RA1994/02/15Anahein Civic Center, ANABEIN REDBVELOPMF.HT AGENCY
FEBRUARY 15, 1994, 5 :00 P.N.
PRESENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
SECRETARY: Leonora N. Sohl
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency was posted at 2:20 p.m. on February 11, 1994 at the Civic Center kiosk,
containing all items as shown herein.
Chairman Daly called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency
to order at 5:24 p.m.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in the amount of
$165,691.41 for the period ending February 11, 1994, in accordance with the
1993 -94 Budget, were approved.
CLOSED SESSION:
To confer with its Attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to
Government Code Sec. 54956.9(a) - City of Fullerton, et al. vs. City of
Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case 72- 36 -50.
The Closed Session was held in conjunction with the City Council 3:00 p.m.,
Closed Session.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: No items of public interest were addressed.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: There were no public comments on
Redevelopment Agency agenda items.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1 - 3: On motion by Agency Member Hunter, 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: Receiving and filing Ordinance No. 5415 approving and adopting the
Redevelopment Plan for the Commercial /Industrial Redevelopment Project.
2. 161: Receiving and filing Ordinance No. 5412 approving and adopting the
Redevelopment Plan for the Brookhurst Commercial Corridor Redevelopment
Project.
3. 112: Approving the Stipulated Judgment and executing the stipulation for
entry of judgment, concerning Case No. 72- 36 -50, City of Fullerton, a
municipal corporation; City of Fullerton Redevelopment Agency; Don Bankhead;
and Robert E. Ward, Petitioners, vs. City of Anaheim; City Council of the City
of Anaheim; City of Anaheim Redevelopment Agency; City of Anaheim
Redevelopment Commission; and does I through XX, inclusive.
4. 121: HEARING - CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY INTEREST - 1007 AND
1007 1 4 E. BROADWAY:
Finding and determining the public interest and necessity for acquiring and
authorizing the condemnation of certain real property interests in real
property located at 1007 and 1007 1/2 E. Broadway in the City of Anaheim.
94 -8
Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FEBRUARY 15, 1994, 5 :00 P.M.
Submitted was report dated February 15, 1994 from the Redevelopment Manager,
Rob ZurSchmiede recommending that the Agency proceed with said condemnation
action.
Letter dated February 11, 1994 was received from Mr. Kenneth Fisher, owner of
the subject property requesting a 30 -day extension of the hearing in order to
properly prepare to contest the resolution.
Chairman Daly announced this is the time and place for the hearing on the
proposed acquisition by eminent domain of certain real property interests
required for road and public utility purposes relating to the property located
at 1007 and 1007 % East Broadway, which property interests are legally
described in Exhibit "A" of the proposed resolution attached to the Staff
Report to the Redevelopment Agency dated February 15, 1994.
He then asked to hear from staff.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. She first
briefed the subject staff report which gave the history of the results of
negotiations with the property owner which began in May, 1993, noting that to
date, negotiations have been unsuccessful and settlement through continued
negotiations is unlikely. In accordance with law, the property owner was
given full notice of this hearing through registered mail received by him on
January 28, 1994. It is critical for the property to be acquired by the
Agency in order to comply with the development agreement with Kaufman & Broad.
The entire area is scheduled to be made available for 152 residential units in
downtown project ALPHA Development Area V. She is asking that the Agency
consider going forward with this action this evening. Special Counsel is also
available if there are any questions.
Agency Member Feldhaus asked the basis for the extension request by the
property owner.
Lisa Stipkovich. The request for extension which she just received states
that due to the fact that Mr. Fisher did not receive notice of the subject
hearing until approximately February 1, 1994, he is requesting an extension of
30 days so that he can properly prepare to contest the resolution. She
clarified that they have been in negotiations with Mr. Fisher since last July.
Chairman Daly opened the public hearing inviting the owner of record of the
described property or a designated representative to present testimony on any
of the following issues only:
1. Whether the public interest and necessity require the
project.
2. Whether the project is planned and located in a manner that will
be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private
injury.
3. Whether the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the
project.
4. Whether the offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 has
been made to the owner or owners of record.
94 -9
Anaheim Civic Center. ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FEBRUARY 15, 1994, 5 :00 P.M.
Mr. Ken Fisher, owner of the property at 1007 and 1007 'A East Broadway. He
first asked if he was to understand that his request for an extension is being
turned down. He asked for an extension and feels it is a reasonable request.
He went to the library today and he could not find Section 7267.2 of the
Government Code and is going to go to the main library tomorrow. He is also
trying to find legal representation and 17 days is not enough time. He was
hoping there would be more reasonable negotiations. He will hold his remarks
until it is determined if he will get an extension.
Duff Murphy, Special Counsel to the Agency. Under eminent domain law, the
time of notice given to the property owner is sufficient. It is stated the
owner must respond 15 days prior to the hearing to advise whether he intends
to appear. The notice was given 20 days before this date. Under the statute,
there has been adequate notice to this property owner of this hearing.
Chairman Daly. He asked how long City staff has been in discussion with the
property owner regarding acquiring the property.
Lisa Stipkovich. She reiterated it has been since July. The property owner
originally approached the Agency regarding acquisition of his property. The
actual first offer was November 10, 1993 and the final offer made December 29,
1993. She also emphasized that no matter what happens tonight and whether the
Agency moves forward or not, Agency staff still intends to negotiate with
Mr. Fisher. It does not end formal or informal negotiations. They would
still like to work with the property owner to try to resolve the issue. They
would like the time clock to start the process so that they can look forward
to a point in time where they could get this into the courts should it be
necessary but she would prefer to negotiate a settlement with the property
owner.
Mr. Fisher stated he has been informed by real estate agents that there are
certain legal precedents and decisions that he has not had time to research.
He will address the other issues when and if he knows he has an extension. He
cannot prepare in 17 days.
City Attorney White. Staff is recommending the request for continuance be
denied and the hearing proceed this evening. This does not preclude the
property owner from contacting and hiring an attorney and preparing in the
event litigation becomes necessary. Tonight the hearing is before the Agency
and consideration of adopting a resolution of necessity. Four issues that are
relevant for tonight's hearing are as outlined by the Chairman. Those should
be what the testimony is directed toward. If there are other issues such as
the amount of compensation as indicated by Mrs. Stipkovich, staff is willing
and intends to continue negotiations. If those negotiations do not result in
an agreement, the property owner or his legal counsel has the right to contest
that through court action. He reiterated, staff is recommending that the
Agency proceed with the hearing and that testimony should be directed at the
four issues outlined.
MOTION: Agency Member Pickler moved to deny the request of a 30 -day
continuance of the subject hearing. Agency Member Hunter seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Chairman Daly. The public hearing is still open. He invited Mr. Fisher to
proceed regarding the four appropriate areas according to State law which
primarily have to do with whether it is appropriate for the City to proceed to
acquire the property.
94 -10
Anahei= Civic Center ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FEBRUARY 15, 1994, 5 :00 P.M.
Kenneth Fisher. This is a rental property where he was getting $2,025 a month
in rent prior to the City buying up all the property around him. Because he
could not get any renters in there, he did contact the Agency. They made him
what he considers a ridiculously low offer. At that time, they did not even
go inside the property when they did the appraisal. They did not realize he
turned the front house into two bedrooms, two baths - four bedrooms instead of
one bath and two bedrooms. They subsequently came back and gave him another
appraisal and this time did go inside the property. He turned that offer
down. He asked for a little bit more and the Agency said no. He then relayed
some of the discussion he had with staff along with questions he asked of
them. He concluded that he has a property by his calculation that should be
worth $246,000 but because of the mess the Agency made of the neighborhood, he
had to lower the rent to $1,800 or now an approximate worth of $216,000. He
understands the code says they have to give him the money he needs to replace
that property with a like -type investment. He cannot do that and that is why
he said no and asked for the extension because he wanted time to research the
code section to get the exact point of law.
Chairman Daly. As staff indicated, they will continue to be available and
willing to negotiate.
Kenneth Fisher. They sent him a final offer and they have not called him
since. He called them and now they are saying they are willing to negotiate.
He is willing to negotiate but wants honest negotiation based on what he was
getting from that property as an investment.
Chairman Daly closed the public hearing.
Agency Member Daly offered Resolution No. ARA94 -1 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA94 -1: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FINDING AND DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY TO CONDEMN CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1007 AND 1007 1 h E.
BROADWAY IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AND AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. ARA94 -1 for adoption:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Hunter, Daly
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA94 -1 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: Agency Member Daly moved to recess to 6:00 p.m. for a joint public
hearing with the City Council. Agency Member Feldhaus seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. (5:41 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: Chairman Daly reconvened the Redevelopment Agency for a
continued joint meeting with the City Council. (6:02 p.m.)
D1. 123: CONTINUED JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY /CITY COUNCIL
ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND
BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND KOLL ANAHEIM CENTER ASSOCIATES A
94 -11
Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FEBRUARY 15, 1994, 5 :00 P.M.
CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WHICH SETS FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
THE SALE OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA
LOCATION /REQUEST: The Alpha Redevelopment Project Area is roughly
bounded by Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim and Harbor Boulevards, Broadway, and
Oak Street. The request is to consider the approval of the Fourth
Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement with Koll Anaheim
Center Associates, which provides for revised terms and conditions for
the sale and development of certain real property.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin — January 25 and February 1, 1994
The joint public hearing was scheduled and continued from the meeting of
February 8, 1994 to this date.
Submitted was report dated February 11, 1994 from the Redevelopment Agency
asking that the public hearing again be rescheduled to March 1, 1994.
City Clerk Sohl. Although the agenda indicates that staff is requesting a
one -week continuance, they have changed their recommendation to two weeks, to
March 1, 1994 since there is no meeting scheduled next week.
MOTION: Agency Member Daly moved to continue the joint public hearing to
Tuesday, March 1, 1994. Agency Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
MOTION: Council Member Daly moved to continue the joint public hearing to
Tuesday, March 1, 1994. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Agency Member Daly moved to adjourn the Redevelopment Agency
meeting. Agency Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
(6:05 p.m.)
902
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
94 -12