Loading...
RA1975/05/1375 -44 ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY May 13, 1975, (1:00 P.M.) Council Chamber Anaheim City Hall Adjourned Regular Meeting PRESENT: Mrs. Kaywood, Mr. Seymour, Mr. Pebley, Mr. Sneegas and Mr. Thom ABSENT: None PRESENT: CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, King, Tolar, Gauer and Morley ABSENT: CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Johnson PRESENT: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Keith A. Murdoch SECRETARY: Alona M. Hougard CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Knowlton Fernald ASSISTANT REDEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Christian Hogenbirk ZONING SUPERVISOR: Charles Roberts The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency met in adjourned regular meeting called by Mayor Thom together with the Anaheim City Planning Commission for the purposes of discussion of possible modification to Project Beta boundaries. Chairman Thom and Chairman Herbst called.the regular adjourned session of the Redevelopment Agency and City Planning Commission respectively to order at 1:00 P.M. Mr. Murdoch noted that prior to this meeting Mr. Fernald and himself had the opportunity to meeting with many of "the property owners in Project Beta, the purpose of these meetings being to consider possible modification of some boundaries. As the result of this meeting Mr. Fernald will present a recommendation for modification of a portion of Project Beta which is entirely resi- dential in nature. Mr. Fernald advised that they had met with 29 families and noted that their residences are identified in blue on the map exhibit posted. He advised that 21 of them live in the area -bounded by Santa Ana Street, the alley south of Broadway, Citron Street and West Street. Basically, all of the people with whom they have talked indicated they would prefer to be removed from the project area. Therefore,'the recommendation is to delete from the Project Beta area that section bounded by Citron, West, Santa Ana, and the alley south of Broadway, which was indicated in red on the posted exhibit. This area is not necessary for the redevelop- ment of the downtown area and was basically included for potential community enhancement. Further, there are two additional areas the agency may'wish to consider for deletion, shown in yellow, which lie on the southerly edge of Broadway and at the alley northerly of Broadway. The residents of these areas raised objec- tions to being included as well. The problem with exclusion of these areas is that Broadway is one of the few streets in the City which connects across the freeway as a cross -town street and will most likely experience an increase in traffic whether there is redevelopment or not. It was originally the intention that this corridor be incorporated so that a better solution for the City and residents might be worked out. Mr. Fernald concluded that it was never the intent to remove existing viable residential communi- ties and replace them with commercial, however, they could be enhanced and their quality improved over a period of years through . redevelopment .efforts. Mr. Fernald advised that the Community _Redevelopment Commission recommendation is to amend the boundaries to exclude the residential area as described above and outlined in red, but they do feel it would be appropriate to retain the Broad- way corridor within the Project Beta arEu,. 75 -45 Redevelopment Agency, May 13, 1975, Continued: Mr. Murdoch inquired whether any minor improvements necessary to Broadway could be accomplished without the necessity of includ- ing these areas on both sides of Broadway in Project Beta. Mr. Fernald replied affirmatively and related that these properties were included because it was felt a better solution might be re- solved in this x anner than with the noimal street widening project.. Chairman Thom called for questions or comments from the Planning Commission or Agency members. Commissioner Herbst wished to clarify, for the record,.that at the time the Planning Commission motion was made for approval of the Beta boundaries, a condition was tied to that approval that Alpha was the City Planning Commission's main objective and that all funds derived from the tax increment from Beta would be spent on development of corridors only. If this cannot be accomplished then he felt that an alternate plan should be developed showing just the corridors; that the Planning Commission requested such alternates from staff but never received them. Chairman Thom concurred that the first intent for urban redevelopment since approximately 1954 or 1955 has been the decay- ing center section of the City. Mr. Fernald stated that a series of alternatives was prepared and considered at the last Planning Commission meeting and even though they were not in the form the Commissioners desired, they were presented and discussed. Commissioner Herbst disagreed, stating that he has never seen anything on paper except for the corridors as originally proposed and as Project Beta is currently defined. Mr. Pebley inquired: (1) Why the entire City limits, were not included in the Beta boundaries for corridors since it appears not too much has been left out; and (2) Could Project Alpha succeed without Beta? Mr. Fernald stated that in his opinion and in that of the consultants, Alpha will be very difficult to achieve without a project like Beta. In response to Mr. Pebley's first question, Mr. Fernald stated that they did attempt to keep Project Beta as small as possible yet allow it to do the job necessary. He further explained some of the constraints imposed by legal and planning considerations in attempting to set these boundaries. Mr. Seymour interjected that the purpose of this meeting was to receive some public input, based upon which the Redevelopment Agency would consider reversing its original decision and realign- ing the geographical limitations of Project Beta, and urged that the meeting move towards the public input segment. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Chairman Thom chaired a public discussion of both Projects Alpha and Beta, during which he gave interested members of the audience an opportunity to speak. The participants spoke from the audience and none of them identified themselves. Basic points covered in this discussion were: (1) Why the City is proposing a Beta project when they cannot at this time tell the citizens what they propose in Alpha; (2) That the Project Area Committee process would be more acceptable to the citizens if this Committee were more than just an advisory body and if they had some veto power; (3) That the citizens felt the proposed project should be put to a vote of the general electorate since it is of concern and will affect them all; (4) With reference to the Agency's contention at the last meeting that the public should first have the information as to what a redevelopment project. consists of and the process itself and then the citizens could determine for themselves whether or not they wished to be included, one lady advised of the steps she had taken to inform herself and 75 -46 Redevelopment Agency, May 13, 1975, Continued: felt that the project would be a "rip -off" for which the citizens and taxpayers would pay many times over; (5) One gentlemen took exception to the comparisons drawn between Anaheim and San Diego in the redevelopment Beta report presented to the Agency, stating that these cities were not commensurable; (6) That the lack of parking and use of parking meters in the downtown area is the reason for its abandonment by the buying public; (7) One gentlemen representing properties at 425 -431 South West Street indicated he had spoken with all of the neighbors on his block and all were thoroughly opposed to being included in the project area; further, he was personally insulted by the inference in the notification he received that his property was environmentally deficient; (8) Explanation of the method of financing involved, i.e., the freezing of tax increment dollars for redevelopment purposes; (9) Concern was expressed regarding those senior citizens in the older areas of the City who have put money into their residential prop- erties and also those who rent apartments and what will become of these people. During the public discussion segment of the meeting, it was explained by Mr. Fernald and several Agency Members that the establishment of boundaries for Project Beta initiates a process wherein a series of public decisions would be made through the Project Area Committee. He advised that the first scheduled meeting to establish such Committee for Project Beta is May 14, 1975, 7:30 p.m. at the Chartres Recreation Center. At that time 10 members would be elected to the Project Area Committee. It is necessary to establish boundaries first so that there are legal perimeters for notification purposes, however these boundaries are tentative only, and can be modified at the public hearing in July, 1975. In reply to comments made as to why Alpha was originally set up as a self contained project, Mr. Sneegas explained that this project was established some time before a Redevelopment Director and consultants were hired. Now that the planning has begun it has become obvious from discussion with potential developers that there is concern regarding access into the downtown area. He also pointed out that access corridors were discussed when Alpha was originally put together and a segment from downtown moving easterly on Lincoln Avenue was originally included for access purposes, but then deleted at the public hearing because of opposition. Mr. Sneegas stated that what the Beta Project planning process attempts to.do is to involve in the decisions those people who are directly affected by Beta rather than, as suggested, submitting the matter for decision by the general electorate. This is the reason boundaries must be established so that these people whose properties are actually involved can be notified and participate in the process. For the record, Mr. Sneegas again declared he owned three parcels within the proposed Beta boundaries. Towards the conclusion of discussion, Chairman Thom asked if it would be safe to conclude that those present in the Chamber would prefer to see no redevelopment activity take place anywhere in the City and the result was an overwhelming "yes ". One gentleman stated that Anaheim is and has been primarily a residential community, and that what the citizens do not want to �+ see as a result of redevelopment activity in Anaheim is a situation such as was created in Los Angeles at Century City - a high rise development surrounded by slums. At the conclusion of the public discussion, Mr. Seymour reiterated.the position he had taken on.this matter two to three weeks ago, i.e., that he very strongly opposes the inclusion of the large number of single - family residences as proposed in Project Beta for the following reasons: (1) In his opinion they are not needed to effectively redevelop Projects Alpha or Beta; (2) they would 75 -47 Redevelopment Agency, May 13, 1975, Continued: contribute little or nothing to tax increment financing that would further Project Alpha; (3) Most of these residential neighborhoods are not in the need of redevelopment; a more correct vehicle for improvement where needed would be rehabilitation with Community Development Act Funds; (4) Any redevelopment project in these residential areas, such as street improvements, sewers, street lights, etc., in the opinion of the Redevelopment Director would not occur for seven to ten years. Mr. Seymour, therefore, was of the opinion that the Redevelop - ment Agency should make every attempt to remove all the single - family residences as possible from Project Beta. Mr. Seymour pointed out that the opposition to redevelopment demonstrated before the Agency today could very likely jeopardize the Alpha Project which he felt is important and will ultimately benefit all of the citizens. Therefore, he felt that it is time to take the steps necessary to remove residential family areas from Beta and get back to the original concept of the Planning Commission, that of providing access corridors only.. Mr. Watts counseled that the Redevelopment Act does provide that if, prior to the time the notices of public hearing are sent out, the Planning Commission desires to change the boundaries of the proposed project area they may do so with the approval of the Redevelopment Agency. Chairman Herbst concurred that what Project Alpha needs is access for traffic in some reasonable fashion from the freeways. He suggested that Lincoln Avenue, Broadway, Harbor Boulevard, and Anaheim Boulevard be considered for this access pattern and that if boundaries were set just at the necessary width for these streets, this would have a minimum impact on the residents of the City. He advised, however, that he personally would like to have alternatives and additional time to review the impact of these corridors. . Commissioner Farano indicated his agreement with this sugges- tion. He noted that the City Planning Commission has been working with Project Beta for only two and one -half months and inspite of requests for alternatives, none have been received. He advised that if the Agency Members feel as Mr. Seymour indicated he would suggest that they disregard the time constraints outlined to realize tax increments from the 1975 -76 Fiscal Year and refer Project Beta back to the Planning Commission for study, and direct staff to prepare some alternatives with which the Planning Commis- sion can work. He also felt it would be beneficial if, prior to issuance of notice of any public hearings on Project Beta, that the staff lay out a specific schedule as to how the formulation of this project takes place. He added that the Planning Commission, having worked with Project Beta for two and one -half months is just beginning to grasp what it is all about, and he could not frankly see what the public, via a project area committee, could do with it in only the five weeks remaining to the July public hearing. Chairman Herbst polled the remaining Commission Members for their opinion as to whether or not they would wish further time to review and study the alternatives for Project Beta and would they recommend that the Agency refer the matter back to them, with the following results: Ayes: Gauer, Morley, King, Farano, and Herbst Noes: Tolar Absent: Johnson Chairman Herbst stated that in his even though the Planning Commission may only make recommendations to the Redevelop- ment Agency on this project and the Agency holds the public hearing at which the decision is made, he felt the Planning Commission meetings on this project should also be in the form of public hearings. 75 -48 Redevelopment Agency, May 13, 1975, Continued: Mr. Watts advised that the Planning Commission meetings are public meetings and certainly to the extent the Planning Commission wishes to receive public input they are at liberty to do so and also to put out whatever publication they wish to make certain that people in the community are aware of the meeting and have an opportunity to respond. Mr. Pebley voiced the opinion that if he had known, when Alpha was originally proposed, that Beta would encompass all of this land area, he would have voted against it. He inquired whether Project Alpha would be carried on if Beta were dropped altogether, to which Mr. Fernald replied that they would continue with Alpha as best they could under those circumstances. Mr. Seymour stated that if any member of the Planning Commis- sion or public thinks that Alpha could exist on its own without a Beta Project to provide access corridors, they are not being honest with themselves. Furthermore, he noted that lines and boundaries on exhibits such as are posted cannot be changed without due consideration to what is transpiring outside of those lines. MOTION: Mr. Seymour thereupon moved that the Anaheim Redevel- opment Agency refer Project Beta as submitted back to the City Planning Commission for additional study and to direct them to, in fact, define the corridors which would primarily-provide access to Project Alpha. Mr. Murdoch noted that the public representation at this meeting today is primarily from one residential area within pro- posed Project Beta, but there are a considerable amount of prop- erties included in Beta in addition to residential properties. He indicated that he is concerned regarding the indication that the Agency is willing to,forego this year's timing. He stated that if it is the Agency's intent to remove specific areas from Beta, but still proceed with it as a project to support the activity of Alpha, this would, in his opinion still be able to be accomplished within this year's deadline. He stated that although money is not every consideration, it is very important to the success or failure of Project Alpha. He recommended the Planning Commission move quickly in removing those areas which they feel should not be included in Beta. The alternative would be to recommend the dropping of Project Beta. Commissioner Gauer concurred with Councilman Pebley's remarks; that Project Alpha could and should proceed without Project Beta. Commissioner Farano advised that they had been told of a proposed development study which has been undertaken on Project Alpha which he felt. should perhaps be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to working on its corridors. Mr. Seymour amended his foregoing motion to refer Project Beta as submitted back to the City Planning Commission for addi- tional study and review of alternatives which would primarily provide access corridors to Project Alpha to include the stipula- tion that the Planning Commission should meet as soon as possible to receive public input and if they can accomplish this and formu- late their recommendation within the time frame for the 1975 -76 Fiscal Year tax assessment, then they should attempt to do so, recognizing that further modifications can be made at the public hearing on July 1, 1975. Mr. Thom seconded the motion. MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. Mrs. Kaywood related that her reasoning two weeks ago when voting in favor of the proposed project boundaries was due to the manner in which the law is written, which makes it more sensible to include a larger area since there is the option of dropping portions of it if the people so indicate at the public hearing that they are opposed; however, there is no way to include addi- tional portions at that time. 75 -49 Redevelopment Agency, May 13, 1975, Continued: Mr. Sneegas suggested that the citizens give some thought to the fact that the Project Area Committee which will play an effec- tive role in decisions to be made about Project Beta, will be made up only of property owners within the project area, and that by excluding all of the single- family residential property, this removes their voice in something which could still indirectly or directly affect their property. Mr. Fernald announced that the meeting scheduled for May 14, 1975, 7:30 p.m., at the Chartres Recreation Center would still be held, although there would now'be no necessity for electing a project area committee at this time. The City Planning Commission determined they would conduct a public work session at the same time to consider refinement of Project Beta boundaries. ADJOURNMENT - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION: Commissioner Morley moved to adjourn to- Wednesday, May 14, 1975, 7:30 P.M. at the Chartres Recreation Center. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - AGENCY: Mr. Sneegas moved to adjourn. Mrs. Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 2:45 P.M. SIGNED Secretary, Redevelo ent Agency