RA1983/05/1783 -35
Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May 17, 1983, 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
HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
Chairman Roth called the regular meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency
to order at 9:57 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
54,840.22 and 602,505 for Series "C" Bonds, in accordance with the 1982 -83
Budget, were approved.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM: On motion by Agency Member Pickler, seconded by Agency
Member Overholt, the following action was authorized in accordance with the
report and recommendation furnished each Agency Member and as listed on the
Consent Calendar Agenda:
1. 161.123: Authorizing Change Order No. 2 to the contract with Viking
Equipment Corporation in the amount of $16,206.25 to secure the east wall at
249 -259 1/2 East Old Lincoln Avenue in connection with Contract D82 -13,
bringing the original contract price to $29,151.15.
MOTION CARRIED.
161.123: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT - MAZZA PROPERTIES
(PARCELS 4d AND 4e): Approving a 90 -day extension of time to the Negotiation
Agreement with Mazza Properties for development of Parcels 4d and 4e bounded
by Lincoln Avenue, Olive Street, alley south of Old Lincoln Avenue and
Philadelphia Street.
Executive Director of Community Development Norman Priest briefed his report
dated May 5, 1983, recommending that the Agency approve a 90 -day extension of
time to the Negotiation Agreement between the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and
Mazza Properties for development of Parcels 4d and e. The density being
proposed exceeded the allowable density under the Zoning Code. They had been
working with the Planning Department, the developer had been patient, and they
were presently awaiting a resolution on the zoning issue. Since the developer
was unable to move forward under the circumstances, they were recommending an
extension of time to the Negotiation Agreement, as outlined in the report.
Agency Member Bay asked, since they had been in negotiation with Mr. Mazza for
one and one -half years on the subject parcels, if they had current financial
information showing capital assets ready for investment in the project.
83 -36
Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May 17, 1983, 9:30 A.M.
Mr. Priest answered they did not have recent data and had not sought it,
although they advised the developer yesterday that he should be prepared to
speak to that matter.
Mr. Jack Alter, Vice President, Mazza Properties, 1005 East Lincoln Avenue,
stated they accepted the recommendation of approval of the 90 -day extension to
the Negotiation Agreement. They had not been able to proceed because they did
not have the zoning for the density.
MOTION: Councilman Bay asked if it was possible to trail the item until they
completed discussion on the next item, the recommendation to deny Mazza
Properties request for a 90 -day extension of time to their Negotiation
agreement for the development of Parcel 4c. He thereupon moved to trail the
subject until completion of discussion on the request for an extension of time
to the Negotiation Agreement on Parcel 4c. Agency Member Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Later in the meeting after extensive discussion on the request for
extension of time to Negotiation Agreement on Parcel 4c, Agency Member
Overholt moved to approve a 90 -day extension of time to the Negotiation
Agreement with Mazza Properties for development of Parcels 4d and 4e bounded
by Lincoln Avenue, Olive Street, the alley south of Old Lincoln Avenue and
Philadelphia Street, as recommended in memorandum dated May 5, 1983, from the
Executive Director. Agency Member Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Agency Member Bay stated he was interested in the
possibility of rather than initiating a new ordinance to cover the type of
density being requested, if a conditional use permit would not be in order.
It concerned him that they would be initiating a new ordinance with 60 or 70
dwellings per acre when a CUP would handle the matter on a single project
basis and might take less time as well. The second item he was interested in
was the financial data of assets supplied by the developer as of this date.
He wanted to see the asset profunda that they had and wanted Mr. Priest's
opinion on whether they needed a new one at this time, as they went into an
extended 90 days on the negotiations.
Mr. Priest answered that in their discussions with Planning staff, they
concurred with his (Bay's) point of view that a CUP would be an appropriate
way to proceed instead of an ordinance change. The Agency's aim was to get
the housing produced and work it through the most appropriate means. They
would need an updated financial statement, since the one they received was
submitted at the time of the original negotiation.
Agency Member Bay stated on that basis, he was going to support the requested
extension.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, including the stipulation that
up -to -date financial information be provided. MOTION CARRIED.
83 -37
Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May 17, 1983, 9:30 A.M.
161.123: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO NEGOTIATION AGREEMENT - MAZZA PROPERTIES -
PARCEL 4c: A recommendation to deny Mazza Properties request for a 90 -day
extension of time to their Negotiation Agreement for development of Parcel 4c
bounded by Old Lincoln Avenue, Philadelphia Street, alley south of Old Lincoln
Avenue and Claudina Street, was submitted by staff.
Executive Director of Community Development briefed his report dated May 10,
1983, recommending that the Agency deny Mazza Properties request for a 90 -day
extension of time to their Negotiation Agreement for development of Parcel 4c,
and further elaborated on the points of discussion contained therein. -Mazza
Properties proposed to develop 94 units of shared housing, which would be an
opportunity for two people to live in a single unit who may or may not be
related, and it was a difficult property to finance. At the outset, there was
an indication the rents would be $187.50 per month, but some assumptions had
to change on that. As noted in the report, they had continued their efforts
to hold the rents down, but the figure they received from Mazza indicated that
to hold the rents down to just in excess of $200 a month would require a
$1,200,000 contribution from the Agency. They did not believe that was an
appropriate expenditure of funds for the project and further were suggesting
the possibility that the developer investigate the Section 202 approach, which
was followed by Anaheim Memorial Hospital some months ago in a project they
were developing. Because he did not feel that much money should be expended
on the project, they were recommending termination of negotiations and
reoffering the parcel for development. Although they would be terminating an
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement, it would not preclude their talking with Mr.
Mazza, but they could also talk to others as well. Further, he had just been
handed a chart of figures relating to different projects in the Redevelopment
area submitted by Mr. Mazza. He would be unable to give a definitive analysis
of the figures contained therein, although he did not concur with all of the
numbers in his perusal of the document.
Mr. Richard Mazza, President of Mazza Properties, 1005 East Lincoln Avenue,
stated that they did not want to ask for another extension, but, in fact, were
ready to discuss a development agreement until one Councilman directed Norman
Priest and his staff to look for other uses for Parcel c. They were forced to
do another feasibility study to prove again the need for senior living in the
area. They proved it and found over 800 seniors who gave their names,
addresses and telephone numbers, indicating the need for the type of housing
they proposed. While doing the feasibility study, they decided to wait no
longer for a go -ahead and subsequently prepared their final concept and
started their FHA package. To complete the package, they needed three
things - -a signed Negotiation or Development Agreement, they must indicate the
rents they would be charging, and the amount of subsidy they would receive in
the form of an interest buydown on the bond issue. This was not the only site
needed for senior living and would only furnish less than 10 percent of what
was needed. It was the most ideally located piece of land in Anaheim and had
every requirement for happy senior living.
83 -38
Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May 17, 1983, 9:30 A.M.
Mr. Mazza then elaborated on the parking spaces that were necessary, which
would cost them approximately $9,500 each. He then referred to negotiations
that the Agency had previously concluded with the Chamber of Commerce, the
Village Center Group and the E1 Camino Bank Building for parking spaces,
costing approximately $1,000 per space. He called that favoritism and a
subsidy and further, the City would lose the tax increment on the parking
structure, because it was City -owned (also see memorandum dated May 14, 1983,
from Mazza Properties).
Mr. Mazza then showed a slide of the chart he had prepared and submitted
(chart on file in the City Clerk's office), listing the Village Center
building, the Chamber of Commerce building, E1 Camino Bank Building, the
parking structure and Mazza Properties senior apartments, which contained the
market value of the land, what the developer paid, land subsidy to the
developer, parking space cost, parking subsidy, space leased by the developer
and the total subsidy. He then briefed the Agency on the figures contained in
the chart. In concluding, he stated they were asking the Agency today to
renew their Negotiation Agreement and to grant them approximately one -half of
the treatment they had already given to adjacent developers. They were asking
for the subsidy only to be able to reduce the rents to senior citizens of
Anaheim who would be their tenants. The question today was would they build a
senior shared living apartment building with the Agency's blessing and
subsidy, or a market price apartment building and charge $600 per month rent.
Mr. Priest then commented on the figures that were presented by Mr. Mazza at
the request of Agency Member Kaywood. He also countered many of Mr. Mazza's
comments and clarified some of the points of question.
Agency Member Kaywood then posed questions to Lisa Stipkovich, Housing
Manager, relative to shared housing. Mrs. Stipkovich reported that in
reviewing the survey that Mr. Mazza presented to them, they found that many of
the people listed were married couples and that was a different situation than
what they were trying to do with their shared housing program, basically
bringing two unrelated people together.
Agency Member Overholt stated Mr. Mazza made a statement he would like to
comment on, that being that a Councilman, other than himself, gave direction
to staff with respect to the parcel. He (Mazza) had made that statement to
him previously and he wanted to assure Mr. Mazza that he had made an
independent investigation and found it not to be true. Staff did not take
direction from one Agency Member.
After further discussion and questioning by Agency Members Kaywood and
Pickler, following additional comments made by Mr. Alter, Chairman Roth asked
if anyone wished to speak; there was no response.
83 -39
Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May 17, 1983, 9:30 A.M.
Agency Member Kaywood stated she was extremely concerned having anyone tied
into an Exclusive Right to Negotiate lasting 547 days and adding an additional
extension to that; Mr. Priest explained that there were delays occasioned by
both the Agency and the developer. He was not personally of a strong opinion
that the length of time should be laid at the developer's door. They were
equally responsible for some of the delays.
Agency Member Overholt asked the practical effect of the Agency following his
recommendation in terms of negotiation on the parcel; Mr. Priest answered it
would effectively open up the discussions. They were in an area in the
Redevelopment plan that could be either residential or commercial. They could
continue to talk with Mr. Mazza, but also other developers relative to either
commercial or residential use. It would simply no longer be exclusive
negotiations. Alternatively, Mr. Mazza might choose not to pursue the matter,
because he would have no assurance of an exclusive right to negotiate in the
end. They would simply look to the time that they could put together a
package they thought was fruitful, whether with Mr. Mazza or anyone else, and
then come back to the Agency with that.
Agency Member Bay then reported that they had a Redevelopment liaison meeting
some time ago which he attended with Mr. Pickler and representatives from the
Redevelopment Commission. At that time, the heavily subsidized presentation
._._ by Mr. Mazza was on the table and under discussion. The immediate response of
the Liaison Committee was that it looked like a very high up -front subsidy and
thus the response of the Committee was that staff look at those numbers and
give a report. The conclusion and the beginning of that policy thinking at
that time was before the Agency now in a recommendation to deny. There was
nothing out of line, or direction given by individual Agency Members to the
staff. He resented Mr. Mazza's implications that there was any direction by a
single Agency Member.
MOTION: Agency Member Bay moved to deny the request for a 90 -day extension of
time by Mazza Properties to their Negotiation Agreement for development of
Parcel 4c bounded by Old Lincoln Avenue, Philadelphia Street, the alley south
of Old Lincoln Avenue and Claudina Street, as recommended in memorandum dated
May 10, 1983, from the Executive Director. Agency Member Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Agency Member Kaywood asked Mr. Alter of the 800 senior
citizens interested in shared housing, how many were couples; Mr. Alter
answered 175. He also confirmed that they had the understanding in the event
of the passing of one person, another person would move into that apartment or
the survivor move out.
Chairman Roth asked for a show of hands of people present in the Chambers
audience who were present today relative to shared housing. Approximately 20
to 25 people indicated their presence because of their interest in the subject
°" matter.
83 -40
Anaheim Civic Center, ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May 17, 1983, 9:30 A.M.
161.121: CONDEMNATION HEARING To consider acquisition of property owned by
Iris E. Elliott, Executrix for William Ward, generally located at 244 -250 East
Old Lincoln Avenue. Submitted was a report from the Community Development
Department dated May 5, 1983.
Chairman Roth asked if Mr. Elliott was present.
Mr. Edward Elliott, 510 South Haven Drive, stated they would like to request a
continuance on the matter for approximately one month. They had an
independent appraiser coming in and he felt the problem could be resolved.
There had been a conservatorship established and now with the death of his
client, an executor was appointed.
Mr. Priest stated his preference would be to approve the resolution, but hold
off on any filing while they settled the matter.
Mr. Elliott was agreeable to that course of action.
Agency Member Roth offered Resolution No. ARA83 -20, 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, but that
the Agency postpone any filing in order to determine if the matter could be
settled. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA83 -20: 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. (Iris E. Elliott, Executrix of William Ward, and authorizing
the law firm of Oliver, Stoever & Laskin to proceed)
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 -20 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Agency Member Bay moved to adjourn. Agency Member Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:44 a.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, SECRETARY