Loading...
RA1975/02/25ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY February 25, 197,5,(1:00 P.M.) Council Chambers Anaheim City Hall 75 -9 PRESENT: Mrs. Kaywood, Mr. Pebley, Mr_. Sneegas (arrived 1:15 p.m.), Mr. Seymour (arrived 1:15 p.m.), and Mr. Thom. ABSENT: None PRESENT: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Keith A. Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts SECRETARY: Alona M. Hougard FINANCE DIRECTOR: M. R. Ringer REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Knowlton Fernald DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Ronald Thompson Chairman Thom called the adjourned regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to order at 1:00 P.M. PROPOSAL - ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WITHIN PROJECT ALPHA AREA Mr. Knowlton Fernald submitted a staff report and draft letter and reported that this proposal, which was recommended for approval by the Redevelop- ment Commission, essentially provides for the construction of a five - story, 105,000 square -foot building to house the County Health Department Administration, Labora- tory and Clinic functions. The Agency would develop a financing plan utilizing lease revenue bonds which would cover all project costs.. The Agency would build the facility and lease it to the County at the net amount required to retire the bonds and at the end of said lease (estimated at 30 years) the building would become the property of the County. Mr. Fernald reported that if the concept is approved by the Redevelopment Agency, the proposal would be submitted for con- sideration by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on March 11, 1975. The proposed site for this building is the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Chartres Street, where the City already owns approximately 40,000 square feet near the corner and the buildings along Anaheim Boulevard are vacant. The balance of the block is owned by Pacific Telephone Company. The.value of fhe property involved is estimated at $160,000 for the City -owned parcel and $450,000 for acquisition of the vacant buildings. This proposal would involve the use of some City -owned property which is currently leased to the Pacific Telephone Company for parking, however it is considered feasible to enter negotiations with Pacific Telephone Company to replace this parking at another location. The proposal considers that the County and Agency would enter a disposition and development agreement whereby the County would lease the site and building from the Agency for a term of approximately 30 years, and would further agree to use the structure for the contemplated purpose. The agreement provides that the Agency would, in effect, be providing a site of 40,000 square feet for the build- ing and plaza uses to the County at no cost. In addition, the Agency would agree to provide and maintain the parking on either surface lots or in structures or in combination of both at no cost to the users. Mr. Fernald stressed that there are some redevelopment concepts involved such as writing land down to a price which makes the project feasible and /or competitive with other locations. He pointed out that in the earlier redevelop- ment stages more of a write -down is required. The second concept is that the Redevelopment Agency will be providing parking which is fairly common in rede- velopment projects and will be necessary in order to achieve both good develop- ment and ability to the community to use and enjoy these projects. Mr. Fernald reported that involved would be removed from crease in tax increment funds. Mr. Fernald, is in the recogni ment should be included which, social needs of the citizen. recommendation for approval of acceptance of the proposal - if the County accepts this proposal, the property the tax rolls and, therefore, would cause a de- The justification for the project, according to Lion that within Project Alpha area, some develop - although they do not produce income, meet the He summarized the basic reasons justifying the the project as follows - assuming County 75 -10 Redevelopment Agen February 25, 1975, Continued 1. It would provide a new major governmental building in the Project Alpha area at an early date. 2. It would add to the City of Anaheim an employment factor of 320 immediately and 480 in the future (the proposed facility would have an operating budget of $7,000,000.00 for fiscal year 1976 -77, more than half in payroll). 3. It would provide a full -range of health services for local and County residents. In conclusion, Mr. Fernald summarized that preliminary discussions indi- cate The Telephone Company expansion needs can be met. He further noted that attempts will be made to consolidate parking and in this connection the proposal would indicate a good possibility of joint use of a public parking facility in the future, with the additional possibility of alternate use of this same parking for an amphitheatre planned in Pearson Park. In reply to Mrs. Kaywood, Mr. Fernald advised that The Telephone Company would have sufficient room for their planned expansion, and if there is a greater space requirement there is sufficient room on the block to lease for their needs. In further reply to Mrs. Kaywood, he stated that parking would have to be pro- vided as the need was present and it would be attempted to do this with surface parking and defer the construction of a parking structure until increased incremental taxes are coming in from other projects in the area. Agency members Seymour and Sneegas entered the Council Chambers (1:15 p.m.) Mr. Thom inquired as to the opinion of the Redevelopment Planning Consultants regarding this proposal. Mr. Fernald replied that in the actual proposal letter there is a clause indicating the possibility that, by mutual consent, the site for the project may be changed. Further, this proposal anticipates some of the planning reflecting new circulation and land use patterns which would increase the size of Anaheim Boulevard in the area of The Telephone Company. It is also important to have new facilities which are large and impressive, visible for the purpose of marketing the area as a redevelopment project. Mr. Watts added that the funding methods included in this proposal would be a mix of tax increment to the extent that the Agency would write down the land costs, or provide parking; but the actual construction costs of this facility would come from lease revenues from the County. Mr. Seymour stated that he found the justifications as recited in the staff report to be rather generalized as they relate to adding credibility and substance to the redevelopment marketing program. In connection with the statement that employment factors of 320 present and 480 future jobs, Mr. Seymour inquired just what one dollar's worth of payroll means to the community's economic picture. He noted that this important information is missing. He stated that when considering the investment of $610,000.00, in return for which the City will not receive any taxes, he felt that additional justification other than the generalizations presented is necessary. Mr. Fernald stated that he would have preferred to present justifications based on economics but there was insufficient time available to prepare this data. Further, he advised that in a redevelopment project the overall goal of revital- ization must be taken into consideration and this overall program includes social and public service. 7 Mr. Ringer pointed out that if the project is approved by the County it would become a major bond issue and the cost benefits should be measured against use of the facility over a 20 to 30 -year period. Mr. Seymour stressed that in return for the $610,000.00 investment, the City is not going to collect taxes and that lie has to weigh this proposal against giving private enterprise the same opportunity and investment, which would, in fact, generate an increase in tax incremental dollars as well as the creation of new jobs. 75 -11 Redevelopment Agency, February 25, 1975, Continued Mr. Fernald voiced the opinion that the comparison to private industry is only relevant if that is the only choice, i.e., if it is an either /or situa- tion. However, he ^ginted out there are not tha' -nany developers willing to construct office buildings in the project area and there is sufficient space to accommodate those who do wish to do so. Mr. Seymour stated that he would prefer then to see the space developed into retail stores, restaurants or housing and stressed that he would feel better about making this investment if he thought it would afford the citizens of Anaheim a better deal and a place to live. I Mr. Fernald advised that the Redevelopment Agency is currently working with a commercial developer who wishes to construct office space and also with four different developers interested in residential construction, but that he felt the redevelopment project area has sufficient space to accommodate all of these plus the proposal under discussion. He added that if the County were to approve the proposed site in Anaheim for this facility, it would provide a valuable service to the potential residents and would be of assistance in bringing about some of the residential projects under discussion. At the conclusion of discussion, Mr. Seymour indicated he would be willing to move for a continuance of one week in order to receive sufficient information, or, if the remainder of the Agency Members were of the opinion they should proceed with the project, he would abstain from voting on the basis that he has not received sufficient information to make this investment decision. Mr. Sneegas stated that he felt it is imperative that something get moving in order to attract more money into the downtown area, and in view of that this is a worthwhile project. On motion by Mrs. Maywood, seconded by Mr. Thom, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency approved the proposal as submitted and instructed staff to submit same to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. To this motion Mr. Seymour voted "no ". MOTION CARRIED. EIGHT -POINT CITIZENS PARTICIPA PROGRAM Mr. Fernald presented the proposed series of policies, which upon adoption would form guidelines for redevelopment staff and commission members to use in the performance of Agency business as follows: 1. Develop a procedure and forms for-obtaining basic information from telephone calls, personal visits and written communications from Project'Area property owners and tenants. 2. Develop a system for filing and retrieval of all information obtained from Project Area property owners and tenants. 3. Conduct an extensive survey of Project Area residents. 4. Publish and distribute a periodic newsletter �t:o Project Area residents to inform them of the Anaheim Redevelopment Program, relocation op- tions, and progress in general. 5. Prepare a leaflet (bilingual) explaining in detail the redevelopment process and timing; acquisition of property; relocation options for property owners and tenants; and other questions of concern. 6. Hold informal public meetings to present progress reports on the planning process. Receive citizen's input to the process and to answer questions about redevelopment. 7. Maintain positive press relations, and encourage participation of the press at all public and publicly announced meetings where elected or appointed officials are invited. 8. The formation of a Project Area Committee with membership representing a cross section of Project. Alpha residents, businessmen and social. leadership. 75 -12 Redevelopment Agency, February 25, 1975, Continued Mr. Fernald reported that approval was recommended unanimously by the Community Redevelopment Commission. On motion by Mr. Seymour, seconded by Mrs. Kaywood, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency adopted the eight -point citizen's participation program as recommended by the Community Redevelopment Commission. MOTION CARRIED. At the conclusion of Mr. Fernald's presentation, Mr. Ron Thompson stated that his department concurs with these proposed policies and if the Agency /Council Members approve, he would like to use the same eight -point program as the guideline for implementing citizen's participation in the Community Development Act program. PROPOSED AMENDED ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BUDGET Mr. Ringer submitted additional copies of the proposed amended budget for the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency fiscal year 1974 -75. The Agency Members indicated they would prefer to take action on this budget at the regular meeting of March 4, 1975. ADJOURNMEN Mrs. Kaywood moved to adjourn. Mr. Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 1:45 P.M. SIGNED: Secretary, Redevelopm t Agency 14�,