Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-15-1997 ORA MinutesAPPROVED BY THE AGENCY DIRECTORS ON APRIL 22, 1997. ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING ORANGE, CALIFORNIA April 15, 1997 The Orange Redevelopment Agency of the City of Orange, California convened on April 15, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in an Adjourned Regular Meeting in the Council Chambers, 300 E. Chapman Avenue, Orange, California. 7:00 P.M. SESSION 1. ROLLCALL PRESENT ABSENT Murphy, Slater, Coontz, Spurgeon, Alvarez None 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2.1 Declaration of the Clerk of the Orange Redevelopment Agency, Cassandra J. Cathcart, declaring posting of Orange Redevelopment Agency Agenda of an adjourned regular meeting of April 15,1997 at Orange Civic Center, Main Library, the Police Facility at 1107 N. Batavia and the Eisenhower Park Bulletin Board and summarized on Time Warner Communications; all of said locations being in the City of Orange and freely accessible to members of the public at least 72 hours before commencement of said adjourned regular meeting.ACTION: Accepted Declaration of Agency Posting and authorized its retention as a public record in the Office ofthe Agency Clerk.MOTION SECOND AYES Murphy Spurgeon Murphy, Slater, Coontz, Spurgeon, Alvarez Item No. 2.1 was approved.END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 3. NOTICED HEARINGS Tape 3769 3.1 ACQUISITION IN EMINENT DOMAIN OF THE LEASEHOLD INTEREST OF HOWARD AUSTIN, O.D., INC, AS TENANT, IN THE PREMISES KNOWN AS ROOM 180 ALSO KNOWN AS SUITE 180), TWO CITY BOULEVARD EAST, CITY OF ORANGE,CALIFORNIA Time set for a noticed hearing by the Orange Redevelopment Agency to acquire in eminent domain the following leasehold interest:Two City Boulevard East, Room 180 (RC2500.M.14)PAGE 1 ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES April 15, 1997 3. NOTICED HEARINGS (Continued) Sayre Weaver, Agency Counsel with the Law Firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon, 333 S. Hope Street, 38th Floor, Los Angeles, provided a summary of what has occurred to date, the offer of just compensation that was made to Dr. Austin, the project background, and the facts that support the findings, based on the evidence presented. A request was received from Dr. Austin to appear and be heard; Dr. Austin had his counsel send a letter just a little while ago. David B. Cosgrove, Rutan & Tucker, 611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor, Costa Mesa, representing Dr. Austin, indicated a letter was submitted to the Agency (letter on file in the City Clerk's office) with their reasons why the Agency should vote to continue or vote no on the matter. The Agency has failed to meet all of the statutory requirements that are antecedent to the filing of an eminent domain action in the following respects: With respect to the leasehold interest, the Agency is asked to authorize the filing of a lawsuit to acquire; no real offer has been made. The amount of dollars on the table for acquisition of that leasehold interest is zero. There is no amount of money that is being paid for what is an existing property interest that Dr. Austin has right now. Following the offer of zero dollars, the Agency has failed to give Dr. Austin enough material to evaluate the appraisal that led to that conclusion. It was indicated that no date of value was provided; no comparable lease information was provided with the offer letter; and the identity of the appraiser was not identified. The offer letter had a two-week fuse on it; it was open only for the period March 12, 1997 and terminated March 26, 1997. It was indicated that this is an "unreasonable time frame" for the time period which Dr. Austin had to access the offer.No efforts were made to investigate whether it was appropriate to include in the offer a loss of business goodwill for the relocation of Dr. Austin's practice.Mr. Cosgrove added that Dr. Austin has indicated that he has heard nothing from the Agency ofanypotentialownerparticipation. Dr. Austin has indicated that he has not had sufficient time to analyze the issue or a number of other issues that are implicated in the eminent domain action, as the Agency has left insufficient time for the noticing of this hearing. Additionally, there was not enough time for theproperinvestigationoftheCEQAitemslistedinthestaff report. REBUTTAL Ms. Weaver responded to the issues addressed by Mr. Cosgrove, indicating there is a value totheleaseholdinterestandanofferwasmadeintheamountof $26,255. The leasehold estate includesthevaluefortheimprovementspertainingtotherealty, which are considered part ofthe real estate, as well PAGE ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES April 15, 1997 3. NOTICED HEARINGS (Continued) as bonus value, if there is bonus value. The reason there is not any bonus value is that its contract rate of rent under the lease is actually greater than the market rent out for comparable spaces. It is not correct that a zero offer was made. Attached to the offer letter was an extensive listing of all the improvements pertaining to the realty, item by item, including the valuation of those improvements in place, and the exact dollar amount attributed to them. , Information was provided to Dr. Austin that is required under the code and guidelines for comparable leases. A subsequent letter was received asking for additional information, i.e. date of value, and the other items, all of which were provided to Counsel on March 27th. There were no further requests and no complaints received about the comparables. Dr. Austin never 'requested an extension of time in which to consider the offer; some additional information was requested and was provided to him the following day with a cover letter. There have been extensive negotiations and efforts to relocate Dr. Austin that have gone on between the developer, Dr. Austin's current landlord, and Dr. Austin. All of those negotiations have gone on for several months and have led nowhere. It is correct that some of the benefits to which Dr. Austin is entitled under the relocation law haven't been ascertained yet, but that is not for want of the Agency trying. The Agency relocation consultant has made extensive efforts to meet with Dr. Austin and he has not made himself available for interview. The Agency has made every effort to find out all of the information needed in order to deal with the relocation issues. It is only required that the Agency extend an offer that includes loss of goodwill if the prerequisites for loss of goodwill in the eminent domain law are met. The eminent domain law says there is no loss of goodwill if you can prevent that loss by a reasonable relocation. It is determined that there are reasonable relocation spaces at better contract prices within 40 yards of Dr. Austin's current location, which indicates that there is no potential loss of goodwill. At this point, there is no indication that the requirements of the code are met that would indicate a goodwill appraisal is needed. All the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) actions that were required to be noticed were noticed. Since that time staff has revisited all the CEQA documents to make sure that there has been no substantial change that would require further CEQA review. The staff review process does not require any type of notice or public hearing. Ms. Weaver explained that the staff report addresses that the project is a project that is not feasible to do except through the kind of specialized developer that The Mills Corporation represents. The type of owner participation business occupant participation that is available is a reasonable preference for relocation space within the project. Metropolitan Life has been trying for some time to get Dr. Austin reasonable relocation space 40 yards away, and the Agency is equally making every effort through therelocationconsultanttoinsurethatareasonablepreferenceismet. PAGE 3 ORANGE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES April 15, 1997 3. NOTICED HEARINGS (Continued) THE CITY ATTORNEY NOTED FOR THE RECORD that the concerns raised in the letter before the Council were provided to him about 1 hour and 15 minutes ago. Dr. Austin has been negotiating with The Mills Corporation for months and was aware that if those negotiations fell through, the Agency would likely condemn his property. Dr. Austin could have accepted the offer up until any time before this hearing, or essentially 32 days to consider the offer. Since the offer was exponentially lower than what had been previously offer to him by The Mills Corporation, the likelihood that he was going to accept the Agency's offer was slim and none. Mr. John Simones, Firm of Dan Callahan, 1900 Von Karmen, Irvine, representing the Mills Corporation, summarized the time frame since negotiations began between The Mills Corporation and Dr. Austin. RESOLUTION NO. ORA- 0330 A Resolution of the Orange Redevelopment Agency declaring certain real property interests necessary for public purposes and authorizing the acquisition in eminent domain of the leasehold interest of Howard Austin, O.D., Inc., as Tenant, in the premises known as Room 180 (also known as Suite 180),Two City Boulevard East, City of Orange, California MOTION SECOND AYES Slater Murphy Murphy, Slater, Coontz, Spurgeon, Alvarez Moved that Resolution No. ORA-0330 as introduced, be adopted and same was passed and adopted by the preceding vote.4. ORAL PRESENTATIONS - None 5. ADJOURNMENT MOTION - Murphy SECOND - Spurgeon AYES - Murphy, Slater, Coontz, Spurgeon, Alvarez The Redevelopment Agency adjourned at 7:30 p. m.THCART, CMC, CLERK OPMENT AGENCY PAGE 4