Loading...
RA1975/04/15ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY April 15, 1975, (1:00 P.M.) Council Chambers Anaheim City Hall 75 -27 PRESENT: Mrs. Kaywood (arrived 1:10 P.M.), Mr. Seymour, Mr. Pebley, Mr. Sneegas (arrived 1:10 P.M.), and Mr. Thom ---- ABSENT: None PRESENT: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Keith A. Murdoch SECRETARY: Alona M. Hougard CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts ASSISTANT REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Christian Hogenbirk FINANCE DIRECTOR: M. R. Ringer Chairman Thom called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M. PLANNING SERVICES PROPOSAL - VTN FOR CANYON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX: As requested by Mr. Christian Hogenbirk, on motion by Mr. Thom, seconded by Mr. Seymour, consideration of the VTN proposal for Redevelopment Project Alpha Planning Services was deferred to the next regular Agency meeting, May 6, 1975. MOTION CARRIED. PROJECT BETA: Mr. Christian Hogenbirk, Assistant Redevelopment Director, advised that the Redevelopment Commission on March 12, 1975, adopted a resolution to establish the proposed boundaries of Redevelopment Project Beta. On April 14, 1975, these boundaries were approved with modification by the City Planning Commission, also by resolution, thereby concurring with the Community Redevelop- ment Commission, and the project is now presented to the Agency for final approval. Mrs. Kaywood and Mr. Sneegas entered the Council Chamber. (1:10 P.M.) Mr. Hogenbirk exhibited a map showing the boundaries of the proposed Project Area Beta, which would include a total area of 2,755 acres and 2,000 residential structures, 410 commercial struc- tures, 442 industrial facilities, and 55 public buildings. Project Beta, for purposes of easier analysis, has been sub - 'divided into Areas "A" "B" "C" and "D" as follows: Sub -Area "A" is bounded by Broadway, Santa Ana Street, Ball Road, Harbor Boulevard, Lemon Street, and East Street. Sub -Area "B" is bounded by Ball Road, Santa Ana Freeway, easterly and southerly City Limits, Anaheim Boulevard, Haster Street, and Mountainview (includes Anaheim Stadium). Sub -Area "C" is bounded by Euclid Avenue, Crescent Avenue, railroad tracks south of Santa Ana Freeway, Loara Street, Wilshire Avenue, Pearl Street, West Street, Sycamore Street, Citron, Harbor Boulevard, and Santa Ana Street (includes -the Broadway Plaza and Anaheim Union High School). Sub -Area "D" is bounded by Harbor Boulevard, Sycamore Street •-- (including Pearson Park), Lemon Street, Claudina Street, La Palma i Avenue, East Street, and Riverside Freeway. Mr. Hogenbirk briefly described the existing problems within each of these proposed project subdivisions. Generally, the Project ,Beta area has been selected for the following reasons: 1) Mixed use of land; 2) inadequate lot sizes; 3) areas subject to flooding; 4) aged structures; 5) inadequate property maintenance;6) insufficient public utilities; 7) inadequate traffic and pedestrian circulation; 8) deficient streets; 9) impaired economic productivity; 10) declining property values. 75 -2s Redevelopment Agency, April 15, 1975, Continued: Mr. Hogenbirk explained that when the Planning Commission reviewed Project Beta, for access reasons they requested that one additional corridor be included which is referred to as Sub -Area "E" which would provide an additional corridor extending westerly from Project Alpha Area along Lincoln ANtnue, East Street being the westerly boundary and the Orange Freeway the easterly boundary, with northerly and southerly boundaries running generally parallel to Lincoln Avenue, with some deviations to allow for property lines. Analysis of this area indicates it involves 130 acres of land, 660 residences, and 46 commercial and /or industrial enter- prises. IIe noted that the map shown including Sub -Area "E" is the Project Beta which the City Planning Commission recommended for Agency approval. In reply to Chairman Thom's inquiry as to the procedure to be followed for adoption of the proposed. Redevelopment Project Beta, Mr. Watts counseled that the Agency's first action would be adoption by resolution of a proposed project area. Subsequent to that, if the Agency deemed it appropriate to adopt such an area and thereby establish the boundaries, the property owners within the area would be notified of a public hearing. The public hearing would then be held.to determine and inquire into the advantages and disadvantages of creating a Project Beta Area and at that point the Agency Members may also modify the project boundaries if they so desire. Mr. Seymour noted that the proposed Project Beta Area would involve 2,660 single- family residences. He stated that he could understand the need for ingress and egress corridors to service the Redevelopment Project Alpha Area, however, he was familiar with the status of single - family residences in this project area and although he agreed there are a number which are deteriorating and need improved maintenance, the majority of them are in good condition. Therefore, he inquired what the justification is for establishing such a vast Beta Project beyond the corridor question. Mr. Hogenbirk replied that there are currently insufficient housing resources for the purposes of relocation of those residents who will have to be moved from the Alpha Area. Also, some of the neighborhoods were included in Project Beta because of deficiencies which could be corrected and homes upgraded with redevelopment funds in order to improve the City's housing resources. Mr. Seymour inquired why the need to relocate residents from Redevelopment Project Alpha Area to another Redevelopment Project Area and whether this was a legal requirement. Mr. Watts stated that there is no legal requirement for relo- cating from one redevelopment project area to another but if homes are in need of rehabilitation, then the project funds could be utilized to provide the necessary improvements,.as opposed to simply the cost of relocation. Mr. Seymour stated that even if there is this need for reloca- tion housing as stated, 2,660 homes, as proposed in Project Beta, would probably be 2,000 more than necessary. He questioned the need to provide additional redevelopment funds and asked what research has been completed which would demonstrate the amount of funds to be forthcoming from Project Alpha over the next five to seven years. Mr. Hogenbirk replied that this is not known at this time, although the Redevelopment Department is starting on a five to ten year projection. Mr. Seymour stated that he does not feel the Agency needs a Project Beta for tax base purposes, since it is not even known yet what funds can be expected from Project Alpha; that he feels what are needed are some corridors for ingress and egress. He could not justify the establishment of a Project Beta on the basis of the assumption that this is where people will be moved if relocated Redevelopment Agency, April 15, 1975, Continued: 75 -29 from Project Alpha. Therefore, unless these points can be further clarified, the only Project Beta which he intends to approve is one which sets forth only traffic corridors to provide for circulation; that until such time as the citizens are able to see something specific being developed in Project Alpha, he could see no viability in creating any other project areas. Mr. Hogenbirk stated that they had considered the possibility of including just corridors, however, under State Law and it is required that a project area show a certain amount of justification in terms of blight. ! Mr. Sneegas and Mr. Pebley both declared that they own prop- - erty within the boundaries of proposed Project Beta and Mr. Watts ruled that it would be permissible for them, having declared their interest, to participate in the discussion leading to the possible creation of a project area, however, if a project area were created, they may have to abstain from any specific action which might involve their properties. Mr. Seymour stated that he would have to come to the defense of those homeowners living on Clifton, Charlotte, Florence, Susanne, and Narda Streets, stating that the homes in this area are very nice residences and the general area a good neighborhood. He stated that it is possible to find homes with deferred maintenance in any part of the City. In response to Mr. Pebley, Mr. Hogenbirk stated that Sub -Area "B" was included because of the existence of new industrial and commercial buildings which would accrue tax increment funds. Mr. Pebley voiced the opinion that by including these prop- erties in a redevelopment area, it raises the likelihood that.the County Tax Assessor will increase the property taxes. Mr." Murdoch stated that in addition to the reasons given by the Assistant Redevelopment Director for including these various areas within Project Beta, there is also the theory that when improving access it is not just that property immediately adjacent which benefits from this improvement, and it is recommended that all properties which would.'receive a direct gain from a redevelop- ment improvement should be included within the boundaries of the project area. Mr. Ringer advised that the County Tax Assessor has not to date set forth any figures upon which the needed Project Alpha revenue forecasts can be made. Mr. Seymour agreed there was logic to Mr. Murdoch's statement, however, he finds it extremely difficult to consider a Beta project based on the rationale given which will place 2,660 single - family homes into a redevelopment project area. Chairman Thom called for comments from the remaining Agency Members as to how they wished to proceed. Mr. Sneegas declared that he owns some residential and indus- trial property located in the proposed Sub -Area "A ". He stated that he has difficulty accepting the expansion of the redevelopment project area with the addition of Beta Area when there is .nothing visible occurring in Alpha. He indicated he certainly could see the need for accessways, but could not see the justification for including the massive areas proposed, particularly Area "E ", from which there was so much public opposition expressed during the original public hearing on Project Alpha. He stated that he did not think the public is ready to accept this additional project area until they have a better idea of the City's intent in Project Alpha. 75 -30 Redevelopment Agency, April 15, 1975, Continued: At the conclusion of discussion, Chairman Thom, noting that several of the Agency Members have indicated an intent to dramati- cally modify the proposed Project Beta Area, inquired whether the Agency wished to set it for public hearing as it is or refer the project back to staff for modification i -ior to setting the hearing date. It was determined that the proposal should be referred back to staff. Chairman Thom declared for the record that he has a lease -hold interest, as a corporate officer, in property within the area designated as Sub -Area "D ". Mr. Sneegas clarified that his reservations include a very great Concern over the impact of freezing the tax increment dollars, especially on school and city budgets, and inasmuch as the costs for these agencies are increasing he questioned what affect the freezing of tax increment funds in the Redevelopment Project Areas would have on their ability to operate, and if any additional necessary funds would have to be paid by those living and doing business outside of the Project Areas. Mr. Murdoch replied that if there is such an adverse effect as described by Mr. Sneegas, it would apply to all properties both in- side and outside of the Redevelopment Areas; any obligation would be district -wide. He noted that this is one of the factors under consideration from the standpoint of the City budget. Mrs. Kaywood suggested that since there seems to be a wide divergence of opinion on the subject of Project Beta, that a joint meeting of the Agency, Redevelopment Commission, and City Planning Commission be scheduled. During discussion as to the length of deferment, Mr. Watts explained that if a project area is not established by July 1, 1975, the beginning of the tax year, then there possibly would be a delay of three years. ... .On motion by Mr. Sneegas, seconded by Mrs. Kaywood, the deci- sion on establishment of boundaries for Project Beta was deferred to the next regular Redevelopment Agency meeting, May 6, 1975. MOTION CARRIED. "STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ANAHEIM MARKET AREA" - CLAUDE POMEROY AND ASSOCIATES: The report titled, "Statistical Analysis of the Anaheim Market Area" together with a preliminary evaluation of same by staff which was approved by the Anaheim Redevelopment Commission at-their April 9, 1975 meeting was submitted for Agency consider- ation. Also submitted was correspondence from Mr..Louis Dexter, 305 North Ranchito Street, Anaheim, dated April 12, 1975, endorsing the action taken by the Community Redevelopment Commission on Wednesday, April 9, 1975, when they rejected the regional shopping center con- cept for the downtown area. Mr. Claude Pomeroy, 456 Mariposa Drive, Anaheim, read a state- ment in rebuttal to the April 11, 1975 staff evaluation submitted. (A verbatim copy of Mr. Pomeroy's statement is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) At the conclusion of Mr. Pomeroy's statement, Chairman Thom summarized that as he understands Mr. Pomeroy's position, his original report - "A Statistical Analysis of the Anaheim Market Area ", is still on record and Mr. Pomeroy disagrees with the staff evaluation of same to date, but intends to withdraw at the present time and will make further comment when material with more definable parameters is submitted by the Redevelopment Agency consulting firms. 75 -31 Redevelopment Agency, April 15, 1975, Continued: Chairman Thom called for comments from staff regarding Mr. Pomeroy's rebuttal, and Mr. Hogenbirk advised that they would prefer to meet independently with Mr. Pomeroy on some of the issues discussed, rather than making a public rebuttal at this time. MINUTES: On motion by Chairman Thom, seconded by Mrs. Kaywood, the minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency adjourned regular meeting of April 8, 1975, were approved as corrected (typographical errors). MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Sneegas moved to adjourn. Mrs. Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 2:04 P.M. SIGNED )�12. Secretary, Redevelopment Agency