Loading...
RA1975/11/2575 -112 A:ii%HEI [ C0:1'iJ.1IZ^I DEVELOP •IE'iT C0"U4ISSI01i November 23, 1975, (9:30 A.M.) Council Chamber Anaheim City Hall FAESE�NT: CO?LIISSIOI ERS: Kaywood (arrived 10:30 a.m.), Seymour, and Thom ABSE ITI: CO', fISSIONERS: None PRESENT: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Keith A. Murdoch CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Malcolm Slaughter DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts COZeIUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Knowlton Fernald INTERIM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR - REDEVELOPMEI:T: Dan D' Urso HOUSING DIRECTOR: Rosario Mattessich Pebley, Sneegas Chairman Thom called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Anaheim Community Development Commission to order for the purpose of sitting as the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the Anaheim Housing Authority, and welcomed those present to the meeting. MINUTES: On motion by Commissioner Thom, seconded by Commissioner Sneegas, Minutes of the Regular meeting held November 11 and 18, 1975, were approved. Commissioner Kaywood absent. MOTION CARRIED. REPORT - FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE C04-fiRPNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Demands against the Redevelopment Agency and the Housing Authority, in the amount of $1,787.22, and $2,553.00, respectively, in accordance with the 1975 - 7b Budget, were approved. I. ANAHEIP•i REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND AI4AIlEIZ1 HOUSING AUTHORITY - VILLAGE CENTER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT: Pursuant to report dated November 19, 1975, - Community Development Director Knowlton Fernald advised that the Community Redevelopment Commission has recommended a 13 -acre Village Center project for redevelopment in the heart of Anaheim, which would involve execution of Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreements with Federated Department Stores, Inc. (Ralph's Markets), Anaheim Savings and Loan, and John S. Griffith and Company, '- and with Shapell Government Housing, Inc. He reported that the Village Center concept would involve properties generally bounded by Lemon, Claudina and Chartres Streets, and the alley running east and west parallel to and south of Lincoln Avenue. The center would become a focal point and catalyst for the revitalization of the downtown area, representing a combination of land uses and activities, shopping, offices, senior citizen residences, and community services. The objective is to create an inviting and attractive village atmosphere of structures grouped around plazas and pedestrian walkways with adequate and convenient parking. Under the Village Center plan, existing buildings of substance and historical significance would be retained and augmented by new structures, and the commercial element of the center would combine a full range of stores and services with commercial office space and community facilities and services, while the residential elements would provide a convenient place for senior citizens to reside. It was further recommended that access and circulation for the Village Center be designated basically in accordance with Plan No. 2, which would realign Lincoln Avenue within the project area northerly to the vicinity of Chartres Street, with open space and major elements of the final recommended plan to be presented in the near future. The Center would be a combined project, the 100 -unit senior citizen complex to be developed, owned and managed by Shapell Government Housing, Inc., and administrated by the Anaheim Housing Authority. The commercial element would be developed by Anaheim Savings and Loan who would own and occupy a 10,000- square foot branch facility and who are considering occupancy of 40,00 square feet of additional office space; by Federated Department Stores who would develop and own a 3,000- square foot Ralph's Market; and by John S. Griffith and Company who would develop, own and operate the balance of the commercial element. A lake development is proposed adjacent to the Center which is expected to attract fine restaurants and prestige office users. 75 -113 Ient '- ' _1inut , - 2s - _ .ovember 25, 197.:, 9:._�v __..r =•. Ana'i i',edeveloD;:ienL Agency and AIlahe lious Au Colhtinued Some reiiabilitation of existin struc tures to be retained Ini[it be necessary. Discussions have deep `.eid re;ardiuf; the importance of retainilh; . all e;:istin; businesses who w to remain in the area with relocation bein; 1L1VQJVed in sUMU UaOCZa. i - duo -11116 i VWULL- ii L11-- ucvi1,11L lit Wilil;ii wvui.0 help b"PPUL L t:iose in existence, thereby enhancing their opportunities. :Ir. Fernald advised that the developer's application for a HUD Section 3 grant to finance the senior citizen units must be submitted prior to i 23, 1975, and would be in competition with other Oran-,e County cities for the 160 senior citizen units currently allocated to the County by HUD. Since land price must be included in the Exclusive %fight to Ne- otiate Agreement in order to show that the rental rates are in compliance with HUD established fair market rents, the amount has been indicated at $60,000. An estimated cost and benefit analysis contained in the report indicated the costs of acquisition, site preparation, and the annual debt service based on 1,1 -year bonds. Also indicated were the projected generation of taxes in tie amount of $42,500, minus present taxes of $2,700, leaving a tax increment of $39,300. Mr. Fernald briefly described the construction materials and architectural amenities to be utilized in the new facilities. He noted tiiat some public wore: would be required as a portion of the overall improvement in tide downtown area. It may be recommended that the entrance to the Chartres Senior Citizens Recreation Center be relocated from Chartres Street to the other side, with a parking lot adjacent thereto. Additional work would be necessary during the term of the agreement to determine how 30 to 35 parking spaces which would be removed in connection with the senior citizen housing project would be replaced. The relocation factor would involve relocation of businesses within the project area, of others from the outside to the area, and of those existing which must relocate outside the project. This would involve working personally with representatives of each individual business to achieve the best possible location for their requirements. Presently, there were 113 hotel rooms in the project area, plus 4 other residential units. Many of these had senior citizen occupants who wanted to remain in the area. Some tenants were transients and some might not qualify for relocation; the staff would work with all these residents. It is intended that staff should attempt to interest and involve owners of property in the project area in the activities to the greatest extent possible and to apprise then of all available options. Mr. Fernald pointed out that the proposed 6 -month agreements had been redrafted and refined to their present sound condition, and he outlined those responsibilities for that a months which were set forth in a time sc_leduie for tasks to be performed by the _Redevelopment Agency and by the developers. Also required is a public hearing to be held by the Agency to consider a sale of land to the developers in accordance with the proposal and staff recom- mendations. At the conclusion of the 6 -month period when the sale of property would be confirmed by vote of the Agency, acquisition and relocation activities would commence which would take approximately another 6 riontas. Also during that period, tike developer would be completing his construction drawin pre - leasing space, obtaining financing for the project, and obtainin- trie necessary permits. Construction would start within 60 days of the time when the land was acquired and cleared where indicated, and title transferred to the developer in accordance with terms of the development and disposition agreerent. Slides were projected, illustrating various architectural character ideas possible for the proposed Village Center, usinr; photographs of existin developments across the United States; also shown were :maps of tike downtown portion of Project Alpha in question, illustrating the two sites involved in the Village Center plan. Preliminary drawings for the senior citizen facility were also displayed. Introductions of the following representatives were teen made by tir . Fernald: Elliott Maltzman, President of Shapell Government :fousing, Inca Robert Cole, Architect for the senior citizens project. Nelson Jones of John S. Griffith and Company. Arthur Garcia of Federated Department Stores. 75 -114 Community Development Commission Minutes - November 25, 1975, 4:30 A.M. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Anaheim Housing Authority, Continued Bob McClellan, of McClellan, Cruz and Gaylord, Architects for the proposed commercial development. Lawrence Ulvestad, of Anaheim Savings and Loan. Chairman Thom invited questions by the Commissioners. Commissioner Seymour called attention to the fact that the question of economic impact of the Village Center had not been discussed; further, that although mention had been made concerning the viability of the proposes project relative to the ability of the tax increment financing to support the bonds to be issued regarding the housing project, specific reference had not been made to that subject as it pertained to the Village Center. Mr. Fernald stated that the completed project would have a major and very positive economic impact on the community and when the actual tenant mixture and the exact amount of space to be constructed was known, accurate figures would be developed such as sales tax revenues, license fees, etc. The total value of the entire 13 -acre project has been estimated at $12,000,000. It is expected that the development would be the central focal point in the downtown area for community business, and if success was realized in adding urban uses such as restaurants, it was believed the area would be a major attractor for office uses. He read from Page No. 6, Paragraph No. E -3 of the proposed agreement with the three developers for the commercial elements, as follows: "Aa estimate of project income and a proforma statement of project return adequate to enable the Agency to evaluate the economic feasibility of the proposed development for which the developer is responsible." In response to question by Commissioner Sneegas regarding the senior citizens project, 11r. Fernald advised twat the annual debt service on the projected $223,000 bond for cost of the housing site would amount to $23,500, assuming normal interest rates, for approximately 30 years plus some coverage. That is not to say the City would or would not bond the costs; normally, tike project was analyzed as related to a bonding program, with the debt service in relation to tax increment. Very probably, in this instance, bonds would not be sold for this particular project, but a series of public and private projects would most likely be grouped together in selling, bonds. Commissioner Sneegas expressed concern pertaining to the removal of money from various taxing districts and creating a possible problem. If the intent is to attempt to make each project pay for itself as quickly as possible, the City could become free of the tax increment and redevelopment aspect of these projects and the taxing agencies could receive the $39,300 tax increment each year rather than the City paying the annual debt service of $23,500. Under these conditions, he was in favor of going into the bonding program. Commissioner Seymour pointed out that although he agreed with the premise that it would be worthwhile to eliminate the debt within 5 years, it was his opinion that if the Community Development Commission is committed to the program, it must recognize that this proposal encompasses approximately 10% of the total redevelopment project area. Also, that it is incumbent upon the Commission to be prepared to make vast investments of capital and to require a leveraging of that capital with payment on a long-term basis in order to effect economically successful overall redevelopment. Some investment would be required to bring public services to the Village Center project, such as street alignment, revamping of the Santa Ana Freeway on -ramps and off - ramps, etc. These specific investments would have no tax increments derived to justify payment. He further felt the community should be made aware that there is no clear method of going through the redevelopment process and paying for it within a 5 -year period. Commissioner Sneegas pointed out that in that event, the net cost referred to in the report submitted should reflect a much higher f igure than the $223,000 indicated, and the actual costs should be identified. he cited problems of making commitments ahead of the tax burden, as experienced by other cities such as New York. Commissioner Seymour pointed out that the monies to be invested would help give the heart of the City a rebirth to economic viability, and unless some such steps are taken, not only will there be a situation of do %nto <<-n decay, but also an economic burden to the rest of the community. 75 -115 (O tn t t : T_l0 le'. ?t CU4t ;SS1 in =i - Novo tber 25, 197',, 3; A; ?_i;leim : :edevelopr;?ent Agency and A naheim housing Authority, Continue lr. Fernald pointed out that the Sltuatl011 WI11Cit :had occurred in ,ow Yore, City was totally different; in Anaiiei tine Redevc opmellt Agency would coan only the tax increment flow in t:te sale of bonds, and the City anti to :;payers wOi.h1J.. i10C SCanci Deiiind Lax aiiOCaL1U11 DOIluS. liie Cicy wUu1u tiut_ aLyl�ULL LILU fins— ncin,, of redevelopment, but the Redevelopment Agency would g ive t.at support throu tax incre :dent flow, and tie project will produce increases ill Sales taxes anti others, including property taxes for t:ie City and County. Chairman Thom expressed the opiIhioIl that as t:1e Co1rmmission I cmbers get deeper into the process and review some of the more voluminous figures, they would have a better picture of xi' t1-le ultimate costs would be. Furtler, that the center of a city could not be rebuilt on a five -year plan. 'there being; no further questions by the Commissioners, Chairman Thom invited comments from members of the audience. Mr. Francis Scott, senior citizen, addressed the Commission questioning the projected rental fees for the senior citizen units and the provision for parking. In addition, he expressed an interest in the effect of tike Village Center on the George Washington Elementary School located on Chartres Street. Mr. Fernald advised that the project would have no effect on the school. The senior citizen development would consist of one - bedroom apartments with ample parking provided close to the units. Rental fees for the units would be 25% of the tenants' adjusted income, based on a formula utilized by HUD. The difference would be paid by the Anaheim Housing Authority through direct pay- ment to the landowner. Mr. Louis Freeman questioned the time table for the Village Center, and whether all necessary razing of certain structures and subsequent development would be accomplished in a phase situation or all at one time. Mr. Fernald answered that, depending on the resolve technical problems of relocation, etc., ..... should be initiated in approximately 14 months. development would be determined during the first to Negotiate Agreement. He pointed out that it overall project that all existin3 businesses in operation during all phases of the project. length of time required to construction of the project The timing of the actual six -month period of the Right was very important to the the project area remain in Mr. James Townsend of the Telephone Taxpayers Committee addressed the Commission noting his interest in observing the Redevelopment Commission dis- cussions and recommendations and stated it appeared if a lake were to be developed in the downtown area, there would be little land left available for redevelopment. He urged that the Commission proceed with caution in the redevelopment process inasmuch as the Commissioners will be dealing with the taxpayers' monies, lives, and properties. He noted that although many citizens are in favor of redevelopment, not many of them have homes which are to be removed to make way for new construction. Mr. Townsend referred to the Bunker Hill project in downtown Los Angeles which he indicated was costing taxpayers $9,0:)0,000 each year. He was of the opinion that when tax monies are being utilized, the questions which must be asked are, what is to be accomplished, and when will the benefits be derived. To clear the land for development does not mean facilities will be constructed prior to whenever the time is right, and he felt to initiate additional business into the downtown district would result in the re :aovai of business from other areas. Chairman Thom assured ii-1r. Townsend that t , e utmost caution would be employed by the Commission. Relative to the.time element, Ie :noted that tax increment bonds are often retired in a tihirty -year period, 1:owever a great portion of the benefits come almost immediately when tale projects are commenced and completed because at that point the business b0comes almiost self - gene rat:ina . Commissioner Kaywood entered the Council Charm ;er. (10i:3ii A.a.) Chairman Thom further states: the 1:edevelooment Agency had no intention of acquiring land for the purpose of speculating on future development, and he 75-116 Develon::ient Commission .i°Iinutes - I overiuer 25, 1975, 9:30 21—.!. Athaheim Redevelop ! ency and Anaheim ho Aut hority, Continued explained the nature of the proposed agreement with the three entities who are ready to commence development. Re ,larding the bunKer rtlil reueveiopmenc in i os Aage1e5, CliaiLwALL TituuL pointed out that that project area contains numerous federal, state, county acid city government buildings, which are not on the tax rolls. The air_: in the City's redevelopment project is to try and enhance the development of taxable amenities to pay for the bonds, however the public improvements must be riade first, such as traffic circulation, ingress, egress, etc., which will require a substantial investment. The existing condition of the downtown area is unhealthy and cannot prevail. r"1 �Ir. Fernald advised that Bunker Mill was redeveloped under the old federal urban renewal project, however it does contribute tax dollars to Los Angeles. Regarding open space in downtown Anaheim, he reported tihat currently there are approximately 65 acres of roads and under the proposed plan, there will be approximately 40 acres of roads and 20 acres of open space; therefore, by rearranging public space.the City will enjoy both excellent road and open space systems including the lake and some good community recreation space. Mr. Townsend spoke in favor of private developers spending their funds on the projects, as they are able to conduct feasibility studies and are knowledgeable in the field. He was opposed to projects which would impose a preponderance of federal funds on the taxpayers. Mr. Louis Miller, representing the Antlers Hotel, questioned the method of relocating transients and "mediocre workers ", etc., who were steady tenants. Mr. Fernald replied that the Redevelopment Agency would have the responsibility to work out individual relocation for each tenant who meets residency qualifications (three months), and the Agency would pay the expenses for relocation either within the project or elsewhere. Commissioner Sneegas left the Council Chamber. (10:40 A.I.) Mr. Louis Dexter, 305 North Ranchito Street, recalled that some years ago he participated in a study which recommended that the City Council undertake a redevelopment project for the center city. Currently, the City is rapidly approaching the time where something must be done. he was of the opinion that the private developer concept was good, however concurred with fir. Townsend that the City Council should proceed cautiously, but not so cautiously that the opportunity is lost. Mr. Ben Cutter addressed the Commission expressing appreciation to the City Council and the Community Redevelopment Commission. As one of the landlords in the area, he urged full speed ahead on the project. Commissioner Sneegas returned to the Council Chamber. (10:53 A.M.) Mr. Tom Watts of Anaheim Feed and Seed advised teat redevelopment had been discussed for approximately 30 years, and in lieu of the tax monies being spent for initial public improvements, etc., he would be willing to take a subsidized 3i government loan to improve the front of his building;, with other owners doing the same. He noted that many of tie people who presently 'live in the area would be forced out by the lack of facilities which rent for a modest amount of money. Chairman Thom stated that today, he was unaware of any available 3 loans. H w e was unable to say how the redevelopment of the downtown area could affect fir. Vatts' building, but as for his own office furniture business also located within Project Alpha, Chairman Thom advisee; that the would find it necessary to relocate outside of the district, possibly in an industrial area. Mr. Larry Sierk, Vice President and General :Manager of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Commission advising that the Chamber of Commerce recently endorsed the redevelopment process, and pledged support of tike plans. He urged that the Commission move ahead on the Village Center and advised that a resolution adopted by the Chamber was being forwarded to the Community Development Commission. Co; .im:- init`T Jc'velopment Commission "kinutes - November 25, 1975, 9 :30 A.M. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency 1n! Anaheim Housin— Authority, Continued 75 -117 -1r. Jerry Bushore addressed the Commission in favor of the project, however he expressed concern as to the future development of property surrounding the project area. Fie was in favor of participation in redevelopment by property owners which did not appear to be provided for in the proposed agreements. In 1973, property owners in the downtown area were requested to advise of their preferences for redevelopment and were allotted Sri days to indicate whether they would be willing to participate in redevelopment. He understood there was very little response and was of the opinion that at that time, people had been asked to participate in something for which t:_ere was no plan. Chairman Thom stated lie appreciated the concern for owner or equity participation in redevelopment. He recalled that in 1953, every property owner in the downtown district was contacted to determine whether tliere was interest in forming a corporation for reconstruction; only one or two responses were received. It was his opinion that any group of property owners who desire to work together on a redevelopment project could do so under tiLe legal provisions. Mr. Fernald concurred and felt it i:aportant that ways be worked out so that such projects could be accomplished. He pointed out that there would he a lot of work connected with any viable redevelopment project and invited any interested property owner to contact him in the Redevelopment Office. Mr. Bushore felt that according to the rules established, the property owners were virtually excluded unless specifically invited to participate in a project which might become a problem in the future. Executive Director Keith A. Murdoch stated that the fact that property owners did not respond to previous contacts would not bar their participation in the current redevelopment prograi:l; they must work witli the Redevelopment Department for a practical solution in order to participate. It is t-e intent of the City to include as much owner participation in tiLe redevelopment effort as possible. Mr. Bushore was of the opinion that property owners' future plans for redevelopment might be discouraged if a developer made a proposal for an immediate project. Commissioner Seymour commented that often when development is planned some years hence by a property owner, the tendency is for the owner to speculate, hoping that other development will take place in the immediate area, enhancing his property value. He expressed concern that there could be numerous property owners who might have ideas for future developments, and if the community adopted an attitude of waiting to see how these projects develop, there would be a repeat of the last decade. He suggested that Mr. Bushore continue to act as spokesman for those in the area where he owns property and perhaps those people can be gathered together under his leadership to get something going, not necessarily a grand scale project. Deputy City Attorney Malcolm Slaughter counseled that the redevelopment law provides for owner participation agreements which bind the Redevelopment Agency for a period of time limited to 30 days after an ordinance is read; however, the Agency may want to actively pursue owner participation beyond that time period. The Redevelopment Staff seems to be taking the position that property owners are viewed as a resource for inclusion in future development. Mrs. Vivian Englebrecht, owner of property within Project Alpha, addressed the Commission noting that she had served on the Capital Improvements Committee, as well as other civic groups, and had participated in contacting property owners over the past ten years regarding redevelopment. She stated it was refreshing to see property owners such as Anaheim Savings and Loan, the owners of several parcels in the project area, taking an initiative to participate in the redevelopment project, precisely what was being sought. :Ir. Bushore was of the opinion taere should be a revision to the original rules established in 1973 in order to give people a better opportunity to participate. In response to question by Commissioner Seymour as to whether he knew of any individual Lilo had been precluded from participation is redevelop- ment by the 30 -day limitation on the previous request to property owners to 75 -118 Community Development Commission Minutes - ' ovember 25, 1975 9 f� " Aaaheiri Redevelopment Agency and Anaheim Housing Authority, Continued indicate their interest in participation, Mr. Bushore stated he was investiKating that possibility. He advised he was personally interested in participating in redevelopment. Commissioner Seymour indicated confidence that t.ie iedevelopment Agency and Staff would let nothing stop them from working with the citizens and involving the public in the redevelopment process. Ir. Bushore stated that this reassurance was what he was hoping for, and he suggested that property owners be notified of all developments in the program at the earliest possible dates. W" Commissioner Kaywood e:>pressed the opinion that the property oiniers should make a point to contact the Community Development Director and become informed of projected redevelopment plans and possibilities for their own information and possible participation. Mr. Joe White, 30 West Broadway, addressed the Commission relative to the proposed senior citizens' facility, noting it had been indicated by sir. Fernald that the land price for the property was designated at $80,000, approximately 250 of the projected sale price after site preparation, etc. He inquired whether this was a pattern which would be followed in future redevelopment projects and further, what the amount of funds that Shapell Government housing, Inc., would be investing in the project. Mr. Fernald stated that the Agency would sell land for the going market price, which is the amount it will take to male the project feasible. At all times, there will be competition with undeveloped suburban land in other locations. There is no formula; tine price that must be paid by the Agency for land will relate to the existing market conditions, while the amount it can be sold for will relate to an Orange County -wide condition. Further, as the project moves forward, land in the area will become more desirable and values will increase. Mr. Elliott Maltzman, President of Shapell Government housing, Inc., advised that these projects are regulated by HUD who require that the developer have a minimum of 101 equity in the project. The rentals are not guaranteed; HUD has established a maximum fair market rent in the area, which is $237 per month for the one bedroom apartments, and they will subsidize the difference between that amount and 251 of the tenants' adjusted incomes. Vacancies will be the responsibility of the owners, who will pay a full 91 interest on the mortgage that the project envisions. City Attorney Alan Watts noted that the developer would obtain construction financing from the usual sources who finance construction, not from HUD. Chairman Thom asked if anyone else had comments to offer; there was no response. The City Attorney suggested that the proposed Right to Negotiate Agreement with the Shapell firm, Page No. 2, Section I -C, Subsection 103, be amended to add language to provide that the 270 -day period for negotiations be commenced on the date the agreement is executed. Further, Page No. 4, Section II -A, Paragraph 3, states that the developer understands it is intended that a multi- use "village" project will be constructed by another developer immediately adjacent to the housing site; and he suggested that "it is intended that" be omitted, and that the word "will" be changed to "may ". Both agreements indicate that the developers will cooperate and coordinate with each other and with the Agency. By general consent of the Community Development Co=aission, said amendments to the draft agreements were approved. RESOLUTION 11 CDC75 -43: Commissioner Seymour offered resolution Io. CDC75 -48) for adoption, authorizing the execution of an Exclusive Right to iegotiate Agreement between the redevelopment Agency and certain developers for tcie Village Center projects. 75 -119 D�ve.l o ��. Co,nm.issioa itinu iov�m',� r 25, 1975, 3!) A, __. :1. <ilel l Redevelopment Agency and c� nlileil^ Ho using flut:iority, Continued A RESOLUTION OF THE CO L UINIlY DEVELOP:•IrPtT CMEIISSIO "I ACTI:iG AS THL I RI VELOPNiI:`iT AGENCY APPROVING THE T 1 1 S AP:l) CO"DITIOINTS OF AN AG'=' ;T FO; Ti i.z:CLUSIVL RI; H]r' TO NECOTI \TE FOR T.i :)LVELOP'H,.:T OF CEL'M I:: P PE"'ITY. �� el. 1E1LeU IJeparCraent Stores, inc., John S. Grifiita anti Corilpany, aIl_H ,iial ein Savings and Loan) ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: CO�24ISSIONERS: Kayttiood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: CO:EIISSIONE S: I:one AyS E 1 :1: C0 1?1ISSIO,,ERS: :gone Chairman Tlom declared Resolution 1`o. CDC75 -43 duly passed and adopted. RLSOLJTIO_d d0. CDC75 -4): Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. CDC75 -49 for adoption, authorizer. ly the execution of an Exclusive I:i� to 2d gotiate Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Shapell Government Housing, Inc., for the senior citizens' residential facility in the Village Center project. A RESOLUTION OF THE CO MU14ITY DEVELOPMENT CO`CIISSIO d ACTIZIG AS ThE AtdAHEI 1 REDEVELOPHENT AGENCY APPROVI ;G THE TEMS AND COMI)ITIO', S OF Ali? AGR: EHL14T FOR THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE FOR THL DI VELOPi'IENIT OF CERTAIi PROPERTY. (Shapell Government Housing, Inc.) ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: CO21MISSIONERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: CO'21MISSIONERS: None Chairman Thom declared Resolution No. CDC75 -49 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. CDC75 -50: Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution ho. CDC75 - for adoption, authorizing the execution of an Exclusive Riglit to Negotiate Agreement between the Anaheim Housing Authority and Shapell Government Housing, Inc., for the senior citizens' residential facility in the Village Center project. A RESOLUTION OF THE CO u1UNITY DEVELOPMENT C01 ACTING AS THE ANAHET11 HOUSIcdG AUTHORITY APPROVING Th'E TEPu`1S AND CONDITIONS OF A14 AGREl LENT FOR THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE FOP. THE DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY. (Shapell Government Housing, Inc.) ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: C01MMISSI0NERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COILIISSIONERS: None ABSEv'T: CO.INIISSIONERS:. None Chairman Thom declared Resolution No. CDC75 -50 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. CDC75 -51: Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. CDC73 -51 for adoption, endorsing a proposal for senior citizen lousing and urging HUM to approve said proposal. A RESOLUTION OF TILE M"E"Ii; DEVELOP'�1Ei1T CON1 °IISSIO t EcDURSI IG A PROPOSAL FOR SENIOR. CITIZEN HOUSI14G AN10 URGING TH ;L DEPAIMNENT OF HOUSI;dG AND URL'Aii DEVELOP - MENiT TO APPROVE SAID PROPOSAL. POLL CALL VOTE: AYES: CO24ISSIONERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom '.1OES : COMSMIS S IO dERS : None ABSET: CO-PiISSIONE RS: crone Chairman Thom declared Resolution No. CDC75 -51 duly passed and adopted. 75 -120 Co :::,unity Development Co:imission :Minutes - I 25, 1975, 9:30 A. L. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Anaheim housing Authority, Continued At the invitation of Chairman Thom, Mr. Don Narup of Barclays Bank advised that the bans: was definitely interested in relocating within the project area aril endorsed the concept ror the revitalization of the Boomtown clistrict. II. ANAHEIM REDEVELOPM[E ;TT AGENCY: The following matters were considered by tie Anaheim Redevelopment Agency: JOINT STUDY PARTICIPATION1 - SOUTHER'' CALIFORNIA E-=UTIVE DIRECTORS' ASSOCIATION: Deputy City Attorney .Malcolm Slaughter recalled that on I£ay 6, 1975, ti,e Redevelopment Agency authorized the expenditure of 51,000 for participation in .. a study for the Southern California Executive Directors' Association by .Anderson, Heiss and Hughes to review all California edevelop-ment Agencies, their problems, and their use of tax increment funds. The e.,pendittire was never made, and the City is in receipt of a letter from the Pasadena Redevelopment Agency, which has contracted with Anderson, Reiss and Hu6i.es, for the study, requesting participation in the amount of $1,000. Mr. Fernald reported that the financial consultants have nearly completed the study, and he encouraged the Agency to adopt a resolution authorizing execution of a participation agreement as a follow -up to the earlier action. Responding to question by Commissioner Sneegas, Mr. Fernald reported it was his understanding that the report was extensive, with a substantial number of agencies participating. RESOLUTION NO. CDC75 -52: Commissioner Thom offered Resolution No. CDC75 -52 for adoption. A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ACTING AS THE Al%AHEIM REDEVELOPITIENT AGENCY APPROVING THL TERMS ANID CONDITIONS OF A PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR THE STUDY OF T1X- I1'yCRE1 FINANCING. (Pasadena Redevelopment Agency) ROLL CALL VOTE: ...� AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COAMISS IOidERS : None . Chairman Thom declared Resolution No. CDC75 -52 duly passed and adopted. RESOLUTION NO. CDC75 -53: Commissioner Seymour offered Resolution No. CDC75 -53 for adoption, approving draft E.I.R. Guidelines as submitted. A RESOLUTION OF THE COM14UNITY DEVELOPMENT CO DIISSION ACTING AS THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADOPTING OBJECTIVE, CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEPIENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom NOES: CO14MISSIONERS: None ABSEdT: COMMISSIONERS: None Chairman Thom declared Resolution No. CDC75 -53 duly passed and adopted. CLAUDE 'Ll. POMEROY BILLING: Mr. Fernald reported on billing received from Claude H. Pomeroy for ten showings of the film on redevelopment presented at two of the local high schools in accordance with his agreement with the City of Anaheim. He advised that the two basic elements of the agreement are payment of $85 for each showing of the film and prior approval by the Community Development Director for each slowing. Mr. Pomeroy showed the fill:, four separate times at one school and six times at the other, after obtaining approval from Mr. Fernald; the question was t1,e intent of said approval as to the number of showings at each school. lie further advised that had Mr. Pomeroy received adequate prior approval, .Ir. Fernald would i,ave approved the billing for ten showings. After negotiating wit:, `Jr. Pomeroy in an attempt to compromise, he approved the payment of the entire bill. C0:1.auni'_y DevF31op[:ient CO..mmission :IiP.utes -- :,OveiflCer 2� ,:30 A.- Ana eiri E 1eyelopment A} ency, Continued 75 -121 In response to question by Councilman Snee,-as, ;Ir. 1'ernald reportt:� it is irlpossible to gather all classes together for one siiowin;, ar.0 s(a`Jer "11 p afinns m:,et },o cr Tin ?nlo,l ° 1 Ntnl of ,—his instance, and a comrlendation was received from O to of the school principals. He was of the opinion t'.-,at it was of great importance to work with t ?c young people Of the City to explain the red VP_10DMeilt process anu he reco mea,ed that the Agency approve the entire billing. Commissioner Kaywood questioned w"Iether this type of problem was apt to arise a -ain. Nr. Fernald stated that Mr. Pomeroy's contract expires in -approximately two weeks, and he has been advised to obtain adequate approval prior to any_ further presentations. On motion by Commissioner Seymour, seconded by Commissioner Thom, payment or _1r. Pomeroy's bill for 10 saowings was authorized. 10TIOiv CARRIED. Mr. Claude H. Pomeroy requested permission to address the Comimission and expressed concern that many people in California do not understand the redevelopment law or the processes involved, and he has made chan4es to his presentation accordingly. He noted that if t`:e proposed program is completed, this City will be the only one of its size to redevelop the downtown area with, the major tenant being a supermarket. ADJOUR2vMLNT: Commissioner Pebley moved to adjourn. Commissioner Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 11:35 A.1M. ALOHA M. HOUGARD, SECRETARY, AN', EI 1 CO:'&f_LT1 DEVELOPIIEIIT CO:- FISSION By ' ��/ Deputy 75 -122 AAT ATT-rT K PAr%'N 4TTAI- T\TTTTT?T /�T1 \RT+TTT lTIY \.'f lT /T /T t /\TT 1LT ru LL' LL VVL'SL'1 U LY 11 1 L.f" V 1' LVL 1'LL' LV L U%J1'LL'LJ- =4 November 25, 1975, (1 :00 P.M.) Council Chamber Anaheim City Hall , PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley, Sneegas and Thom PRESENT: SECRETARY: Alona M. Hougard Secretary Alona M. Hougard called the meeting to order and adjourned said meeting for a lack of quorum since there was no business to be transacted by the Community Development Commission. ADJOURNED: 1:01 P.M. SIGNED Secretary, Anaheii6 Community Development Commission