Loading...
RA1975/05/06Redevelopment Agency, May 6, 1975, Continued: 75 -37 On motion by Mr. Seymour, seconded by Mr. Sneegas, the Redevelopment Agency authorized the expenditure of $1,000 for joint participation in the study to be performed by Anderson, Heiss & Hughes as recommended by the Community Redevelopment Commission. MCj!ION CARRIED. AIR CONDITIONING - CHARTRES RECREATION CENTER: Mr. Fernald submitted a staff report regarding air conditioning at the Chartres Recreation Center which is used primarily for senior citizens' activities. Mr. Fernald advised that the report concludes that there is no question as to the legitimacy of this expense from redevelopment funds, however, the matter may become one of priority. The structure has a life expectancy of approximately 25 additional years. The report indicates that in order to obtain more detailed information on the structure in terms of earthquake safety, that a structural analysis should most likely be performed. Mr. Fernald reported that the Community Redevelopment Commis- sion recommends that due to absence of a detailed redevelopment plan, that the decision be deferred for six months and, further, in the event that the structure should fit the.downtown plan, a detailed structural analysis be undertaken before the decision on air conditioning is made. Mr. Murdoch presented some additional information from the Chief Building Inspector based on his review of the original plans for the structure and he concluded that the building was constructed in 1954 and has a wood frame designed to meet the existing Building Code in 1954. Further, Mr. Van Dorpe feels the structure would not be hazardous and would not require further analysis unless there are major structural changes planned. In his opinion the building will meet the requirements for a public building, however, if the decision is to proceed with the air conditioning, the structural members which would support this equipment would need a more detailed inspection, and this could be made a part of the air conditioning design contract. During discussion, Agency Members voiced the opinion that the air conditioning project should proceed immediately so it would be installed prior to the summer months and that such a commitment had been made by the Council at the time of the Community Develop- ment hearings. Mr. Fernald reported that both the Redevelopment staff and the Community Redevelopment Commission feel that in the planning process this structure is definitely.anticipated to have a long life, and that they do not anticipate its removal. Mrs. Kaywood entered the Council Chamber. (10:55 A.M.) Brief discussion ensued relative to the sum originally requested for the air conditioning installation and it was deter- mined that the project could be approved in concept, with budget approval subject to a more accurate estimate of the cost, once the designs are drawn. On motion by Mr. Thom, seconded by Mr.. Seymour, the Redevelop- ment Agency approved a project to air condition the Chartres Recreation Center in concept and instructed staff to proceed with implementation of same by the preparation of design drawings for competitive bids. Mr. Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. ANAHEIM CIVIC THEATRE: Mr. Fernald reported that following a number of meetings with the Chief Building Inspector and Parks, Recreation and the Arts Director, and review of potential structures for use by the Ana - Modjeska Players, it appears that the former United States National Bank building located on the south side of Lincoln .Avenue, east of Harbor Boulevard, is probably the best possibility for adaptation to this use. 75 -38 Redevelopment Agency, May 6, 1975, Continued: Mr. Fernald requested 30 days and a budget of $2,000 to enable the Redevelopment Department to put together a complete package for this proposal which would include preliminary title policy, structural analysis, preliminary plans, construction estimate, project budget, and time schedule. On motion by Mr. Seymour, seconded by Mr. Sneegas, the Redevelopment Agency authorized the planning preparation of a redevelopment project to remodel the former United States National Bank building for use as the Anaheim Civic Theatre with a budget of $2,000. Mr. Pebley absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONTINUED REPORT - PROJECT BETA: Mr. Fernald reported that pursuant to the Redevelopment Agency's approval of Project Beta boundaries at the special meeting of April 29, 1975, the City Planning Commis- sion pursuant to their Resolution No. PC75 -96, formulated the Redevelopment Project Beta preliminary plan for the purpose of studying Redevelopment Project Beta to supply transportation corridors to Redevelopment Project Alpha. Mr. Slaughter advised that no further action is required of the Agency at this point, that this preliminary plan is automati- cally referred to the Community Redevelopment Commission. Mr. Fernald advised that the public hearing is scheduled to take place on July 1, 1975 and will require that the Redevelopment Agency /City Council, Community Redevelopment Commission and City Planning Commission participate. He related that prior to this public hearing all property owners within the project boundaries will be notified and several meetings will be held, and a project area committee will be formed. Mr. Seymour indicated that he felt the public hearing on Pro- ject Beta should be held before July 1, 1975, preferably before school vacations begin and during the evening hours to ensure maximum citizen participation. Mr. Fernald advised that the Department is proceeding on a very tight schedule and because of the 30 -day notification require- ment under Redevelopment Law, and the other documents which must be prepared, as well as the fact that the project area committee will not be in operation for three to four more weeks, it would be very unlikely that the public hearing could be held before July 1, 1975. He noted that July 1, 1975 is also the latest public hearing -date on which the ordinance establishing the project area, if it is deemed appropriate to do so following public hearing, could be adopted and effective for the next tax year. Mr. Fernald further advised that members of the office staff are available and would meet with any of the residents to provide information and answer any questions they might have prior to the public hearing. Further discussion was held by the Agency as to an appropriate site for the public hearing and it was determined that the Chartres Recreation Center, because of its location and capacity to accommo- date approximately 250 people, would be mast appropriate. Mrs. Ferguson, 411 South Indiana Street, Anaheim, and Mrs. Flynn, 322 South Ohio Street, Anaheim, were invited to comment by the Chairman, and they both expressed adamant objection to their homes being included in a redevelopment project. They requested that the public hearing be held before July 1, 1975 since many families will be on vacation once school is out. They voiced their concerns about being included in a redevelopment project area since they feel this will disrupt the viable family area because of real estate speculation. They were further con- cerned over the fact that their tax monies will be going to the Redevelopment Agency and not to school districts and other public agencies. They stressed the fact that the homes in their neighbor- hood are in bec�:er cc;ndition tian most cf those in the remainder Redevelopment Agency, May 6, 1975, Continued: 75 -39 of the City. They further objected to the 30 -day notification being given, stating that this is not sufficient time to circulate petitions and otherwise organize opposition to the project. They requested that the Agency take action this date to remove their neighborhood from any consideration of being in Redevelopment Project Beta. They described the area which they were concerned about as being bounded by Broadway and Santa Ana Street on the north and south, and Citron Street over to and including those residences on both sides of West Street. Chairman Thom advised that actually there is no Project Beta until the public hearing and at that time decision on whether to establish Beta will be made and the boundaries can be modified to exclude any of the areas being considered. Mrs. Kaywood noted that the project area committee meetings are scheduled for May 14 and 28, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the Chartres Recreation Center and she urged that interested citizens attend to obtain information on the project and participate on the committee. Mr. Slaughter advised that the redevelopment process gives the City the ability to upgrade and maintain a viable community area, and further advised that if it is the power of eminent domain that worries the residents this can be waived by the Agency at the time that the project is established. MOTION: Mr. Seymour moved that the originally scheduled public meetings, at which time the benefits of redevelopment would be explained to the citizens and taxpayers of Project Beta, be moved ahead of schedule; also that the public hearing to be held by the Redevelopment Agency be conducted during the evening hours and prior to school vacation; with the expressed purpose being at this meeting to delete from Project Beta those residential areas. discussed at the Agency meeting of April 29, 1975. Mr. Thom seconded -the motion. j Mrs. Kaywood stated that it is her belief that alley improve- ments and certain other improvements in the older neighborhoods are absolutely necessary, however, budget after budget there are different priorities and redevelopment funds may be the only way to accomplish these improvements. Mr. Seymour disagreed that these single - family structures should have to be placed in a redevelopment project area to accom- plish those improvements. Mr. Sneegas and Mrs. Kaywood both felt that it is important that the individual citizens be informed and aware of the possibil- ities, potentialities, and ramifications of being in a redevelop- ment project before any action is taken by the Agency to delete them from same. Mrs. Kaywood stressed that at the time of the public hearing, if the citizens involved indicate they still do not wish their neighborhood to be included, once they know the facts, then it can be deleted at that time. In response to the foregoing motion, Mr. Fernald advised that his staff had informed him the earliest possible date which public hearing could be held would be June 27, 1975 and that the project area committee meetings are already scheduled for May 14, and 28, 1975 and the notices prepared and ready to be sent out in the next two days. Mr. Fernald pointed out in regard to changes in project area boundaries, that this would require a change in the citizens to be notified, as well as in the participation on the project area committees. He suggested that if the Agency is not certain that the project boundaries are appropriate, perhaps the whole project should still be in the preliminary plan phase and not prepared for adoption until the next assessment year. 75 -40 Redevelopment Agency, May 6, 1975, Continued: Mr. Seymour stated that he did not wish to delay Project Beta for another year but that he felt the Agency Members should recon- sider the decision made at the April 29, 1975 meeting when they approved Project Beta boundaries which included so many single - family residences. He felt that the Age.i.:y Members will realize more and more from the citizens' reactions, as evidenced by the two ladies present at this meeting today, that they have m;ide a mistake which should be rectified; that there is no justification for including the majority of these single - family residences in a redevelopment project. He further pointed out that the inclusion of such a high percentage of single - family residential units in Beta may jeopardize the community's currently favorable opinion of Project Alpha. Mr. Thom asked how an action to modify these boundaries would affect the time schedule which culminates in public hearing on July 1, 1975. Mr. Fernald voiced the opinion that an action at this time to delete a portion of the project or change the boundaries would probably put the Beta Project into the next assessment year. Mrs. Kaywood felt the action taken on April 29, 1975 was still correct, in that the people living in these areas will be given the opportunity to learn what the redevelopment project is about, and then once having the information if they wish to have their area removed from the project, this can be accomplished at the public hearing. She observed from some of the comments made by Mrs. Flynn and Mrs. Ferguson that these ladies have not yet been accurately informed as to the redevelopment process, and that they may feel differently about it once they receive the infor- mation. Following extensive discussion on the ramifications of moving the dates of the informational meetings and public hearing forward, no vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Mr. Seymour requested that the Redevelopment staff describe specifically why they could not meet the July 1, 1975 deadline for public hearing, if the Agency Members were to take an action at this time to delete specific portions of Project Beta area. Mr. Hogenbirk explained some of the mechanical problems . involved, and Mr. Slaughter advised that there may be legal problems as well with this action. Mr. Slaughter offered to call the Redevelopment Agency's special counsel in Los Angeles for further advice on this matter and report back to the Agency Members at their regular meeting at 1:00 p.m. today. Mr. Seymour assured those concerned citizens present that he sincerely feels that the majority of the Redevelopment Agency /City Council Members will bend to the will of the people and that although they may have made a decision last week with which they are not happy, they will find a way to rectify the situation, since he has yet to see them deny the will of the people. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Seymour moved to adjourn. Mrs. Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 11:50 A.M. SIGNED � )'y�, ���� Secretary, Reobvelopment Agency ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY May 6, 1975, (1:00 P.M.) Council Chamber Anaheim City Hall 75 -41 PRESENT: Mrs. Kaywood, i4r. Seymour, Mr. Pebley, Mr. Sneegas and Mr. Thom „-„ ABSENT: None PRESENT: ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: William Hopkins DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Malcolm Slaughter SECRETARY: Alona M. Hougard REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Knowlton Fernald Chairman Thom called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes of the adjourned regular Agency meeting of April 15, 1975 was deferred to the next regular meeting. PLANNING SERVICES PROPOSAL WITH VTN: (Continued from the meetings of April 1, and April 15, 1975.) As requested by the Redevelopment Director, the planning services proposal with VTN Consolidated, Inc., was removed from the Redevelopment Agency Agenda, to be rescheduled at a later time, on motion by Mr. Thom, seconded by Mr. Seymour. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION FOR CREATION OF POSITION - INTERMEDIATE TYPIST CLERK - ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: Mr. Fernald submitted a memorandum to the Agency which had previously been reviewed and received con- currence by the Community Redevelopment Commission, presenting the justification for creation of one additional position in the Redevelopment staff - Intermediate Typist Clerk, and requesting authorization for employment thereof. On motion by Mr. Seymour, seconded by Airs. Kaywood, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency approved the creation of one additional Intermediate Typist Clerk position for the Anaheim Redevelopment Department and further authorized employment of personnel to fill said position. MOTION CARRIED. COMMENTS - REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER CONCEPT - LOUIS DEXTER: -Mr. Louis Dexter, 305 North Ranchito Street, Anaheim, California, 92801, submitted and read a prepared statement to the Agency on the subject of the regional shopping center concept for downtown Anaheim as presented by Mr. Claude Pomeroy. (Complete statement on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Mr. Dexter's comments were in general support of the staff and Community Redevelopment Commission's analyses of Mr. Pomeroy's proposal. In discussion with the Agency Members, Mr. Dexter voiced the opinion that the appropriate vehicle for implementation of Mr. Pomeroy's proposal would be private enterprise and not the Redevelopment Agency. Chairman Thom thanked Mr. Dexter for his statement and for the interest expressed in the redevelopment effort. REPORT - DISCUSSION WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL - MODIFICATION OF PROJECT BETA BOUNDARIES: Pursuant to direction given by the Anaheim Redevelop- s ment Agency at the adjourned special meeting of May 6, 1975, 10:30 a.m., Mr. Slaughter reported that he had telephoned the special counsel to the Redevelopment Agency and had spoken with Mr. Kane of Mr. Jacobs' Office. lie related that there is in Redevelopment Law a provision whereby the Planning Commission may, prior to the Agency public hearing, change the boundaries of the project area with the approval of the Agency. Therefore, if there is some change which the Agency desires, they should convey that to the Planning Cor:.::i__icn for their consideration sna determination. 75 -42 Redevelopment Agency, May 6, 1975, Continued: The conveyance could be in the form of a motion, but he added that the modification which the Agency wishes made should be accurately described and should identify precisely what properties are con- cerned. Mr. Slaughter also cautioned that once any area is removed from the proposed project it would be extremely difficult to re- institute should that ultimately be the Agency's desire. He did not think these difficulties could be overcome to replace properties so deleted in the current assessment year. If this were the case, those areas would have to be formulated into separate redevelopment projects, and if the projected economics, income and tax increments are not sufficient to support a redevelopment project in and of itself, it would be unrealistic to create one. He further noted that there are potential changes in the Redevelopment Law which will preclude the establishment of non - contiguous redevelopment areas. Mr. Seymour reiterated that his concern remains as it was on April 29, 1975, when the boundaries for Project Beta were originally approved, and noted that he suggested at that time that large numbers of people would be extremely upset because their homes were placed in Project Beta. He stated that he would like to see the elimination wherever possible of single - family residences from Project Beta based on the fact that: (1) That they do not contri- bute large sums of money to tax increment financing. (2) The assumption that all potential redevelopment in these areas is 7 to 10 years in the future. (3) There is a viable alternative to accomplish these same objectives through the Community Development Program. Mr. Seymour urged Agency Members to consider elimination of residential neighborhoods from Beta since he is much more interested in attaining some clear -cut objectives in Project Alpha than he is in loading the Council Chamber with irate citizens. Mr. Thom observed that the problem is admittedly a political one and suggested that it is a decision of whether or not the Agency /Council Members wish to expend their energies and time in attempting to communicate with 1,000 individual residents who are opposed to the project or do they wish to devote this time and energy towards the major objectives. Mrs. Kaywood stated she would not hesitate to delete areas from the Beta Project, after the people have heard the facts and have reviewed what is proposed. Mr. Seymour disagreed that any of the property owners cur- rently designated as being in Project Beta would agree to remain in that project after the informational hearings are held. Mr. Sneegas asked Mr. Seymour if,.from his knowledge of the real estate business, he was aware of any danger or difficulty to the single- family property owner by being included in a redevelop - ment project. Mr. Seymour replied that it could be difficult for them to obtain refinancing on their homes because of being labeled as being in a redevelopment area. However, he stressed that to his knowledge this has not yet occured in Project Alpha. Mr. Seymour was of the opinion that the political issue is the important factor and that too often government decides for people what is best for them, whether they like it or not. Mr. Sneegas pointed out that the decision on establishment of Project Beta has not yet been made and suggested that by excluding these certain portions before the hearing this will consolidate and reinforce the fear held by individuals whose properties remain in Project. �et:?. 11� { 1 Redevelopment Agency, May 6, 1975, Continued: 75 -43 Mr. Fernald suggested that the Redevelopment Agency reconsider the matter of deletions from Project Beta next week, at which time his staff would provide aerial photographs and further input to assist in determining the areas they desire to remove from the project. Mr. Seymour requested also that Mr. Fernald invite those citizens who attend the two informational meetings planned to be held during this week to the Agency meeting on May 13, 1975, at 1:00 P.M. when these matters will be discussed. To assist staff in preparation for that meeting, Mr. Slaughter questioned whether the Agency wishes them to disregard blight in single - family residential areas which otherwise appear to be viable. Mr. Seymour stated that if those structures or problems could be rehabilitated by using Community Development or perhaps by Redevelopment at some future date, then he felt they could be excluded. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Seymour moved to adjourn to 1:00 P.M., May 13, 1975. Mrs. Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 1:35 P.M. SIGNED: / 2j7_ " Secretary, Redevel ment Agency