94-188 RESOLUTION NO. 94R-188
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OVERRULING
ORAL OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS RECEIVED AND OVERRULING SUCH WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE
PROPOSED RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE ANAHEIM STADIUM PROJECT
WHEREAS, a proposed Recovery Plan for the Anaheim Stadium Project has been
prepared by the Anaheim Community Redevelopment Commission; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 1994, a duly noticed joint public hearing on the proposed
Recovery Plan was conducted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim, the Conununity
Redevelopment Commission, and the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and a continued joint
meeting was conducted on August 9, 1994, for the limited purpose of responding to objections to
the proposed Recovery Plan; and
WHEREAS, any and all persons having any objections to the proposed Recovery Plan,
or the regularity of the prior proceedings, were given an opportunity to submit written comments
prior to the commencement of or at the joint public hearing, or to give oral testimony at the joint
public hearing, and show cause why the proposed Recovery Plan should not be adopted; and
WHEREAS, written objections were received and the City Council directed Agency Staff
to respond to such written objections in detail, giving reasons for not accepting specified objections
and suggestions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received and reviewed such responses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has heard and considered all evidence, both written and
oral, presented in support of and in opposition to the adoption of the Recovery Plan for the
Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FOUND AND RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AS FOLLOWS:
:~¢tion 1. The City Council finds that all persons have had the opportunity to be heard
or to file written objection to the proposed Recovery Plan for the Anaheim Stadium Project and to
the regularity of the proceedings with respect to the proposed Recovery Plan, and having heard
and reviewed such oral and written objections, the City Council hereby makes findings in response
to each written objection received as setforth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this referenco, and determines that there are compelling reasons to justify adoption of the
Recovery Plan as proposed, notwithstanding such written and oral objections.
Section 2. The City Council, Community Redevelopment Commission and
Redevelopment Agency have duly complied with all the provisions, requirements and procedures
of Section 34000 et seq. Of the Health and Safety Code relating to the preparation and adoption of a
Recovery Plan for the Anaheim Stadium Project.
Page 1
Section 3. The City Council, accordingly, overrules any and all objections to the
adoption of the Recovery Plan for the Anaheim Stadium Project.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS9__~tDAY OF AUGUST, 1994.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
i, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
No. 94R-188 was Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting provided by law. of the Anaheim City Council
held on the 9th day of August, 1994, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
AND I FURTHER CERTIF that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim signed said Resolution No. 94R-188 on the
loth day of August, 1994.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Anaheim
this loth day of August, 1994.
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
(SEAL)
I, LEONORA N. SOHL, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the original
of Resolution ~o. 94R-188 was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim on
August 9, 1994.
CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
EXHIBIT "A"
PURSUANT TO SECTION 33363 OF THE CALIFORNIA ItEALTH AND
SAFETY CODE, COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW THE
FOLLOWING ARE WRITTEN FINDINGS OF THE ANAHEIM CITY
COUNCIL, LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY, IN RESPONSE TO A LETTER DATED AUGUST 2, 1994 STATING
WRITFEN OBJECTIONS (q_'liE "OBJECTIONS") TO THE RECOVERY PLAN
FOR TIIE ANAHEIM STADIUM PROJECT SUBMITTED BY ALFRED E.
AUGUSTINI, ESQ.~ AUGUSTINI & WHEELER, LAWYERS,
REPRESENTING ANAHEIM STADIUM ASSOCIATES CASA")
Introductory Paragraphs of the Objections
The introductory paragraphs of the Objections purport to state ASA's understanding of its
claimed development rights in and to a certain parking area in a portion of Anaheim Stadium.
The claimed development rights have been the subject of and are ancillary to pending legal
actions among ASA, the City of Anaheim (the "City"). and the California Angels, Golden West
Baseball Co. in the Superior Court, County of Orange for over ten (10) years (the "Litigation").
The City Council responds by stating that the only correct and official statement of the facts,
circumstances, and status of the proceedings in the Litigation, thcluding, without limitation, the
status of ASA's claimed development rights, are contained in the court documents. Thus, the
introductory paragraphs of the Objections do not state a specific written objection to the Recovery
Plan and the City Council defers to the public documents, records, and pleadings on file iu the
Litigation.
1. Claimed Inadequate Notice
ASA freely admits in the Objections that it was advised in early June 1994 by
representatives of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") that pursuant to the
Community Redevelopment Financial Assistance and Disaster Project Law, California Health an~l
Safety Code Section 34000, et seq. (the "Disaster Project l_.aw") the Agency was considering the
formation of the subject Project Area. Legal counsel to ASA easily could have gleaned from the
Disaster Project Law the specific and limited legal notice requirements of such proposed
proceedings. Indeed, all actions taken to date by the Anaheim Communi_ry Redevelopment
Commission (CRC), the Agency, and the City through the City Council ("City Council") have
occurred at and during duly agendized, posted, and held public meetings pursuant to and in full
compliance with the Disaster Project Law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, California Government
Code Section 54950, et seq., and other applicable laws and regulations. All of the public,
including ASA and its attorney, were and are welcome to review posted public agendas and
available related materials and to receive actual or constructive notice through the duly published
legal notice in full compliance with Section 34013(0 of the Disaster Project Law. All legal
noticing and agenda posting requirements were met by the CRC, Agency, and City Council.
Contrary to the statement in the Objections, there is no legal requirement to personally advise
ASA or Mr. Augustini of the subject proceedings.
EJOIIBIT "A"
?utu~:178o6_211591B2621.55 (Page l of 3) 08/08/04
Copies of the relevant documents relating to the Recovery Plan and Project Area
were available in the Office of the City Clerk at and after the duly posted meeting(s) agenda(s).
2. Claimed Inclusion in Project Area of Unblighted Property Unaffected by
Alleged Disaster
The CRC, Agency, and City Council are including within the Project Area only
that real property owned by the City which comprises Anaheim Stadium, that is, the Stadium,
with its parking and appurtenant facilities. No privately owned real property parcels are
included. ASA seems to suggest the Agency adopt peculiar Project Area boundaries of about
1,000 seats and the toppled scoreboard in the Stadium. This area is not a separate parcel for
property tax assessment purposes. Moreover, there was collateral structural damage to the
overall Stadium.
The selected Project Area is limited and appropriate in scope. It includes just the
City-owned parcels which comprise the property collectively known as Anaheim Stadium, the
facility that suffered the earthquake damage.
The Report to Council, Section I, Reasons for Selection of Project Area, fully
explains the Project Area boundary selection and the City Council refers the reader to Section I
of the Report to Council.
Section 34013(b) of the Disaster Project Law expressly allows the Agency to
undertake and carry out a redeveloptnent project, and the City Council may approve the
Recovery Plan in a disaster area without regard to the blight finding requirements of Section
33320.1.
Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2 et seq. within the Comnmnity
Redevelopment Law ("CRL") requires the Agency and City Council to set-aside not less than
twenty percent (20%) of the allocated tax increment to increase, improve and preserve housing
for low- and moderate- income persons and families available at an affordable housing coat, and
further expressly authorizes that the funds may be expended outside the Project Area, so long as
the appropriate benefit findings can be made.
As the land use designations in the Project Area do not currently permit (nor are
anticipated to permi0 the development of any residential land uses at Anaheim Stadium, all the
monies in the Housing Fund for the Project Area will necessarily be expended for the benefit of,
but outside, the Project Area.
ASA is also directed to Section 34013(d) of the Disaster Project Law in that there
is no legal requirement that a finding be made by the City Council that the Recovery Plan
conform to the City's General Plan.
Under the Recovery Plan, the Agency will be empowered to acquire real and
personal property, and real property may be acquired by eminent domain in conformity with legal
requirements. The California appellate courts, from Redevelopment Agency v. Hayes, 122 Cal.
EXHIBIT "A"
17806_21159li52621.55 (Page 2 of 3) o8/o8/94
App. 2d 777, 803 (1954) and following, have long held that acquisition of property in a declared
Project Area by the Agency for redevelopment is a public purpose.
3. Claimed Improper Interference With Vested Rights
This objection does not state why ASA believes the Recovery Plan would
improperly interfere with ASA's claimed vested development rights, and the City Council refers
to the above responses, and in this Section 3., no further response is necessary or included.
4. Claimed Failure to Comply With CEQA
Section 21080(b) of the Public Resources Code, CEQA, and Section 15269 of the
CEQA Guidelines exempts the adoption of the Recovery Plan from review thereunder. The
CEQA Guidelines explain that the applicability of an exemption is the first step in the CEQA
process. See Guidelines Sections 15002 and 15269, and _Ci__.V/of Pasadena v. State of California,
14 Cal. App. 4th 810, 819-821 (1993). The Agency may prepare a notice of exemption.
Guidelines Section 15002,(k)(1). The determination of whether an activity is exempt from
CEQA is made as a part of the preliminary review process. Guidelines Section 15061. "It is
plain that, under the statutory and regulatory scheme, if a project falls within a categorical
exemption no formal environmental evaluation is made. [Citations.]" City of Pasadena., 14 Cal.
App. 4th at 820.
Prior to the City Council acting on the Recovery Plan Ordinance, a Resolution
referencing CEQA and the exemption therefrom will be considered and action will be taken
thereon.
5. Claimed Failure to Show Plan Consistent with General Plan
There is no requirement under applicable statutes and laws that the Recovery Plan
make any findings that the Recovery Plan or any low- and moderate-income housing developed
thereunder be consistent with the City's General Plan, or the Housing Element within the General
Plan. The City Council refers ASA again to Section 34013 of the Disaster Project Law.
6. Claimed Improper Reallocation of Tax Increment Funds
ASA references Revenue and Taxation Code Sections 97.03 and 97.035 (in fact
the verbatim sentence is used twice) without explanation or elaboration. ASA seems to claim the
constitutional scheme of redevelopment tax increment funding is an improper reallocation of
monies away from uses mandated by law. ASA's claim is without basis and not valid. Tax
increment funding of redevelopment was approved by the voters in 1952 through an amendment
of the state Constitution, and is set forth in the CRL implementing legislation, specifically Section
33670, and tax increment financing has long been affirmed by the appellate courts. The property
tax shifts and budget legislation of 1993, including without limitation, Revenue and Taxation
Code Sections 97.03 and 97.035, are not affected or applicable here.
The City Council refers to Section IV of the Report to Council which fully outlines the
method of financing the Recovery Plan and the economic feasibility thereof.
EXHIBIT "A"
PUBL:17806_2[ 1591 B2621.55 (Page 3 of 3) 08/08/94