Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-15-1975M~NUTES OF THE JOINT ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION May 15, 1975 The Special Meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:15 P.M. by the Chairman of the Joint Meeting, Mayor John Garthe, in the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza. Proper Notice and Posting of the Special Meeting had been given, with affidavits on file in the office of the Clerk of the Council. Following the Pledge of Allegiance, Roll Call was answered by Commissioners Gordon Bricken, David E. Ortiz, John Garthe, David L. Brandt, James E. Ward. Vice Chairman Harry K. Yama- moro, and Chairman Vernon S. Evans, were absent. Also present were Acting City Attorney Charles J. Liberto, Executive Direc- tor of the Redevelopment Agency Richard Goblirsch, and Clerk of the Council Florence I. Malone. RELOCATION CLAIM The relocation claim payment in the amount of $3,550, to Reuben Majarro, a tenant at 404 West Second Street, was approved on the unanimously carried motion of Commissioner Ward, seconded by Commissioner Brandt. The property at 404 West Second Street has been acquired for development as a part of the senior citizens site. CALL TO ORDER The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council, and the Special Meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency were called to order by Mayor ~ohn Garthe at 7:50 P.M. Proper Notice and Posting of the Meetings had been given with a£fidavits on file in the office of the Clerk of the Council. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmen: Gordon Bricken, David F. Ortiz, David L. Brandt, James E. Ward, and Mayor John Garthe. Councilman Yamamoto, and Vice Mayor Evans, were absent. Roll Call was answered by the following Commissioners: John W. Hill, Robert Newcomb, Alexander Nalle, Hector Godinez, ~ames Orr and John Coil~ Commissioner Ted Jessee was absent. Also present were Acting City Attorney Charles J. Liberto, Special Attorney for the Redevelopment Agency Eugene Jacobs, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency Richard Goblirsch, and Clerk of the Council Florence I. Malone. READING WAIVED the public A~enda, was waived on rS-0) motion of Councilman Ward, Brandt. The full reading of resolutions and ordinances, the titles of which appeared on the unanimously approved seconded by Councilman CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 209 MAY 15, 1975 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A RESOLUTION OF THE RESOLUTION 75-12 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT APPOINTING ACTING LEGAL COUNSEL AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPOINTING CHARLES J. LIBERTO AS ACTING LEGAL COUNSEL OF THE AGENCY IN THE PLACE OF JAMES A. WITHERS was unanimously adopted (5-0), on motion of Commissioner Ward, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. CITY COUNCIL A RESOLUTION OF THE RESOLUTION 75-64 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DETERMINING THAT THE CONTINUED PARTICIPATION BY AGENCY OR COMMUNITY OFFICERS OR CITY EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE WRITTEN FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES OF PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, IN THE FORMULATION OF OR APPROVAL OF PLANS OR POLICIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT AREA, WILL NOT BE CON- TRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST was unanimously adopted (S-0), on motion of Councilman Ward, seconded by Councilman Brandt. CA CA CA 80.21 50.13 82.4 PROPOSED CHANGES IN The proposed changes AMENDMENT TO to the amendment to REDEVELOPMENT PLAN the Redevelopment Plan were received and approved by the Redevelopment Commission, and forwarded to the Redevelopment Agency, on the unanimously approved motion of Commission Chairman John Hill. The proposed changes to the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan were received and approved by the Redevelopment Agency, and forwarded to the City Council, on the unanimously approved CS-O) motion of Commissioner Brandt, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. The proposed changes to the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, approved by the Redevelopment Commission, the Redevelop- ment Agency, and the Planning Commission, in its letter to the City Council dated May 14, 1975, were received and approved by the City Council, on the unanimously carried motion of Councilman Ortiz, seconded by Councilman Bricken (5-0). CA 82.10 PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Garthe announced ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR that this was the time AMENDMENT TO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN and place for the Public Hearing on the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the City of Santa Aha Redevelopment Project, ORDINANCE NS-12S8, and the Environmental Impact Report for said amendment; and that this was a Joint Public Hearing among the City Council, Community Redevelopment Agency, and Community Redevelopment Commission, each of which was sitting in its respective capacity. The Mayor then opened the Public Hearing and requested a staff presentation pertaining to the Environmental Impact Report. The Executive Director reported that the Environmental Impact Report had been distributed to, and reviewed by, the Project Area Committee, the City Council, the Redevelopment Commission, and the Redevelopment Agency; that it was also forwarded to other agencies for comments, including the Santa Ana River/ Santiago Creek Flood Protection Agency, the Greenbelt Commission, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 210 MAY 1S, 1975 Planning Department, Department of Public Works, and Orange County Mosquito Abatement District; and that all of the comments received had been attached to the report. He further stated that the Environmental Impact Report addresses itself to a thorough review of the existing environment in the area and to the impact; that no long term impact is anticipated; that there would be a short term negative effect due to con- struction, i.e. noise and dust; and that benefits would include traffic circulation in the area. In conclusion, he stated that as specific developments occur in the amended Project Area, each one would have to undergo the Environmental Impact process, inasmuch as this report dealt only with the Plan amendment itsel£. The written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report were received and filed, on the unanimously approved (5-0) motion of Councilman Brandt, seconded by Councilman Ward. Mayor Garthe invited testimony from the public in favor of the E.I.R.; there was no response. Councilman Bricken noted that certain changes to the E.I.R. would be necessary because of the previously adopted changes to the amendment, and he cited Page 52, Item 6, and Page 15, second paragraph, as examples. The Executive Director stated that the wording would be changed throughout:the E,I.R. to make it consistent with the changes to the amendment, and he further stated that the changes would not substantially change the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Thomas White, 413 West Roe Street, asked if the Agency relocation benefits wore commensurate with the State policy. Mayor Garthe responded that they were in:conformance with the State law. Mrs. Garcia, representing Mrs. Valenzuela, 1051 West Third Street, was advised by Special Counsel that 1051 West Third Street was not a part of the new area now under discussion, but was included in the Project Area already adopted a year or so ago, The~e were no other proponents or opponents, and the Mayor closed the Public Hearing. RESOLUTION NO. 75-15 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDBVELOP- MBNT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ADOPTING AND CERTIFYING THE BNVIRONY~ENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON THE AMENDMENT TO REDEVELOP- M~NT PLAN, CITY OF SANTA ANA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT DATED APRIL 2, 1975, was adopted on the<unanimously approved (S-0) motion of Commissioner Bricken, seconded by Commissioner Ward. Commissioner Bricken stipulated, with the consont of the second, that the motion include the changes suggested by the.Council to tSe E.I'.R. in conformance with the changes in the:amendment as adopted earlier. CA 82.10 PUBLIC HEARING AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ORDINANCE NO. NS-12S8 Redevelopment Project, Mayor Garthe,opened the Public Hearing on the amendment to.the Redevelopment Plan for the City of Santa Ana including the proposed changes to the amendment, and ORDINANCE NS-1258, adopting.the amendment to the Kedevelopment Plan. In addition he opened the Hearing for comments on the report on the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 211 MAY 15, 1975 At the Mayor's request, staff gave its presentation on amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, its changes and ORDINANCE NS-1258. the Executive Director Goblirsch provided the Council with a brief history of the Redevelopment Plan in order to put the hearing in proper perspective. He stated that the reason for the hearing is to request an amendment to the existing Project Area; that the area proposed by the amendment is generally bounded on the east by Main and Bush Streets, on the west by Broadway, on the south by Washington Street. The Executive Director divided his presentation into two parts, the first dealing with the amendment itself, and the second defining the blighting influences in the area. He described staff negotiations to create a major shopping center in the downtown area, and the reluctance encountered because of lack of freeway access and visibility. He stated that the proposed amendment recognizes the strong interdependence between the downtown commercial core area, which constitutes the existing Project Area, and the northern retail center surrounding Fashion Square; that these two areas constitute the primary centers of business and commercial activity in the City; that the plan proposes to develop these areas as complementary, rather than competing, centers of business and shopping, and to strengthen the interdependence of the two areas. He stated that there are developers and tenants interested in developing the Fashion Square shopping center on North Main Street, which would provide a shopping center with over one million square feet of retail~space; that the interested par- ties need help; and that the Redevelopment Agency proposes to assist by providing a parking structure for the expanded shopping complex, representing an initial investment of five million dollars, which he calculated would be returned ten fold over in terms of new development and jobs for Santa Ana residents; and that this will materially assist in the rede- velopment of the older central district downtown. Mr. Goblirsch continued by stating that the financing would be by tax increment bonds; that the project itself would generate the funds to pay off the bonds; and that the bonds would not be general obligation bonds, nor a burden to the taxpayer. He added that the project is estimated to generate more funds than the cost of the parking structure, $900,000 annually in increased property taxes; that in addition it will generate some $400,000 a year in increased sales-tax to the community. For the record, Mr. Goblirsch stated that staff has submitted an amendment and changes to the Redevelopment Plan, a report, an Environmental Impact Report, and owner participation rules; that staff has received two letters in opposition, one from the Board of Education of the Santa Ana Unified School District, and one from Adela Salinas, 1142 West Brook; and one letter from the Chamber of Commerce in support of the amendment; that he understands another letter of support will be presented by the Civic Center Association. He concluded that the plan is a good one; that some of the funds will be used to improve north-south access into the downtown community, and to improve the shopping center; that there will be a minimum impact on the residents of the area; that it is estimated that there will be less than fifty resi- dences that will be affected by the plan; and that adequate resources are available for relocation. He further stated that some preliminary planning and survey work had been done in the area; that the Director of Building Safety will speak to these points; that the retail exodus from Santa Aha could continue if something positive is not done, and soon; that staff proposes to keep the retail trade in the City, and to CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 212 MAY 15, 1975 offer the opportunity to expand the potential for additional retail trade that is provided for by the plan. Wendell Bril, the Director of Building Safety, reported that a survey of the condition of buildings and premises in the proposed'amended Project Area had been conducted to determine the presence of physical blight; that the report is on file with the Redevelopment Agency; that the building condition summary reflects the prevalence of substantial violations of the Codes and Standards adopted by the City, including such problems as overcrowding of buildings, incompatible uses, mixed uses, excessive density, lack of maintenance, accumula- tion of debris, deficient streets, inadequate parking, conver- sions to incompatible uses, obsolete building types, as well as defective structural and mechanical elements. He stated that in the proposed amended Project Area, 472 properties were surveyed, and 106 were rated sub-standard. Additionally, Mr. Bril stated that there were also buildings in the amended Project Area that were not in conformance with fire zone one. When these violations of fire zone one were added to substantial violations of the codes of the City and the properties rated in the original Project Area, of 1,159 properties surveyed, 835 were deficient buildings and rated substandard. The Building Inspection Summary, prepared by the Director of Building Safety, the Building Conditions Summary, and a map pertaining to the Building Conditions Summary, as well as the material referred to by the Executive Director, were received and filed into evidence on the unanimously approved motion (5-0) of Councilman Ward, seconded by Councilman Ortiz. Mayor Garthe called for public testimony, requesting first to hear from those persons who resided in, had a business in, or owned property in the proposed addition to the Project Area. Dr. Donald E. Lind, 2643 North Main Street, stated that there did not appear to be any correlation between the original Project Area and the proposed amendment, and he questioned what would happen if the interested developers chose to invest their money elsewhere. Mr. Goblirsch responded that the corridor connecting the two areas would assis~ in improving the north-south access, access to the freeway', as well as connect the downtown to the north area; that the Agency does not propose to sell a bond for a parking structure until it is guaranteed that the shopping center development will proceed; and that contractual commit- ments by the developer and tenants would precede any sale of bonds, · . Mr. Tom White., 413-1/2 West Roe Drive, requested information on the status of the construction of the Broadway overpass. Mr. Goblirsch stated that construction is estimated to take place in 1977-78 and that relocation rules and benefits apply equally to the State and City. Merle Larson, 2863 South Garnsey, stated that he was.employed by a firm at 2106 North Main. He asked if it would be affected by the widening of Main Street from the freeway to Seventeenth Street. The Director responded that it could be, depending on additional studies. Mr. Kent Ryberg, 1016 West Santa Aha Boulevard, stated that he represented Mrs. Kelsey by Power of Attorney. He stated that Mrs. Kelsey might be interested in the sale of her property to the City, depending on the time frame of the original Project Area development. The Executive Director referred him to a staff member for private consultation. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 213 MAY 15, 1975 Mr. John Swartz, Attorney, representing Draper and Kramer, developers of Fashion Square, stated that Fashion Square opened in 1958, with 550,000 square feet of area, located on 42 acres; that Draper and Kramer has been continuously active in civic organizations and civic.affairs since that time; that they are fully cognizant of the need for coopera- tion; that they=are vitally interested in the proposed expan- sion~ and in cooperating with the City; and that they:are in favor of adoption of the proposed amendment with the suggested changes approved earlier in the meeting. Mrs. Pat McGee, 1717 Bush Street, questioned the authority to take private property for private use, and asked what period of time would be allowed for moving from the area~ Special Counsel Jacobs stated that since 1955 the courts have held that the use of eminent domain in redevelopment to deal with problems of cities and to do away with blight is for a public use. He responded to the time period question by stat- ing that much of the plan would have to be implemented through the owner participation approach; that it takes a long time economically for a City to have the difficultie~ Santa Ana is experiencing, and that it takes a long time to recover from them; and that the Agency could enter into.negotiations immediately with anyone who wanted to do something else with his property. Mr. Goblirsch stated that the major thrust of the redevelopment activity is for the expansion of Fashion Square; that the second is to assist in the improvement of Broadway and Main Streets; that Bush Street would be very far in the future maybe just a widening of Bush Street; and that it isn't the intent to acquire every piece of property. Mr. Don Gittelson stated his interest in property in the 1900 block of North Spurgeon, and requested information regarding the issuance of building permits with respect to improvements. Special Counsel Jacobs responded that the Agency requirements were no different from the City's insofar as building permits were concerned; and that combinations of parcels were dependent upon location and circumstances. Mr. Steve Johnson, 2059 Bush Street, asked what effect this proposal would have on his property. Mr. Goblirsch stated that there were no immediate plans, possibly some street improvements; and that it would be desirable to find out what the people in the area wanted first. Mr. Richard Huff, 1801 North Bush, askedlwhy his property had been included, and if it would be tied up in limbo. Mr. Goblirsch responded that as the shopping center is developed, that particular area will grow, and there will be a strong demand for improvement in five to seven years; that many of the property owners will definitely want to develop.; and that there are no immediate plans east of Bush north of Seven- teenth. Mr. Jacobs stated that the Agency will be in a position to look at the needs of anyone who wants to move forward; that it is not a question of only what the Agency is planning; and that the inclusion in the.Project Area would not create a limbo situation or a problem in selling. Mr. Goblirsch invited residents of the area to become members of the Project. Area Committee and become involved. CITY coUNCIL MINUTES 214 MAY 15, 1975 Mr. Allen Haddon, 210 West 20th, stated that he had made exten- sive repairs to an older home; that more were contemplated; and that the possibility of eminent domain proceedings would have a definite effect on his future plans. Mr. Goblirsch stated that he would not anticipate any major acquisition in that area; that the more improvement, the better; and that no zone changes had been made to property within the area. Mr. Michael Madzoff, 211 Marigold, Corona del Mar, stated that he was in favor of the project. Mr. Billy Hall, Executive Director of the City Center Associa- tion, stated that the Association had concluded that this par- ticular expansion would be good for the City, and eventually good for the downtown area, and he read aloud a resolution of the Board of Directors dated April 15, 1975, supporting the recommendation, and filed a copy of the resolution with the Clerk of the Council. Mr. 3oe Hammond, 214 Owens Drive, inquired if major undeveloped land owners had been contacted. Mr. Goblirsch responded that Mr. Hurwitz had indicated he was in favor of the plan, and that Town and Country owners also supported the plan. Mr. Joe Gilmaker, 308 West Fourth Street, Chairman of the Property Rights Association of Santa Ana, stated that his Association was opposed to the amendment plan, as it was to the original Project Area, because it further controls and provides for acquisition of private property through eminent domain for private gain; that experience so far has indicated that to declare an area for redevelopment is to at once stagnate the area, except for redevelopment activity; that he questioned this expanded authority, under California Health and Welfare Law, to put the taxpayers further into the retail.business. He further stated that there have been questions raised regard- ing the loss of taxes to schools and other districts; that he is concerned about the expansion of new taxes at this time; that in the public interest, a plan of this magnitude should be put to a vote of the people; and he requested a motion to that effect. Special. Counsel Jacobs responded:that almost all cities rely on property and sales taxes for basic revenues~ that the down- town deterioration has caused a gradual decrease in this revenue source; and that the plan would restore the City to a healthy economic base. He stated that the Agency was not going into the retail business; that it was giving.assurance that there will be adequate parking, and attempting to put the City in a position where private retail areas can compete; that there will be no loss of taxes to schools because they are limited in the number of dollars they can take from property taxes. He, further stated that the old project is not stagnated; that the downtown area is not the kind of area where people will shop; that the regional shopping areas have sapped away the strength of'the inner City; and that private economics at work will provide the answer for the future of the City. Mr, Thomas White, 413-1/2 West Roe Drive~ asked what had prompted the particular site choice as opposed to one in the area of Buffums and the north business area, which-would give a closer relation to the downtown area. Special Counsel Jacobs replied that the proposed area has open land, access to the freeway, and visibility from the freeway; that an expanded BullOcks and Draper and Kramer site are economically aha fiscally sound, and more feasible than any expansion of the downtown. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 215 MAY IS, 1975 Mr. Goblirsch added that the location selected involves the minimum contribution'of private property. Bill Hill, Chairman of the Redevelopment Commission, reported on the Commission's review of the amendment to the Plan and the report on the Plan. The reasons cited by Mr. Hill for the Commission's recommendation of the adoption of the amend- ment to the Redevelopment Plan were as follows: 1. The amended Project Area~recognizes the strong mutual interpendence of two major commercial areas of Santa ,, Ana, those being the central commercial core which is the existing project, and the northern.retail area around Fashion Square. The amended Project Area will allow the Agency to work with.both of these areas simultaneously so that as one core is strengthened and revitalized by redevelopment, the other will likewise be benefited. 2. The Agency's coordination of the redevelopment of both areas will aid in. developing compatible land uses in both areas, rather than allowing a development of com- petitive land uses that:may work in contradiction to each other. The expanded Project Area will allow the Agency to assist in the redevelopment and expansion of Fashion Square. The Commission believes that the expansion of Fashion Square into a major retail center of Santa Ana and Orange County will have many beneficial long term effects for the City of Santa Ana as well as the Project Area. The amendment to the Redevelopment Plan will provide an opportunity to bring problems of blight under control of the Agency, so that appropriate treatment can be applied effectively to reduce or eliminate problems of blight which presently preclude proper development of a strong and positive image downtown, and a strong northern retail core. The amendment to the RedeveloPment Plan will allow the Agency to work in the improvement of traffic patterns in the corridor areas that should improve access to and egress from both areas, as well as the City in general. The amended report on the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan was approved and referred to the City Council on the unanimously carried (S-O) motion of Commissioner Bricken, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz. The amended report on the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan was received and filed by the City Council on the unanimously approved motion of Councilman Bricken, seconded by Councilman Ward. The Mayor closed t:he public hearing on the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, ORDINANCE NS-1258 and the Report on the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. The proposed changes to the amendment~to the Redevelopment Plan were approved and the amendment with the changes was adopted by the Redevelopment Commission, on motion of Commis- sioner Godinez, seconded by Commissioner Newcomb, and unanimously carried. All oral and written communications received during the hearing, including all statements of protest and approval, were received and filed on the unanimously carried motion of Councilman Bricken, seconded by Councilman Brandt. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 216 MAY 15, 1975 Ail written and oral objections presented at the public hearing on the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, the changes, and ORDINANCE NS-1258, were overruled on the unanimously carried (S-0) motion of Councilman Ward, seconded by Council- man Bricken. ORDINANCE NS-1258 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF SANTA ANA COMMUNITY RBDEVBLOPMBNT PROJECT; INCORPORATING SAID PLAN BY REFERENCE; SETTING FORTH THE PURPOSES AND INTENT OF SAID PROJECT; AND DESIGNATING THE APPROVED AMENDMENT AS PART OF THE OFFICIAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE PROJECT AREA; MAKING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS AS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS BY SAID CITY AS REQUIRED BY SAID PLAN; DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO UNDERTAKE AND COMPLETE ANY AND ALL PROCEEDINGS NECESSARY TO BB CARRIED OUT BY SAID CITY AS PROVIDED FOR IN SAID PLAN; AND PROVIDING AND DECLARING THE FEASIBILITY OF RELOCATION was placed on first reading on motion of Councilman Ortiz, seconded by Councilman Bricken on the following roll call vote: AYES: Ortiz, Bricken, Brandt, Ward, Garthe NOES: None ABSENT: Evans, Yamamoto Councilman Bricken again reminded those who live in the area to consider serving on the Project Area Committee, and to talk to its Chairman, Mr. Howard Way, regarding application for such service. Mr. Way then briefly described the functions of his Committee. Councilman Ward stated that he shared many of the concerns expressed during the hearing; that he is convinced it is time to move forward, to take a calculated and well organized risk with a high degree of practicality. Redevelopment Chairman Hill complemented the staff on the organization and conduct of the hearing. Councilman Bricken agreed with Councilman Ward that now was the time to act, and he acknowledged that the City had shouldered a great deal of responsibility this evening along with Draper and Kramer, and that he expected to see the fullest exercise of the commitment made. CA 82.10 ADJOURNMENT Councilman Brandt, seconded by At 9:25 P.M. the meeting was adjourned on the unanimously approved motion of Councilman Ortiz. fLORENC~ I. CLERK OF THE COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 217 MAY 15, 1975 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 218