HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes - 2004/11/02 - RegularCOMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
NOVEMBER 2, 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Zovak called the Community Redevelopment Agency Meeting to order at 8:03 p.m.
in the Council Chambers located at 5938 Kauffman Avenue, Temple City.
2. ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
Member - Capra, Vizcarra, Wong, Arrighi, Zovak
Member -None
Executive Director Cole, Agency Counsel Martin, Special Agency
Counsel Salvaty, Assistant Executive Director Dawson, Agency
Secretary Flandrick
3. CEREMONIAL MATTERS — None
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Chairman Arrighi moved to approve the Consent Calendar, seconded by Ms. Wong and
unanimously carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Member - Capra, Vizcarra, Wong, Arrighi, Zovak
NOES: Member -None
ABSENT: Member -None
ABSTAIN: Member -None
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 19, 2004, as. presented.
B. FIRST QUARTER TREASURER'S REPORT, REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE
SUMMARY REPORTS
Received and filed the September 2004 Treasurer's Report and First Quarter
Revenue and Expenditure Reports.
C. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. CRA 04 -844 — APPROVAL OF PAYMENT OF
BILLS
Adopted Resolution No. CRA 04 -844, a RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY ALLOWING CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN
THE SUM OF $41,746.42 DEMAND NOS. 3190 THROUGH 3193.
6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS — None
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. CRA 04 -842, A RESOLUTION OF THE
TEMPLE CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINDING AND DETERMINING THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUIRING AND AUTHORIZING THE
CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF TEMPLE
CITY (COMMONLY KNOWN AS 9021 LAS TUNAS DRIVE) WITHIN BLOCK "D" OF
THE ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Agency Agenda
November 2, 2004
Page 2
Agency Counsel Martin stated for the record that he has been Agency Counsel for
almost 40 years and has never had a conflict of interest or one charged to him in that
time. He was advised he might have a conflict of interest 2 -3 weeks ago when a new
owner and a new attorney became involved with the Edwards Theater parcel. He
has been acquainted for many years with the new attorney, Michael Montgomery,
and presently shares quarters with him with a common landlord, but there are no
financial ties. However, the test is whether there can be the perception of conflict
and based upon the facts, there can be a perceived one. Therefore, Agency Counsel
Martin stated he would recuse himself from the New Business items and leave the
dais. At his recommendation, the Agency hired Mr. Ben Salvaty as Special Counsel
about 6 months ago and Mr. Salvaty will take his place on the dais.
Agency Counsel Martin recused himself and left the dais and the Council Chambers
at 8:09 p.m.
At the request of Chairman Zovak, Special Agency Counsel Salvaty was seated at
the dais.
Executive Director Cole presented his staff report, stating he prepared the staff report
in consultation with Special Agency Counsel Salvaty. The Redevelopment Agency
Board of Directors was requested to conduct a hearing at which all persons who filed
a timely written request to be heard on the matters contained in Section 1240.030 of
the California Code of Civil Procedure shall be heard. Under said section, after
hearing the staff report, the public record in the agenda packet, testimony of owners
of property, any reports and discussion in open session and consideration of
proposed Resolution CRA No. 04 -842, the Agency Board will be asked to make a
determination regarding property within the Rosemead Boulevard Redevelopment
Project Area.
In accordance with and in furtherance of the goals set froth in Section 33000 et seq.
of the California Health and Safety Code and through adoption of Ordinance 71 -333
on July 20, 1971, the City of Temple City established the Temple City
Redevelopment Agency. Further, on May 16, 1972, the City Council adopted
Ordinance No. 72 -350, which adopted the Redevelopment Plan for Rosemead
Boulevard Redevelopment Project. In the last 32 years, the Plan has been amended
five times.
Section 401 of the Plan states in whole:
"The Agency proposes to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight in the Project
area by:
1) Acquisition of certain real property;
2) Demolition or removal of certain buildings and improvements;
3) Relocation assistance to displaced (if any) nonresidential occupants;
4) Installation, construction, or reconstruction of streets, utilities, and other public
improvements;
5) Disposition of any property acquired for uses in accordance with this Plan;
6) Redevelopment of land by private enterprise or public agencies for uses in
accordance with this Plan."
In addition, Section 403 of the Plan states, in part:
"...the Agency may acquire but is not required to acquire, any real property located in
the Project area, by any means authorized by law...." and
The power of eminent domain is restored to the Agency and may be exercised until
the current date of expiration of the plan, June 15, 2012."
1
1
Agency Agenda
November 2, 2004
Page 3
Therefore, in accordance with the Redevelopment Law and the Plan, the Agency is
authorized to acquire real property located in the Project area by any means
authorized by law, including eminent domain.
Executive Director Cole stated the remainder of the staff report is included in the
public record by reference.
The property subject to proposed Resolution No. CRA 04 -842, is defined, for
discussion purposes, as 9021 Las Tunas Drive in the City of Temple City, more fully
described in Exhibit "A" and "B" of proposed Resolution No. CRA 04 -842.
The Agency approved a conceptual project to redevelop the subject property on July
17, 2001, a copy of which minutes are provided in the agenda packet and attached to
the staff report as Exhibit "A ". In taking that action, the Council and Agency reiterated
the development standards and goals contained in the Plan and the City's Zoning
Code. As stated in the Plan, Block "D" of the project area "shall contain general
commercial /entertainment uses" as can be seen in the conceptual project which was
displayed for those present. It is clear in the minutes of July 17, 2001, while the
agency approved the project in concept for illustrative purposes, no specific tenancy
was approved. Also, for the public record, Executive Director Cole displayed the
front page of the San Gabriel Valley/Temple City Weekly newspaper of July 20, 2001,
which printed a picture of that rendering. To this day, staff, in accordance with the
general direction of the agency in 2001, has been attempting to encourage
redevelopment in Block "D ".
The Agency has been involved in redevelopment activities since 1972 when the Plan
was adopted to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight in the Project area and to
promote activity in the block as included in the Plan. Unfortunately, despite the best
attempts by the Agency and, as noted in the 5 Year Implementation Plan, conditions
in the Project Area and more specifically, Block "D ", remain blighted. In addition to
being mentioned in the 5 Year Implementation Plan, the existence of blight has been
most recently confirmed by the Agency and City Council through the adoption of
Ordinance No. 04 -892, which states: "The carrying out of the redevelopment plan
would promote the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the community and
would effectuate the purposes and policies as outlined in Section 33000 et seq. of
the Code." Most recently, in January 2004, the Edwards Theater closed its doors. At
the time, the Agency was working with the former owner, Regal Entertainment, to
encourage redevelopment in the Block "D ". Regal, through discussions with City
Manager Cole, stated their intent to close the theater because it was no longer a
viable business operation. Given the past and current existence of blight on the
subject property, the public interest and necessity require the proposed project, as
conceptually approved by the Agency in 2001 and recommended to be confirmed by
adoption of proposed Resolution No. CRA 04 -842.
Secondly, the proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most
compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. The City has very
few parcels conducive to the size and shape for entertainment uses. When the
Agency created the project area, it focused on the area that showed the most
promise for entertainment uses, but had not reached its potential due to the
existence of blight at that time. This area was designated as the Rosemead
Boulevard Project Area.
The conceptual project requires sufficient land area situated in an economically
viable location to be effective and successful and exhibits such attributes as vehicular
pass -by traffic and ingress and egress. Conditions conducive to such projects cannot
Agency Agenda
November 2, 2004
Page 4
be found in Temple City in general and specifically in only two other areas where a
project of this size could fit. Other areas were considered, but this location coincides
with the requirement of most compatible with the greatest public good. Therefore,
the subject property is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible
with the greatest public good and least private injury.
Thirdly, this particular location is unique in the City as it can be seen this project is
best located on these parcels and therefore claimed this property is necessary for the
project as confirmed by Resolution No. CRA 04 -842.
Fourthly, the offer required by Section 7267.2 of the Government Code made to the
owner or owners of record effective April 22, 2004 is included as Exhibit "B" to the
staff report dated April 22, 2004. Under redevelopment law, the Agency is required
to provide the owner the right to participate in the redevelopment of the property. In
the offer letter of April 22, 2004, the owner was notified of the Owner Participation
Rights (OPR) under redevelopment law. At that time, the owner determined to
exercise those rights and met with the Agency represented by the Executive Director
and Agency Counsel over 3 months in a minimum of 5 meetings. Based upon the
request by the owner, a conceptual OPA was brought for the Agency's consideration
during a regular meeting held September 7, 2004. After thoroughly considering the
information for over an hour in good faith discussion, the Board unanimously rejected
the proposed OPA for the following reasons: the proposed project did not comply
with the Redevelopment Plan, including Section 505, and did not comply with the
Zoning Code and was incompatible with the surrounding development. A copy of
the letter of the Executive Director dated September 13, 2004, rejecting the proposed
project, is attached as Exhibit "C" to the staff report.
Tonight's hearing was noticed pursuant to Section 1245.235 of the California Code of
Civil Procedure, a notice of intent to adopt a resolution of necessity to acquire real
property or interest in real property by eminent domain, and was provided to the
owners of record at least 15 days prior to this hearing. As a courtesy, the notice of
intent was also provided to the owner on the date the notice was provided. A copy of
the notice is attached as Exhibit "D" to the staff report.
As required by law, proposed Resolution No. CRA 04 -842 must receive an affirmative
vote of two - thirds members of the governing agency, or in this case, 4 votes of the
Agency. If adopted, Resolution No. CRA 04 -842 would authorize the Executive
Director and Special Counsel to pursue acquisition of the parcels using all lawful
means, including the filing of a complaint in eminent domain. It would also authorize
the Executive Director to place upon deposit with the Superior Court a cash amount
equal to the appraisal previously approved by the Agency as just compensation for
the subject property.
Executive Director Cole recommended the City Council approve the staff report,
conduct the public hearing, and adopt the proposed resolution by roll call vote and
two- thirds majority.
In response to Chairman Zovak, Special Counsel Salvaty stated the staff report was
very complete and accurate and he had nothing to add.
In response to Chairman Zovak, Executive Director Cole stated the Project Area was
adopted in 1972, and to his knowledge, eminent domain was utilized there only for
the initial development of the shopping center in Block "A ".
1
1
1
1
Agency Agenda
November 2, 2004
Page 5
Vice Chairman Arrighi moved to receive, file and approve the staff report, seconded
by Ms. Wong and unanimously carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Member - Capra, Vizcarra, Wong, Arrighi, Zovak
NOES: Member -None
ABSENT: Member -None
ABSTAIN: Member -None
Chairman Zovak asked for a motion to open the public hearing.
Mr. Vizcarra moved to open the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Arrighi
and unanimously carried.
Executive Director Cole stated his office prior to holding this hearing received a
written request.
Chairman Zovak opened the public hearing to hear testimony from those persons
who filed a request to speak under Section 1240.030.
Special Counsel Salvaty submitted to the Agency Chairman a request by the attorney
of the property owner to make a presentation at this hearing under the code, as
explained by Executive Director Cole.
The following other documents were submitted by Special Counsel Salvaty for the
record:
1) a letter dated October 27, 2004 from Attorney Michael Montgomery as Counsel
for the property owner in response to points raised in the staff report supported
by a verbal presentation.
2) a letter dated October 12, 2004 from Michael Montgomery advising he would
be representing the property owner;
3) a second letter of the same date from Michael Montgomery confirming he
would be representing the owner and would withdraw at the first indication of
potential litigation against the agency.
In the first letter dated October 12th, Mr. Montgomery indicated he did not intend to
recuse himself as Counsel in view of the fact that Agency Counsel Martin has
recused himself and there is no longer a conflict of interest. His intention is to
proceed in representing the property owner.
Executive Director Cole stated the letters mentioned by Mr. Salvaty are all submitted
in the public record and each Agency Member has received a copy.
Chairman Zovak stated he received one request to speak from Michael Montgomery.
Michael Montgomery, attorney representing the property owner, offered that Preston
Hawkins, owner of the property involving the next agenda item, wished to ask the
Agency to consider both parcels in the same action.
Chairman Zovak read the request into the record and recommended continuing with
the item on this parcel. Executive Director Cole concurred, and stated Mr. Hawkins
made a request to speak for the second item on the agenda and will be allowed to be
heard at that time.
Agency Agenda
November 2, 2004
Page 6
Michael Montgomerv, representing the property owner, pointed out for the record that
he objected to the inclusion of the letters of October 12th and November 2nd as they
have nothing to do with the legal ramifications of this hearing. The letters of October
12th were written after a phone conversation with Martin Cole and Charles Martin in
which Martin Cole asked him to withdraw a public records request from the owner's
previous attorney. He stated he would withdraw at the first indication of potential
litigation. Both letters were written in contemplation of a meeting expected to occur
to bring the developer in and go through the parameters of the proposed
development to try to alleviate the situation. The meeting never came off. Those
letters have nothing to do with this evening's matters. The letter today addressed to
Mr. Salvaty is in response to Mr. Salvaty's statement as to why the owner never
submitted another proposal and to clarify his status. The October 12th letter is out of
bounds of the proceeding and he objected to its inclusion for the record.
There should be two letters dated October 27, 2004 as part of the record, not
requesting a hearing but stating legal grounds upon which the proposed action is
contemplated, and the October 28, ,2004 letter sent by fax requesting for the owner
participation rights in addition to grounds for objection.
Executive Director Cole stated both letters were received and filed in the public
record.
Mr. Montgomery also requested a verbatim transcript and recording of the
proceedings.
Mr. Montgomery noted that Council approved and accepted the staff report.
Executive Director Cole advised the Agency that the project is a conceptual project,
not an actual project. That project never went forward and was never shown to the
present owners. He received the staff report, but when he asked today for the
rendering, it was not available. In order to adopt the resolution, you have to have a
project. The definition of project under the public resources code is either action of
the public agency which would cause direct physical change in the environment by
an activity directly undertaken by the public agency. The Agency is prohibited by law
from undertaking this action; the most you can do is site clearance. The alternative is
an activity undertaken by a person supported by a contract, agreement, etc. of the
system. Right now you don't have a project. What constitutes a project subject to
CEQA is subject to law. If no project, you don't have an EIR. Regarding blight — as a
consideration, your own staff report stated the theater was closed, but he understood
the theater was open. He understood the prior owner came and wanted to refurbish
and was told don't bother. Blight in 1972 is not blight in 2004. Per amended Section
21090 of the Public Resources Code, you have to reconsider any changes to the
environment. He cited the 99 Cent Store vs. Palmdale case says you cannot declare
economic blight through the existence of one facility not paying as much money as
another facility. The staff report says one prime consideration is the theater is
closed. His client has asked for a meeting and wants an OPA. He was not present
at prior negotiations. His client will build a facility within the parameters of the
redevelopment plan and code. There is a lot at stake and he didn't understand why
the Agency is going into litigation. If the Agency adopts the resolution, his client has
no alternative except to go to court on mandamus to quash the resolution because
the offer made does not comply with the law. The offer is less than 50% of the
established market value of that property. His client will apply for and perform an
OPA — he bought that property to develop it. He understood that the earlier proposal
was too ambitious and was rejected for that reason. His client cannot afford to not
develop the property which will give an incredible kick in the City's tax increment. His
client is an experienced developer and has a resume of development that he will
1
1
1
1
Agency Agenda
November 2, 2004
Page 7
furnish and the financial backing to develop the property. The present owner merely
took title in January. There is no necessity to acquire the property and no justifiable
reason to adopt the resolution. It is ripe with challenge. He said he would like to help
his client develop that corner. His client paid cash for the property and has money to
develop it. He asked the Agency Members to defer adoption of the resolution until
the meeting at which a proposal will be submitted. The owner wants to exercise his
OPA rights.
Chairman Zovak said there was only one request to speak on this mater. There are
no other requests before this Agency on this hearing.
Mr. Capra moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Arrighi and
unanimously carried.
Chairman Zovak closed the public hearing and asked Agency Members for their
comments.
In response to Mr. Capra, Special Counsel Salvaty responded that he felt the staff
report was complete and contained all legal points. The Agency needs to consider
Mr. Montgomery's advocating position on behalf of his client by listening to his
presentation. There is no reason to change any conclusion in the staff report.
Chairman Zovak stated this is a difficult decision and he couldn't help but think of the
efforts of the Agency and the City to work cooperatively with property owners in trying
to foster an increase in the business climate, such as Celeste's, Applebees,
Starbucks, etc. He thought the Agency and Council had the desire to work
cooperatively when possible to achieve goals and objectives as stated in the report.
In this case staff and the property owner were not able to come to terms. Based on
the staff report and testimony from the hearing, he would find in favor of adopting the
resolution.
Mr. Capra agreed. with Chairman Zovak, stating he felt the Agency had tried over and
over to work with the property owner and didn't get anywhere, so the Agency is
taking it upon itself to take the reins and do something good for the City. With the
advice and approval of our legal representation, he stated he would agree to approve
the resolution.
Mr. Vizcarra stated this corner has been the focus for quite some time and is
obviously sensitive to us as representatives of Temple City and its citizens. That is
the reason he felt inclined to proceed with this action. He doubted that this current
owner understands the way the City as a whole feels about this area and was not
sure that understanding will ever be there. At this point we are considering this
extreme action because of how strongly we feel about that corner and because our
constituents have said they too feel strongly about that corner and the look they want
there would reflect how the City would use that location.
Ms. Wong echoed the comments of Chairman Zovak and Agency Members Capra
and Vizcarra and said, while she did sympathize with the owner, she felt this action
was for the good of Temple City and was in favor of adopting the proposed
resolution.
Vice Chairman Arrighi said he would echo the sentiments of Chairman Zovak and he
fellow Board Members and concurred to move forward with adoption of the
resolution.
Agency Agenda
November 2, 2004
Page 8
Mr. Capra moved to adopt Resolution No. CRA 04 -842, a RESOLUTION OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMPLE CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FINDING AND DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR
ACQUIRING AND AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY (COMMONLY KNOWN AS 9021 LAS
TUNAS DRIVE) WITHIN BLOCK "D" OF THE ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, seconded by Vice Chairman Arrighi and
unanimously carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Member- Capra, Vizcarra, Wong, Arrighi, Zovak
NOES: Member -None
ABSENT: Member -None
ABSTAIN: Member -None
Executive Director Cole stated the next step is compliance with the conditions of the
resolution as adopted, which does not preclude continued discussion with the owner,
who was advised directly by the Executive Director on September 16, 2004, that he
should submit any proposed development plans to the Community Development
Department and that the City and Agency were looking for projects compliant with the
General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan. To date the owner has not submitted
any proposal.
In response to. Executive Director Cole, Assistant Director Dawson confirmed no
permits have been issued to the owner of the Edwards Theater parcel.
In response to Mr. Vizcarra, Executive Director Cole stated, in accordance with the
law, both before and after adoption of the resolution, the Agency has tried to
redevelop the property as a further indication of the Agency's desire to work
cooperatively and would entertain further meetings with the owners of the property.
The resolution authorizes the Executive Director and the Special Counsel to pursue a
complaint in eminent domain in Superior Court and that will also go forward.
RECESS /RECONVENE
The Agency meeting was recessed at 9:06 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m. with all
members present.
B. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. CRA 04 -843, A RESOLUTION OF THE
TEMPLE CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINDING AND DETERMINING THE
PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUIRING AND AUTHORIZING THE
CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF TEMPLE
CITY (COMMONLY KNOWN AS 5770 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD) WITHIN BLOCK
"D" OF THE ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
The Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors was requested to conduct a hearing
at which all persons who filed a timely written request to be heard on the matters
contained in Section 1240.030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure shall be
heard and to consider proposed Resolution No. CRA 04 -843.
Executive Director Cole noted a clerical error to the subject resolution and handed
out a corrected copy of the resolution to the Agency Board, correctly identifying the
address as 5770 Rosemead Boulevard. In all areas of substance the resolution
remains the same as produced.
Executive Director Cole stated the Redevelopment Agency Board is requested to
receive his staff report and recommendation on this parcel, conduct a hearing and
receive testimony from the owner and any others who have so requested. He
1
1
1
Agency Agenda
November 2, 2004
Page 9
placed into the public record Agenda Item 7B and all attachments. The set of facts
are very similar to the previous item.
Through adoption of Ordinance No. 71 -333 on July 20, 1971, the City of Temple City
established the Redevelopment Agency. On May 16, 1972, the Council adopted
Ordinance No. 72 -350, which adopted the Redevelopment Plan for Rosemead
Boulevard Redevelopment Project. Since its initial adoption, the Redevelopment
Plan for Rosemead Boulevard Project has been amended five times.
Section 401 of the Plan states in whole: "The Agency proposes to eliminate and
prevent the spread of blight in the Project Area by:
1) Acquisition of certain real property;
2) Demolition or removal of certain buildings and improvements;
3) Relocation assistance to displaced (if any) nonresidential occupants;
4) Installation, construction, or reconstruction of streets, utilities, and other public
improvements;
5) Disposition of any property acquired for uses in accordance with this Plan;
6) Redevelopment of and by private enterprise or public agencies for uses in
accordance with this Plan."
Section 403 of the Plan states, in part: "...the Agency may acquire but is not required
to acquire, any real property located in the Project area, by any means authorized by
law....." and
"The power of eminent domain is restored to the Agency and may be exercised until
the current date of expiration of the Plan, June 15, 2012."
Therefore, in accordance with the Redevelopment Law and the Plan, the Agency is
authorized to acquire real property located in the Project area by any means
authorized by law, including eminent domain.
During consideration of this resolution, the property subject to this proposed
Resolution No. CRA 04 -843, is commonly known as 5770 Rosemead Boulevard for
discussion purposes and more fully described in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" of the
proposed resolution. In the case of any discrepancy, the Exhibits shall prevail.
Executive Director Cole displayed a conceptual rendering of the project approved by
the Agency on July 17, 2001 to redevelop the subject property. In taking its action,
the Council reiterated the development standards and goals contained in the Plan
and the City's Zoning Code. As stated in the Plan, Block "D" of the Project Area
"shall contain general commercial /entertainment uses." As can be seen in the
conceptual project, the single story, retail uses comply with this requirement. The
tenants shown are only illustrative and the conceptual project did receive approval.
To this day, staff has been attempting to encourage redevelopment of Block "0"
using the conceptual project as a guide. A copy of the minutes of the meeting of July
17, 2001 is attached to this staff report as Exhibit "A ".
Certain determinations are required by law before the Agency can adopt the
resolution of necessity. Since the time the Plan was adopted in 1972, the Agency
determined blight existed in the Project Area. Despite being engaged in
redevelopment activities necessary and appropriate for the consummation and
completion of the Plan and to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight, and as
identified in the Five Year Implementation Plan, the Agency continues to find blight in
the Project Area. Blight has been reconfirmed in the Project Area in several different
areas by the Agency and City Council in the Project Area in general and in Block "D"
Agency Agenda
November 2, 2004
Page 10
more specifically through adoption of Ordinance No. 04 -892. This is most specifically
confirmed by the closure of the Edwards Theater (located adjacent to the subject
property in Block "D ") in 2004, based upon the prior owner's determination that the
theater was no longer viable in today's market.
Under the conceptually approved project, establishment of the proposed tenancy
types would eliminate blight through the replacement of functionally and economically
obsolete buildings for commercial and entertainment uses that would provide job and
shopping opportunities for the public and sales tax and tax increment revenues to the
City and Agency. Hence the public interest and necessity require the proposed
project.
Secondly, the City has few parcels of size and shape conducive for general
commercial and entertainment uses. When the City established the Agency, it
determined to focus its efforts in the area which showed the most promise for major
commercial, retail and entertainment developments, but had not reached its potential
due to various impediments, including blight. This area was ultimately designated as
the Rosemead Boulevard Project Area situated at the intersection of Rosemead
Boulevard and Las Tunas Drive. There are few other large parcels that exhibit the
economic attributes necessary to support the conceptual project approved by the
Agency in 2001. Those areas, when compared, either lower the public good or
increase private injury. The proposed project is planned or located in the manner
most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury.
Thirdly, few land areas in Temple City provide sufficient acreage for the conceptual
project. Therefore the property described in Resolution No. .CRA 04 -843 is
necessary for the proposed project.
Fourthly, the offer required by Section 7267.2 of the Government Code has been
made to the owner of record, the copy of said letter offer is attached as Exhibit "B" to
the staff report.
Regarding owner participation, pursuant to and in compliance with the
Redevelopment Law, concurrent with the tendering of the offer required by Section
7267.2 of the Government Code, the Agency informed the owner of record of its
rights under Section 33380 (Owner Participation Rights). At the time the Agency
approached the owner of the prior parcel, it also attempted to contact the owner of
this parcel. The owner did not return those phone calls and did not call our office
until receiving the notice of this hearing. The Agency did not enter into an OPA with
this owner.
On August 5, 2003, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to review the
environmental impact report for Block "D ". At that time the Agency adopted a motion
approving the Negative Declaration and making a determination that previously
disclosed environmental issues relative to Block "D" remain applicable. A copy of the
minutes of that meeting is attached to the staff report as Exhibit "C ".
With respect to the conduct of tonight's hearing, a notice of intent to adopt a
resolution of necessity was provided to owners of record of the subject property. In
addition, the Agency also sent a notice to the owner on the date said notice was
mailed, copies of said notices are attached to the staff report as Exhibit "D ". As
required by law, proposed Resolution No. CRA 04 -843 must receive an affirmative
vote of two- thirds of all of the members of the governing board, which in the Agency's
case is four votes.
1
1
1
1
Agency Agenda
November 2, 2004
Page 11
Should the Agency, after hearing this report and those wishing to be heard, adopt
Resolution No. CRA 04 -843, the Executive Director and Special Counsel would be
authorized to pursue acquisition of the parcels using all lawful means, including the
filing of a complaint in eminent domain and place on deposit with the Superior Court
a cash amount equal to the appraisal previously approved by the Agency as just
compensation.
It was recommended the Board receive and file the report, open and conduct the
public hearing, and adopt proposed Resolution No. CRA 04 -843 by roll call vote and
two - thirds majority.
Executive Director Cole placed into the public record the following documents
received by the Agency: an undated letter stamped received on September 21, 2004
signed by Preston Hawkins, a response to that letter, and a letter dated October 28,
2004 signed by Preston Hawkins.
In response to Chairman Zovak, Special Counsel Salvaty stated he had nothing to
add in view of the completeness and accuracy of the staff report.
Vice Chairman Arrighi moved to receive, file and approve the staff report, seconded
by Ms. Wong and unanimously carried.
Mr. Vizcarra moved to open and conduct the public hearing, seconded by Vice
Chairman Arrighi and unanimously carried.
Executive Director Cole stated one item was submitted in accordance with Section
1240.030 — a request to speak by Mr. Hawkins.
Preston Hawkins, owner of the subject property, asked if it were proper for him to ask
questions.
Chairman Zovak responded that Mr. Hawkins could ask questions but the purpose of
this hearing was to discuss the resolution of necessity and its findings.
Special Counsel Salvaty agreed that Mr. Hawkins could ask questions, but the
purpose of the hearing was also to state his position.
Preston Hawkins, owner of the subject property, asked if approving the staff report
meant that all factual items stated in the report have been agreed to and approved as
being true. If so, what point is there in making a presentation if it is already decided?
Special Counsel Salvaty stated Mr. Hawkins has a right under the law to state his
position regardless of what the staff report indicated. He has a legal right to state his
position, and to some extent has done so in his October 28th letter, but may make
additional comments.
Executive Director Cole stated the Agency has not yet considered the resolution of
necessity and will not do so until they have heard and considered any testimony. Mr.
Hawkins' letters of October 21 and October 28, 2004 were received by the Agency
and placed in the record.
Preston Hawkins hoped each Agency Member would exercise independent
judgement in this matter and provided his background and connection with Temple
City. The resolution of necessity clearly states there must be four distinct findings.
There must be a finding that the public interest and necessity require the proposed
project. Mr. Montgomery was very clear in the definition of what the project is and it
Agency Agenda
November 2, 2004
Page 12
is not a project for that reason alone. You cannot find taking property is necessary.
This is a conceptual report and there is no approved project or EIR or developer.
How can you have a valid hearing and how can an owner respond to the taking of
their property for an undefined plan? Staff's position is for a developer to develop 4
buildings in those 4 dimensions and a parking lot that has been approved, and there
will be modifications and changes. Temple City deserves better on a prime corner
and deserves better than a Savon. The staff report mentions taking the property for
general commercial and entertainment purposes. There is no entertainment uses on
the plan. If the staff report is calling for entertainment uses and says the project is
approved and the project does not have entertainment uses, then the report is wrong.
Regarding the second finding regarding locating the project in a manner most
compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury, why is it necessary
for the City to take the most economically viable property in town and condemn it?
There are only two owners and both agreed we would develop that property with no
public money involved. It is not necessary to condemn a viable piece of property for
a project that does not exist. Mr. Hawkins stated he would like to place in the public
record the Statement of Interest in Participation which he then submitted.
Executive Director Cole accepted the statement and placed it in the record.
Mr. Hawkins asked the Agency to consider that in 1982 the Agency got involved in
bringing in the Edwards Theater to this location. The City brought in the theater and
cleaned out the whole block for parking. He was asked to cooperate with easements
through the property in a joint parking scheme to provide one large parking lot with a
common theme. The Redevelopment Agency has already developed that lot to
combat blight. He asked the Agency to not pass the resolution of necessity having
proven before and telling now through the OPA that he is willing to again cooperate
with a plan that the City would like. He has not been uncooperative with the City in
the past and his property is not necessary to end blight.
Regarding the third issue describing the property as necessary for the proposed
project, there is no overwhelming evidence that his 1/3 acre is necessary for the
project.
Regarding the fourth issue regarding the offer made to the owner of record, you have
to have a finding that the authorization required by Section 7267.2 of the Government
Code is made to the owner of record. The offer made to him does not meet the
requirements because the appraisal is old and stale and appraisals over 6 months
old in this type of market are not viable. Also, the specific highest and best use of the
property must be told or the offer is inadequate. He was not given a copy of the
appraisal or specific sales comparable, only conclusions. But this code section
requires the owner be given a basis of evaluation.
No particulars were given to determine a fair price nor bottom line value of sales
comparisons. It did not take into consideration the most comparable of sale to Mr.
Wang, which would double or triple his property value, and gave a figure with no
specific basis only theory. This is not fair and deprives him of due process. In his
letter of April 22, 2004, Mr. Cole states "we will contact you for negotiations for
purchase after May 24th" which is inaccurate and a lie. He did not receive a message
from Mr. Cole or anyone else and Mr. Cole did not contact him after 30 days, which is
not the first slippery and inaccurate statement from Mr. Cole. Mr. Hawkins reiterated
that he did not receive a valid offer with an attached contract. He stated the offer
violates the code and cited several court -cases in support of this position. The U.S.
Constitution does not allow the taking of property for private purposes. Code
Sections 33030 and 33031 require the finding of both economic and physical blight.
1
1
Agency Agenda
November 2, 2004
Page 13
It may not produce enough tax revenue but the property is not blighted, and blight
means economically unviable. The property has been 100% leased since built and
has not depreciated property values. According to the Health and Safety Code, the
property is not blighted. The Agency heard tonight that a man paid double on the
property than what you offered. There were several untruths from the City Manager.
There is a need to investigate the facts. It was stated earlier tonight that the concept
was approved in 2002, yet look at the attachment to the staff report, the Minutes from
2001. It must have been approved in July 2001. Mr. Jacobson was not the owner of
the property at the time, but he approached me and offered me more money than Mr.
Cole offered today four years later. How could it be worth less today? Mr. Jacobsen
said for me to sell because if I didn't the City will condemn the property. Mr. Hawkins
called Mr. Cole with no response and went to the City on August 22, 2001 and spoke
directly to him. He wrote a confirming letter on August 23r with the main points of
the discussion and informed him that the offer was unacceptable. Mr. Cole said the
City was aware of a potential development that included my property from Bancorp
but no plan was approved and confirmed the City has no intention to condemn my
property nor had such an idea been discussed or contemplated by the City.
According to the City, he was free to deal with Bancorp which could propose a
development with or without my property. He turned down Bancorp for less than the
Agency is offering today.
Mr. Hawkins relayed information regarding his property being appraised in 2001 by
the City and re- appraised in July, 2003. He cooperated with the appraiser and
received a grossly low appraisal, having received a higher offer from Bancorp in
2001. He believed the Agency was not acting in good faith. Now there are current
owners who want to develop and he wants to develop. Instead the Agency is giving
power to a man not honest or forthright. It is not necessary to take th'e property. In
his letter of October 21, 2004, he asked for a continuance of this hearing to hire an
attorney and was told he could not have a continuance. Tonight he again asked for a
continuance to investigate and look into these things. Mr. Cole stated that the theater
closed in January but did not say it reopened and is economically viable. There is no
finding of blight that complies with the code — only the finding that the property is not
up to its highest and best use. If the Agency votes for this, you are saying it is more
necessary to have a vacant dirt lot than my building and my tenants because there is
no developer and no agreement and no development. He asked to enter into the
public record a sheet of comments given to Manhattan Project which you just voted
against although it was just purchased for $9M, from City Attorney Martin as he
reviewed these plans. Mr. Hawkins quoted from the comments. He also asked to
enter into the record a letter to Mr. Cole dated October 23, 2003 and also a letter of
August 23, 2001, and a letter from then Mayor Vizcarra dated December 31, 2003
wherein he was assured the agency had not exhausted every method, which is only
overwhelming evidence that there is no necessity and the code requirements of
necessity have not been met.
For these reasons and objections stated, Mr. Hawkins asked the Agency to continue
the vote on this resolution and take into consideration that, as a long term property
owner in Temple City and a member of the community, to not vote that taking his
property is necessary and cannot be developed without Redevelopment Agency
funds. He asked for a continuance to go over the objections and give him a chance
to get an attorney.
Mr. Capra moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chairman Arrighi and
unanimously carried.
Agency Agenda
November 2, 2004
Page 14
RECESS /RECONVENE
The Agency meeting recessed at 10:33 p.m. and reconvened at 10:35 p.m. with all
members present.
Chairman Zovak asked for staff responses.
Special Counsel Salvaty stated the staff report was legally sufficient and there was
no reason to reconsider it.
Chairman Zovak asked for questions and /or discussion.
Mr. Capra stated if any development occurs on that property, then this parcel is much
needed and he would go along with staff and Special Counsel Salvaty's comments
and approve the resolution.
Vice Chairman Arrighi stated, while Mr. Hawkins, the property owner, is an
upstanding citizen and prior resident, the Agency has to look at the benefits of the
other 35,000 residents in the redevelopment of this parcel and he would concur with
Mr. Capra and approve the resolution.
Ms. Wong echoed the comments of Mr. Capra and Vice Chairman Arrighi to approve
the proposed resolution.
Mr. Vizcarra concurred, stating the Agency was not taking any private residence and
the project will benefit the City as a whole. The Agency needs to proceed:
Chairman Zovak stated he appreciated Mr. Hawkins' presentation and felt he did a
fine job for presenting his case and discussing the finer points of redevelopment law.
He stated the reason the appraisal process is not part of the resolution of necessity is
that it is left to the judge and court to determine value on property. That is not
something that could be negotiated by the Agency or staff members. Regarding
blight, the Agency can go by the presentation of staff and experts and also consider
the information presented tonight. The Agency needs to be able to weigh both and
make a determination. Redevelopment law has been debated and there is a lot of
opinion on that. Again, the Agency has to believe the information presented by staff
is true and accurate, and if not a court of law will tell us what is wrong and at the point
the truth will be realized. He took into consideration information in the report and the
information Mr. Hawkins presented and would have to weigh with staff's
recommendation and allow the next phase of this to take place.
Mr. Capra moved to adopt amended Resolution No. CRA 04 -843, a RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMPLE CITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY FINDING AND DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND
NECESSITY FOR ACQUIRING AND AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE . CITY OF TEMPLE CITY (COMMONLY
KNOWN AS 5770 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD) WITHIN BLOCK "D" OF THE
ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, seconded by Ms.
Wong and unanimously carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Member - Capra, Vizcarra, Wong, Arrighi, Zovak
NOES: Member -None
ABSENT: Member -None
ABSTAIN: Member -None
1
1
1
Agency Agenda
November 2, 2004
Page 15
Chairman Zovak stated the same procedure would be followed as with the previous
item action.
Executive Director Cole stated he would be happy to meet with Mr. Hawkins either
separately or together with the owners of the Edwards Theater property regarding
redevelopment offers on those parcels.
8. COMMUNICATIONS — None
9. MATTERS FROM AGENCY MEMBERS — None
10. CLOSED SESSION — None
11. ADJOURNMENT
The Community Redevelopment Agency meeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m.
\S
CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
Agency SecKatary