CORRESPONDENCE - #17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Daisy Gomez, Clerk of the Council Sonia Carvalho, Esq. John Funk, Esq. Brandon Salvatierra, Esq. January 19, 2022 Page Two deadline to file a lawsuit while they attempted to negotiate a resolution. The city their refused to grant any more extensions, which led me to file on August 20, 2021, a complaint in the Orange County Superior Court for inverse condemnation, declaratory relief, injunction, and vioiation of civil rights. The name of the case is 1letro Star, LLC r,. City o. f Santa Ana, Case No. 30-2021- 01218780-CU-EI-CVC. My client had previously looked at developing the property and had obtained a variance regarding parking and setbacks in 2012. My client did not pursue it then. We renewed discussions with the city on the basis that these variances could be revived. As I have stated, the project only works with the variances. While this case has been pending we have continued to work with the Planning Department to try to resolve this matter. Most recently the parties agreed to stay the court proceedings while the planning process continues. The court agreed to stay proceedings through ,Tune 30, 2022, and has scheduled a case management conference for July 19, 2022. In light of the agreement by the parties to stay the proceedings in the inverse condemnation matter, it seems contradictory for the city to be pushing to file its own eminent domain lawsuit while we are still working on a resolution through the planning process. My client's architect, Nathan Menard, has submitted plans to the planning department which entail the use of variances on parking and tot size in light of the proposed taking of the perimeter. However, on December 26, 2021 (yes, the letter is dated the day after Christmas), the city planner wrote a letter which seemingly discards the possibility of a variance. Now we have received a notice that the city council will have on its agenda for February 1, 2022, a Resolution of Necessity to acquire by eminent domain the perimeter property. This is being understood by us as a heavy-handed effort to foreclose further negotiations and place our client at a disadvantage in developing the property. My client believes that it is improper to take the perimeter property by eminent domain unless a variance is permitted that would make the remaining portion of the property usable. In the absence of that, the proper course of action is for the city to make an offer to take the entire property.