Loading...
HA1987/10/13Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM HOUSINC AUTHORITY October 13, 1987, 1:25 P.M. PRESENT: AUTHORITY MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Pickler, Kaywood, Bay ABSENT: AUTHORITY MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White SECRETARY: Leonora N. Sohl DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING: Norman J. Priest ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim Housing Authority was posted at 3:15 p.m. on October 9, 1987, at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Chairman Bay called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Housing Authority to order at 1:43 p.m. MINUTES: Authority Member Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held June 30, 1987. Authority Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY in the amount of $866,312.68 and $563,549.47 in Public Housing Authority Bonds for the week ending October 2, 1987 and $564.40 and $51,640.00 in Public Housing Authority Bonds for the week ending October 9, 1987, in accordance with the 1987-88 Budget, were approved. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Authority Member Kaywood, seconded by Authority Member Hunter, the following action was authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Authority Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 177.123: Approving Change Order No. 1 for additional work to Construct Two Condominiums on Lot 12, 1023 Part Street, Masciel Development Company, in the amount of ~4,160 for a new total price of ~156,660. End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED. 177.121: CONDEMNATION HEARING: To consider the acquisition of property generally located at the following locations: a. Parcel No. 471-15, 1033 West Chevy Chase Drive (Ronald V. J. and Gail M. Berggren) b. Parcel No. 473-19, 941 Blue Jay Lane (J. Rafael and Carmen Carter,) Ce Parcel No, 477-17, 1013 West Marlboro Avenue (James W. and Harriett A. Davies) 87-56 Anaheim Givic Center, ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY October 13, 1987, 1:25 P.M. d. Parcel No. 473-06, 928 West Chevy Chase Drive (Joseph L. Goss) e. Parcel No. 473-07, 1304 North Robin Street (Eugene and Joyce Kano) f. Parcel No. 473-10, 917 West Robin Place (Eugene and Joyce Kano) g. Parcel No. 473-11, 913 West Robin Street (Eugene and Joyce Kano) h. Parcel No. 471-08, 921 West Chevy Chase Drive (Manuel Ledezma) i. Parcel No. 471-03 819 West Chevy Chase Drive (Manuel Ledezma) Parcel No. 473-13 916 West Robin Place (Nicholas A., Anthony N. and Lena Miraglia) k. Parcel No. 477-06 1227 North Robin Street (Steven I. Paczko) 1. Parcel No. 47§-07 1015 West Brewster Avenue (Manjula S. Patel) m. Parcel No. 473-20 927 West Bluejay Lane (Steven W. Reiss) n. Parcel No. 474-05 916 West Blue Jay Lane (Hassan M. Saby) O. Parcel No. 472-02 1304 North Wren Street (Alfredo M. and Rasalia Villa. p. Parcel No. 471-10 931 West Chevy Chase Drive (Hassan M. Saby) q. Parcel No. 477-20 1010 West Marlboro Avenue (Lori Wheatland) Submitted was report dated October 1, 1987 from the Community Development Department recommending that the Anaheim Housing Authority, by resolution, find and determine the public interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing the condemnation of certain real property within the Park Vista Project area, and authorize the law firm of Oliver, Stoever, Bart and Eiboden, Special Counsel to the Housing Authority, to proceed with said condemnation action. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development. He asked that Special Counsel give the staff presentation. Mr. Tom Stoever, Special Counsel for the Anaheim Housing Authority, Law Firm of Oliver, Stoever, Bart and Eiboden. The Authority today is to consider whether or not it is appropriate to adopt a Resolution of Necessity as the requirement to proceed with the acquisition of certain properties through Eminent Domain. According to the applicable statutes, there are four issues pertinent to the Authority's consideration today and they are as follows: (1) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project. 87- 57 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY October 13, 1987, 1:25 P.M. (2) The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the &reatest public good and the least private injury. (3) The hereinafter described real property, or interest in real property, is necessary for the proposed project. (4) The offer required by Section 7267.2 of the Government Code has been made to the owner or owners of record. Mr. Stoever also quoted from appellate decisions on each of the four reasons. Mr. Stoever then read a statement summarizing the many years of historical background, community efforts, staff studies and reports, and various hearings and reports which have been before the Housing Authority up until the present noting first that it was entirely proper for the Authority to take the extensive background into consideration, in addition to the matters presented to the Authority today in acting upon the proposed Resolution. He also described the public project referring to the quarter section Plan/Map of the Chevy Chase area posted on the Chamber wall. The area shown encompasses approximately 19 acres. There are 94 parcels within the project area and 77 of those 94 are under the present control of the proposed developer. There are 386 dwelling units located within the 19 acre area. In 1984, a planning study performed by consultants retained by the City arrived at the conclusion that the only viable solution to the on-going problems which he has cited would be a consolidation of the Chevy Chase area into one ownership eliminating existing subdivided lot lines, creation of one recorded parcel thereby allowing a unified and consistent management, a comprehensive rehabilitation of structures, provision for street and neighborhood improvements and off-street parking and in addition a general upgrading in the quality of life for the residents of that property. As a part of the conditions of recording that one parcel, the City and Housing Authority would impose strict covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC and Rs) which would assure that 25 percent of all of the units would be available for long-term affordable housing with guaranteed on-site management. This recommendation has been concurred in by the Neighborhood Improvement Program of Anaheim (NIPA). The project contemplates the construction of eight new units and the rehabilitation of 184 units. It will also add 200 off-street parking spaces and improve the neighborhood facilities throughout the project area. The estimated imvestment for the project gives a total project value of ~26 to ~28 million dollars. $§.9 million dollars would be dedicated for rehabilitation alone. In concludi~, Mr. Stoever emphasized even though the Housing Authority may adopt the proposed Resolution of Necessity today, negotiations for settled acquisitions will continue. In fact, they will continue throughout the process and if court becomes a necessity, negotiations will continue right up to the "courthouse steps". The Authority is also to consider the offers under Government Code Section 7267.2. He has personally reviewed the records of the 87- 58 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY October 13, 1987, 1:25 P.M. Housing Authority and can represent to the Authority that all of the offers required under that Code Section have been made to the owners of the property under consideration today. Chairman Bay then opened the public input portion of the Condemnation Hearing for those who wished to speak. Steve Paczko, 6281 Newbury Drive, Huntington Beach, 92647, owner and manager of the property at 1227 North Robin, Anaheim. They acquired their property in 1973 when property values were low and have tried to keep the property alive. He then described his four-unit apartment. They do support the upgrading of the neighborhood since they have been working along those lines for almost 15 years. Their property does not need to be upgraded. They have had a long struggle to get to the point where they have met all of their tenants' requests as far as their safety, well-being and privacy. He does not believe their property needs to be condemned for just one private interest where the City is taking the individual's right of property away and giving it to someone else. The problems are real in the neighborhood where there are many absentee landlords. He does not have an answer to resolve the problem which is also a socio-economic problem. During his presentation, Mr. Paczko briefed and elaborated upon the information contained in his detailed letters of September 24, 1987 and October 2, 1987 (previously made a part of the record). He is adamantly opposed to, and is requesting that the Authority not condemn his property. Mrs. Olga Paczko, 1227 North Robin. The neighborhood started deteriorating within the last five years when the laws should have been enforced. She then elaborated upon many of the issues contained in the letters that were · submitted by her husband. She added that boundaries are being built but socio-economic problems do not have boundaries. On their property, they have solved all of the problems the City is trying to solve. It takes commitment and dedication and that is what they have given. They do not want to sell their property. While the neighborhood was deteriorating, they improved their property and they want to keep it. Katherine Neher, Board Member, Orange County Renter's Association, 16000 Villa Y0rba, Huntington Beach. On behalf of their members, she is speaking in support of the action before the Authority today. The Association has participated in many of the community meetings from which the project was developed. They are convinced that a single ownership of the neighborhood is the only solution to the further deterioration of the subject neighborhood. In addition they believe the City and the community as a whole should be comended for involving all segments of the community in the development of the proposed plan. Dawn Sizemore, 1440 East First Street, Santa Aha, Director of PlanninS and Program Development for the Orange County Community Development Council (OCCDC), the anti-poverty agency for Orange County. When the Apartment Improvement Program (AIP) incorporated as the Neighborhood Improvement Program of Anaheim (NIPA) their Housing Manager was elected first President of that Board. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been put into the neighborhood over the years. They have supported the activities of the residents and a few 87- 59 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEI. M HOUSING AUTHOKITY October 13, 1987, 1:25 P.M. owmers durin~ that period to take voluntary actions. Fragmented o~raership patterns force a City to take a piecemeal approach to solving problems that impact an entire neighborhood or district in a City. The Tierra Study has outlined the issues which were also presented by the Authority's Counsel today. The Community Development Council and the residents agree that the Chevy Chase single-ownership project is the only workable plan to put the last piece in place to solve the problems of that neighborhood. The Community Development Council urges the Housing Authority to take the necessary steps to make the plan a reality. They are pledging their continued assistance to the neighborhood to see that the project becomes a reality. Jill Aggersbury, President, Neighborhood Improvement Program of Anaheim (NIPA). She is representing the Apartment Association of Orange County on the Board of NIPA. She is speaking in support of the project. NIPA, formerly A~P, nas been working in the Chevy Chase area since the early 1980s. Tremendous time and effort has gone into the area. They have had very little cooperation from many of the owners. A majority of the owners have not kept their properties up. The proposed project is the only viable solution to a problem that can only grow worse unless something is done. She urged the Authority to vote in favor of the proposed Resolution. Frank Morales, Executive Administrator, NIPA. He has been involved in the area for approximately two years. The purpose of NIPA is to revitalize deteriorating neighborhoods. There are some people in the audience who live in the subject neighborhood. If they wish to speak, he will interpret for them. The many problems encountered in that area have been made known to the Authority today and in the past. The fragmented approach in trying to solve the problem has not worked. The one-owner concept is the only way to proceed in this case. They feel fortunate that the development company involved has taken~on the task. Although there is profit involved, there is also a great deal of history and community service of the participants. Also present are representatives from the School District who would be happy to speak in favor, residents, representatives of various agencies, representatives of the neighborhood such as Father John Lenihan and several others who would speak in support. NIPA is asking that the Authority support the proposal. Miguel Acalla, 929 West Kobin Place. (He first spoke to the Authority in English on his own and subsequently was assisted by Mr. Morales as interpreter). He has been living in the area for almost 12 years. There are now too many problems in the area. There are many parents with families living in the area. They are decent people who work hard. The over-crowding and drugs have almost come to destroy the area. They need a lot of help from the City. The Police Department has been doing a good job but the area needs something extra. Their children do not have the liberty of going out in the streets in safety because they are afraid they will get involved with drugs and drug dealing. There was a lot of damage in many of the apartments in the bathrooms, carpeting is bad, some apartments are without windows, there is a feeling that some carports will fall on the cars. They are thankful to the City for the help given so far. Gene Kano, 1316 West Beacon, Anaheim. He has owned 913 to 917 and 1304 Robin for nine years. He wants to express his objection at taking his property. He 87- 60 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY October 13, 1987, 1:25 P.M. does not believe the City has good intentions relative to rehabilitating that area. He has worked with the City to keep his property up to Code. He feels one of the biggest offenders owns one of the biggest parcels of property and now he is one of the developers in the proposed project. The owners that are still holding out are probably objecting because of the unjust compensation the City is offering. Injuries to the owners are great. Most of the smaller owners have upgraded their properties. It is the large conglomerates who own 38 or 40 buildings that have let their buildings go. He has kept his rents at the minimum, has had an on-site manager, kept up his insurance, workman's compensation~ etc. He has stayed within the guidelines and is now being penalized. Adrian Donaghy. She is a home owner in the neighborhood. When her children were growing up, they could play in the field bordering the apartments. She felt they were safe. Now her grandchildren cannot play there. Many of the residents cannot afford to buy the apartments. It is important to the neighborhood that the area be improved. It should be under one ownership. David Casada, Executive Director, Fair Housing Council of Orange County. They are a sub-contractor in the City and he has been working and contributing toward the improvement of the subject neighborhood for ten years. It is a very precious right to own property but that property right is not totally absolute when properties have been neglected so badly that they have harmed hundreds of people. The Fair Housing Council would like to go on record in support of condemnation or the one-owner concept today. The public input portion of the hearing was closed. Chairman Bay. He walked the area in 1976, did so again in 1980 and also in the last couple of years. Some changes and even some improvements have taken place but he sees no answer to the total solution to the problems in that area. The City had no authority to control the number of people living in each dwelling unit because that control was taken away by the State. The combination of those problems in the City and in that area has caused a constant problem that has drained taxpayer money from the City to do the extra policing and Code enforcement in attempts to solve the on-going problems. He als0 has empathy for people like the Faczk0s but one or two isolated owners in 94 are not good reason to stop what will be the solution to the overall problem. Before action was taken, Authority Member Kaywood emphasized as had been stated by Mr. Stoever that negotiations with property owners would continue up to the courthouse steps if necessary. Shortly after she was elected to the Council lZ years ago, home owners from the area came in asking for help. Those who stayed in the area improved their homes and upgraded the area. They held tight and if they had not done so, the area would be double the blight it is today. This is one way to repay those who did hold on to their properties. The kind of one-ownership being proposed will be able to accomplish what they have been lookin~ for for so long. Authority Member Pickler. The blight in the area is like a "cancer" and if they do not eliminate the cause, it will spread. He, too, empathizes with the 87-61