Loading...
RA1966/11/15REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY November 15, 1966 (7:30 p.m.) Anaheim Library PRESENT: Mr. Pebley, Mr. Dutton, Mr. Schutte, and Mr. Krein. ABSENT: Mr. Chandler PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Keith A. Murdoch ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: John Dawson SECRETARY: Dene M. Williams ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR: Robert Michelson ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jack Christofferson PLANNING SUPERVISOR: Ronald Grudzinski ZONING SUPERVISOR: Ronald Thompson MEMBERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE PRESENT: Mr. Harry I. Horn, Chairman Mr. James L. Morris Mr. Morris Martinet, Jr. REPRESENTATIVES OF VICTOR GRUEN ASSOCIATES PRESENT: Mr. Ralph J. Martin, Project Coordinator Mr. Allen Rubenstein, Head of Traffic Planning Chairman Krein called the meeting to order. FLAG SALUTE Mr. Schutte led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MINUTES On motion by Mr. Dutton, seconded by Mr. Pebley, minutes of the meeting held September 14, 1966, were approved. MOTION CARRIED. The Chairman, Mr. Krein, announced that this meeting was the second of three public meetings to be held on the Center City Study, as prepared by Victor Gruen Associates, and thereupon turned the meeting over to Mr. Ralph Martin to present possible methods of financing the recommended development program. Mr. Martin advised that in addition to methods of financing the pro- ject, he would also like to briefly discuss the traffic aspects of the program. He thereupon introduced Mr. Allen Rubenstein, Traffic Engineer of Victor Gruen Associates. Mr. Rubenstein briefly reviewed the transformation of this area with the advent of the Santa Ana Freeway which greatly accelerated the growth of Orange County. He advised that the construction of the Santa Ana Freeway created better accessibility to the City of Ana- heim, however, it placed the center of the City at a disadvantage by reorienting the former traffic pattern, reducing the Center City traffic potential. Mr. Rubenstein reported that the proposed plan recommends the follow- ing: 1. Redesign of the interchanges at Lincoln Avenue and South Street in order to offer more direct access to the Center City region. Redevelopment Agency, November 15, 1966 - Continued (2) 2. Construct a new boulevard, as soon as possible, to strengthen the north -south traffic pattern in the western section, and increase freeway access. 3. Continue and widen, wherever possible, all major streets, such as Lincoln Avenue, Broadway, Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim Boulevard, and Lemon Street. Further, provide left -turn lanes on these streets at major intersections and wherever necessary, traffic movement be given priority over on- street parking. 4. Establish Anaheim Boulevard and Lemon Street as one -way streets, providing three lanes with a fourth lane in the center core area. Mr. Martin explained that the problems in the downtown area were that of traffic, parking, circulation and accessibility, and with the aid of a chart, pointed out the nature of expend- iture that the City would encounter, whether or not the recom- mended improvement plan was implemented, such as the widening of Harbor Boulevard, reconstruction of other streets, right -of- way underpass at Lincoln and the Santa Fe Railroad, alley re- construction program, storm drains, sewer improvements, park improvements, traffic signalization at various locations, indi- cating that, as a matter of need within the next fifteen years, there will be an expenditure of approximately nine million dollars of public funds. Mr. Martin advised that, although they were not proposing a strict - ly urban renewal program wherein the land is acquired, cleared and sold to private investors, a chart of the area surrounded by Chartres Street, Broadway, Lemon and Harbor Boulevard was prepared, (page 35 of the Victor Gruen Report), indicating costs resulting in a net project cost to the city to be approximately 3.4 million dollars. Mr. Martin further advised that in an urban renewal program, the state gives the local community the power of conde m nation, but does not have any facilities to offer financial assistance, so that the City, in effect, without the Federal government involved, would be required to absorb the 3.4 million dollar net project cost. The Federal government usually assumes approximately two - thirds of the net project cost, or 2.3 million dollars; the City one - third, or 1.1 million dollars. The area surrounded by Anaheim Boulevard, Lincoln Avenue,.Olive Street, and Broadway, was also used as an illustration, indicat- ing the net project cost to the City, as compared to the net cost if the City became involved in Federal urban renewal. r` Reference was made to a chart indicating public improvements and costs which were recommended that the City assume after having a firm commitment from private enterprise to proceed without re- gard to Federal financial assistance. The public improvements referred to were: 1. Construction of the new boulevard from approximately West Street to Olive Street. 2. Create public open space. 3. Provide new downtown parking in the core area. Redevelopment Agency, November 15, 1966 - Continued (3) Mr. Martin stated that the important policy decision that must be made is whether or not the City will engage in one of the many available urban renewal programs. Further, the program outlined in the Report can be undertaken either with urban renewal funds, or by private enterprise, and it was their suggestion that there first be organized a private development corporation composed of the property owners in the area, or financial groups in and out of the area, and that the private development corporation under - take the construction of the mall. In addition, it was their recommendation that there be organized a parking authority, rather than formation of a parking district. Mr. Martin referred to methods of financing, among them being "tax allocation bonding ", "lease purchase programs ", and "match- ing grants ". The many Federal programs referred to included Federal beautification, advance acquitision programs, and strict Code enforcement. At the conclusion of the resume of the report given by Mr. Martin, Mr. Krein invited questions from the audience. Dr. Kott questioned the justification of use of public funds to promote a certain section of the community, at the expense of the general taxpayer. Mr. Martin referred to the report noting that with the development proposed, every attempt was made to show how every program could be related to the private enterprise community. Mr. Benjamin Cutter, owner of property within the core area, was of the opinion that the redevelopment was long overdue, and should be commenced immediately. Mr. James Townsend referred to the report given by Mr. Martin re- lating to possibilities of financing, and advised that, in his opinion, the property - owners in the downtown area should commence the development, and, after a showing of good faith, the City then proceed with the 82 million dollar street and other public improvements. Mr. Martin noted that the public improvements referred to were needed whether or not any revitalization effort was implemented. Mr. William Bacon advised of the few times he visits the downtown area, and further advised that his concern was the outlying areas where the people live and the needed improvements in those areas, such as sidewalks, the completion of the Y.M.C.A. facility, etc. A gentleman from the audience asked if the businessmen in the down- town area were contacted to determine their interest in proceeding with the plan. Mr. Martin advised of the meetings held for this purpose, and in answer to further questioning, stated it was not known what financial expenditure the downtown business area would assume. Regarding the displacement of people, Mr. Martin reported that the plan was drawn to keep displacement minimal. Mr. Douglas referred to the absent owner who had little or no inter- est in redevelopment, and asked if this area had been investigated. Mr. Martin reported that their investigation indicates a consider- able degree of absentee - ownership and in this case, it would be their Redevelopment Agency, November 15, 1966 - Continued (4) recommendation that the City stand ready to use the power of eminent domain. Mrs. Mabel Masterson questioned who would inspect and determine whether an existing building would be condemned or allowed to continue in use. Mr. Martin advised that this would involve a decision on the part of the City as to whether or not redevelopment be by an urban renewal program, or by private enterprise wherein the community itself would make such decisions. In a Federal urban renewal program, there is a series of criteria that determines whether a building can be upgraded with a minimum expense. If it is found to cost more to upgrade a building to code require- ments, then the building should be demolished and replaced with a new structure. In either case, local building inspectors would establish the criteria, make the inspections and decisions. A lady in the audience stated that, in her opinion, the plan appeared to be moving the downtown area to another location, as the proposed mall certainly was not planned for the center of the downtown area. She further asked what effect location of the proposed cultural area and city hall would have if lo- cated near the present City Hall site. Regarding the effect of a new city administration building at the present location, Mr. Martin advised that it would, in all probability, have the same effect as any new office complex with approximately the same number of employees, and the reason for not establishing the public buildings at the same location was a matter of economics, due to the differences in land values. Mr. Harry Horn, referring to a previous question regarding con- tacting downtown property owners, reported that the Advisory Committee spent many hours on such a survey and, in each case, they were advised that their decision would be based on a plan presented, and all that he personally contacted, including out - of -town owners, favored going ahead, and agreed to their part, although no definite commitments were made. Regarding the conditions of the buildings, Mr. Horn reported that a complete survey of the buildings in the area was made and it was found that the cost of remodeling and bringing the buildings up to Code requirement in some instances exceeded fifty per cent of the buildings in certain blocks. Regarding land assembly, Mr. Horn related an instance where a developer negotiated for the purchase of a total block in the downtown area, and how one property -owner who could not agree on price, defeated the entire transaction. Mr. Krein asked if anyone present specifically disagreed with the plan itself. In answer to a question from the audience relative to what effect a transportation system in the City would have on the parking projections, Mr. Martin advised that, based on their experience in other cities, it would be his opinion that a transportation system here would have little economic success, and would not affect the use of the private automobile. Mr. Stan Pawlowski advised that he was in agreement with the plan as it pertains to traffic, accessibility and parking. However, Redevelopment Agency, November 15, 1966 - Continued (5) he believed that the city hall project should be eliminated from the plan before the program is accepted. Mr. Dutton agreed that the future city hall location was a very important part of the plan, and felt the question should be de- termined, as from comments received by him, the success or fail- ure of the program greatly depended on this question. Mr. Krein advised that this was the second of three meetings to be scheduled, the last meeting to be scheduled the latter part of January which, it is hoped by that time, the general feeling of the people will be known, so that the concept and principle of the plan can be acted upon by the City Council. A gentleman in the audience, representing property - owners in the area, referred to the uncertainty of tenants to renew leases, and suggested there be a definite cutoff so that future plans can be made. Mr. Krein stated it was his personal opinion that, regardless of the action by the City Council, it would be the responsibility of the property -owner to take the initiative of redevelopment. Other items of the plan discussed were surface parking versus park- ing structures, timing, and total cost of both individual invest- ments and city funds. The issue regarding the location of the proposed city hall was again �. brought up and, although the proposed site was determined by Resolu- tion of the City Council in 1963, it was noted that any resolution could be amended or rescinded. Mr. Schutte was of the opinion that the question of location should be put to the vote of the people. At the conclusion of the discussion, Mr. Krein again announced that the third public meeting, as provided for in the Victor Gruen con- tract, would be held the latter part of January, 1967, and request- ed written opinions and questions be submitted to be answered at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Dutton moved to adjourn. Mr. Pebley seconded the mo- tion. MOTION CARRIED. (Adjourned 9:30 p.m.) r SIGNED: &,., Secretary, Redevelopment Agency