Loading...
RA1982/10/1282 -84 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY October 12, 1982, 9:30 A.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 9:38 a.m. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY in the amount of $96,067.81, in accordance with the 1982 -83 Budget, were approved. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Agency Member Overholt, seconded by Agency Member Bay, 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. 161.123: Approving the preliminary construction drawings for the Chamber of Commerce Building, Inc., and Obie Moore Project, Parcel b, 114 -150 East Old Lincoln Avenue. 2. 161.158: Receiving and filing report on Relocation Claims pending ninety or more days, including Case No. TB -207. MOTION CARRIED. 161.158: RELOCATION APPEALS BOARD DISPOSITION OF RELOCAT ASSISTANCE CLAIM, HURST JEWELERS, INC: Approving the recommendations of the Relocation Appeals Board on disposition of a claim for relocation assistance submitted by Hurst Jewelers, Inc. Mr. Norman Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, stated that they had a request from Floyd Farano, Attorney, to speak on the matter. Mr. Tom Kieviet, 2555 East Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, associate of Mr. Farano, representing Hurst Jew'lers, explained that involved was a relocation appeal claim wherein various items of relocation to the new Hurst facility were denied by Agency staff and subsequently heard by the Relocations Appeals Board (RAB). That Board denied certain items and granted others in part. They were not requesting that the matter be set for rehearing before the Agency, since they felt they were entitled to the full compensation of the claims. They were not in accord with the recommendations of the Relocation Appeals Board as outlined in their Resolution No. RAB82 -1, recommending that the Agency disallow Claims A, B, C, D, E, F, H and I, and that the Agency allow one -half on" of Claims G and J, in a total amount of $3,469.42. 82 -85 Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY October 12, 1982, 9:30 A .M. Upon questioning by Agency Members, Mr. Priest then explained that if they accepted the recommendation of the RAB, the next step for the petitioner would be court action. If they did not approve the recommendation of the Board, they would be accepting the request of the petitioner's attorney, and the matter would then be set for a hearing after appropriate public notice. It had not been heard by the Agency previously, but by the Relocation Appeals Board at some length on three afternoons (July 12, 19 and 26, 1982). MOTION: Agency Member Bay felt that rehearing the matter would not be of any benefit to the Agency. He thereupon moved that the Agency approve the recommendations of the Relocations Appeals Board, as outlined in their Resolution No. RAB82 -1. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Kieviet stated it was their contention that the Appeals Board did not have the discretionary ability that the Agency would have to deny or accept the claims submitted. Therefore, because of their discretionary ability, the claims should be brought to the Agency itself. Agency Member Overholt asked the City Attorney if the Appeals Board had discretionary power; City Attorney Hopkins stated that they had the power to make recommendations to the Agency and the final determination was by the Agency, either to accept or reject. Mr. Brent Hawkins of Weiser Kane, Balmer and Berkman, Special Counsel for the Agency, confirmed that the Relocation Appeals Board function was to review the evidence and make a recommendation to the Agency. While the Board did not have the power to take the action itself, it could recommend that the Agency make the award. The petitioner's attorney was arguing that there were certain kinds of relocation benefits that were discretionary and not necessarily mandatory. Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney, 2555 East Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, stated he felt the conditions under which the hearing were held were such that they did not afford his clients a fair hearing. It was the first such hearing and the rules and procedures set forth were unofficial. Although the hearing covered three afternoons, one of the reasons was due to the fact that there was confusion as to how it would be conducted. He reiterated, it was the first time and it was not very well organized and, therefore, his client did not get a fair hearing. Mr. Hawkins explained that the RAB was a lay Board, not experts on relocation matters, and their hearings were rather informal. To argue the fact that the hearings were not conducted as expeditiously and effectively as a court hearing, while that might be true, it did not mean they were not given a fair hearing. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, approving the recommendations of the Relocation Appeals Board. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Agency Member Bay moved to adjourn. Agency Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:55 a.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, SECRETARY