RA1983/11/2283 -91
Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
November 22, 1983, 9 :30 A.M.
PRESENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
SECRETARY: Linda D. Roberts
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman J. Priest
Chairman Roth called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency
to order at 10:00 a.m.
MINUTES: Agency Member Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held October 25 and November 1, 1983. Agency Member Pickler seconded
the motion. Agency Member Overholt abstained on the minutes of October 25 and
November 1, 1983, and Agency Member Bay abstained on the minutes of
November 1, 1983, since they were not present at those meetings. MOTION
CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in the amount of
8,916.67 and $417,436.00 for Series "C" Bonds, in accordance with the 1983 -84
Budget, were approved.
RECESS: Agency Member Roth moved to recess to 1:30 p.m. for the purpose of a
joint public hearing with the City Council and the Redevelopment Commission.
Agency Member Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:01 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: Chairman Roth reconvened the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, all
Agency Members being present, for the purpose of conducting a joint public
hearing with the City Council and the Redevelopment Commission. (1:50 p.m.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL /AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL /AGENCY MEMBERS: None
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERS: Robert Doty, Jane Oseid, Doug Renner,
Dan Martinez, Robert Anthony, William
Ranney
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERS: Herb Leo
CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman Priest
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: John Anderson
161.157/105: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RIVER
VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT A joint hearing between the City Council, the
Redevelopment Agency and Redevelopment Commission to consider the proposed
Redevelopment Plan and Environmental Review Determination for the River Valley
.� Redevelopment Project located northwest of the intersection of the Riverside
Freeway and Weir Canyon Road.
Vice Chairman of the Redevelopment Commission, William Ranney, called the
Commission to order. (1:50 p.m.)
83 -92
Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY mom
November 22, 1983, 9:30 A.M.
Mayor /Chairman Roth opened the joint public hearing, explaining its purpose
was to consider the approval and adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan
for the River Valley Redevelopment Project and the Environmental Impact
Reports previously prepared for SAVI Ranch and Shorb Wells (EIR Nos. 230 and
258), pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California.
Executive Director of Community Development Norman Priest then gave a summary
of the proposed Redevelopment Plan, which involved approximately 160 acres,
generally at the intersection of Weir Canyon Road and La Palma Avenue. The
property had been deterred from development by the flood hazard created by the
non - channelized Santa Ana River (see Exhibit A, Section 5 in the booklet
entitled, Joint Public Hearing, River Valley Redevelopment Project,
November 22, 1983, on file in the City Clerk's office, which included a map of
the Project Area and a legal description of its boundaries. The booklet
contained detailed documentation on all aspects of the Project Area from its
inception to present). Mr. Priest briefed the extensive actions that had
taken place culminating in the presentation of the Plan for approval today, as
well as making certain findings that the provision of low and moderate income
housing outside the River Valley Redevelopment Project Area and the use of tax
increment revenues would be of benefit to the Project and also making certain
findings in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
with respect to the Project's environmental impacts. (Also see report to the
City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the River Valley
Redevelopment Project -- September 1983 -- Section 6 of the aforementioned
booklet -- giving the Reasons for the Selection of the Proposed Project Area,
Description of Physical, Social and Economic Conditions in the Project Area,
Methods of Financing the Project, Plan and Method of Relocation, Analysis of
the Preliminary Plan, Report and Recommendations of Planning Commission,
Report Required by Section 65402 of Government Code, Project Environmental
Impact Reports, Report of County Fiscal Officer and Fiscal Review Committee,
Analysis of Report of County Fiscal Officer and Summary of Consultations with
Taxing Agencies, portions of which were also briefed by Mr. Priest.) He then
asked John Anderson, Associate Planner, to speak to the blighted conditions
relative to the Project.
In his presentation, working from posted maps, Mr. Anderson explained that the
Santa Ana River flowing through Anaheim's canyon area had the potential for
the worst flooding in the Nation, yet the River Valley Project parcels were
singularly unprotected. The United States Corps of Engineers All River Plan
would eventually provide protection along the River. As presently adopted,
however, the subject area would remain unprotected in its natural state and
the Federal Environmental Management Agency (FEMA) maps showed the area to be
in the A -Zone Flood Hazard Area and Floodway. He then narrated a brief video
record of the area taken after the moderate rains of 1980. He continued that,
subsequent to the Corps plans and FEMA maps, private levee construction in the
vicinity had changed the flood patterns and while the levees now provided
protection to adjacent properties, they would act to channelize flood flows
and direct the flows against the unprotected Shorb Wells and SAVI parcels.
The River bisected the River Valley Project east to west and within the Shorb
Wells parcel there were several flood protection /drainage concerns. He then
83 -93
Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
November 22, 1983, 9:30 A.M.
pointed to those areas from the engineering map, concluding that the areas
must be properly filled, protected by erosion control landscaping, provision
made for conveyance of area -wide drainage and adequate flood protection
provided including levees, channel improvements and excavations. Similar
blight was found on the westerly portion of the SAVI Ranch and those
deficiencies would require fill and provision for conveyance of area -wide
drainage and for adequate flood protection by completion and improvement of
levees and by channel improvements.
Mr. Priest then reported that in terms of land use and land ownership, the
land was largely vacant. There were six owners with 18 assessor parcels and a
number of those owners were utility companies. The major owners were SAVI,
owning 50 plus acres in agricultural use, and the City of Anaheim, with 50
plus acres in the Shorb Wells site. The River channel bisected the property
and occupied the remainder of the 150 acres. He then explained the zoning on
the property and the possible capital improvements contained therein.
He continued that the proposed Redevelopment Plan was not typical of those
they had considered previously and acquisition would be very limited to only
that necessary for proper parcelization and carrying out public improvements.
Relocation was provided for in the Plan, although there were no Project
residents. It further provided for demolition and public improvements. Key
elements they would envision utilizing was the ability the Plan gave to
participate with current owners in the development of the property and a
provision of the Plan indicating the intent of the Agency to coordinate with
other public bodies in the Planning and implementation of the program. The
financing permitted the use of tax increments in the Plan up to $30 million
and that was their estimate of a worst -case basis. It also envisioned
utilizing other sources of financing, whether State, Federal, Corps of
Engineers and County, as were available in combination. (Also see Page 5 of
report to the City Council on the Redevelopment Plan, Section 6 of the
booklet.) He then asked Mr. Don Swartz of Hillman Properties, representing
SAVI, to comment on their proposed development.
Mr. Don Swartz, 450 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, stated they were the
owners of the property shown on the map in blue, marked A, B and C. Their
proposed development was of two types -- office development near Weir Canyon,
and industrial development to the west of the property of approximately
300,000 feet of office buildings to be developed, and 600,000 feet of light
industrial buildings at this time, if the channel improvements were put in
place. Without those improvements, the property was difficult to plan and
use, and they would probably get from one - quarter to one -third of the amount
of industrial space on the property. The bridge across Weir Canyon was
essentially complete and should be connected to the Riverside Freeway in the
next 60 days. They were supportive of the Project and felt it would benefit
the entire County. He then confirmed for Council /Agency Member Bay that the
commercial office would be developed whether or not the Redevelopment Project
was approved, but the industrial portion would otherwise only be 25 percent
developable.
83 -94
Anaheim Civi Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
November A.M.
Mr. Anderson then described the potential development of the Shorb Wells
property under the General Plan. The General Plan designation and compatible
zoning would permit uses including development of a neighborhood shopping
center or commercial uses in support of the anticipated nearby SAVI
commercial /industrial and the Bauer Ranch regional shopping center. Working
from the posted map, Mr. Anderson stated that should the parcels be precluded
by noted flood and drainage concerns from planned development, not only would
the subject parcels remain blighted and underdeveloped, but also the larger
vicinity would to that extent be blighted by unsightly, dysfunctional and
underdeveloped parcels within the center of what was planned to be an
intensively developed community core.
Mr. Priest then elaborated on the financing aspect of the Project, pointing
out that the tax increment of full development would be slightly in excess of
$1 million and there were two significant factors relative to that. Under
California State law, 20 percent of that increment was committed to low and
moderate income housing in the community and was a legal requirement.
Additionally, recognizing that the Project having eliminated flooding and
creating developable land would lead to development which could create
approximately 3,100 jobs. They, therefore, recognized that there might be
impact upon school districts and surrounding public bodies. They had been in
consultation with those public bodies, and at this point in time, suggested to
them agreements known commonly as pass- through agreements, in which case a 0--m'
portion of the increment would pass- through to those bodies to assist them in
any detriment and the maximum amount of such pass- through would be
approximately 23 percent of the total increment.
In concluding, Mr. Priest stated that the Project would not only eliminate the
flooding, but it also would create additional jobs, provide tax increment only
as necessary to either do the Project or close the gap with other available
financing, and it would not be their intention to get extensively into land
acquisition, transfer or development. He then outlined the documents
submitted and announced that Rhonda Gale from Weiser, Kane, Ballmer and
Berkman, Special Counsel, and Mr. Kalva Hollis of Katz Hollis, and
Redevelopment staff were present.
Questions were then posed to Mr. Priest by Council /Agency Members for purposes
of clarification, as well as questions posed by Redevelopment Commissioners
Doug Renner and Robert Anthony, which were answered by City Engineer William
Devitt. Mr. Devitt reported that the Project provided localized protection,
and the problem Mr. Renner emphasized relative to the Santa Ana River as
indicated in the public notice mailed out with property tax statements, was a
Corps of Army Engineers problem, which would take multi - billions of dollars to
solve. The two were not directly associated and he reiterated that relative
to the subject Project, they were looking at localized protection for an
intermediate period of time and ultimately the All River Plan must be built.
He also clarified that the site did flood now without the necessary protection
that was being proposed. He also confirmed for Council /Agency Member Bay that
there was levee protection south of the area. The Flood Control District had
for many years been making improvements along the River and particularly
around the bend at Lincoln Avenue. It was an on -going program of continued
progress.
83 -95
Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
November 22, 1983, 9:30 A.M.
Mayor /Chairman Roth asked the estimated value of the Shorb Wells property
which was owned by the City, if it had an adequate amount of flood protection
for building or developing; Mr. Priest answered that he did not have that
figure. In terms of developable parcels, there were approximately 42 acres.
Mr. Anderson interjected and stated that 42 would be an optimistic acreage in
terms of what would be developable. That was based on Assessor's data
previous to the time that some of the road work was completed, and the actual
usable area might be anywhere from 19 to 30 acres.
Mr. Devitt also reported, in answer to the Mayor /Chairman, that there was a
great deal of fill involved in the property and without that fill, it was not
likely that anything worthwhile could be developed; Mayor /Chairman Roth stated
that was the answer he was looking for. It was a valuable piece of property
whether it was going to be used for commercial or industrial in the future,
and thus would have a far - reaching effect as far as the taxpayers in the City
were concerned.
Council /Agency Member Pickler asked Mr. Hollis if he had an estimate of the
value of the property as broached by the Mayor; Mr. Kalva Hollis stated they
did not try to estimate the value of the land. It was commercial- industrial
property, which in Orange County, if developable, could be a minimum of $4 and
as high as $9 or $10 a square foot.
The Mayor /Chairman asked if anyone wished to speak to the proposed River
Valley Project.
Denise Racine, 5500 Morro Way, La Mesa, representing the California Department
of Fish and Game, read a prepared statement, the essence of which was as
follows: The Department had commented on development proposals for the area
in the past. Their concerns regarding protection of the habitat along the
River remained the same regarding the subject Project. Their comments on the
SAVI Ranch General Plan Amendment in 1979 stated that the Horseshoe Bend area
within the Santa Ana River Flood Plain contained some of the most productive
riparian habitat found below Prado Dam. They intended to be very protective
of the habitat and believed the Project was incompatible with their objective
in protecting those resources. They recommended that riparian resources
within the Horseshoe Bend area be given full protection from and buffered
against any urban development. A continuous corridor of riparian woodlands
linking Yorba Linda Regional Park and Featherly Regional Park should be
provided to preserve the region from excess urban encroachment to maintain its
value for riparian wildlife. In concluding, she stated they would like to
support the Corps of Engineers All River Plan which designated the area as
open space.
Council /Agency Member Bay asked Miss Racine if she had responded in writing to
the EIR report; Miss Racine answered they did not.
Mr. Priest pointed out that they did respond on the prior EIR's and they
considered those in the Project. They would have taken those comments into
consideration at that time.
•.
Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
November 22, 1983, 9:30 A.M.
Council /Agency Member Bay surmised then that the mitigation statements were in
the plans; Mr. Priest answered "yes."
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor /Chairman closed
the public hearing.
Redevelopment Commission Vice Chairman William Ranney asked the Commissioners
if there were any questions or any other deliberations they wished to
undertake; Commissioner Renner posed a question relative to the Planning
Commission resolution and deletions that he noted.
Mr. Priest clarified that the deletions did not pertain to the resolutions
that they would be considering.
Commissioner Ranney offered Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. CRC83 -2
for adoption. Refer to Redevelopment Commission Resolution Book.
REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CRC83 -2: A RESOLUTION OF THE
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING THE
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND
JOINING IN WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IN THE SUBMITTAL OF SUCH
PLAN, TOGETHER WITH THE REPORT, TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS: Ranney, Doty, Oseid, Martinez and
Anthony
NOES: REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS: Renner
ABSENT: REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS: Leo
The Chairman declared Redevelopment Commission Resolution No. CRC83 -2 duly
passed and adopted.
Council /Agency Member Bay stated he had a comment before taking action.
Relative to the subject Redevelopment Project, there was no comparison with
Project Alpha either in dollars or size; however, it was important for the
public to understand the major differences between the two Projects. The
Redevelopment Law in the State had undergone a number of changes since they
initiated Project Alpha and one of the changes that became very apparent on
the subject Project was the mandatory 20 percent of the full tax increment to
be allocated to low and moderate income housing outside of the Project. The
Housing Department in Sacramento had pushed to get more and more allocations
where there was a problem on low and moderate income housing. That was one of
the basic differences. Estimates by staff indicated that another 23 percent
of the tax increment would be going to other districts in the Project, leaving
for the Plan 57 percent of the total increment. Across the 30 years, at
approximately $1 million a year, they could count on roughly 55 to 57 percent
of the money going into the Project. The benefits of the Project were many
and varied for the citizens of the City, particularly in taking almost totally
undevelopable land and making it developable for the good not only of the City
owning Shorb Wells, but also providing more jobs in the industrial development
that would occur.
83 -97
Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
November 22, 1983, 9:30 A.M.
Agency Member Roth offered Resolution No. ARA83 -46 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA83 -46: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FINDING THAT THE PROVISION OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE
RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE USE OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUES
THEREFORE WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA83 -46 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Agency Member Roth moved to approve the report of the Fiscal Review
Committee. Agency Member Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Agency Member Roth offered Resolution Nos. ARA83 -47 and ARA83 -48 for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA83 -47: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA) WITH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE RIVER
VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA83 -48: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING THE REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
THE RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
The Chairman declared Resolution Nos. ARA83 -47 and ARA83 -48 duly passed and
adopted.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R -451 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R -451: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING THAT THE PROVISION OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE
THE RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND THE USE OF TAX INCREMENT
REVENUES THEREFORE WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R -451 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the Redevelopment Agency's response
to the report of the Fiscal Review Committee. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R -452 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R -452: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) WITH RESPECT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
THE RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. (including Statement of Overriding
Considerations)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R -452 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4463: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4463 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4463: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RIVER VALLEY
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
ADJOURNMENT - REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Commissioner Doty moved to adjourn.
Commissioner Oseid seconded the motion. Commissioner Leo was absent. MOTION
CARRIED. (2:46 p.m.)
ADJOURPZIENT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Agency Member Roth moved to
adjourn. Agency Member Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:47
P.M.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, SECRETARY