Parking Lot Plans May Force Angels to Move, Court Papers Say

Anaheim lured the California Angels with promises of a stadium tailor-made for freeway fans, then tried to fool and “bully” the baseball club into concessions needed to attract the Los Angeles Rams to the same stadium, according to court documents filed Wednesday.

The city’s actions threaten to devastate the Angels, the documents say, and the franchise--called the most successful in baseball--may move if plans to build a high-rise office center on the Anaheim Stadium parking lot are not blocked.

The documents, which could be the final court papers filed by the Angels’ lawyers in the club’s $100-million lawsuit against Anaheim, paint a bleak picture of double-dealing and municipal back stabbing. Anaheim will have a chance to answer the arguments contained in the Angels’ legal brief next month.

The filing Wednesday signals that the end is in sight for the bitter 4-year-old, three-sided legal war over development rights to the 146-acre stadium parking lot.

At issue is the meaning of the Angels’ original 1964 lease, covering the stadium and parking lot, as well as a 1981 amendment. The Angels say no changes may be made in the parking facilities--which the club contends are too small for the stadium now--without their approval.

That approval, they say, was not given to a Rams-Anaheim deal in 1982 purportedly granting a partnership, including a trust for the heirs of the late Rams owner Carroll Rosenbloom, the right to build four high-rise office towers and garages on 20 acres of the stadium parking lot.

No construction has taken place on that tract or on another 48 acres to which the developers have rights for future building.

In a separate lawsuit, Anaheim Stadium Associates, the Rams’ development partnership, say the only reason they came to Anaheim was the city’s promise of the parking lot deal.

In the papers filed Wednesday, the Angels argue that no amount of money could adequately compensate the club for the loss of parking space. The Angels are requesting a court order permanently blocking the building project.

But if a price had to be placed on the loss, it would be in the neighborhood of $100 million, Angels lawyers say in their brief.

The 100-page document was crafted to put the Angels’ best foot forward, and in doing so it emphasizes testimony in the yearlong trial that portrays Anaheim officials as--at best--disingenuous. For example:

- During negotiations with the Rams, the brief says, the city was repeatedly warned by its own lawyers that the Angels would have to approve the development deal. The city hid the development package for 18 months, providing a copy to the Angels only eight days before the City Council approved the Rams deal in late 1982, Angels lawyers contend.

- The ballclub was “lulled into a false sense of security due to the past relationship of trust and confidence which had developed between them and Anaheim,” according to the brief. City officials tried to trick the club into giving up all rights to the parking lots in a proposed amendment to the lease six years ago.

“Rather than approaching the Angels in a straightforward manner and attempting to negotiate an amendment, Anaheim tried to ‘pull a fast one’ by eliminating the parking lot from the leased premises,” Angels lawyers say.

- When the baseball club formally objected to the plans, Anaheim, “in collusion with ASA (Anaheim Stadium Associates), ignored the Angels’ concerns,” according to the brief. “In the process, Anaheim and ASA tried to bully the Angels into agreeing to their planned development on the parking lot. All the while they refused to even discuss, let alone negotiate, in good faith.”

- Before the Rams negotiations, the city habitually consulted the Angels on proposals for using portions of the stadium parking lot for other purposes, the brief says. Drag strips, a jai alai fronton, a transport center, an Amtrak station and a football stadium were among the proposals.

“In every case, Anaheim went to the Angels, informed them about the proposal or idea, and sought their input. Only the Amtrak station became a reality after the Angels consented to the proposal,” Angels lawyers say in their brief.

- Lawyers for Angels owner Gene Autry pointed to the tremendous value of the good will associated with the ballclub. “Gene Autry personally has invested more than 20 years of his life to building the Angels” franchise at Anaheim Stadium. He had made countless public appearances in support of not only his Angels, but the community of Anaheim as well.”

In summarizing the club’s case for a court order, Angels attorney William B. Campbell placed emphasis on the testimony of Peter Ueberroth, commissioner of Major League Baseball.

Ueberroth told Orange County Superior Court Judge Frank Domenichini that initial development of the four office towers and new parking garages would have, “without question, a negative impact on fan attendance.”

Development of the entire 68 acres in which the Rams claim an interest would dramatically increase congestion, damage baseball attendance and the Angels franchise, so much that a new baseball stadium somewhere in Orange County would be needed, Ueberroth said.

With full development, “they might as well plow it (Anaheim Stadium) under,” Uebberoth testified.