Loading...
RA1983/09/1383 -70 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY September 13; 1983, 9:30 A.M. M° PRESENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood,. Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins SECRETARY: Linda D. Roberts EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman J. Priest Chairman Roth called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency to order at 9:42 a.m. MINUTES: Agency Member Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held August 2, August 9, August 16, August 23 and August 30, 1983. Agency Member Bay seconded the motion. Agency Members Pickler and Overholt abstained on the minutes of August 16, Agency Member Bay abstained on the minutes of August 23, and Agency Members Overholt and Roth abstained on the minutes of August 30, 1983, since they were not present at those meetings. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in the amount of 19,319.39 and 41,909.89 for Series "C" Bonds, in accordance with the 1983 -84 Budget, were approved. 161.121: CONTINUED CONDEMNATION HEARING: To consider the acquisition of --M property generally located at 108 -116 West Chestnut Street and 203 -227 South Anaheim Boulevard and owned by Frank A. Dusek, Trustee -- continued from the meeting of September 6, 1983 (See minutes that date). RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney William Hopkins requested a Closed Session to discuss potential litigation with possible action. Agency Member Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Agency Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:43 a.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Chairman called the meeting to order, all Agency Members being present. (9:56 a.m.) Chairman Roth stated that they would field any questions on the subject condemnation relative to the following three items: (a) Whether or not the public interest and necessity required the project. (b) Whether or not the project is planned or located in a manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. (c) Whether or not the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project. Chairman Roth declared the hearing open and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak. Mr. Leonard Hampel, Attorney, Rutan and Tucker, 611 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa, stated he had represented the Duseks (owners of the Pickwick Hotel) since early 1981. The Chairman accurately stated the issues, but he would suggest that the burden was on the Agency to produce evidence to support the findings set forth in the condemnation resolution and also to present evidence 83 -71 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY September 13, 1983, 9.30 A.M. to support California Environmental Protection Act (CEQA) findings that must relate to some form of explanation as to irreparable environmental damage that was about to occur to a historical monument. None of that evidence, to his knowledge, had been presented to the Agency. Based on the record, it would be a gross abuse of discretion to proceed without that type of evidence. He would produce evidence which, in their opinion, would show lack of necessity for the taking. In order to save time and avoid duplication of the extensive hearings held before the Agency in 1981, Mr. Hampel asked if he could have all the evidence as outlined in his letter of September 6, 1983, presented at this hearing without rereading and covering that same ground. Mr. Tom Stoever, Oliver, Stoever and Laskin, Special Counsel to the Agency, answered that would be appropriate. Mr. Hampel then proceeded with his presentation, basically briefing his six -page letter of September 6, 1983 (see letter on file in the City Clerk's office, attached to which and incorporated as part of that letter were documents listed "a." through "i.," consisting of previous documents and testimony presented before the Agency and Advisory Commission as broached by Mr. Hampel in his opening remarks). His presentation highlighted the following: The purpose of the evidence presented established the Duseks' desire and willingness to renovate the Pickwick Hotel and the point was well - established that renovation was both economically and engineeringly feasible. The EIR recognized the building was structurally sound and capable of preservation. Relative to prospective commercial tenants, they had given a list of nine such tenants for the ground floor of the hotel, and that list could easily be supplemented. Renovation would be consistent with both the Zoning Ordinance and Redevelopment Plan as a hotel. The proposed development on Parcels 8 and 9 included a 300 -room hotel. Renovation and the advantages of it would occur without cost to the City and without the necessity of direct governmental subsidy. They respectfully suggested that the Agency had no concrete or tangible alternative. The EIR showed very little in the way of a project and the City's offer was now based on an appraisal some two years old and could hardly be considered reflective of current Fair Market Value of the property. There was no disposition and development agreement of any kind currently in place, or any exclusive negotiating agreement. The Agency had gone forward with no plans to market the property. A developer was absolutely essential for the project and there was no developer. It was a matter of weighing the public good with proceeding against the private injury. Without a project, there was no public good that they could evaluate. Relative to private injury, the Duseks would be deprived of their property, his tenants would lose affordable housing and the community would lose one of its most important historic buildings. There was a requirement in condemnation law that there be a reasonable probability that the project be used for some public use in the foreseeable future. That use was not identified. Finally, they had to make a finding of consistency with the General Plan, which included a Housing Element and that was part and parcel to having a relocation plan for the existing tenants. The Housing Element 83 -72 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY September 13, 1983, 9:30 A.M. indicated a deficiency of 4,000 at present, and there was no way they could justify eliminating more affordable housing in favor or potentially some commercial or office space which would exacerbate the housing problem by bringing in more employees. In concluding, he stated that he hoped the Agency would not adopt the Condemnation Resolution. If they did so, it would "put a gun to their head" and put them in an adversary proceeding. The Duseks would prefer to work with the Agency and have the opportunity to look at alternatives in a meaningful manner. Mr. Priest had not had the opportunity of exploring the alternatives, because several years ago the Agency had already made the decision to take the property. They felt it would be useful, perhaps, with a committee of the Agency and staff to explore realistically the alternatives and the prospects for preserving the Pickwick Hotel. Chairman Roth asked if anyone else wished to speak on the three items outlined at the opening of the hearing. No one else wished to speak. Agency Member Roth offered Resolution No. ARA83 -36 for adoption, finding and determining the public interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing the condemnation of certain real property within the Redevelopment Project Area and authorizing the law firm of Oliver, Stoever & Laskin to proceed. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. ARA83 -36: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINDING AND DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUIRING AND AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (FRANK A. DUSEK, TRUSTEE) Before a vote was taken, Agency Member Bay stated that there should be some comment in response to the continual use of the words historical monument when speaking about the Pickwick Hotel. He personally experienced dealing with the California Historical Commission at a time when almost every 1920 spec building in the Redevelopment Project was considered to be put on the Historic Register. He had discussed the history of the Pickwick with people who lived with that history in the City. He was more impressed with their first -hand experience and the expression of their opinions of the historical or social importance of the Pickwick. In dealings with the California Historical Commission, their opinions had been anything but objective and, in fact, blatantly subjective. There were thousands of items on the Historical Register that had been put there for various sundry reasons and motivations. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA83 -36 duly passed and adopted. 83 -73 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY September 13, 1983_,_9:30 A.M. ADJOURNMENT: Agency Member Pickler moved to adjourn. Agency Member Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:18 a.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, SECRETARY