Loading...
ARA-2011/01/18ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING OF JANUARY 18, 2011 The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency met in special session and was called to order at 11:38 A.M. in the Chambers of Anaheim City Hall located at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. Present: Chairman Tom Tait and Agency Members: Gail Eastman, Lord Galloway, Kris Murray and Harry Sidhu. Staff Present: City Manager Tom Wood, City Attorney Cristina Talley and Secretary Linda Andal. A copy of the agenda was posted on January 14, 2011 on the kiosk outside City Hall. ADDITIONS /DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: No comments offered during the joint City Council /Agency public comment session related to the Redevelopment Agency agenda. AGENDA ITEMS: At 11:46 A.M. the agenda items for the Agency special meeting were considered. Community Development Executive Director, Elisa Stipkovich provided an overview of Agenda Item No's. 1 through 7 and the need for the Agency Special meeting. She explained the Special Meeting was due to the Governor's proposed budget released January 10, 2011 in which he detailed his proposal to eliminate state redevelopment agencies as of July 1, 2011 and to introduce urgency legislation that would prevent redevelopment agencies from entering into any more obligations as of the date of the State urgency legislation, if approved. Providing a brief overview of redevelopment project areas and redevelopment plans, she noted that in accordance with State law, project areas were long term plans, implemented over 30 to 40 years and in some cases, 50 years. Anaheim established its first redevelopment project area in 1973 and since then had created six other project areas, subsequently merging them into one project area. However, she explained they were still considered sub- project areas and had their own specific identities. In total, there were 4,000 acres or 16 percent of the City located within a redevelopment project area. All had these long terms plans, established goals and were designed to revitalize areas where the private sectors acting alone could not create new development. She stated redevelopment's ability to upgrade or provide infrastructure, acquire sites, re- parcel them into development parcels as well as remediate those sites allowed private development to occur in these areas. The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency had been fiscally prudent in incurring debt and obligations and never had been a burden to the City's general fund, including when the State mandated the Agency make payments to fill their budget deficiencies. The continuation of the similar takings of redevelopment funds had been thwarted through litigation and legislation. However, she remarked, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency Minutes of Special Meeting January 18, 2011 Page 2 of 7 the Governor's proposal was unique in that it did not mandate payments from redevelopment funds but proposed to eliminate it entirely. His proposal would 1) freeze a redevelopment agency's ability to enter into new obligations allowing the funds to only be used for existing debts and obligations, effective when the State approved such legislation and 2), it would eliminate redevelopment agencies as of July 1, 2011 and starting in that year, would take $1.7 billion from those previously allocated redevelopment funds to fund a gap in the state budget to assist with the payment of medical and court costs. In subsequent years the remaining property tax obligation would then be allocated in the underlying agency taxing entities such as cities, counties and special districts. The net effect, she pointed out, was to save the State money because it would not have to backfill dollars that currently were being received by the redevelopment agencies that would go to school districts. She stated this action by the Governor was unexpected and had created uncertainty in the development community that would have a significant adverse economic impact on Anaheim. If approved, the legislature would freeze obligations at the current level and would hinder the City's ability to complete projects and programs that the community had been relying on. She indicated a full analysis would be prepared as to the long -term impacts of eliminating redevelopment agencies but for today, staff was requesting certain actions from the Agency and the Council because of obligations the City and the development community had been depending on for a long time. She added that staff believed these agenda items were critical because the community had been relying on the City providing certain improvements that were promised over the redevelopment time period and the development and business community relied on that promise by investing in the project areas. Approval of these items would encumber and obligate the Agency and allow the City to continue on -going activities that were previously approved through the Redevelopment Plan, through the Five year Implementation Plan, and other agreements as well as acquisitions that had been under discussion with the private sector also. The best estimate today of what the future might hold if this legislation proffered by the Governor was approved, would be an impact of approximately an $850 million loss to the Redevelopment Agency in future dollars. Specifically, the items on this agenda consisted of agreements that were reflected approximately $164.4 million, $146 million in public improvements and acquisition costs of $18.4 million. 1. RESOLUTION NO. ARA 2011 -001 A RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGR -6631 approving and authorizing the execution of a Cooperation Agreement (La Palma Park Public improvements) by and between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the City of Anaheim and making certain findings in connection therewith (related to Council Item No. 08). Ms. Stipkovich reported this item was a cooperation agreement between the City and the Agency regarding La Palma Park, a project staff had been working on since the inception of the West Anaheim project area. The agreement would allow the City to continue to provide assistance for the expansion of the park, the redo of Glover Stadium and also reimburse the City for any costs incurred while acquiring property for the park expansion. Staff was proposing to allocate $6 million for that purpose. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency Minutes of Special Meeting January 18, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Agency Member Eastman moved to approve RESOLUTION No. ARA 2011 -001 OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY approving and authorizing the execution of a Cooperation Agreement (La Palma Park Public Improvements) by and between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the City of Anaheim and making certain findings in connection therewith, seconded by Agency Member Sidhu. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: Chairman Tait and Agency Members: Eastman, Galloway, Murray and Sidhu. Noes — 0. Motion Carried. 2. RESOLUTION NO. ARA 2011 -002 A RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGR -6632 approving and authorizing the execution of a Cooperation Agreement (Stadium Public Improvements) by and between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the City of Anaheim and making certain findings in connection therewith (related to Council Item No. 09). Ms. Stipkovich reported the stadium area owned by the City had been in a redevelopment project area for over 15 years. With the intent to assist the City in allowing for development on that site; it had been developed with an office building and The Grove facility. This co -op agreement, she explained, would allow the Agency to provide funding for certain infrastructure improvements and to reconfigure the parking which would free up about 50 acres on the site for future development. She added the City would then market the site and whatever revenue it generated would go to the City of Anaheim. The funding identified in this agreement totaled $38 million. Agency Member Murray inquired if any development on the 50 acres would come before the Agency or Council for review and approval. Ms. Stipkovich remarked this action was solely to provide for a funding source for improvements on the site and any future development plans would return to the Agency for approval. Agency Member Sidhu moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. ARA 2011 -002 OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY approving and authorizing the execution of a Cooperation Agreement (Stadium Public Improvements) by and between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the City of Anaheim and making certain findings in connection therewith, seconded by Agency Member Galloway. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: Chairman Tait and Agency Members: Eastman, Galloway, Murray and Sidhu. Noes — 0. Motion Carried. 3. RESOLUTION NO. ARA 2011 -003 A RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY approving and authorizing the execution of a Cooperation Agreement (West AGR -6633 Anaheim Public Improvements) by and between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the City of Anaheim and making certain findings in connection therewith (related to Council Item No. 10). Ms. Stipkovich reported this item was also a cooperation agreement between the City and the Agency for the purposes of identifying funding to help with infrastructure improvements that had long been identified as part of the redevelopment plan for West Anaheim area. She indicated this project area was a combination of the Brookhurst Corridor plan as well as the Plaza project area and West Anaheim, and included nearly Anaheim Redevelopment Agency Minutes of Special Meeting January 18, 2011 Page 4 of 7 everything west of the 1 -5 freeway. Staff had a long list of improvements that included a grade separation where the railroad tracks interfaced with Lincoln Boulevard, Brookhurst Corridor Improvements, and Manchester and Beach Boulevard and Ball Road Improvements as well. This project total was $44 million. Chairman Tait remarked there had been criticisms regarding various redevelopment agencies in the State abusing or subsidizing corporations and businesses and it was clear these items now before Council were in general for infrastructure improvements. Ms. Stipkovich concurred stating these items were infrastructure improvements the City and Redevelopment Agency had identified in the Plans as deficiencies in these areas. All of the co -op agreements between the City and the Agency with the exception of one that had acquisition involved were basically about providing parks, streets, and ways of freeing up City property for development. Agency Member Murray moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. ARA 2011 -003 OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT ANGENCY approving and authorizing the execution of a Cooperation Agreement (West Anaheim Public Improvements) by and between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the City of Anaheim and making certain findings in connection therewith; seconded by Agency Member Eastman. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: Chairman Tait and Agency Members: Eastman, Galloway, Murray and Sidhu. Noes — 0. Motion Carried. 4. RESOLUTION NO. ARA 2011 -004 A RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGR- 4183.1 approving and authorizing the execution of Amendment No. 1 to Cooperation Agreement (OCTA Go Local Program Study) by and between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the City of Anaheim and making certain findings in connection therewith (related to Council Item No. 11). Ms. Stipkovich reported this item reflected a cooperative agreement for the Canyon Business area, the City's largest redevelopment area with over 2,400 acres. This area had been in redevelopment since 1973 and was a critical part of Anaheim's economy in terms of job generation. Staff was proposing, after entering into a study with Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) on a Go Local Program, to focus on the expansion of the train station. The plan would allow for dual tracks, provide additional abilities to have trains go into the area and was a critical element to the growth of the Canyon Business area. She added a project such as the Kaiser Medical campus relied on the Agency and City's ability to provide pedestrian linkages between the train station and the new campus. The total amount of this agreement was $38 million. Agency Member Galloway remarked that during her tenure, the City of Anaheim consistently used redevelopment dollars where they needed without using general fund monies. She had seen the improvement of deteriorated areas of the City and how funds were used strategically to create improvement in the quality of life of residents of these areas. Chairman Tait also stressed no eminent domain actions were used in any of these project areas as well. Agency Member Sidhu moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. ARA 2011 -004 OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY approving and authorizing the execution of Anaheim Redevelopment Agency Minutes of Special Meeting January 18, 2011 Page 5 of 7 Amendment No. 1 to Cooperation Agreement (OCTA Go Local Program Study) by and between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the City of Anaheim and making certain findings in connection therewith, seconded by Agency Member Galloway. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: Chairman Tait and Agency Members: Eastman, Galloway, Murray and Sidhu. Noes — 0. Motion Carried. 5. RESOLUTION NO. ARA 2011 -005 A RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY approving and authorizing the execution of Amendment No. 1 to Cooperation AGR- 3995.1 Agreement (Anaheim Colony Capital Improvements) by and between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the City of Anaheim and making certain findings in connection therewith (related to Council Item No. 12). Ms. Stipkovich explained the Colony area was part of the oldest redevelopment area in the City and that this amendment was to a long- standing co -op agreement called the Greater Downtown Guide for Development established with the community's input. That guide was concerned with making the downtown work for pedestrians, to beautify the area and also provide other infrastructure improvements to insure it functioned properly. Staff requested an amendment to agreement increasing it from $10 million to $20 million to continue to provide the infrastructure needed to allow the planned development to occur and to improve the area and deliver on some of the promises made to the community. Agency Member Murray remarked that Anaheim was an older city and there were limited tools to help rehabilitate aging infrastructure in the state of California. This was critically needed and would follow through commitments made to residents and businesses and would continue to improve the quality of lives, along with the economy in the City. Agency Member Eastman moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. ARA 2011 -005 OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY approving and authorizing the execution of Amendment No. 1 to Cooperation Agreement (Anaheim Colony Capital Improvements) by and between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the City of Anaheim and making certain findings in connection therewith; seconded by Council Member Galloway. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: Mayor Tait and Council Members: Eastman, Galloway, Murray and Sidhu. Noes — 0. Motion Carried. 6. Approve and authorize the Agency Executive Director to execute and administer a Cooperation Agreement with the City of Anaheim for the AGR -6634 acquisition of real property for development purposes identified in the Agency's 2006 Redevelopment Plans for the Merged Project Area (Anaheim Blvd. Triangle (no site address); 1730 Anaheim Way; 106 S. Manchester; Utility Surplus Parcel (no site address); Substation Block Parcel (no site address); 1445 S. Anaheim Blvd.; and 915 S. State College Blvd) (related to Council Item No. 13). Ms. Stipkovich reported this was another co -op agreement with the City that approved acquisition of property by the Redevelopment Agency from the City of Anaheim. Faced with this imminent threat posed by the State, staff looked at long -term projects and in Anaheim Redevelopment Agency Minutes of Special Meeting January 18, 2011 Page 6 of 7 this particular case, many of the parcels staff was recommending for purchase were already in the works. These parcels were needed to aggregate different, smaller parcels owned by the City. Items No. 1, 3 and 6 joined two remnant parcels to make it a developable parcel known as the Anaheim Boulevard Triangle; the Manchester remnant which added to the Agency remnant would then become a developable parcel; and Matrix, the site on Anaheim Boulevard that vacated an alley would be joined in with the City's parcel. Two sites that were surplus from the Utilities Department standpoint that would be used for parking to support the new Colony Marketplace staff had been working on in conjunction with the Packing House project; and there was one parcel the City had purchased for a park on Anaheim Way, for which there were no funds to develop and which might not be the best location for a park, and staff was now proposing to acquire. The last site was a surplus site the City had adjacent to Boyson Park, which although it was outside a redevelopment area, has the potential for affordable housing compatibility with that neighborhood. The total cost of this acquisition was $11.9 million. She added the City did not have the cash up front for this and planned a $2 million payment this year and then the rest over time to pay back the City for their investment in the land. Agency Member Sidhu moved to approve Item No. 7, seconded by Agency Member Eastman. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: Chairman Tait and Agency Members: Eastman, Galloway, Murray and Sidhu. Noes — 0. Motion Carried. 7. Approve and authorize the Agency Executive Director to execute Amendment No. 1 to an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Uptown LLC which amends the existing negotiation agreement for a period of two years with three four - AGR- 6249.1 month extensions as it relates to property located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard within the Merged Redevelopment Project Area Chairman Tait declared a potential conflict of interest as this item involves AT &T, which his firm works with, although not on this specific site. Chairman Tait excused himself from discussion of this item, turning the gavel over to Vice - Chairman Sidhu. Ms. Stipkovich remarked this was a redevelopment action which would allow the continued negotiation on property approved by the Agency in June, 2010. Developer Bill Taormina has tied up this site for development and this action would provide an exclusive right to negotiate with Mr. Taormina along with approval to acquire the property with the developer funding that acquisition. Both Mr. Taormina and the Agency were interested in the long -term viability of the site and since he had the ability to acquire the property now, staff felt it was important to control the ultimate use of that site which was scheduled for either commercial or mixed use. She added staff wanted the ability to be able to work with the developer to acquire the site and then negotiate on development plans for approval before the Agency in the future. If no agreement was reached, the City would be free to market the site to a different developer. The amendment was needed because when this was originally approved in June, staff was not aware there were environmental issues that needed further study and analysis. When that was discovered, the developer and staff jointly approached the property owner who agreed to do additional environmental review. If the environmental issues were worked out, staff would return to Agency with a specific project in the future. Vice Anaheim Redevelopment Agency Minutes of Special Meeting January 18, 2011 Page 7 of 7 Chairman Sidhu asked if the purchase price had been determined. Ms. Stipkovich responded the purchase price was $6.55 million to purchase the site from AT &T and under current negotiation were the environmental issues which she felt should be deducted from the sale price. As to any price that the City would resell the property, that would be brought back to the Agency. Ms. Stipkovich further explained the developer agreed to lend the City the money to acquire the property; and the City would agree to pay him under the conditions of the loan based upon a libor rate plus 3.75 percent, a fluctuating interest rate. Staff would then continue to negotiate and if a project could go forward, it would be considered by the Agency in the future. . Agency Member Galloway agreed this building was an important part of the strategic plan for that area and was of interest to the community. She thanked Bill Taormina for offering to assist in the purchase of this property. Agency Member Murray moved to approve Item No. 7, seconded by Agency Member Eastman. Roll Call Vote: Ayes — 5: Agency Members: Eastman, Galloway, Murray and Sidhu. Noes — 0. Abstention — 1: Chairman Tait. Motion Carried. Vice Chairman Sidhu remarked on the many negative impacts associated with the Governor's budget proposal and urged the community to contact local legislators and to share their opinion. Chairman Tait returned to the dais at approximately 12:22 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: At 12:23 P.M., with no other business to conduct, Chairman Tait adjourned the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency special meeting of January 18, 2011. Re ec Ily submitted, Linda N. Andal, CMC Secretary, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency