Loading...
RA1993/12/07Anaheim c£v£c Center, ANAIIEIN l~D~I]~Fl~q~ AGENCY DECE%fBER 7, 1993, 5:00 P.M. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly AGENCY MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: James Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White SECRETARY= Leonora N. Sohl EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stlpkovlch A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency was posted at 3:10 p.m. on December 3, 1993 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Chairman Daly called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to order at 5:37 p.m. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in the amount of $95,072.36 for the period ending December 3, 1993, in accordance with the 1993-94 Budget, were approved. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: No items of public interest were addressed. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no public comments on Redevelopment Agency agenda items. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 - 3: On motion by Agency Member Simpson, seconded by Agency Member Hunter, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Agency Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Agency Member Simpson offered Resolution No. ARA93-30 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 1. 123: Approving a Second Amendment to Agreement with Warkentin Wraight Architects, to extend the term of the agreement to June 1994, for consultation services on affordable housing design guidelines; and authorizing the Chairman and Secretary to execute said Second Amendment to Agreement on behalf of the Agency. 2. 117: RESOLUTION NO. ARA93-30: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND. Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. ARA93-30 for adoption: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly AGENCY MEMBERS: None AGENCY MEMBERS: None The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA93-30 duly passed and adopted. 3. 161: Approving minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency meetings held November 2, 1993, and November 9, 1993. Lisa Stipkovich, Director of Community Development. She is asking the Agency to consider a fourth item as reflected in report dated December 7, 1993 to the City Manager/Redevelopment Agency which was just submitted to the Agency. The Redevelopment Agency has just recently settled with the County of Orange regarding the proposed tax sharing agreements on the Brookhurst Commercial 93-91 Anahe*m Civic Center, ANAHEIM P~DSVSLOP~ AOENCY DECEMBER 7, 1993, S:00 P.M. Corridor as well as the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment proposed project. They are before the Agency tonight for consideration. City Attorney White. He confirmed for Chairman Daly that it will be necessary to waive the Brown Act including the finding that the Agreement with the County was only reached today which was subsequent to the Agenda for the December 7th meeting being prepared and the 72-hour posting requirement and further that the need to act upon this matter is imminent in that it would create the need for certain comments to be made by the County as part of the public hearing which is also scheduled for tonight and thus there is an immediate need to act. MOTION: Agency Member Daly moved to waive the 72-hour posting provision of the Brown Act including the finding as articulated by the City Attorney. Agency Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 4. 123: Authorizing execution of agreements between the Agency and County of Orange regarding the proposed Brookhurst Commercial Corridor and Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment projects which agreements have been approved by the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Motions and Resolution on Consent Calendar (Items 1-4) carried. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. RECESS: Agency Member Daly moved to recess to 6:00 p.m. to meet with the Community Redevelopment Commission and City Council in a joint public hearing regarding the Commercial Industrial Redevelopment projects. Agency Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:40 p.m.) Chairman Daly reconvened the meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, all members present with the exception of Agency Member Hunter. (6:03 p.m.) Chairman Paul McMillan called to order the meeting of the Community Redevelopment Commission. (6:03 p.m.) Present: Members of the Community Redevelopment Commission: Chairman Paul McMillan, Paul Bostwick, Thomas Holguin, Robert Linn, Cheryl Perreira, Mary Ruth Pinson and Douglas Renner. D2. 161: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION - PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: The purpose of the joint public hearing is to consider and act upon the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project. Submitted was binder entitled Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Project - Joint Public Hearing document binder - December 7, 1993 which contained all of the documents relating to the proposed redevelopment project. Mayor/Chairman Daly. This is a joint session of the Community Redevelopment Commission of the City of Anaheim, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the City Council of the City of Anaheim. The members of the City Council also sit as members of the Redevelopment Agency. 93-92 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DECEMBER 7r 1993r, S:00 P.M, Paul McMillan, Chairman of the Community Redevelopment Commission (CRC) called the Commission meeting to order. (6:03 p.m.) He noted that Item i of the CRC Agenda gives an opportunity for anyone who wishes to speak on Items of Public Interest or Agenda Items under the jurisdiction of the Community Redevelopment Commission; no one wished to speak. Mr. McMillan also noted that there were no minutes of the CRC to be approved at this time. Item No. 3 of their agenda is the joint public hearing on the subject proposed redevelopment plan. Mayor/Chairman Daly declared the public hearing on the Proposed Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment Plan open. It is his responsibility to preside over the joint public hearing for both the Council and the Redevelopment Agency. He thereupon introduced Lisa Stipkovich, Director of Community Development for the City of Anaheim to provide background and describe the procedures that will be followed in conducting the public hearing this evening. He first noted, however, that Commissioner Bostwick has a statement to make. Community Redevelopment Commissioner Paul Bostwick. Due to the fact he has property within the proposed redevelopment project area, he will abstain from discussion and voting on the issue. Commissioner Bostwick then left the Council Chamber. (6:05 p.m.) Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. The State law under which they are acting is the Community Redevelopment Code of the State of California which is part of the Health and Safety Code, the law requires that they follow certain procedures, some of them formal, in the conduct of tonight's joint public hearing. Notice of the joint public hearing has been published and mailed as required by law. The affidavits of publication and mailing of the notice to property owners and to taxing agencies of the public hearing have been submitted to the City Clerk and have been made a part of the record. Mrs. Stipkovich then gave a presentation on the history and background of the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment project, the reasons for undertaking the project, the report to the City Council and the proposed Redevelopment activities. The project consists of two noncontiguous areas as depicted on the posted maps. Also see verbatim transcript of the entire proceedings - made a part of the record. Mayor/Chairman Daly. Written objections to the proposed Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment plan have been received and will be placed into the record at this time. The reading of the written comments regarding the proposed redevelopment plan in their entirety is waived. The City Clerk will read the names of those persons providing written comments. Following which they will began taking oral comments and testimony. City Clerk Leonora Sohl. Written comments in opposition were received from Thomas L. Spencer, Park City, Utah; Adolf Phillip Miller, Anaheim, California; Evelyn C. Bevins, Anaheim, California; Barry D. Eaton, Development Services Department, City of Fullerton, California; Irene Kerlin, San Diego, California; Garry Chalupsky, Fullerton Redevelopment Agency, Robert E. Ward, Fullerton, California; and Don Bankhead, Fullerton, California. 93-93 Anaheim Civic Center m ANAHEIM ~DEV]~LOPMENT AGENCY DECEMBER 7, 1993, 5 =00 P.M. Written comments in favor - Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, Anaheim California. Mayor/Chairman Daly asked of the eight written comments received in opposition, how many were from the City of Fullerton; Mrs. $ohl answered that there were four. City Attorney White. He asked if anyone else was present that has further written comments they wish to present to the City Clerk. If not, the hearing can proceed with public testimony. Mayor/Chairman Daly. Since no additional written comments have been presented, at this time, the hearing will proceed with oral testimony first from those in favor of the proposed redevelopment project. Sid Adler, 2617 E. Palidin, Anaheim. Representing the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. He is present to request that the Council/Agency consider the proposed redevelopment plan favorably. Fred Young, 5250 E. Gerda Drive, Anaheim, District Representative for the operating engineers, Local 12 in Orange County. His organization consists of working men and women who for over 50 years have been responsible for completion of many projects in Orange County including the Anaheim City Hall. They are 26,000 members strong in Southern California with 200 members residing in Anaheim. He is speaking on behalf of those members and the other craftsmen who are presently faced with 25% to 35% unemployment. He is present to support the Commercial/Industrial Corridor Redevelopment project also known as Anaheim Boulevard Redevelopment. They are waiting to become a partner in the progress of the City. They commend the Council/Agency for the actions taken in the past on the Anaheim Plaza Redevelopment and the Brookhurst Corridor Redevelopment Plan and for their favorable consideration of the Anaheim Boulevard Redevelopment project this evening. Jim Colison, 601 $. Clementine, Anaheim. Even though his property is not located directly within the proposed project area, he is present to express his support of the project. He is amazed at the rapid deterioration of Anaheim Boulevard. Approximately one-half of the businesses along that stretch of Anaheim Boulevard are empty. The vacant businesses are poorly maintained, as are even some of the existing businesses. The street has become a ghost town and is having a negative effect on his neighborhood. He explained some of the problems with which they are faced. If the City wants to project an image of revitalization, progress and change, they need to vote in favor of the proposed project. He explained some of the positive things they are trying to do in their neighborhood as a member of the Citron Neighborhood Counsel. He concluded by emphasizing that the project will benefit everyone. Fred Gazowski, 805 S. Sun River Drive, Diamond Bar. He is present on behalf of the president of his company. He read a letter written by Doug Young, president of his company (Anaheim Dodge) which explained the problems experienced by Anaheim Dodge when located on South Anaheim Boulevard. The letter was submitted and made a part of the record. Thomas L. Spencer, Park City Utah, owner of property at 1475 & 1459 $. Anaheim Boulevard. He is representing his family's interests who live in Fullerton. They were listed earlier as having filed written comments in opposition but they are supporting the proposed project for the reasons heretofore stated. There are only two basic objections to the particulars contained in the 93-94 Anaheim Civic Center~ ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DECEMBER 7t 1993t ,,5~00 P.M. documentation, one being the concern of the exercise of eminent domain. They would prefer to see that exercised by a unanimous vote. As the documents are drafted now, they could be interpreted to favor a large developer towards consolidation of small properties. The other basic concern has to do with specifics about incentives that the Redevelopment Agency might offer to the individual and existing property owners. Overall they do favor the proposed project. Paul Rich, 311 N. Pine Street, Anaheim (33 years). He urges a yes vote on the project. He has seen all the blight. Anaheim was a great City but it has been declining and this proposed redevelopment project will help tremendously. He is also an electrical worker and he would like to see some of the jobs lost come back to the City. There are a lot of brothers working out of the State and the City and he would like to have them back here working. Scott Stevens, 603 Reed, Anaheim. He is present to speak in support. The Somebody Group and the Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council and other groups in the area of La Palma Park are very much in favor of the project. It will help the way of life and businesses in the area. It will make some drastic positive changes. Dennis Hardin, Hardin Oldsmobile, 1300 S. Anaheim Boulevard. His family business has been on Anaheim Boulevard for 36 years. They employ 110 people. They have found it increasingly difficult to operate on Anaheim Boulevard because of the growing crime problem. They have had a number of vehicles stolen out of their lot and the service department. It has become necessary to have a full time guard and guard dogs. Something needs to be done to reverse the problem. It is getting to the point where it is almost unbearable. Anaheim Boulevard was once known as the automobile row of Orange County. A redevelopment project needs to be initiated and the area cleaned up and made desirable once again for businesses and residents. Michael G. Martinez. He is representing his pastor, Ed Lopez, 1106 N. Homer Street, Anaheim. Their church has been there over 30 years. They have recently had trouble in the community relative to transients and with break-ins. They are in favor of the redevelopment plan but would like to report that they are currently in redevelopment at their location themselves. Anything they can do to improve the area they will be happy to do. They also reserve the right to receive any information on the redevelopment program as it is generated. He reiterated they are in favor. Keith Olesen, 321 N. Philadelphia, Anaheim. He does not live or own property in the proposed project area but lives between the project area being proposed and the downtown redevelopment project. He is voicing support for both segments of the subject redevelopment project. Many of those arguing against redevelopment six or seven years ago are now in support because things have changed so drastically particularly on South Anaheim Boulevard. The other big concern is the Northrop property. The only thing that is going to turn these areas and the present conditions around is a redevelopment project. Another big advantage is that the affordable housing set aside money can also be used to the City's advantage much as is now being done in the north of Cypress project through project ALPHA. Another advantage is the improvement of the infrastructure since there is no other way to address that. In general, he is asking that the Council/Agency support the project. The community needs it badly. 93-95 Anaheim C4v~c Cen~err ANAHKTH R~D~PMI~N~ AOI~NCY DKCEMBKR 7, 1993, 5**00 P.M. There being no further persons speaking in support, Mayor/Chairman Daly asked if there was any public testimony to be given by those who are opposed or who have questions which they would like to have answered. Joan Marks, 314 N. Resh, Anaheim. Her folks have lived in the 700 block of South Anaheim Boulevard for 47 years. What is forgotten is the human side. They are calling South Anaheim Boulevard blighted. People's businesses as well as homes are involved. Her father has invested 50 years of his life in his business and home, and now his choice will be taken away. The City will be on the side of big business. She asked if there is any way to compromise so that the people living there for 50+ years can stay as long as they live. Staff says there is no big rush. She again urged that there be some compromise. (She then gave 717 S. Anaheim Boulevard as the address of the home and business of her parents.) Mayor/Chairman Daly explained that the City Attorney has suggested that all comments to questions that have arisen this evening be packaged as part of one response which will be available next week. Because written opposition has been received, there is a legal process that must be followed. Therefore, no action will be taken this evening but this item will be back on next Tuesday's agenda for an action. Before taking that action, there will be written responses to all the questions raised this evening including the one just raised by Mrs. Marks. If there are any questions or other details needed, Lisa Stipkovich, Director of Community Development is the one to see this evening or in the future. City Attorney White. Next week they propose that the Council and public have access to written responses to the written objections received this evening. The oral questions and objections would be responded to next week orally. Written comments will be responded to in writing. Barry Eaton, Chief Planner, City of Fullerton, 303 W. Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton. He is present merely to reiterate their written comments submitted in letter of September 10, 1993 and to point out that part of the comments which were submitted under letter dated December 7, 1993 from Mr. Chalupsky today are in furtherance of their earlier letter. He is present to reiterate that Fullerton's concern is focused primarily on the northerly portion of the northerly sub-area north of the 91 Freeway. He will be happy to answer any questions. Ronald Bevins, 333 City Boulevard West, Orange, 92668. He is speaking on behalf of his mother, Evelyn Bevins who owns property at 336 S. Anaheim Boulevard, since the 1940's. He attended three of the meetings held by staff and feels it is unfortunate that the comments made at those meetings were not made directly to the Council/Agency. He is concerned about the magnitude and size of the project which is noncontiguous and where the problems of each segment are not necessary identical. He does not feel the two should necessarily be considered at one time. Another concern is the South Anaheim Boulevard portion which includes only the commercial areas all the way from Broadway down to the freeway which is a long distance. In talking about combining parcels, he wants to know what parcels will be combined. In their case, the residential areas on Anaheim Boulevard across the alley are not included as far as he can tell. Relative to the crime problems which are well known, he believes that is what they should be addressing. Relative to the plan itself, he sees no specifics. What does a property owner tell his tenant. It creates a great deal of indecision and uncertainty. That is the problem - they do not know what is going to happen. When asked if staff is 93-96 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DECEMBER 7r 1993~ ..5~00 P.M. going to use the power of eminent domain, the answer is they do not have the money to acquire parcels. He reiterated, a specific plan is lacking and they do not know what to tell their tenants. It is important that they know specifics to avoid a long period of indecision. Mayor Chairman Daly. Mr. Bevins and others will be hearing a detailed response by staff next Tuesday when all the various questions are answered. Mr. John M. Lenny. His mother bought property at the corner of Winston Road and Iris Street 35 years ago. He would second the comments of the previous speaker and a couple of other.people prior to him. He is about one block away from the project area and not in it. He then expressed some concerns not related to the proposed plan. He is concerned about his property and his investment in that property. (Further clarification confirmed that Mr. Lenny's property will not be affected by the proposed project since it is not in the project area. He gave his address as 139 W. Winston, ~B, Anaheim, 92805.) Celeste Brady, Agency Special Council. The written objections that have been received and noted by the City Clerk for the proposed Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment plan will be placed into the record for these proceedings and the readings of those written comments in their entirety have been waived by this body. All of the documents presented in the joint public hearing binder will be a part of the administrative record for these proceedings. Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. Because written responses have been delivered or presented on the proposed redevelopment plan from affected property owners or taxing agencies the law requires that the City Council must review and provide analytical responses to each objection giving reasons for not accepting such objection. Written responses to written objections from affected property or taxing agencies will be provided and considered at an adjourned meeting of the Redevelopment Agency, City Council and Redevelopment Commission to be held on December 14, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. At that same session, the City Council will proceed to consider the adoption of the proposed redevelopment plan. Mayor/Chairman Daly asked if there were any additional comments; there were none. Mayor/Chairman Daly closed the public hearing. MOTION: Council/Agency Member Daly moved that all the actions listed on the printed agenda for the subject joint public hearing on the Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment project be continued until next Tuesday, December 14, 1993, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, including the proposed action by the Community Redevelopment Commission. Council/Agency Member Pickler seconded the motion. Council/Agency Member Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Commissioner McMillan moved to adjourn the Community Redevelopment Commission meeting. Commissioner Holguin seconded the motion. Commissioner Bostwick was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (6:57 p.m.) 93-97