Loading...
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