Loading...
RA1982/11/3082 -96 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY November 30, 1982, 9:30 A.M. PRESENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth (Agency Member Kaywood entered at 9:58 a.m.) ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins SECRETARY: Linda D. Roberts EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman J. Priest DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Malcolm E. Slaughter Chairman Roth called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to order at 9:45 a.m. MINUTES: Agency Member Roth moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held November 2, 1982. Agency Member Bay seconded the motion. Agency Member Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in the amount of 75,346.50 and $35,756.67 for Series "C" Bonds, in accordance with the 1982 -83 Budget, were approved. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Agency Overholt, seconded by Agency Member Pickler, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Agency Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 161.128: Receiving and filing the Financial Statements dated October 31, 1982. 2. 161.179: Approving the preliminary construction drawings submitted by Raymond A. and Connie Y. Masciel, for construction of a two -story office building on Parcel la located at 200 North Harbor Boulevard. 3. 161.179: Approving the preliminary construction drawings submitted by the Masonic Building Association of Anaheim, for construction of a two -story commercial structure, including a Lodge area, on Parcel 3 located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, between Lemon Street and the E1 Camino Bank Building. Agency Member Kaywood was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 161.123: PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE OCTOBER 12, 1982, DECISION OF THE AGENCY IN CONNECTION WITH HURST JEWELERS RELOCATION CLAIM: Mr. Floyd L. Farano, 2555 East Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, representing Hurst Jewelers, stated he was once again before the agency for the purpose of requesting that the Agency engage in an original hearing in the matter of the claim of Hurst Jewelers. He asked if members of the Agency had a transcript of the record available to them; Chairman Roth answered that it had been a part of their agenda material when the matter was originally heard. 82 -97 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY November 30, 1982, 9:30 A.M. Mr. Farano continued that their petition for reconsideration was based upon that record, which showed that the members of the Redevelopment Appeals Board were totally confused as to the procedures and their purpose. Secondly, he felt that the members of that Board were also intimidated, not by any one or anything, but by the task before them. They did not know what they were to do, how they were to do it, and who was to assist them in their job. Third, and most important, the hearing was an adversary proceeding. He reiterated that the basis upon which their.petition was predicated was contained in the transcript itself. He maintained they did not get a fair hearing. He then elaborated further on what took place at the hearing which he felt supported their contention. Agency Member Kaywood entered the Council Chambers. (9:58 a.m.) At the conclusion of Mr. Farano's presentation, Agency Member Overholt posed a line of questioning to Mr. Farano relative to the July 19, 1982, hearing, and whether he had spoken to any member of the Appeals Board since that hearing. Agency Member Overholt subsequently concluded that it was Mr. Farano's opinion that the proceeding was intimidating, rather than that being the expressed opinion of the Board; Mr. Farano confirmed that was correct. Chairman Roth asked the City Attorney if he had any comments relative to Mr. Farano's testimony. City Attorney William Hopkins explained that Assistant City Attorney Malcolm Slaughter was present at the hearing and would be the person to answer. Special Counsel was also present to answer any questions. RECESS: By general consent, the Agency recessed to a later time, so that Mr. Slaughter could be present to answer any questions. (10:00 a.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Chairman called the meeting to order, all Agency Members being present. (10:52 a.m.) Mr. Malcolm Slaughter, Assistant City Attorney, explained that the Relocation Appeals Board met a number of days to consider the relocation appeal, which was their first. During that time, at least one Closed Session was held, because the Board wanted some legal advice. After the Session, they went back into the proceedings and made their deliberation and decision. There were no irregularities in the hearing process. In fact, he was impressed with the layman board that had not met before and were educating themselves as they went along. They did a judicious job of a complex issue. Agency Member Overholt explained that Mr. Farano had made a request for a rehearing, and that the Board was intimidated by a lack of guidelines, rules and procedures. By reason of that intimidation, he ( Farano) felt they had no discretion. He stated it was his opinion and not one expressed by members of the Board. 82 -98 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY November 30, 1982, 9:30 A.M. Mr. Slaughter agreed it was certainly Mr. Farano's opinion and he did not share it. The Board took much longer than he would have preferred in making the decision. There was a good deal of evidence presented, they considered that evidence, and did a good job in evaluating what was presented in making their decision. Chairman Roth asked to hear from the Agency's Special Counsel. Kay Reimann, Weiser, Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, Special Counsel to the Agency, stated that Mr. Farano was correct, it was an adversary proceeding, a quasi - judicial hearing in front of a Board, such as the Agency might hold. Hurst Jewelers had an opportunity to be heard and there were no procedural objections at the time. The Agency reviewed the recommendations of the Appeals Board. To her knowledge, they did not at any time express the intent for the Agency to hear a de novo hearing, and that was not the recommendation made. They did exercise some discretion and she agreed with Mr. Slaughter that the Board did a good job. Mr. Farano reiterated that he believed the Board was intimidated by the magnitude of the issue to the point where the Chairman at one time stated he felt like disqualifying himself. The record was available and he implored the Agency to read it. Agency Member Bay stated it sounded to him like a complaint about a lay board trying to handle what turned into an adversary legal -type hearing. The facts of the case were considered by the Agency and they had now heard another appeal and he had not heard anything different. He felt that the Agency had given the matter adequate consideration. MOTION: Agency Member Bay thereupon moved to deny the request to reconsider the decision of the Agency in connection with Hurst Jewelers relocation claim. Agency Member Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Agency Member Overholt stated he did not see anything new today, and he was not convinced that the Board was intimidated. He did not think there was any basis for a rehearing. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Agency Member Roth moved to adjourn. Agency Member Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:02 a.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, SECRETARY