opinions expressed in the approximately 20~0 responses to questi~nnaires sent out by the
Redevelopment Offi:.e; that some very long lettcrs had also been received g(ving opinlons
as to what should be done in the ProJect Alplia, etc.; anri th~t tn the next few weeks the
data from the questionnaires would be compiled and additional workshops would be held to
gain more public input as to what the downtown area should be,
Chairman Farano notecl th~t the redevelopment in ProJect Aipha h~~1 already pro~~~=~~ some
tax increment funcis for redevelopment when thr_ proper circumstance presente~ itself; that~
in other words~ there was r-oncy available immecliately for redevel~pmrnt in the downtown
area~ if there was a developer ready to go.
Mr. Jacobs respondecl tliat altl~ouc~h there was money available, if said funds werC used
wholly for intercfiannes~ strePt improvement~~ etc., ahead of development~ the funds wauld
be used up very rapidlv. Mr. Fernald acivised that rresently there was ~pproximately
$2~3a4,000 available for the redevelopment ~~r~a; that next year the funJs wauld be in
excess of $5 million. Chairm~~n Farnna fu~ther noted that said fun~s were available within
the framework of thr, redevel~pment process as ~fetermined by statute.
~ ~ ~
MII~UTCS~ CITY PI.ANNI~IG COMF~~SSION~ Se~~tember 15~ 1975
RF.DEVF.LOPMfNT PROJECT ALPH~ (f,ontin~ied) 75-4h4
----- -
Ms. Rarm~n~ Revele5, 1~31 Patt Stre~t~ /1nr+heim, a~peared hefore the Plannin~ Commfsslan anrl
stat.I shc was a c~~ncerned resfdent .+ml was speaklnc~ ln bahalf of the residents of Kemp
S[reet~ Jullann~ Strert ~nrl Patt Strr.et; Chat stic ohJecte~l t~ rcc~iving a r~uestlonn~~re
wi~ich w+~s wrlt~ ~n In Spanish; that, il tlic~uhh stic I~ac1 ~i Spnnish surnt~me, shc was ~n
Americ~~r ~~nd dlcl n~~t Speak Spanish In her home; that the majnriiy nf the property owners
In hcr are~~ had also receive~l tha que~tlonnalr'c~ written In Spanlsl~, and they ~•~ere all
iiisulted; and th~it, In her opinfon, she ar~~1 the ulhers shc~uld hivc recelved t~ ~
questlonnalres -^ onc in Enc11(sh and one In Spanish.
In respansc~ Mr. Fern:~ld ap~loyized for any embarr~~ssment to Ms, kevel~.s and the uther
resldents in the City who mf~7ht have rcr,eived only the Spanish questlonn~ire; and he nai:ed
that ik was the intent of the Rad~vel~pment OfFlce that both questlonnalres were to h~~ve
been ~ent.
Ms. Fevr.les further stited tliat shc ha~l spoken aith many of her neighl~o:s who d(d not
return thc questlonnaires for the reason ;C~ted. Chairrnan Farano noteci that khe
communfcatfons problems be(ng presented hy Ms. Reveles would be correcteci.
Mr. Michael Pollak appearr_d aqain before th~ Planniny Commission ancl stated he dld n~t
receive i questionnaire; lh~it he was interested t~ knnw what would prevent the proJect
boundaries from groviing; ancl that it had ~>een a knuwn fact for a long time th~~t Disneyland
wcw 1 d 1 1 ke .i f re~•~ay ove rpass to accomrm~cla te i ts hote 1~ and h i s h~me ancl othe rs wou 1 d be
in imme~iate jeop~r~ly in th7t eventuality.
In response, Commisslc;ner Mor! / notec~ that it to~k a year or more to process an amendment
to the proJect area boundaries; and Chairman Farano noted tliat tlie public sentiment would
have a~reat deal to do wi*.h tlie time ir~volved in any such amendment. Commissioner Herbst
added that to enlarge a project area, tlie City had t~ prove the need,
Mr. Earl Nellesen of Earl's Plumhing, 1~33 West Lincoln llvenur, Aniheim. :~ppeared before
the Planninc~ Commission and stated he was very concerned about the proposal, as a taxpaye~
and businessman in the community; xhat a lot of gaod ha~i heen clone in the City; that he
was not against the proposal, however~ nettt~er was he for it; that tl~ere were many
questions that the businessmen and citizens needed to have answerecl; that he was c~n~erned
about the 'no parking` areas along thP curbs in th~ City, for which he imagined it would
take about a0~ gallons of re~i paint; that the on-street par~::ng in the City was already
limited t~~ practically nil; that he h~d moved once in the City alre~dy and if he had to
move agaln he would, but he was c~ncerned with relation to exp~nsio~ of his own business;
that he clid not bel ieve the peoplc hac.l been informeci of the wf~ole truth in the matter af
redevelopment and th~y should be cornpletely informed~ even though some authorities may say
that facts confuse some peop~e; that he had a love For Anaheim and coulci have moved out of
it many times, however~ !:P had st~yed and felt the people in Anahcim should know where
they stand, without urban renewal, and have the whole picture of what was happening.
Chairman Farano responcied that he was of the firm conclusion that the R~development Staff
had tried to give thz people all of the facts, and that the prograr• ha~1 been slowed down
for th~t purpose.
Mr. Nellesen requested to know if the curbs would be painted recl; whereupon~ Chairman
Farano advised that the planninc~ was n~t to the stages where it was known which curbs
would be painted red~ etc.
Commissioner Johnson note~i that he felt tl~e hour was getting late and~ thereupon~ a show
of hands in the audience indicated the people were desirous of anotl~er meeting to be held
in a lar~~er room.
Mr. Don Rapp, 515 South Haven Drive, Anaheim~ ~ppeare~i hefore ttie Planni~g Commission and
inquired haw many people did not rec~ive a questionnaire who would have lilced to have
received one. Mr. Fernald advised that t!~e questionnaire was sent at random all over the
City~ using a criteria that woul~i give a broad samplin~. Mr, kapp then stated there had
been a lot of talk, but ro facts presented to the people. Commissioner Farano noted that
additional statistics were availahle if Mr. Rapp would like to review them.
Mr. Jacobs expla;ned that until the boundaries were is~iated, no lencling Institution would
lend money for drvelopment in tf~e area; and that tf~e City was in the process of developing
a process whereby it could be brou~ht baclc to life.
Mr. Rapp suggested that a more c~nservative plar. be devel~ped for a nice damtown area;
whereupon~ Cheir,nan Farano suggested that Mr. ~app m~ke some suggestions for
canslderatlon. Mr. Rap~ then inquired who was r~~s~onsible for the f(nal decision as to
~ ~ ~
M~NUTES~ CITY PLANFIING CUMMISSI011~ StpxCmhcr 15- 1975
75-~+~+5
aEDEVELOPMENT PRU~ J~CT 11LPNA (Contlnucd)
whether thera was nn Amendment to thc pro,ject area; whereupo~~ Cha(rmen Farano advised
that the Redevelopment Ag~:ncy (nka An~~+ha!m Ctty Cauncil) was chargad withi making the
ultimate decisfon~ however~ tha Planning Commission was charged with the responsibllity
to formulote the pro.~ect area boun~:lr.rle~~ As tha first sCt+p ln thc p~ncess.
~DJQURNPIEiJT - Commissloner Morloy offered a motion~ se~cunded by Gummis~lancr
Juhnson a~d MqTION CA~.RIED, to adJourn the mneting.
The meeting adJ~urnad at 10:20 p.m.
Rcs ~ctfully submittCd~
,~e-~ ~. . _ /~ ~-~-~J
s~L~l~!-~.C.s~//""•
Patricia B. Scanlan~ Secretary
Anaheim City Planning Comn+lsslun
PBS;hm