HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 1986/05/06 - Regular1
TEMPLE CITY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MINUTES
MAY 6, 1986
INITIATION:
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Atkins called the meeting of the Temple Community
Redevelopment Agency to order at 9:05 p.m. on Tuesday, May 6,
1986.
2. ROLL CALL:
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Members- Dennis, Froehle, Gillanders, Swain, Atkins
Members -None
Executive Director Koski, Special Counsel Parring-
ton, General Counsel Martin, Assistant Executive
Director Shaw
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
On motion by Mrs. Swain, seconded by Mr. Gillanders, the Minutes
of the April 15, 1986 meeting were approved as written.
4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
None
5. NEW BUSINESS:
A. RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE
PROPERTY BY CONDEMNATION WITHIN BLOCK "A" OF THE ROSEMEAD
BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA:
(1) 8912 ELM AVENUE (DR. DENVER COLEMAN)
Executive Director Koski stated that the Agency has
been proceeding to acquire certain properties to de-
velop that recently adopted schematic development plan
for Block "A ". Appraisals on two particular pieces of
property have been received and offers made to the
owners. However, the owners have indicated at this
point that they are not willing to make a settlement.
At the Agency's. request, Special Counsel Parrington
has prepared resolutions authorizing the condemnation
of certain real property within the Rosemead Boulevard
Redevelopment Project in order for the Agency to move
ahead by depositing the funds in Court, acquire title
of the property and resolve the acquisition costs at a
later date.
Special Counsel Parrington stated there arefour find-
ings which the Agency must make in order to acquire
property using the power of eminent domain. First, the
offer, based upon an Agency- approved appraisal, has been
made to the property owner. The Agency has appraised
the property and has employed Mr. Al Berest, a real estate
negotiator. The hearing tonight is not to determine the
reasonableness of the offer or the differences of opinion
as to value that the property owner may have. The find-
ing is that the offer has been made in accordance with
the Agency's procedures. The second is that the public
interest and necessity require the particular project. the
project is planned in,a manner most compatible with the
public good and least private injury ; and that the property
Agency Minutes, May 6, 1986.- page 2
is necessary for the project. The Agency previously
adopted a design for development for this particular area
and a redevelopment plan has been adopted which not only
includes this Block "A ", but several other blocks within
the Redevelopment Project.
The parcel owned by Dr. Coleman is a single family resi-
dence, presently vacated and a damaged structure. The
property which Dr. Coleman owns and is leasing to C & R
Clothiers is not part of this resolution.
Donald Bollinger, Nichols, Stead, Boileau & Lamb, P.O.
Box 2829, Pomona 91769, stated that Dr. Coleman has been
the owner of the property in question 'since 1941 and has
a great deal of pride in his ownership and wishes to
retain it. The proposal to adopt a resolution of necessity
to acquire the Elm Street property is only a part of the
larger context with which Mr. Bollinger said all must be
concerned and that is Dr. Coleman's larger ownership
within the block.
Mr. Bollinger advised that at the February 18 meeting he
opposed the adoption of development standards for
Block "A "; and, at that time, based upon the represen-
tations of staff and assurances of the Agency, Dr. Cole-
man withdrew his formal opposition to the adoption of
the standards with the express understanding that Dr.
Coleman would be invited to meet with developers and that
the standards were tentative. Mr. Bollinger went on to
say that on the 19th he sent correspondence to the City
requesting a copy of the resolution as adopted amending
the development standards and a copy of any correspon-
dence which had been sent to Dr. Coleman's tenants and
to date he has received neither. It was his opinion
that the Agency did not have a project to consider at
this time. The Agency does not have a plan with any
definition at all. He stressed the fact that both he
and Dr. Coleman have expressed a very strong desire to
participate in the development of this property. On
May 5, Mr. Bollinger received on behalf of Denver Cole-
man a letter inquiring if he had an interest in par-
ticipating in exercising his owner's rights of partici-
pation; however, the site referred to in the inquiry was
not indicated in the correspondence. Mr. Bollinger re-
quested that the Agency defer any acquisition of any
property owned by Denver Coleman until such time as the
Agency has a plan and until such time as Denver Coleman
has been given adequate time to exercise his owner's
rights of participation.
Special Counsel Parrington stated that the Agency has
adopted a design for development and has acquired several
properties already on Elm and Reno. The use designated
in the design for development is commercial not residen-
tial. The property under discussion is a residential
parcel which has fire damage and is currently vacant.
If the agency were to take no action, the property could
be renovated, a tenant obtained for the property and
the Agency, in order to carry out the design for develop-
ment, could be faced with additional relocation costs
and a disruptive situation for a tenant.
With respect to participation, this has been an ongoing
discussion. At the meeting where the design for develop-
ment was adopted, the Agency indicated at that time that
they desired to proceed to acquire this particular par-
cel which was vacant and an eyesore, and a parcel which
ultimately could be integrated into the commercial
development and resolt to Dr. Coleman if need be. The
residential use is incompatible with the development
standards. The Agency did indicate that
Agency Minutes, May 6, 1986 - Page 3
they desired to acquire the parcel, but that the
Agency would forego any attempt to acquire the com-
mercial parcel fronting on Rosemead Boulevard pending
selection of a developer. No commercial developer for
this project has been solicited or selected. Mr.
Parrington advised that he was under the impression a
copy of the amended development standards had been sent
to Mr. Bollinger and would correct that error immedia-
tely. The offer to Dr. Coleman to participate in the
development of the area is extended to him. An alterna-
tive suggestion made to Mr. Bollinger was that, should
Dr. Coleman not wish to sell at this time, a long -term .
escrow could be opened so that title would not close.
If Dr. Coleman desired to purchase and develop the re-
maining parcels in the project area, that could be
arranged.
General Counsel Martin inquired of Mr. Parrington,in
order to clarify the situation, if the Agency was free
to condemn or not condemn; is there no commitment or
precommitment in any way to go ahead?
Special Counsel Parrington responded that it was made
clear that no developer has been selected and there is
no agreement with any party to acquire this parcel for
any particular development agreement.
General Counsel Martin asked if Mr. Parrington felt
there is a project feasible or possible within the next
five or seven years; if it could be proven adequately
in court that there is such a project.
Counsel Parrington responded saying that the design for
development calling for commercial use designates that
project; and that the pattern of development within the
area is compatible for commercial. The only thing
which appears to be lacking is the selection of the
developer, which is the next step. If a developer has
already been selected, the Agency would be held to
have pre - judged the issue; if there is no developer,
then the Agency is accused of not having a project.
Mr. Parrington stated it was his opinion that it could
be proven in court that there is a feasible project.
Counsel Martin asked if Mr. Parrington feels the
owner's participation rights have been violated in any
way.
Mr. Parrington responded that Dr. Coleman's rights have
not been violated and those rights are still open to
him.
Mr. Martin asked Mr. Parrington to clarify the conten-
tion by Mr. Bollinger that there was a misunderstanding
or reneging on the February 18 arrangements.
Mr. Parrington, advised that it was stated at the Febru-
ary 18 meeting that developers would be brought in to
discuss the feasibility of a Der Wienerschnitzel on Dr.
Coleman's parcel and how that might be accommodated
or how that might not be feasible. To Mr. Parrington's
knowledge, no developer has been selected to participate
in discussions to this point.
Another point Mr. Parrington said he, has discussed with
Mr. Bollinger is that the Agency has available certain
public funds which, if the funds are not committed for
the project, may not be available after the end of this
fiscal year and would jeopardize the feasibility of the
entire project.
Agency Minutes, May 6, 1986 - Page 4
Mr. Bollinger responded, saying that it was his feeling
that the reason for rushing the project was that funds
were presently available and, if not spent, would not be
available at a later date; and felt that this was a very
poor reason to acquire another man's property. He
further stated that the Agency may not have to stand
the cost of acquisition of a rather substantial amount
of property because Denver Coleman may not require that
the Agency do that.. Further, Mr. Bollinger stated that
he drove by the subject property and did not feel it
was an eyesore from the street; and also the property
is vacant because Denver Coleman has been waiting for
the Agency to do something with reference to the develop-
ment of this property. Mr. Bollinger advised that Dr.
Coleman might even consider standing the cost of the
demolition of the property now.
Mr. Parrington countered, stating that the availability
of funds is vital to a project going on or not and that
the project involves other properties and not just Dr.
Coleman's.
Mr. Dennis asked Mr, Parrington, if the Agency were to
acquire the property, could an agreement be made whereby
the Agency would resell the property back to Dr. Coleman
at a given price for his participation in the develop-
ment?
Mr. Parrington said there could be such an agreement'
after the residences involved. have been cleared. He
went on to say.that not only is there a resistance to
acquiring the property, but also a difference on price,
although there has been no counter -offer made or
appraisal obtained by Dr, Coleman.
Mr. Gillanders moved to make the determination to con-
demn the property at 8912 Elm Avenue, seconded by Mr.
Froehle and unanimously carried.
Mr. Gillanders moved to designate the law firm of Steven
N. Skolnik as condemnation counsel, seconded by Mr.
Froehle and unanimously carried.
Mrs. Swain moved to adopt Resolution No. CRA 271, A
RESOLUTION OF THE TEMPLE CITY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY FINDING AND DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND
NECESSITY FOR ACQUIRING AND AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION
OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, seconded by Mr. Froehle and
carried on a roll call vote.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Members - Dennis, Froehle, Gillanders, Swain, Atkins
Noes: Members - -None
(2) 5713-5724 RENO STREET (ROBERTO AND ELEANOR N. RAMIREZ)
Executive Director Koski advised that similar circum-
stances exist relative to the status of the Agency's
efforts to acquire this particular property from the
subject owners. Offers have been made and negotiations
which have been underway are now at a standstill.
Roberto Ramirez, 8952 Cortada Street, Rosemead 91770,
stated that he didn't . know why the Agency was taking his
property, adding that six families will need to find resi-
dence elsewhere. He mentioned that the acquisition com-
pany advised tenants of the proposed acquisition and,
therefore, two tenants were lost..
Agency Minutes, May 6, 1986 - Page 5
Chairman Atkins advised Mr. Ramirez that the area has
been designated for redevelopment since 1972; and that
the City will work with the tenants to get them relocated.
Mr. Dennis moved to make a determination to condemn the
property located at 5718 -5724 Reno Street, seconded by
Mr. Gillanders and unanimously carried.
Mr. Gillanders moved to designate the law firm of Steven
N. Skolnik as condemnation counsel, seconded by Mr.
Froehle and unanimously carried.
Mrs. Swain moved to adopt Resolution No. CRA 270, A
RESOLUTION OF THE TEMPLE CITY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY FINDING AND DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND
NECESSITY FOR ACQUIRING AND AUTIHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION
OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, seconded by Mr. Froehle and
carried on a roll call vote.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes: Members - Dennis, Froehle, Gillanders, Swain, Atkins
Noes: Members -None
B. REPORT OF THE TEMPLE CITY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON
THE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT WITHIN THE ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD RE-
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
SECTION 33837 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1986-87
Executive Director Koski stated that Special Counsel Tom
Parrington has prepared a report on the assessment district
within the Rosemead. Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area in
order to continue the assessment for fiscal year 1986 -87 in
the same amount as the previous year.
Mr. Gillanders moved to accept the report and adopt Resolu-
tion No. CRA 268, A RESOLUTION OF THE 'TEMPLE CITY COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING A REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY FOR THE ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD REDE-
VELOPMENT PROJECT, seconded by Mrs,. Swain and unanimously
carried.
C. PARKING LOT LEASE AGREEMENT -• CRA /CITY OF TEMPLE CITY RENTAL
PAYMENT
Executive Director Koski. advised that, in accordance with the
Lease Agreement, the City was obligated to pay the Agency
$155,477.50 for the rental period of Apri1.15, 1986 to Octo-
ber 15, 1986. The amount due on April 15 has been satisfied
by reason of:. (1) rents collected by the City from opera-
tors of the parking facilities in the amount of'$10,033.85;
(2) surplus fund available in Revenue and Bond Service Funds
held by the Fiscal Agent in the amount of $6,110.00; and (3)
reimbursement payment by the Agency in the amount of
$139,333.65, pursuant to Section 202 of the Reimbursement
Agreement between the Agency and the City of Temple City
dated December 3, 1974.:
Mr. Gillanders moved to :. approve the payment for rent obliga-
tion to the City in the amount of $139,333.65, seconded by
Mr. Dennis and unanimously carried.
D. RESOLUTION NO. CRA 269: WARRANTS AND DEMANDS
Mr. Gillanders moved to adopt Resolution No CRA 269, a
Resolution allowing claims and demands in the amount of
$292.17, seconded by Mr. Froehle and unanimously carried.
Agency Minutes, May 6, 1986 - Page 6
6. COMMUNICATIONS:
None
7. MATTERS FROM AGENCY MEMBERS:
None
8. ADJOURNMENT:
On motion by Mr. Froehle, seconded by Mr. Dennis, the meeting of
the Temple City Community Redevelopment Agency adjourned at
9:50 p.m. The next meeting of the Agency will be held on Tuesday,
May 20, 1986, in the Council Chambers.
‘A„V)
CHAIRMA
ATTEST:
1
1