Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - November 7, 1988 - RA0 9 CITY OF AZUSA MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 7, 1988 - 7:39 P.M. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa met in regular session at the above date and time in the Civic Auditorium. Chairman Moses called the meeting to order. ROLL CALL PRESENT: DIRECTORS: AVILA, STEMRICH, NARANJO, LATTA, MOSES ABSENT : DIRECTORS: NONE ALSO PRESENT General Counsel Thorson, Executive Director Fuentes, City Department Heads, Redevelopment Manager Steel, Project Analyst Katchen-Gall, Secretary Solis, Deputy Secretary Lara. THE CITY COUNCIL CONVENED JOINTLY WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AT 7:40 P.M. CONTINUED JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - on the proposed sale of certain real property in the Central Business District Redevelopment Project Area to Pacific Union Asset Management, for the rehabilitation and disposition of approximately twelve (12) condominium units within the project known as the Rainbow Angling Club Condominiums. Real property includes: Units 9, 221 25, 29, 30, 32, 39, 40, 45, 46, 51 and 54 Lakeview Terrace. The Mayor/Chairman declared the Hearing re -opened. Call to order Roll Call Also Present Cncl & CRA convnd jntly Cont Pub Hrg Pacific Union Asset Hrg reopened The Mayor/Chairman made a motion prior to receiving any Motion to input on this hearing with regard to contacting prior owners contact prior of these condominiums, and ascertaining if they would be owners to interested in repurchasing them. purch units City Attorney/General Counsel apprised that such a motion would be proper, however, testimony should be received first. He further apprised that there were many issues that would be explained by staff and that one problem was that most banks were not amenable to lending money on individual units being sold where the majority of the units were owned by one company, and that company rented out the units. It was, further, determined that none of the banks or savings and loan companies would lend money on that basis. Motion was deferred to such time, after all testimony had been heard. Redevelopment Manager Steel addressed this item stating that the proposed agreement with Pacific Union Properties was for the purchase of the units that were foreclosed and now owned by the Agency. PUP owns 44 of the units and has converted them into rental property. The Agency put these condominiums on the open real estate market, but received Testimony to be rec'd prior to motion Testimony Red. Mngr minimal interest, due to the state of disrepair of the condominiums as well as the fact that PUP owned the bulk of the homes and that they were rental properties. Consequently, the Agency contacted PUP, and after appraisal had negotiated the sale of the units, as a package, at a cost of $1.2 million. The Agency, however, must bear the full cost to rehabilitate the interior of the units, at approximately $25,370 per unit. This amount will be deducted from the sales price through escrow. The rehabilitation of the common areas and exterior will be done through the Homeowners' Association, with the Agency paying a pro -rata share. General discussion ensued regarding contacting previous Gen'l disc. owners who had once paid in excess of $185,000.00 for the units, and would probably like to repurchase now for $100.000.00; if they did repurchase would their cost to rehabilitate the units be more than our quoted costs, etc. Redevelopment Manager advised that if previous owners repurchased they would not only have to rehabilitate the interiors, but be assessed by the Homeowners' Association for exterior and common area improvements for approximately $22,000.00. He stated that when they vacated their units, all of the appliances, and, literally, everything that was not tied down was taken and some instances damages made to walls, etc. Therefore, interior improvements were many and costly. Councilwoman/Director Avila stated that she would second the Avila 2nd motion made by the Mayor/Chairman to contact the previous Moses' motion owners on the grounds of good faith and public relations. Further discussion ensued as to length of time to give the Gen'l disc. previous owners to respond as to whether or not they would want to purchase the units, and cost of the units. Notices can be sent to the attorney representing them. City Attorney/General Counsel apprised the Council that the problem of financing the units isn't that it would be one unit out of 56 that is being financed; the problem is that there is one owner for 44 units and that one owner is renting out the units. The bank's concern is the loaning of money to a one fee ownership within essentially an apartment complex. The financing is a major stumbling block for anyone wanting to purchase the units. Further, the Agency has a contractual obligation under the Bond Act to comply with certain procedures set out in the Bond Act, and that is that the units be sold at a fair market value following the foreclosure sales. There is very little room for the Agency to alter any of the provisions as to what is in the agreement with Pacific Union Properties. Mrs. Gayle Avakian addressed this item stating that what has been heard this evening is a stacked deck, saying all the terrible things that the previous owners had torn their units apart. She felt that the home owners should have a chance to get their money back. The firm of Burke, Williams and Sorensen were involved when this project was approved; the builder of this project has been involved in four other projects where he went bankrupt; the Homeowners' Association was removed from them; that inspections were approved and that this was a rotten situation and that the City/Agency robbed those people and they should have a chance to get their money back; further that if we have no compassion or responsibility, only power, what kind of a government are we? 11/07/88 PAGE TWO Comments Cty Atty Comments G. Avakian City Attorney/General Counsel advised Mrs. Avakian that his Response firm was not counsel to the Agency at the time this project Cty Atty was approved or when the bond issue was proposed. The Homeowners did have a law suit pending against the City and the Agency, the servicers of the bonds and the developers, and they have chosen not to pursue that. Mr. Art Morales addressed this item and stated that the Comments public should be reminded that the majority of this Council A. Morales were not here when this project was approved. There being no further testimony, it was moved by Hrg closed Councilman/Director Stemrich, seconded by Councilman/Director Latta and unanimously carried by roll call to close the hearing. There was a motion and second pending which was amended as follows: Moved by Mayor/Chairman Moses, seconded by Councilwoman/Director Avila and unanimously carried by roll call to refer this matter to staff to work out the proper wording and details and that the previous owners be contacted and given 30 days time in which to respond whether or not they wished to repurchase their units. THE CITY COUNCIL RECESSED AND THE CONTINUED AT 8:07 P.M. AGENCY There being no additions or corrections, the Minutes of the regular meeting of October 24, 1988, stand approved as written. In June, 1988, the Agency procured the advisory services of Edward Henning and Associates, on a time and material basis, for the early stages of the commercial rehabilitation project. Now that the project is fully underway, his services are more in demand and necessitate a formal professional services agreement. Director Naranjo offered a resolution entitled: Appvl on motion as amended Cncl recessed CRA cont. Min appvd E. Henning & Assoc. agmt advisory svcs for rehab proj. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT Res. #522 AGENCY OF THE CITY OF AZUSA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT appvng agmt ENTITLED "AN AGREEMENT FOR COMMERCIAL REHABILITATION ADVISORY SERVICES BETWEEN EDWARD HENNING AND ASSOCIATES AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF AZUSA." Moved by Director Naranjo, seconded by Director Avila to waive further reading and adopt. Resolution passed and adopted by the following vote of the Agency: AYES: DIRECTORS: AVILA, NOES: DIRECTORS: NONE ABSENT: DIRECTORS: NONE STEMRICH, NARANJO, LATTA. MOSES Director Latta offered two separate resolutions authorizing payment of warrants by the Agency entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF Res. #s 523 AZUSA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS TO BE PAID OUT OF and 524 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUNDS. Warrants Moved by Director Latta, seconded by Director Stemrich to waive further reading and adopt. Resolutions passed and adopted by the following vote of the Agency: AYES: DIRECTORS: AVILA, STEMRICH, NARANJO, LATTA, MOSES NOES: DIRECTORS: NONE ABSENT: DIRECTORS: NONE 11/07/88 PAGE THREE 0 0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Mrs. Gayle Avakian addressed the Agency and asked if the proposed Ordinance on the Agenda, regarding the West End and the Central Business District related to the merger and was advised in the affirmative. She went on to state that the consultants that were hired did not perform adequately and why were we going to hire them again. She stated that the County had not come to an agreement with the City regarding this merger, that some Health and Safety Code requirements were not followed and that the City should not take any action and vote on this issue tonight. She stated that the City was trying to put one over on the people because of the dump and Azusa Rock, areas which should remain water conservation. She further asked who was responsible if a court of law were to rule this merger illegal and was advised by General Counsel that if a court found this to be invalid, there would be no monetary damages or culpability on anyone's part. She asked if it was proper and was advised that all procedures were followed and that the merger is acceptable and ready to go. She again stressed hazardous and toxic materials emanating from the dump, and that responsible government should not endanger its citizens. Pub Prtc Comments G. Avakian re: West End & CSD merger Executive Director Fuentes responded to Mrs. Avakian that Comments the County is looking to protect its own interests, and that Exec Dir. the City is also protecting its self -interests. He felt confident that the problems would be resolved. He stated that another entity should not come to Azusa and dictate, that we were preserving our rights, which is responsible government. Mrs. Avakian's time had been exhausted and when she Comments continued to speak, Director Avila stated that after all Avila residents who wished to speak were through, and if time remained, Mrs. Avakian could return and speak. Mrs. Wanda House addressed the Agency and requested what was Comments being done to attract responsible business people to locate W. House in Azusa. Executive Director advised that we were in the process of having an "in-house" marketing program. Chairman Moses also advised that working with the Chamber of Commerce regarding this aspect was also forthcomina. Moved by Chairman Moses, seconded by Director Naranjo and unanimously carried to adjourn. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 8:20 P.M. SECRETARY NEXT RESOLUTION NO. 525 11/07/88 PAGE FOUR Comments Moses Adjourn