Loading...
ARA2006/08/22 ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AUGUST 22, 2006 The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency met in regular session in the Chambers of the Anaheim City Hall located at 200 South Anaheim Boulevard. Present: Chairman Curt Pringle, Agency Members: Richard Chavez, Lorri Galloway, Bob Hernandez, and Harry Sidhu Staff Present: Assistant City Manager Tom Wood, City Attorney Jack White, and Secretary Sheryll Schroeder A copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency was posted on August 18, 2006 on the City Hall outside bulletin board. At 5:35 P.M., Chairman Pringle called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to order for a joint public comment session with the City Council. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: No comments offered during the Joint Agency/Council public comment session related to the Redevelopment Agency agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Pringle removed Item 1 from the consent calendar for a brief presentation by staff. Agency Member Hernandez moved to approve the remaining consent calendar Item No.2, seconded by Agency Member Sidhu. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Chairman Pringle, Agency Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez, and Sidhu. Noes - O. Motion carried. 2. Approve the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency meeting minutes of August 8, 2006. Agency Member Galloway commented the Diamond Street project had not been included on her Agency minutes and the Secretary responded she would follow up and bring the minutes back to the Agency, if necessary. END OF CONSENT: 1. Approve and authorize the Executive Director to execute an Exclusive Negotiation 4155 Agreement between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Brookfield Southland Holdings LLC. Elisa Stipkovich, Community Development Director, reported staff recommended entering into an exclusive right to negotiate regarding property between Broadway and Center Street, to explore the possibility of a mixed use development, including housing that would also provide for the construction of a Boys' and Girls' Club, with YMCA and Anaheim Police Assistance League program uses. ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES AUGUST 22, 2006 Page 2 of 4 Agency Member Hernandez moved to approve Item No.1, seconded by Agency Member Galloway. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Chairman Pringle, Agency Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - O. Motion carried. JOINT AGENCY/COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARINGS: 3. A Joint Public Hearing to consider the proposed amendments to extend the time ARA limits on plan effectiveness and the repayment of indebtedness and receipt of tax increment revenues by ten years for the Redevelopment Plans for the Alpha, River Valley, Plaza, Commercial/Industrial, and Brookhurst portion of the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Projects and the proposed amendment to the Agency's 2005-2009 Implementation Plan along with other determinations related to these proceedings. Chairman Pringle stated this was a joint public hearing of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency to consider the proposed amendments to extend the time limits of the redevelopment plans and the repayment of indebtedness and receipt of tax increment revenues by ten years for the Redevelopment Plans for the Alpha, River Valley, Plaza, Commercial/Industrial, and Brookhurst portion of the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Projects and the proposed amendment to the Agency's 2005-2009 Implementation Plan along with other determinations related to the proceedings. He indicated a transcript would be made of the public hearing, any speakers would be subject to questions through the Chair and all persons desiring to speak would be given an opportunity to do so. He identified the order of procedure for the hearing adding that following the introduction of all evidence and testimony, the hearing would be closed. Elisa Stipkovich, Community Development Director, reported the following documents would be provided as a part of the record of the joint public hearing: 1) an affidavit of publication of notice of the joint public hearing of proposed amendments which were published pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code; 2) a certificate of mailing notice of the joint public hearing on the proposed amendment to each assessee of land and occupant in the merged redevelopment project area shown on the last equalized assessment role; 3) a certificate of mailing of the joint public hearing on proposed amendment to the California Dept of Finance, the California Housing and Community Development and the governing body of each taxing entity that received taxes from the property in the merged project area; 4) an affidavit of posting notice of the joint public hearing in four permanent locations within Anaheim merged redevelopment project area for a period of three consecutive weeks pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code; 5) a report from the Agency to City Council including affirmation of existing environmental compliance and amendment to the 2005-2009 Implementation Plan; 6) a supplement to report to Council; 7) an amendment to the restated redevelopment plan for the Anaheim merged redevelopment project area which included amendments to the specific redevelopment plans. Ms. Stipkovich announced this joint hearing would consider the plan amendments to extend the five project areas already identified. She noted under SB 211, the effectiveness of redevelopment plans created before December 1, 1993 were allowed to be extended by 10 years and that five of the City's individual project areas, prior to when they were merged, were eligible to be extended. She noted the time frames ranged from ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES AUGUST 22, 2006 Page 3 of 4 2010 to 2029 and if approved under the proposed amendment, would be extended from 2020-2039. An extension of time, she stated, was needed to achieve the goals set by the Agency and Council and a report to Council had designated those significant redevelopment activities to be accomplished which included but were not limited to the elimination of blight, both physical and economic, an increase in the development of affordable housing, business attraction and retention, rehabilitation of deteriorated or obsolete structures and improvements to infrastructure and public facilities. Ms. Stipkovich remarked that although Council and the Agency had allocated 30 percent of tax increment funds to low/moderate housing, if approved, the Agency would be required to fund 30 percent of tax increment for housing and in addition, 85 percent of those funds must be used for low and very low income projects. She added any moderate income projects funded must also have a 49 percent low and very low income component. Ms. Stipkovich verified the economic impact of the extension, which would increase tax increment for low and moderate income to $85.5 million net present value or $261 million whole dollars. Other taxing entities would receive over $65 million in whole dollars and $6.6 million net present value. The net increment to the general redevelopment fund would be $213.4 million, $37.9 million in net present value. Ms. Stipkovich also noted that due to a concern by one of the property owners in Alpha project area, staff requested certain properties not be subject to the amendment. Those properties were referenced as parcels: 34436109, 34407206, 34407102, 34436105, 34407207, 34436203, 34407101 and 34407211. Vice-Chairman Chavez announced any written comments received on the proposed amendments would be placed into the record as Exhibit 8 at this time. Ms. Stipkovich reported there were two letters, one from the Orange County Water District dated August 16, 2006 which provided clarification to the report to the Agency and Council related to injection well technology and was not in opposition to the amendments. The other letter was from counsel to the County Board of Education dated August 21, 2006 on behalf of the Orange County Department of Education that was also not an objection but a clarification on issues the District had with the way the agreements were calculated. Chairman Pringle opened the public hearing and asked for comments at this time. Virginia Grebbien, General Manager of Orange County Water District (OCWD), reiterated her agency was not in opposition to the amendments but that her Board of Directors asked her to express a concern as to how the OCWD property was characterized in the report. She stated OCWD owned 1,300 acres in the project area used for replenishing the groundwater basin in Orange County which supplied two-thirds of the water supply in the County making OCWD water rates more cost effective. She indicated that was accomplished by taking a large volume of water off the Santa Ana River and replacing it into the groundwater basin thru percolation. She added Anaheim was geologically unique in that there was an open pipeline from the surface down into the groundwater basin. She noted OCWD was working on research into well injection technology but still had a long way to go before that process could be implemented and it was necessary to continue to utilize the percolation process. Chairman Pringle asked if injection wells had been used elsewhere and was it accepted by the State. Ms. Grebbien stated it was accepted in Orange County but the difference was in the quality of water. She explained the Santa Ana River water had high silt content and a method of removing that silt cost effectively had not yet been developed. Chairman ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES AUGUST 22, 2006 Page 4 of 4 Pringle remarked he would like to maximize the use of the OCWD land along the 91 freeway, including beautification efforts; Ms. Grebbien indicated the Board of Directors understood the City's concern. Agency Member Chavez, an OCWD board member, added the OCWD board had become more interested in insuring those land areas were beautified and were also open to other potential uses. William Fitzgerald, representing Anaheim HOME, stated the residents of HOME objected to the proposed plan amendment in its entirety remarking it was not a public benefit to extend the project areas by ten years. He alluded to misuse of redevelopment law to raise funds for political elections and voiced a number of allegations related to political donations. Chairman Pringle requested Mr. Fitzgerald keep his comments to the proposed amendments identified in the Joint Public Hearing; Mr. Fitzgerald protested the interruption and continued his comments on matters unrelated to the hearing matter. With no other oral testimony offered, Chairman Pringle closed the hearing. Agency Member Hernandez moved to approve Resolution No. ARA2006-007, ARA 2006- 08 and ARA 2006-09, seconded by Agency Member Galloway. RESOLUTION NO. ARA2006-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2005-2009 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE ANAHEIM MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. RESOLUTION NO. ARA2006-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS UNDER CEQA RELATING TO THE AMENDMENT OF THE ANAHEIM MERGED PROJECT AREA THROUGH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUENT EXISTING REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE ALPHA, RIVER VALLEY, PLAZA, COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAL, AND A PORTION OF THE WEST ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. RESOLUTION NO. ARA2006-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING THE AMENDMENTS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE ALPHA, RIVER VALLEY, PLAZA, COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAL AND A PORTION OF THE WEST ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. Roll call vote: Ayes - 5; Chairman Pringle, Agency Members: Chavez, Galloway, Hernandez and Sidhu. Noes - O. Motion carried. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Chairman Pringle adjourned the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency meeting at 6:43 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Sheryll Schroeder, MMC Secretary, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency