Loading...
RA1975/10/28ANAHEIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION October 28, 1975, (1:00 P.M.) Council Chamber Anaheim City Hall 75 -101 PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas (arrived 1:05) and Thom. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PRESENT: INTERIM ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William Griffith CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Knowlton Fernald INTERIM ASSISTANT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Dan D'Urso FINANCE DIRECTOR: M. R. Ringer ZONING SUPERVISOR: Annika Santalahti Chairman Thom called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Community Development Commission to order at 1 :00 P.M. for the purpose of sitting as the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Anaheim Housing Authority. MINUTES On motion by Commissioner Kaywood, seconded by Commissioner Thom, minutes of the Regular Meetings held October 14 and 21, 1975, were approved. Commissioner Sneegas absent. MOTION CARRIED. REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSI Demands against the Redevelopment Agency and the Housing Authority, in accordance with the 1975 -76 Budget, were approved as follows: for the period ending October 21,1975, $9,314.67 - Redevelopment Agency -and $70.70 - Housing Authority; for the current period, $9,214.26 - Redevelopment Agency and $518.45 - Housing Authority. I. ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The following matters were considered by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency: DRAFT E.I.R. GUIDELINES Community Development Director Knowlton Fernald reported that the Community Redevelopment Commission approved E.I.R. Guidelines for redevelopment projects and subsequently, at their last meeting, approved Amendments thereto. The final draft was currently in preparation, and he requested a one -week continuance to allow an opportunity to submit a new draft including the amendments. On motion by Commissioner Seymour, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood, the Agency's consideration of the draft E.I.R. Guidelines was con- tinued one week, to November 4, 1975, 1:00 P.M. Commissioner Sneegas absent. MOTION CARRIED. PROJECT ALPHA - STRU ENGINEERI CONSULTANTS Mr. Fernald reported that staff had extensively proposals from several engineering consultant firms for structural analysis of facilities within Project -Alpha on an as- needed basis. (Commissioner Sneegas entered the Council Chamber, 1 :05 P.M.) It was the staff's recommendation that McLean & Schultz, and Robert Lawson be employed on an on -call basis to conduct a structural survey and analysis for the purpose of reviewing the structural capability of existing structures being considered for redevelopment in the immediate Project area. He explained that in an exclusive right situation, the engineering firm would survey a building and come back to the developer with his input for the planning schedule. The Community Redevelopment Commission recom- mended an additional local firm, T. Shamma Associates, Inc,, and the staff was in support of this addition. Mr. Fernald advised that all three firms were experienced in the field. In response to question by Chairman Thom, Mr. advised that contracts with engineering firms executed on a time and materials basis, and w' specitic building to be reviewed a work scope with the engineer, who would perform the work as set forth in the quotations. Fernald further would probably be zen there was a would be sent out and bill the Agency 75 -102 Community Development Commission Minutes - October 28, 1975, 1:00 P.m. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency Commissioner Sneegas read from the recommendations submitted dated October 13, 1975, Item 3d, as follows: "3 -d. Owner /tenant participation in the form of written authoriza- tion to enter and conduct the survey as well as written release from the owner on completion of the survey and repair of the incidental damages." He assumed that the meaning was written release from the repair of incidental damages, and not release from the incidental damages am " themselves. Mr. Fernald replied in the affirmative, noting that the j engineer would implement the repairs in cooperation with the owner, who would be advised in advance what necessary damages might be involved in the structural analysis. Costs,'therefore, would be borne by the Agency. On the recommendations of the Community Development Director and the City Attorney, Commissioner Sneegas moved that the staff be instructed to prepare individual agreements with McLean & Schultz, Robert Lawson, and T. Shamma Associates, Inc. for structural engineering and con- sultant services within Project Alpha. Commissioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AGREEMENT Proposed agreement with the Orange Unified School District for construction of an elementary school in the Project Alpha Area was continued from the meetings of September 30, October 7 and 14, 1975, at which time the Redevelop- ment Agency requested a rendering of exterior elevations and an outline of materials to be utilized in the structure to be submitted to the Planning and Community Development Departments for recommenda- tions, and to include plans for shielding any roof - mounted equipment. Zoning Supervisor Annika Santalahti reported that a review of the elevation plans submitted revealed that the height of the proposed school building was within the requirements of the Municipal Code; that there were nine separate roof - mounted equipment enclosures of approximately 12 by 12 feet at a height of nine feet above the roof level. Sections on said plans indicated the style and what type of materials were to be utilized. The plans indicated that the equip- ment would be enclosed with four textured side panels. No informa- tion was submitted as to the environmental impact of the school; however there was a negative declaration for the grading on the related park and library sites. In answer to questions by Commissioner Seymour, Miss Santalahti stated that in the past, no roof - mounted equipment had been per- mitted in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone unless it was designed to architecturally appear that it was a part of the structure. She noted that in some instances, a four -foot parapet had been installed above the roof, however in this case, the roof line was flat and the equipment was projected to be a considerable distance above, and the nine -foot louvered enclosures would be visible from most areas. Mr. Harry Platt, Business Manager, Orange Unified School District, addressed the Agency advising that roof-mounted equipment was in- stalled at the Crescent School located at Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway, and at the school on Nohl Ranch Road, which had a central system. The equipment for the projected school was mom planned in separate units, in the interest of flexibility, to allow the advantages of shifting room spaces as needed. Mr. Rudolph Landa, representing the architectural firm of LeRoy Rose and Associates, concurred with the foregoing remarks and reported that after the height of the enclosures needed was re- viewed, the architects conducted additional research and were preparing additional plans which would cut the height of the panels approximately in half. 75 --103 Community Development Commission Minutes - October 28, 1975, 1.00 P.m Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Continued Working elevation drawings were reviewed at the Council table," and Mr. Landa further advised that the height of the panels would be approximately 42 feet with a louvered top. The materials to hP „cP� wouia ne the same as that used on the facia. To construct a two -'to three -foot high parapet completely around the structure, a distance of approximately 800 lineal feet, would cost between $4,000 and $5,000 Commissioner Seymour stated that although he understood the budgetary problems involved, he wondered whether the Agency should grant to this public agency privileges which would not be granted to private enterprise. Mr. Donald G. Ingwerson, Orange Unified School District Superintendent advised that the District could manage the additional costs for a parapet around the roof line, if required. In response to question by Commissioner Seymour, Mr. Fernald stated he had reviewed the plans and the list of material specifications and, in his opinion, they were good for the type of facility planned. Rather than adding to the already wide facia, he suggested that one screen be placed on the roof surrounding all equipment. Mr. Landa indicated it was not his intention to extend the facia, as it would then be out of proportion to the building. Commissioner Sneegas pointed out there would be a number of nearby homes which would overlook the facility and asked whether the roof - mounted equipment would be visible from above. Mr. Landa replied that the top of the units would be covered, and the ducts would be constructed directly downward and not toward the exterior of the building. Commissioner Seymour agreed with Mr. Landa that the individual units would provide more flexibility, however, he felt that City standards should be conformed to as closely as possible, just as would be required of private enterprise. Reference was made to screened roof - mounted equipment utilized at a restaurant located in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, which was allowed by the granting of a variance application, and the City Attorney suggested that the School District apply to the City Planning Commission for a variance to allow the roof - mounted equipment. Commissioner Seymour noted that the reason for requesting a review of plans and specifications prior to approving the execution of any agreement with the School District arose as a result of a communica- tion problem, when the term "Butler Building" was used to describe the type of construction proposed for the school. Mr. Platt stated the district would be willing to apply for necessary variance to allow the roof - mounted equipment, and the architect would be instructed to do the detailed drawings for that purpose. Mr. Ingwerson stated that the District would be willing to work with any problems to the satisfaction of both parties. In response to comment by Chairman Thom, it was reported by Interim Assistant City Manager William Griffith that a meeting was scheduled October 29, 1975, 2:30 P.M. with school district representatives and staff members to review the grading plan and identify any problems in connection therewith. Commissioner Seymour pointed out that there had been some misunder, standing as to the propriety of entering into the proposed agreement with the school district, that it might be an improper use of re- development funds. He stated he did not agree with that premise, = c••c��� evcn i ii were true, there wcrc c:onsiderarions involved which extended beyond. In his opinion, the school district was being deprived of that portion of tax funds for a considerable time and it seemed right to him that the Redevelopment Agency take that 75 -104 Community Development Commission Minutes - October 28, 1975, 1:00 P.M. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Continued portion of the tax increment funds of which the school district was being deprived because of the Redevelopment project, and indicate t,:, +-1ncs A i c +ri r++- an „nrlarci -anAi nrr of i-hii r nrnhl Pm.^: in nnnStrtlnti nc_r schools to meet the needs of Anaheim citizens residing within the Orange Unified School District by returning these funds now rather than over a period of years. He was of the opinion that a review of the final figures would probably show that the financial contri- bution of the City of Anaheim to the program in such a lump sum . arrangement would be considerably less than that which normally would be the right of the school district to receive over a period �• of years. It was his belief that the Agency had the moral right and responsibility to return these funds to the district to assist in providing children with an education. RESOLUTION NO. CDC75 -45 Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. CDC75 -45 for adoption, authorizing execution of an agreement with the Orange Unified School District for the construction of an elementary school with Redevelopment Project Alpha. Commissioner Sneegas inquired as to the boundaries of Project Alpha in relation to the boundaries of the Orange Unified School District. Mr. Fernald reported that the boundaries adopted by the Agency on July 9, 1975, included a portion of the Orange Unified School District Nearly 300 students of that district reside within the Project Alpha boundaries. Commissioner Sneegas stated that although he did not say it was improper nor illegal to use the redevelopment funds for the purpose, he felt that it was not morally correct. After the school is built, the dedication of the land for school sites alone would result in higher purchase prices for homes in the Anaheim Hills area and higher assessed valuations, so that the future owners of new homes would be paying additional funds to the school district on property for which they had to pay in the purchase price. He could not en- dorse this principle of taxation upon taxation. Commissioner Seymour pointed out that schools were normally con- structed through some form of bonding program which was paid for through tax revenues. Any time a public facility is constructed through bonding as a financial source, property taxes are increased. No matter which method were employed, the people in the district would have to pay for the schools somehow. If the litigation with Anaheim Hills and the School District had not been resolved, the school would not be underway today, and the children would be looking forward to double sessions in existing schools. Commissioner Sneegas called attention to the fact that school bonds are paid for by all the taxpayers, not just a few in one district. At the time the aforementioned litigation was settled, Anaheim Hills had been the victor in the four suits which had been argued, and all four suits were being appealed. It seemed to him that the City then stepped in and made an agreement to settle the litigation by "giving in" to the School District. In his opinion, when government takes the right to assess taxes, it has the obligation to perform for the monies realized. Proportionately, these funds should be forwarded to the appropriate agency, however, the proposed agreement was not proportionate, in his opinion. Commissioner Seymour was of the opinion that the numbers indicated in the proposed agreement would be a bargain for the City, as the amount of tax revenue from tax increment financing that was being returned to the district was much less, through this proposal, than that revenue which would be returned to the district over a period of years. Commissioner Sneegas felt that when the number of children attending the schools was compared to those in any other districts, it would be shown that residents of the area were paying hi.gner school taxes than the average taxpayers. He failed to understand why there should be a lack of district funds to accomplish what the school district was required to do. 75 -105 Corr.- -unity Development Commission Minutes - October 28, 1975, 1:00 P.M. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Continued Commissioner Kaywood stated that students in the Orange Unified S [: _ _ l 1. � /� _• L. _ .L LVL ♦.11� UJ. b.� VV e_j iJl 111V ltrlllV 111. would amount to the cost of half could receive their education. if there were 300 Anaheim resident ::hool District, it made good sense of the school so that these children Chairman Thom was of the opinion that the Agency must recognize that it has a responsibility to the constituents in the Project Alpha area. Commissioner Sneegas concurred, however, inquired where was the responsibility of the school district evidenced. Commissioner Seymour called for the question on his offered resolu- tion authorizing execution of the proposed agreement. A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, ACTING AS THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT DETERMINING SAID IMPROVEMENT IS A BENEFIT TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT "ALPHA" AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION THEREOF. (Orange Unified School District) ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Thom NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Pebley and Sneegas ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Chairman Thom declared Resolution No. CDC75 -45 duly passed and adopted. There being no further business before the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency or the Anaheim Housing Authority, Chairman Thom entertained a motion to adjourn the Community Development Commission. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Kaywood moved to adjourn. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 1:52 P.M. Alona M. Hougard, Secretary, Anaheim Community Development Commission. SIGNED: �� JJ Deputy