ARA1983-035ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RESOLUTION NO. ARA83 -35
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT ALPHA PERTAINING TO PARCEL NO. 10; MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION AND
CLEARANCE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN PARCEL NO.
10; AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency ") is engaged in
activities necessary to carry out and implement the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project Alpha; and
WHEREAS, as the public entity responsible for carrying out the Redevelopment
Plan, the Agency has previously prepared and certified for the Redevelopment Project
the following environmental documents:
1. The Final Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") for Redevelopment
Project Alpha certified by the City Council of the City of Anaheim on
July 13, 1973, submitted as part of the Report to City Council by the
Agency at the time the Project was initially adopted.
2. The Subsequent Final Environmental Impact Report (the "SEIR") for
Redevelopment Project Alpha certified by the Agency on November 23,
1976 (Resolution No. ARA- 76 -38), submitted as part of the Report to City
Council by the Agency at the time the Second Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan was adopted.
WHEREAS, as part of its activities to implement the Redevelopment Plan by
clearing blight and redeveloping properties with appropriate uses, the Agency proposes
to acquire real properties within Parcel 10, clear the existing improvements from such
real properties; relocate occupants from such existing improvements; and sell or lease
Parcel 10 to a developer for the development and construction by the developer of
office and commercial uses consistent with the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, the assembly, clearance and disposition of Parcel 10 is one of the
redevelopment activities assessed by the EIR and SEIR for Redevelopment Project
Alpha; and
WHEREAS, in connection with the assembly of Parcel 10 the Agency proposes in
accordance with the California Community Redevelopment Law and Eminent Domain
Law to acquire by eminent domain proceedings, certain property within Parcel 10 as
described in Attachment "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference (the "Property "); and
-1-
WHEREAS, the Agency has caused to be prepared a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report, Redevelopment Project Alpha, Parcel No. 10, (the "Supplemental EIR")
with respect to the proposed acquisition, clearance and disposition of Parcel 10 as
actions necessary to implement the Redevelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Supplemental EIR was prepared and circulated pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (CEQA), and State and
local regulations and guidelines adopted pursuant thereto; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Agency on April 26,
1983, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to comment upon
the Draft Supplemental EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Final Supplemental EIR pertaining to Parcel 10, including
responses to the concerns raised at the public hearing and during the public review
period, has been prepared pursuant to said statute, regulations and guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the EIR as updated by the SEIR and the Final Supplemental EIR
pertaining to Parcel 10 constitute the environmental impact report for Redevelopment
Project Alpha; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21090 of the California Public Resources Code,
all public and private activities or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of a
redevelopment plan shall be deemed a single project for the purposes of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the SEIR for the Redevelopment Project identified certain historical
candidate sites, including the Property, and stated that the redevelopment of the
Project area "may variously require removal, rehabilitation or relocation of historic
structures" and "a vigorous examination of building quality and utility for the historic
candidates will be performed as development plans are considered "; and
WHEREAS, the acquisition, clearance
redevelopment activities or undertakings
Project Alpha, as updated by the SEIR and
10; and
and disposition of Parcel 10 is one of the
assessed by the EIR for Redevelopment
the Supplemental EIR pertaining to Parcel
WHEREAS, the acquisition and clearance of the Property is necessary to
accomplish the acquisition and clearance of Parcel 10; and
WHEREAS, the Agency has determined that it is not feasible to market Parcel
10 for redevelopment until the status of the Property is resolved because of the
substantial impact that excluding the Property would have on the desirability and
feasibility of developing Parcel 10, and the unacceptable risk to developers of
proceeding with negotiations on Parcel 10 and the costs necessitated thereby, with the
status of the Property uncertain.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency,
as follows:
1. The Agency hereby certifies that the Final Supplemental EIR pertaining to
Parcel 10 has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as amended (CEQA) and State and local regulations
and guidelines adopted pursuant thereto.
-2-
2. The Agency hereby further certifies that the information contained in the
Supplemental EIR and the information contained in the certified EIR and
SEIR for Redevelopment Project Alpha has been reviewed and considered
by the Members of the Agency.
3. The Agency hereby finds with respect to the adverse environmental
impacts detailed in the Supplemental EIR as they pertain to the acquisition
and clearance of the Property:
a. That the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed acquisition
and clearance set forth in the Supplemental EIR, including those
raised in comments to the Draft Supplemental EIR, have been
considered and recognized by the Agency;
b. That based on information set forth in the Supplemental EIR, the
Agency finds and determines that the adverse environmental impacts
which may have a significant effect or result in a substantial or
potentially substantial adverse change in the environment as a result
of the proposed acquisition and clearance of the Property are those
relating to: (1) the elimination of a historical building, (2) the
elimination of housing units; and (3) the displacement of occupants.
C. That no additional adverse impacts will have a significant effect or
result in a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the
environment as a result of the proposed acquisition and clearance of
the Property.
d. That based on information set forth in the Supplemental EIR and in
the record and as described in Sections I.A. and I.B. of Attachment
"B" (attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference), the
Agency finds and determines that measures have been incorporated
into the Redevelopment Project which mitigate or avoid each of the
adverse environmental impacts related to the elimination of housing
units and the displacement of occupants.
e. That based on information set forth in the Supplemental EIR and in
the record and as described in Section II. of Attachment "B" the
Agency finds and determines that specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures and possible
alternatives identified in the Supplemental EIR with respect to the
elimination of the historical building.
4. The Agency hereby finds and determines that all significant environmental
effects identified in the Supplemental EIR with respect to the proposed
acquisition and clearance of the Property have been reduced to an
acceptable level in that:
a. All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided
have been eliminated or substantially lessened as determined through
the findings set forth in paragraph 3.d of this Resolution;
-3-
b. Baseo upon the Supplemental EIR and the documents in the record,
the remaining, unavoidable significant effect of the proposed
acquisition and clearance of the Property is overridden by the
considerations described in Section III of Attachment "B ", and the
Agency hereby approves and adopts said Section III of said
Attachment 'B" as a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
proposed acquisition and clearance of the Property.
5. The Agency hereby authorizes and directs that a Notice of Determination
with respect to the Supplemental EIR pertaining to Parcel 10 and the
determination of the Agency to acquire and clear the Property be filed.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and signed by me this 6th day of
September , 1983.
CHAIRMAN P 0 TEM
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ATTEST:
SECRETARY
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
135/6 -1
-4-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, LINDA D. ROBERTS, Secretary of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ARA83 -35 was passed and adopted at a
regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency held on the 6th day of
September, 1983, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt and Roth
AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Chairman Pro Tem of the Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency signed said Resolution on the 6th day of September, 1983.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 6th day of
September, 1983.
SE OF T E ANAHEIM DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
(SEAL)
la
ATTACHMENT " A "
RCEL 1:
THOSE PORTIONS OF ORIGINAL TOWN LOTS 41 AND 42 IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED
IN BOOK 4 PAGES 629 AND 630 OF DEEDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 41 WESTERLY
135.42 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE WESTERLY 56.83
FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOTS; THENCE NORTHERLY 181.50
FEET PARALLEL WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 41 TO THE NORTHERLY
LINE OF SAID LOT 42; THENCE EASTERLY 56.83 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY
LINE OF SAID LOTS TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE
DEED TO FRED C. RIMPAU, RECORDED OCTOBER. 1, 1924 IN BOOK 542 PAGE
187, OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE SOUTHERLY 1.81.50 FEET ALONG SAID WEST
LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION THEREOF TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID LAND IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE AREA SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 4
PAGE 43 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAID ORANGE COUNTY.
PARCEL 2:
THAT PORTION OF ORIGINAL TOWN LOT 41 OF ANAHEIM, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED
IN BOOK 4 PAGES 629 AND 630 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTHERLY
130 FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOS ANGELES STREET; THENCE
WESTERLY 135.42 FEET PARALLEL WITH CHESTNUT STREET; THENCE NORTHERLY
130 FEET PARALLEL WITH LOS ANGELES STREET TO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF
CHESTNUT STREET; THENCE EASTERLY 135.42 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE
OF CHESTNUT STREET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 3:
THAT PORTION OF ORIGINAL TOWN LOT 41 OF ANAHEIM, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM,,COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP THEREOF
RECORDED IN BOOK 4 PAGES 639 AND 630 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES
UNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
,INNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE WESTERLY
s� �5.42 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTHERLY
51.50 PARALLEL WITH LOS ANGELES STREET; THENCE EASTERLY 135.42 FEET
PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 41, TO THE WESTERLY LINE
OF LOS ANGELES STREET; THENCE SOUTHERLY 51.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Attachment "B"
I. ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH ARE MITIGATED
A. HOUSING
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which mitigate or avoid the effects of removing 49 residential hotel units from the
Property.
According to the SEIR, implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan will
disrupt many of the land uses presently existing in the Downtown area. It was
concluded, however, that such impacts were reducible to an insignificant level (p.120).
The impact caused by the removal of residential hotel units from Downtown will be
mitigated by the provision of new and rehabilitated housing in the Downtown area in
accordance with the Plan, as described below.
According to the SEIR there were approximately 1,020 dwelling units Downtown,
representing less than two percent (2 %) of the total City housing stock. These
included 252 single family, 443 apartments and 325 residential hotel rooms. The SEIR
(p.3) stated that approximately 513 single, multiple family and residential hotel rooms
are proposed to be acquired and removed from the Downtown housing stock.
Approximately 700 new dwelling units are programmed to be built. This will increase
the number and variety of housing types. It will also accomplish the rearrangement of
land use patterns to better utilize the land resources within the Project boundaries
(p.2). Residential areas Downtown are to be preserved and filled in and consolidation
of such residential uses outside of the core area is planned, since the core area is
designed to contain commercial uses. Mixed land uses Downtown discourage the
development of a healthy commercial center (p.33). Sufficient acreage to develop 300
senior citizen dwelling units as well as 300 multi - family units will be provided south of
realigned Lincoln Avenue (pp. 15, 78, 111). In the event in kind housing cannot be
provided Downtown, the Agency will construct housing elsewhere in the City (p.112).
In the SEIR Downtown housing was determined to have a preponderance of old
and substandard dwelling units (p.26). The most frequently noted deficiencies include
structural deterioration and poor maintenance. The Agency and other City
Departments are making efforts to improve the housing conditions in the residential
neighborhoods surrounding Downtown through rehabilitation activities and new
construction programs (p.33). A Community Development Program residential
rehabilitation area was designated along a portion of the Downtown's northern
boundary to integrate Downtown residences with surrounding communities. A
transition toward higher density residential development is expected to occur as
deteriorated homes are removed and vacant land is improved (p. 74).
According to the SEIR, "the implementation of the proposed plan will require the
acquisition of approximately 183 dwelling units plus 330 residential hotel units (p.76).
The 330 residential hotel units will be removed and replaced as multifamily efficiency
units (p.78). Multi- family units will increase from 443 to 1,008. Thus, residential
hotel units (330) and multifamily units (443) combined will show a net increase from
773 to 1,008 (p.78).
B. RELOCATION
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which mitigate or avoid the effects of displacement of businesses and residents from
the Property.
According to the SEIR, implemenatation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan
will have an adverse impact on owners, occupants and tenants who must be relocated
as buildings are demolished (p.119). All relocation activity shall be conducted in
compliance with redevelopment law. In order to carry out redevelopment with a
minimum of hardship to individuals and business concerns, the Agency will assist all
individuals and businesses displaced by the Project in finding new locations that are
within their financial means and reasonably convenient and suitable to their needs.
The Agency shall make relocation payments to persons, business concerns and others
displaced by the Project as required by law.
The Relocation and Housing Resources study completed for the Agency in
conjunction with the SEIR identifies the rate at which successful displacement might
occur given the availability of housing, and the nature and extent to which new or
subsidized housing resources might have to be made available to successfully relocate
low and moderate income households. The absorption rate for households similar to
those living in the building on the Property was estimated assuming that all tenants
would be eligible for a maximum rental assistance payment of $4,000. For low income
persons needing efficiency or non - housekeeping units the market will absorb
approximately 20 such persons per month. Successful relocation will occur if requests
for new or replacement housing are within the absorption rate described above and
new or subsidized housing .resources are made available for persons of low and
moderate incomes.
According to the SEIR., a determination of impact on displacement of persons is
somewhat elusive in that relocation may be disagreeable for one while an opportunity
for another. By law replacement housing must meet the persons needs and be decent,
safe and sanitary. The Agency will make all reasonable efforts to see that all persons
or businesses displaced as a result of development are relocated to suitable locations
either within or outside the Project area, and that businesses compatible with the
provisions of the Redevelopment Plan are relocated within the revitalized and
redeveloped downtown area. All relocation activity shall be conducted in compliance
with California Relocation Assistance Law (Government Code, Section 7260 et. seq.),
the State Guidelines thereto, and the Relocation Rules and Regulations adopted by the
Agency (p. 111).
The Agency's adopted Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha
specifies relocation activities that must be followed.
The Agency shall assist all persons, individuals and business concerns displaced
by the Project in finding other locations and facilities. In order to carry out the
Project with a minimum of hardship, to persons, individuals and to business concerns,
if any, displaced from their places of residence or business by the Project the Agency
shall assist these individuals in finding a new location that is within their financial
means, at reasonably convenient locations, and otherwise suitable to their needs.
-2-
The Agency is authorized to pay all relocation payments and to provide
relocation advisory assistance to all Project residents and business_ concerns that is in
the best interest of the Project and as authorized by law.
New dwelling units, including those for displaced residential owners and tenants
and those for low and moderate income families and senior citizens, will be built in
those sections of the Redevelopment Project area designated for such uses and
additional units will be rehabilitated throughout the Project area as feasible. These
dwelling units will be offered to displaced Project area residents on a priority basis, in
order to ensure that new housing developed within the Project area contributes to the
improvements of the living environment of existing Project area residents.
The Agency will assist all persons displaced by Agency acquisition by making
relocation payments pursuant to applicable statutes and regulations and by giving
assistance in finding standard accomodations in areas where public services and
facilities are adequate at rents or prices within the financial means of the displaced
resident or residents. The relocation method or plan of the Agency is set forth in the
Agency's Report to City Council on the Redevelopment Plan as supplemented by the
Agency's General Relocation Plan.
No persons or families shall be displaced unless and until there is a suitable
housing unit available and ready for occupancy by such displaced person or family at
rents or mortgage payments comparable to those at the time of their displacement.
Such housing units shall be suitable to the needs of such displaced persons or families
and must be decent, safe, sanitary and otherwise standard dwellings. The Agency will
not displace such person or family until such housing units are available and ready of
occupancy.
The Redevelopment Plan provides that new housing to be developed within the
area include a full range of levels and /or sales prices to insure that the Project area
population will include a wide range of income groups, and new dwelling units will be
appropriate for existing Project area residents. It is expected that many Project
occupants will remain in the Project area. Demolition and construction in the Project
will be phased so as to minimize the teed for temporary relocations.
The Agency retains a relocation consultant to provide relocation services as
required by law. The firm currently retained by the Agency provides relocation
referral services for many of the cities in the Los Angeles -Orange County area and
maintains complete records of available residential and business locations. A property
specific relocation plan will be prepared in accordance with the Agency's adopted
Relocation Rules and Regulations prior to the displacement of persons or businesses
from Parcel 10, including the Property. .
In accord with state relocation guidelines, the following procedures will be
followed in relocating persons and businesses displaced by the development on the
Property:
1. Relocation specialists will be retained by the Agency to assist businesses in
finding an alternative business site that is in decent, safe and sanitary
conditions, and has a rent comparable to existing levels. These alternative
sites may be within or outside of Anaheim according to the preferences of
the relocation client.
-3-
2. Dislocated businesses are given preference and priority in renting
comparable space at economic rent in the new structures. A business is
eligible for compensation payments to a maximum of $10,000 if the
A business is not or cannot be reestablished elsewhere.
3. Each person or business required to move will be personally interviewed
and a detailed and clear explanation of benefits will be made.
4. Information statements for residents and informational statements for
businesses will be delivered as appropriate.
5. A member of the staff or the relocation consultant will continuously make
field surveys to locate housing resources and business vacancies for
referrals. Referrals will be made to standard housing comparable to the
occupied housing and in close proximity to employment, medical, shopping,
transportation and eating faciities. Additionally, real estate brokers will
be informed of the displacement and their cooperation will be solicited in
making referrals. Referrals to commercial sites will be made relative to
commercial operators' needs in location, square footage requirements,
trade areas, and other business location criteria. Inspections of housing
resources will be undertaken prior to referral and after the move of the
displaced person.
6. If transportation is needed to field -check referrals, the staff member or
consultant will provide such transportation.
7. Assistance will be given by explaining procedures to purchase a home,
including the purpose of charges made through escrow.
8. If other social agencies can provide a needed service, referrals will be
made and a follow -up will be instituted.
9. Where necessary, efforts will be made to trace self - relocatees.
10. Assistance will be given in filing relocation claims and these claims will be
submitted to the Redevelopment Agency.
11. Delivery of benefit checks will be made promptly and follow -up calls will
be made.
The relocation benefits provided for in the State Relocation Assistance Law,
Chapter 16, Sections 7260 et. seq., California Government Code, will be paid to
eligible persons displaced by any project activities, in accordance with state law and
the Relocation Rules and Regulations and General Relocation Plan adopted by the
Agency.
Existing regulations and the Section 8 Rent Subsidy Program, require that the
tenant pay only 30 percent of their adjusted gross monthly income for rent and will be
assisted with the remainder of the rent through a subsidy under the Section 8 program.
In this way, the displaced tenant's financial condition is also improved, in addition to
the tenant living in decent, safe, and sanitary housing.
No tenant of the building on the Property will be displaced unless and until there
is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy. Comparable replacement
housing will most likely be located in Central Anaheim or Central Santa Ana if the
tenant does not receive Section 8 assistance. For those who have been on the waiting
list and receive a Section 8 certificate, replacement housing could be located citywide
or in other parts of Orange County where displacees should also receive priority
status.
H. ADVERSE IMPACT WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED
Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures and possible alternatives to elimination of the historical building from the
Property.
A. Feasibility of Restoring the Building as an Office or Hotel
1. Owner Activities
The specific actions and absence of action by the present owners of the
Property, and their course of conduct with the Agency over several years, provide
evidence that it is not feasible to rehabilitate the building for uses provided for under
the Redevelopment Plan.
Despite a professed general desire to retain and renovate the building by the
owners at various times beginning as early as Spring 1977, before early 1981 the
owners failed to give the Agency any clear indication what they planned to do with the
building. Such ambiguity continued even after the Agency solicited proposals for the
development of Parcel 10 (including the Property) in November 1978, both from
developers and from the owners. At the Agency's instigation the owners were invited
in April 1979 to work with the developers subsequently selected to develop Parcel 10
and the developers also solicited the owner's cooperation.
In September 1979 the owners finally identified a specific use to the
Redevelopment Commission "deluxe office suites ". Such proposed use was
reconfirmed orally as late as February 1981, but still without substantiation of
feasibility. One month later the Agency was informed the owners were now
considering operating the building as a hotel. Within 6 days the Agency was informed
the owners now proposed to continue with a residential use. The owners concluded
after consulting developers, engineers and financial experts that there were a limited
number of uses that would be consistent with saving the structure and that residential
use would be the only type of use that would provide economic return sufficient to
satisfy the cost of improvements being required.
2. Developer Activities
In November 1978 the Agency solicited proposals for the development of Parcel
10, including the Property. The request for proposals permitted proposals which would
include preserving the building for a compatible use. Three developers responded to
the request for proposals. None of the proposals included retaining the building as part
of the development.
After numerous attempts to work with the owners of the Property, the
developers with whom the Agency entered into negotiations for Parcel 10, declined to
renew negotiations until a firm decision was made as to the disposition of the building.
The developer refused to have the building remain "in place" if the developer were to
proceed with the development. The developer's proposal to develop Parcel 10 was
delayed because of the Agency's efforts to work with the owners of the Property and
allow the owner to provide a concrete restoration and use proposal consistent with the
Redevelopment Plan, which was never forthcoming.
3. Additional Assessment
Despite a history of failures to obtain a feasible concrete proposal to retain and
restore the building, as part of the Supplemental EIR the Agency again conducted an
independent study of the feasibility of continued use of the building. Alternative lA
considered use of the building for offices. Alternatives 2A and 1B considered its use
for hotel. All included ground floor retail.
The analysis of the Agency's independent economist also determined why office
and hotel use had been rejected by the owners and developers as infeasible. The
highest value estimate (that is, for office use) produced a projected net income of
$48,200. per year and a return of 3% on equity. The potential return for hotel use of
the building is projected net income of $46,800. per year and a return of 2.6% on
equity. The Agency's economic consultant concluded that rates of return of this
magnitude are below the minimum rate of return required to justify the high level of
investment of over $2.0 million of development costs excluding value of the property
and are not sufficient to offset the risks inherent in a major rehabilitation project.
The unfavorable return would not be cured by integrating the rehabilitation of the
building with the development of Parcel 10, since the economic potential of Parcel 10
would be reduced by approximately $1.5 million.
As noted above, the existence of the building has already impeded the
development of Parcel 10 by potential developers. The Agency's economic consultant
has concluded that the retention of the building will negatively impact the feasibility
of developing Parcel 10 as a whole bebause of such factors as: (1) limiting the "front
door" to Anaheim Boulevard, (2) reduced site size, and (3) lack of control over the
building and its condition.
B. Feasibility of Restoring the Building for Residential Use
1. Owner Activities
By letter dated April 7, 1981, the owner's attorney stated that the owners
"would propose to continue with a residential use of their property." At a Community
Redevelopment Commission meeting on April 8, the owner's representative stated that
the proposed four year renovation program would produce a structure to attract a
more residential type tenant on a long term basis and could eventually provide
affordable housing for senior citizens. It would be more of a residential use than a
hotel. No feasibility analysis was presented.
On April 29, 1981 the owners proposed a plan which would provide 49 rooms for
senior citizens. Seventeen rooms would have private bathrooms; the other thirty -two
rooms would use two community bathrooms. The rooms would have no kitchens, but a
0
community kitchen would be provided on the first floor. The rooms would range in
size from 9 (162 square feet) to 11 (242 square feet). A maximum of two
people per room would be permitted in the building, or about 100 people. According to
the manager there were about 65 residents, with very few transients. The cost of the
improvements would be approximately $750,000 to $1,000,000.
The improvements would require rentals of $66 per week. A resident would need
$13,000 to $14,000 per year income to afford such a dwelling, considerably above what
the average senior citizens assisted by the Anaheim Housing Authority. It would take
60 -80% of the income of someone on Social Security or SSI.
The proposal of the owner would retain the building in substandard conditions as
a residence. Sixteen to thirty -two people would have to share a bathroom. Fifty to
one hundred people would have to share one kitchen. Based upon physical conditions,
the existing residential use of the building is physically substandard. It would remain
substandard under the owner's proposal. It is socially infeasible and undesirable to
require the number of people proposed, and elderly at that, to live under the
substandard space accomodations in the existing building and as proposed by the
owners. Residential units as now configured and proposed to be retained by the owners
could not meet the standards to qualify for subsidy programs. Existing City building
codes and housing programs would require the building's remodeling to provide
sufficient bathroom facilities if it were to be utilized for long term residential use.
To upgrade the residential apartments to standard physical condition would be
economically infeasible as noted below.
2. Additional Assessment
Despite the failure of the owner to produce a feasible plan for residential
quarters meeting minimally acceptable standards, and despite the option of residential
use being legally unavailable, as part of the Supplemental EIR the Agency again
conducted an independent study of the use of the building for residences (Alternative
2B).
Twenty -nine apartment units would be constructed in the building and meet
Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8 standards. The net income
for the building after rehabilitation for residential use is estimated to be $36,500 per
year, or a potential return of 2.1% on equity, below the minimum rate of return
required to justify the investment. The economic value of Parcel 10 would also be
reduced by approximately $1.5 million by retaining the building.
3. Redevelopment Plan; Zoning
The area in which the Property is located is designated on the Redevelopment
Plan map for commercial use. Residential use is not permitted. The Plan was adopted
in this form to separate non - compatible land uses. Residential uses are to be removed
from the core area of Downtown and placed in existing residential neighborhoods.
The Property is located in the CG zone of the City which does not permit
residential use. Residential use of the building constitutes a nonconforming use under
the City's zoning ordinance.
-7-
III. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed acquisition and clearance of the Property will have the unavoidable
significant effect described above in Section H. For the following reasons or
overriding considerations the Agency has found such unavoidable significant effect to
be acceptable:
1. The Property is located in Redevelopment Project Alpha and the proposed
action implements the adopted Redevelopment Plan for the Project.
2. The action will enable the Agency to market the entire Parcel 10 for
redevelopment and increase the chances for obtaining a committment from a
developer with the uncertain status of the Property being removed as an obstacle.
3. The size of Parcel 10 will be increased by 31,600 square feet, from 6.5
acres to 7.2 acres. The developable portion will also be increased as a major portion
of the Anaheim Boulevard frontage north of the Property would have to be kept
undeveloped if the building were retained, to create a physical and visual link of
Parcel 10 to the downtown area and assist in marketing the interior development.
4. The frontage of Parcel 10 along Anaheim Boulevard will be nearly doubled
by including the Property in Parcel 10, improving proximity of Parcel 10 development
to the new Anahiem City Hall and other downtown redevelopment activities, and
substantially improving visibility of Parcel 10 development from Anaheim Boulevard.
5. Including the Property cleared as part of Parcel 10 will increase its net
value by as much as $1.5 million, due to a reduced requirement for structured parking,
more available development area in Parcel 10 but outside the Property, and
availability of new prime tenant frontage on Anaheim Boulevard; thus substantially
reducing the net Agency subsidy required to redevelop Parcel 10.
6. A new office building on Parcel 10, located in the area of the Property
would have good access to parking located in the center of Parcel 10 and would have
direct exposure to Anaheim Boulevard and City Hall.
7. The proposed action will permit the optimum development of Parcel 10 as
one component of the overall implementation of the City's General Plan and
Redevelopment Plan to expand office and retail uses in the downtown area.
8. The housing conditions of residents within the building can be improved as
they are relocated to residences which are decent, safe and sanitary and receive
financial assistance from the Agency to make such housing affordable.
9. The proposed action would implement the Redevelopment Plan policy and
requirements to separate commercial from residential land uses in the Downtown core
area.
10. The Redevelopment Plan contemplates that land will be assembled to turn
the Project area from stagnant and underutilized land to productive use and an asset
to the City. The proposed action would eliminate a deteriorated and obsolete
structure.
11. The long range planning of the City recognizes the need for a central
identifiable urban core, with public and private offices and commercial developments
at a density of development suitable for a City Anaheim's size. The elimination of a
low rise residential structure would eliminate a land use which would conflict with
that objective.
12. Mixed land uses in the Downtown area discourage the development of a.
healthy commercial center.
a