Loading...
RA1976/01/06ANAHEIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C01 IISSION 76_1 January 6, 1976, (1:00 P.M.) Council Chamber Anaheim City Hall PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Pebley (entered 1:08 P.M.) Sneegas and Thom ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PRESENT: EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Keith A. Murdoch ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley -- CITY ATTORNEY: Alan R. Watts DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Knowlton Fernald INTERIM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR- REDEVELOPMENT: Dan D'Urso HOUSING DIRECTOR: Rosario Mattessich ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Ron Contreras COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIST: Sybil Silverman 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 the Anaheim Housing Authority. MINUTES Approval of the minutes of the Community Development Commission Regular Meetings held December 23 and 30, 1975, and Adjourned Regular Meeting held December 23, 1975, was deferred to the next meeting. REPORT -FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Demands against the Redevelopment Agency and the Housing Authority, in the amounts of $8,878.50 and $836.83 respectively, in accordance with the 1975 -76 Budget, were approved. I. ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: The following matter was considered by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency: EMPLOYMENT OF EIR CONSULTANT - DOWNTOWN PROJECT ALPHA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT Community Development Director Knowlton Fernald briefed his memorandum report dated January 2, 1976 (copies furnished each Com- missioner), advising that the recommendation of the Redevelopment Staff and the Community Redevelopment Commission was that Envista, an Anaheim firm, be selected to prepare the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the downtown Project Alpha redevelopment area, as approved in concept by the Redevelopment Agency on December 23, 1975. Also noted was an alternate selection, Ultrasystems, Inc., of Irvine, California. He further reported that out of the 7 firms making a proposal for the consulting services required, 3 were selected by the Redevelopment Staff to make presentations to the Community Redevelop- ment Commission with the resulting recommendation to the Redevelopment. Agency today. He noted the rather critical time schedule projected calls for the EIR and a General Plan Amendment to be considered in February, and a Redevelopment Plan Amendment in March. In reply to question raised by Commissioner Kaywood, City Attorney Alan Watts called attention to the report mentioned earlier, wherein it was noted that the Deputy City Attorney had suggested an alternate selection be recommended, and he advised that the principal owners of Envista, Tyr. Dan W. Heil and Mr. William C. Stookey are also principal owners of Willdan Associates, the engineering firm which owns the building at 125 South Claudina Street, and property at the corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Broadway, both located within down - town Project Alpha. The concern was whether, under the Political Reform Act, there might be a potential conflict of interest if Envista were retained by the City as consultants for preparation of the EIR which probably would include land owned by another company with the same majority owners. (Commissioner Pebley entered the meeting, 1 :08 P.M.) For these purposes, the Political Reform Act defines a consultant as a public official, and the Act basically provides that a public official is not to participate in, nor make any recommendation on any 76 -2 Community Development Commission Minutes- January 6, 1976,1:00 P.M. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Continue decision concerning something in which he may have a direct or indirect financial interest. The ownership of real property in excess of $100,000 value would constitute "financial interest ", so prohibited. ivir. watts rurtner aavi.sed that the issue is raised by the City Attorney's Office because, should any litigation be filed as a re- sult of the selection of Envista, it could hamper the extremely close time schedule for preparation of the EIR. Commissioner Kaywood was of the opinion it would be prudent to omit Envista from consideration for the reasons just expressed. m om In response to question by Commissioner Kaywood, Mr. Fernald reported that the amounts quoted were as follows: Envista $8,400.00, and Ultrasystems, Inc., up to a maximum of $13,650.00. The depth of the study should be the same, regardless of which firm does the work. It had been his recommendation to the Community Redevelopment Com- mission that Ultrasystems, Inc., be selected based on their record and on his personal familiarity with their work on similar projects. Commissioner Kaywood asked whether subject EIR would be the fundamental report on which all redevelopment projects in the area would be based. Mr. Fernald advised that subject report actually would constitute a supplement to the present EIR for Project Alpha, and completion within a 30 -day time period is very important, as was promised by each consultant submitting a proposal. Equally important is that the report be prepared in such a manner so as to protect the Re- development Agency from a successful challenge to the EIR. The concept presented by Envista and by Ultrasystems, Inc., was to prepare a master EIR along the lines of "worst case ", so that all projects should fit into the basic plan and probably proceed under a negative declaration or with a minor supplemental EIR. In response to question by Commissioner Seymour, Mr. Fernald advised that the third consulting firm which made a presentation to the Redevelopment Commission, Phillips Brandt Reddick (PBR) sub - mitted the low quotation, $6,300.00; however, he personally rated that firm third inasmuch as he felt they did not have specific experience with redevelopment projects, although they had expertise in master planning projects. Out of 14 firms solicited, 7 responded with quotations. Sybil Silverman, Community Development Economist, advised that each of the 3 firms selected made presentations to the Community Redevelopment Commission, answering extensive questions, and the Commission also ranked PBR third. This company had no experience in redevelopment areas, and only limited experience in terms of urban or downtown'areas; however, they had extensive experience in planning new areas, master planning and general planning. Envista and Ultrasystems, Inc., have been involved in numerous redevelopment and master planning projects. Commissioner Seymour pointed out that PBR submitted the low quotation, and there was no potential conflict of interest involved; Ultrasystems, Inc., submitted a quotation in an amount more than double that of the PBR quotation. Mr. Fernald stated he felt very strongly that in the employment of a professional consultant, the City should take the position of selecting the firm which will do the kind of job that is desired. A really good document can save the City a great deal of trouble as well as speed up the redevelopment process in the future. He reiter- ated support of Ultrasystems, Inc. Ms. Silverman called attention to the fact that although there is available considerable information on the downtown area, there is no developed information on noise and air pollution as they re- late to downtown. Ultrasystems, Inc., has in -house capabilities in these areas, while it would be necessary for PBR to employ out- side consultants for these services. 76 -3 Community Development Commission Minutes- January 6, 1976, 1 :00 P.M, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Continued Commissioner Kaywood referred to Mr. Fernald's report to the Redevelopment Commission where benefits of the proposed master EIR 1— .: _..7 ti. C 4 ... L, -. , _l 3 3 f L L..-, t _...-..... v +ill.. 1.a,J l..U, ... ♦Ll� 11L1Y.t L.I �. i �ly l..ilV 1\.. l..I LA �.. I...L.V a Vi L.LL\.. 11 VLL t.. vlLll Vl 111J1,.. costs for the developer by precluding the preparation of a costly environmental, impact report. She inquired whether this would be of any benefit to the City. Mr. Fernald replied that in the past developers have contracted for preparation of necessary environmental impact reports, and in attempting to accelerate projects in these areas, it was realized that a significant amount of time would be saved by utilizing a master EIR, which would be beneficial. At the request of Commissioner Sneegas, Associate Planner Ron Contreras reported that quotations received from the other four firms amounted to $7,098.00, $12,000.00, $10,650.00 and $35,902,00, respectively. Ms. Silverman pointed out that a master EIR such as is proposed, is significant for the redevelopment area, and if individual reports are required for each project, costs to the City will range from $3,000 to $5,000 or more for each. If the master EIR is not of excellent quality, additional reports will be necessary, also in- creasing costs. In answer to questions by Chairman Thom and Commissioner Seymour, she further reported that the reason PBR was included on the report was to reflect the fact that they were rated third out of the three firms which made a presentation. Commissioner Thom moved to instruct the City Attorney to prepare an agreement with PBR of Irvine, California, to provide consulting services for the preparation of an EIR for the downtown Project Alpha redevelopment plan in the amount of $6,300.00. Mr. Dan W. Heil, Vice President and one of the owners of Envista, and also one of the principals of Willdan Associates, requested per- mission to address the Agency. He advised they own the building at 125 South Claudina Street, as well as a vacant lot at the corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard, which lot they purchased during dis -' cussion with the City for possible acquisition of their property at 125 South Claudina Street. He noted they were concerned Anaheim residents who originally established their corporation in the City, and stated it was their belief that there was no conflict of interest. Chairman Thom stated that he appreciated the position of Envista. Commissioner Seymour concurred, however, he stated that if a qualified attorney could give the opinion that no conflict of interest exists, he would be willing to consider the proposal by Envista. Executive Director Keith Murdoch pointed out that even if such a statement were to be made by an attorney, the appearance of a pos- sible conflict would remain. The concern is that this is an area very much open to a legal challenge, and in order to meet the time schedule, it was felt that to select Envista would be an extremely unwise action to take. The Community Redevelopment Commission recommended an alternate selection, Ultrasystems, Inc.; PBR was mentioned as having made an appearance before that Commission. Attention was called by Commissioner Seymour to a portion of Mr. Fernald's report to the Community Redevelopment Commission dated December 23, 1975, which included the statement that three firms appeared to have superior expertise in technical knowledge for the preparation of subject environmental impact report. Mr. Murdoch noted that said report was made prior to the verbal presentation at the Commission meeting and today's report to the Redevelopment Agency mentions PBR as having appeared before the Redevelopment Commission. 76 -4 Community Development Commission Minutes -January 6, 1976, 1 :00 P.M. An aheim Redevelopment Agency, Continue In response to question by Commissioner Seymour, Mr. Fernald advised that there was a split 5 to 2 vote by the Community Redevelop- ment Commission in recommending Envista, and a similar discussion had been held at that time pertaining to the ru5oiuiliL "f a :.f interest. Commissioner Seymour seconded the motion for the selection of PBR to act as consultants for the EIR. Commissioner Kaywood expressed the opinion that if a deficient EIR is prepared for the project area, it will be a waste of time and .more funds will be lost than the amount of difference between quota- tions of PBR and the other two firms. The motion was restated (instruct City Attorney to prepare an agreement with PBR, Inc. for preparation of a subsequent EIR for the Project Alpha redevelopment plan in an amount of $6,300.00). To this motion, Commissioner Kaywood voted "no ". MOTION CARRIED. II. ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY The following matter was considered by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency. HUD SECTION 8 UPDATE -REPORT, DECEMBER, 1975 Mr. Rosario Mattessich, Housing Director, synopsized his December Report (copies furnished Commissioner), advising that 15 certificates of family participation had been issued, with an expectation that 35 will be issued during the month of January, 1976, bringing the City to 70% of its alloca- tion. By March, it is expected that all certificates which were allocated will have been issued, and the first year's program will be complete by June. Inasmuch as over 400 applications for the 200 units allocated were received, he recommended that new applications be suspended during the completion of the current year's program. The report further outlined the accumulative breakdown of 0=4 certificate activities to date, including the percentages thereof which involved minority families, and the percentage of low - income families.which was considerably in excess of program requirements. Mr. Mattessich noted that the impact of the program on the structure of rental rates in the City has been minimal, with approved rentals running approximately 2.6% above previous rents charged. Landlords participating in the program make a one -year commitment .during which rents cannot be raised. On motion by Commissioner Sneegas, seconded by Commissioner Kaywood, new applications for participation in the current year Housing Assistance Program were suspended effective January 15, 1976. MOTION CARRIED. There being no further business before the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency or the Anaheim Housing Authority, Chairman Thom entertained the motion to adjourn the Community Development Commission. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Seymour moved to adjourn. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNED: 1:40 P.M. ALONA M. HOUGARD, SECRETARY, ANAHEIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION By ��,�.�J .�• C? C.�Pea Deputy