OC Register: Court filings allege Anaheim officials decided to sell Angel Stadium months before public knew

[AngelsWin.com]

Anaheim leaders had privately decided on selling the city’s stadium to Angels Baseball months before the two sides held their first formal negotiation in November 2019, when the public was still under the impression the city planned to likely renegotiate the Angels’ lease, a city councilman and a former city manager said in documents filed this week for a lawsuit over the stadium deal.

Former city manager Chris Zapata and Councilman Jose Moreno said in court declarations that the council was told behind closed doors on Aug. 23, 2019, that “Angels Baseball had proposed to buy the stadium site, instead of continuing on with the current lease or lease negotiations.” Zapata’s declaration says Mayor Harry Sidhu is the one who delivered the news, and the council decided that night to pursue a sale.

The lawsuit, filed in 2020 by the People’s Homeless Task Force OC, alleges Anaheim officials repeatedly violated the state’s open meetings law in deciding to sell the property and crafting the deal that was made public in early December 2019 and approved by the City Council later that month.

The city has denied any wrongdoing, and spokesman Mike Lyster said in a statement Thursday, “We are confident in our entire process, including appropriate closed session briefings and direction given to staff from those briefings.”

In the approved deal, the city agreed to sell the 150-acre stadium site to SRB Management, Arte Moreno’s business partnership, for $150 million in cash and another $170 million in community benefits including affordable housing and a large public park, which SRB would build for the city as part of the development.

The lawsuit, which asks the court to void the deal so the city starts the process over, alleges city officials illegally held private discussions on whether to sell the stadium property and what a deal should include, and that they improperly restricted public comment on what to do with one of the city’s most valuable assets.

The law the plaintiffs allege Anaheim violated, known as the Brown Act, is intended to ensure the public is informed about, and is able to have a say on, decisions that local governments and other public agencies make on its behalf. The law makes some allowance for closed-door talks, including “price and terms of payment” in sale and lease negotiations, but the lawsuit argues the Anaheim council went far beyond the law’s exemptions in the stadium sale decision.

Zapata’s declaration also says he met with three council members (including Jose Moreno) to discuss the stadium negotiations, and they talked about their priorities for an agreement.

Kelly Aviles, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said Thursday that by not having public discussions about whether to sell the property and what council members would like to see in a deal, “‘every step, they were taking actions to avoid the obligation to let the public participate in this process.”

Councilman Moreno said Thursday that Aviles asked him to make the declaration, and that he had felt “really uncomfortable” when the council discussed selling the land behind closed doors rather than in public.

“We did make a decision in closed session to sell, and we did not announce it until months later,” he said.

In an email, Lyster said the city stands by the process it used, and that the suit’s assertions are no more than the “strong opinions and political positions” that often come with the topic of baseball in Anaheim.

“Some simply don’t want to see a stadium agreement go forward for their own reasons, and this claim and much around it reflects that,” he said.

A hearing on the lawsuit is scheduled for Feb. 14.

It’s not the only complication for the deal, which has not yet closed escrow.

Last month, state Housing and Community Development officials told Anaheim it violated an affordable housing law by approving the sale without first offering the property to home developers and at least talking with any who made viable offers.

The city must tell the state sometime in February how it will remedy the situation.

As to the Brown Act lawsuit, First Amendment Coalition Executive Director David Snyder said if council members indeed did what’s alleged in the declarations, it looks “pretty damning.”

“If what they were doing was talking about the pros and cons of selling vs. continuing the lease, that goes beyond what they were allowed to talk about in closed session,” he said.

A brief Aviles filed with the declarations notes that when the city subsequently held a public hearing and vote on a development agreement spelling out details of the deal with SRB Management at meetings in September and October 2020, the public was only allowed to comment in writing ahead of the meeting. At the time, most cities were meeting virtually because of the pandemic, but some let residents speak to the council by phone or video.

“The Brown Act is very clear that the right to publicly comment is a right to comment in real time during the meeting,” Snyder said, and that’s especially important on a big public issue like the stadium sale.

Aviles said city leaders appeared to be choosing what they thought the public should know rather than following the law.

Lyster maintained the city acted properly.

“People are entitled to their views. But just because something doesn’t go your way does not make it unlawful.”

Related links

• After hours of debate, Anaheim approves details of Angel Stadium sale
• Angel Stadium sale to net Anaheim $150 million, commitment of 466 affordable homes, 7-acre park
• Anaheim says Angel Stadium talks didn’t violate state law
• Anaheim votes to sell Angel Stadium and the land around it for $325 million
• Anaheim makes proposed Angel Stadium land sale agreement public ahead of Dec. 20 vote

View the full article

[eligrba]

Uh oh.

[Second Base]

This is probably true. That's just the way large land deals involving politicians typically work.

[Taylor]

[Angelsfan1984]

It’s cool I cover city of Anaheim’s errors and omission coverage. Grats to me 

[Blarg]

On 1/13/2022 at 3:06 PM, AngelsWin.com said:

Last month, state Housing and Community Development officials told Anaheim it violated an affordable housing law by approving the sale without first offering the property to home developers and at least talking with any who made viable offers.

That is the stupid part because the land is not zoned for residential and there are current structures on it for sale matching the land use zoning. 

[Stradling]

2 hours ago, Blarg said:

That is the stupid part because the land is not zoned for residential and there are current structures on it for sale matching the land use zoning. 

The more stupid part of it is that in the lease agreement the Angels signed they have the right to refuse development on the land. So they sell to the Angels or they wait for the lease to expire.  

[eligrba]

On 1/13/2022 at 3:06 PM, AngelsWin.com said:

The lawsuit, filed in 2020 by the People’s Homeless Task Force OC, alleges Anaheim officials repeatedly violated the state’s open meetings law in deciding to sell the property and crafting the deal that was made public in early December 2019 and approved by the City Council later that month.

If the council made the decision to sell to the Angels before negotiating in a private meeting, this lawsuit has a very good chance of being successful.

[Docwaukee]

this same entity is suing the city over getting rid of the encampment for similar reasons.  

[eligrba]

Seriously?