Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/15/1983 . . , ø~ MINUTES REGULAR MEETING COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA MARCH 15, 1983 The Regular Meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana was called to order by Vice Chairman Luxembourger at 6:10 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California. After the Pledge to the Flag and the Invocation given by Mrs. McGuigan, roll was called: PRESENT ABSENT John Acosta Daniel Griset Robert Luxembourger patricia McGuigan J. Ogden Markel Gordon Bricken Al Serrato Others in Attendance: A. J. Wilson, City Manager Rex Swanson, Executive Director Edward J. Cooper, City Attorney David N. Ream, Community Development Director Thomas E. Hammill, Assistant Director Redevelopment & Real Esta te Laura Juarez, Secretary MINUTES A motion was made by Mr. Acosta, seconded by Mrs. McGuigan and carried unanimously to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting held on February 15,1983, and Adjourned Regular Meeting held on February 22,1983. CONTINUED/PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED SALE BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO BIRCHPARK ASSOCIATES (A-l DEVELOPMENT SITE) Vice Chairman Luxembourger announced that this was the time and place for the joint public hearing of the Community Redevelopment Agency and the City Council of the City of . Santa Ana which was continued from February 22, 1983, for the proposed sale of property by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana to Birchpark Associates, bounded on the north by Flower Street Park, on the west by Olive Street, on the south by First Street, and on the east by Flower Street. vice Chairman Luxembourger requested that staff identify the property or issues and give staff recommendation. The Assistant Director Redevelopment & Real Estate addressed the Agency by pointing out the property on a map on display in the Council Chambers. He stated that seven properties are to be acquired. Mr. Swanson stated that Birchpark Associates is also known as Forest City Dillon and that the agreement called for the construction of an eleven-story 180,000 square foot structure which will produce 199 subsidized senior citizen units. . The Vice Chairman announced that the Agency would now like to hear from those people who desired to address the Agency on this issue. He added that if anyone desired to address the Agency, they should step forward to the podium, give their name and address and limit their comments to five minutes. vice Chairman Luxembourger requested to hear from those persons in agreement and disagreement with the proposed sale. Mr. John webb, representing Forest City Dillon, advised the Agency that their architect was present to answer any questions that they might have. In response to a question raised by Mr. Griset, Mr. Wilson stated that there were two elements brought up by the neighborhood. They are: 1) to adopt a policy statement reaffirming commitment to the continued maintenance of Flower Park and requiring public notice for the consideration of any change of usage of Flower Park: and 2) to authorize staff to prepare a specific plan, including a traffic impact analysis, for the adjacent Flower Park neighborhood. In response to a question raised by Mr. Acosta, Mr. Swanson stated that there was additional property where additional parking can be developed, and that if it was necessary they would develop additional parking. . In response to a question raised by Vice Chairman Luxembourger, the architect stated that the only mechanic equipment exposed would be the chiller in the middle of the building. -2- vice Chairman Luxembourger asked if there were any additional comments from staff, or if the Agency members had any questions. There being none, vice Chairman Luxembourger closed the public hearing and entertained a motion of the Community Redevelopment Agency regarding the proposed sale. A motion was made by Mr. Griset, seconded by Mrs. McGuigan and carried by the following roll call vote to adopt Resolution 83-7: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOP- MENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND BIRCHPARK ASSOCIATES. . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Acosta, Griset, Luxembourger, McGuigan, Markel None Bricken, Serrato Vice Mayor Luxembourger stated that the chair would now entertain a motion of the City Council regarding the proposed sale, the continued maintenance of Flower Park, and the preparation of a specific plan and a traffic impact analysis. A motion was made by Councilmember McGuigan, seconded by Councilmember Griset and carried unanimously to: . 1. Adopt adopt Resolution 83-29: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSIDERATION TO BE RECEIVED BY THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA PURSUANT TO A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND BIRCHPARK ASSOCIATES FOR THE SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE SANTA ANA REDEVELOP- MENT PROJECT AND APPROVING THE SALE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY UPON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THAT AGREEMENT; 2. Adopt a policy statement reaffirming commitment to the continued maintenance of Flower Park and requiring public notice for the consideration of any change of usage of Flower Park; and 3. Authorize staff to prepare a specific plan, including a traffic impact analysis, for the adjacent Flower Park neighborhood. Vice Chairman Luxembourger stated that the Chair would now entertain a motion of the Community Redevelopment Agency regarding the proposed budget. A motion was made by Mrs. McGuigan, seconded by Mr. Acosta and carried unanimously to adopt the proposed budget and authorize its implementation by the Community Redevelopment Commission. . -3- PUBLIC HEARING ON FASHION SQUARE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT . A motion was made by Mr. Griset, seconded by Mrs. McGuigan and carried unanimously to recommend that a public hearing be scheduled for April 19,1983 at 5:30 P.M., to review the final draft of the Fashion Square Environmental Impact Report. ISSUANCE OF TAX ALLOCATION BONDS AND CONSULTANT AGREEMENTS . Mr. Wilson stated that the Agency was in a position to issue tax allocation bonds in an amount of $16,500,000 to refund the $13,500,000 1978 tax allocation bonds of the Agency and to finance a portion of the cost of a redevelopment project known as the City of Santa Ana Redevelopment Project Area, to approve an agreement with E. F. Hutton & Company for financial consulting services with respect to the refunding tax allocation bond issue in the Redevelopment Project Area, to approve an agreement with Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth for bond counsel services with respect to the refunding tax allocation bond issue in the Redevelopment Project Area, and to approve an agreement with Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc. to provide fiscal consultant services with regard to the refunding tax allocation bond issue in the Redevelopment Project Area. Mr. Swanson stated that the Commission acted on this recommendation this afternoon, however, the amount had been increased to seventeen million, five hundred thousand dollars ($17,500,000). In response to a question raised by stated that it has always been professional service. Preliminary done by in-house staff, and we services. Mr. Markel, Mr. Wilson a policy to utilize work has already been need these consulting In response to several questions raised by Vice Chairman Luxembourger, the Community Development Director responded that it would be between $20,000 to $50,000jservice charge by E. F. Hutton and the time of payment would be when the proceeds of the bond sales were delivered to us. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Acosta, seconded by Mrs. McGuigan and carried by the following roll call vote to: . 1. Adopt Resolution 83-8: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BONDS OF SAID AGENCY IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED SEVENTEEN MILLION, -4- . FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($17,500,000) TO REFUND THE $13,500,000 1978 TAX ALLOCATION BONDS OF THE AGENCY AND TO FINANCE A PORTION OF THE COST OF A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT KNOWN AS THE CITY OF SANTA ANA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. 2. Approve an agreement with E. F. Hutton & Company for financial consulting services with respect to the refunding tax allocation bond issue in the Redevelopment project Area. 3. Approve an agreement with Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth for bond counsel services with respect to the refunding tax allocation bond issue in the Redevelopment Project Area. 4. Approve an agreement with Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc. to provide fiscal consultant services with regard to the refunding tax allocation bond issue in the Redevelopment project Area. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Acosta, Griset, Luxembourger, McGuigan Markel Bricken, Serrato . REVIEW ARCHITECTURAL FOURTH STREET PLANS FOR PROJECT iAR-015, 116 WEST The Community Development Director stated that the Commission recommended that the Agency approve the architectural plans for the commercial storefront rehabili- tation at 116 West Fourth Street. The recommended action carried by a 5:1 vote (Mr. Coil casting the "NO" vote). He also stated that architectural plans coordinating several storefronts on this block were approved by the Architectural Review Board on April 12, 1982. Mr. John Loomis, Thirtieth Street Architect, Inc., 2821 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92663 stated that he had taken this up to State level and had received a letter from them indicating that this was acceptable. Vice Chairman Luxembourger requested that this letter be entered into the Minutes (a copy of which is attached). . After further discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Acosta, seconded by Mr. Markel and carried unanimously to approve architectural plans for the commercial storefront rehabili- tation at 116 West Fourth Street (Project iAR-015). -5- . . . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - MAIN STREET PARKING LOT AT 1018 SOUTH STATUS OF In response to a question raised by Mr. Acosta, the Community Development Director stated that when the Redevelopment Agency approves a project they usually also approve a budget for acquisition, relocation, demolition and improvements. The Redevelopment Commission implements the budget and authorizes the execution of the purchase agreements, demolitions, contracts, etc. In response to another question raised by Mr. Acosta, the Community Development Director stated that the City Council loaned the Agency the funds and the Agency authorized the acquisition of this property on September 21, 1982. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Community Redevelopment Agency, a motion was made by Mr. Griset, seconded by Mr. Acosta and carried unanimously that the meeting be adjourned at 7:02 P.M., to April 12,1983 at 7:30 P.M. ~ / p~<'4ü~~ Rex Sw son Robert Luxembourger Executive Director Vice Chairman -6- . ' ' . STATE Of CALIfORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Govern", . . . DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION e >.0, BOX 2390 SACRAMENTO 95B11 . (916) 322-8597 March 9, 1983 Mr. John Loomi s Thirtieth Street Architect, Inc. 2821 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear John: In reference to our numerous conversations over 116 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, it remains my belief that your latest solution deals. in a sensitive and appropriate way, with the problem of the amputated columns. Under the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, restoration of this strong original facade, while clearly most preferred, is not a mandate. Dealing sensitively with the remaining historic fabric is a mandate. The deep and simple fascia you proposed provides enough visual weight to carry the column stubs. The remainder of the new composition maintains a subordinate role. We have a critically wounded building here--the best we can do for it is to treat it with respect until it can be restored. To tinker with it or attempt to upstage the historic elements in favor of some ground-level diversions is not in the best interest of the resource. There is, however, another appropriate alternative that would be to totally screen the composition from the top of the parapet to the top of the shop windows. That, too, is historic preservation! Retention--not necessarily display--of historic fabric is of for-most concern. Neither your proposal nor my alternative can be faulted on these grounds. Perhaps, it might be better to have the building's awkwardness hidden until the day of restoration; I leave that to you and your client. ~:~7,; . the very severe demands of seismic upgrading and security, and based on our on-site discussions and recorrmendations of January 7, we continue to believe the project to be certifiable. However, until the District becomes a reality, the National Park Service refuses, understandably, to process applications. It is sad that the City and the potential District are in such an awkward and tenuous position: there is no good reason for it. We will cont i nue to provi de whatever support is asked and urge you to encourage the City to use both the lines of corrmunication and the services directly available to them. We are here for one reason--to make preservation work in California. Sincerely, ~'c-Q Robert E. Mackensen Preservation Architect Office of Historic Preservation K-1388H