08/23/1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . . The Chairman stated that it was the time and place for Mr. & Mrs. Albert Glasgow to come forward and present their comments. The Glasgows did not appear. The Chairman then requested that a representative of the Glasgows come before the podium. No representatives appeared. The Chairman then requested that Mr. Frank Babb come forward and present his comments. Mr. Babb did not appear. The Chairman then requested that a representative for Mr. Babb come forward. No representative appeared. The Chairman then requested that Harriet C. Arnett and Marjorie L. Banks come forward and present their comments. Their legal representative, Mr. Larry Wasserman of Oster, Millard and Suchman, 444 W. 10th Street, Santa Ana, came forward and requested that this matter be continued to the next meeting so that recently associated legal associate, Mr. Montgomery, could be present, and that an appraisal which had been approved by clients Arnett and Banks could be completed. The Executive Director stated that staff preferred that the Agency proceed with the condemnation action, and that staff would continue to negotiate with the property owners and their representatives. The Executive Director again stated that staff has attempted to negotiate with the owners over the past year, but the owners had not responded. The Executive Director reported that he would bring the matter back before the Council prior to the actual filing of condemnation if negotiations fail and a condemnation trial becomes necessary. Again, Mr. Wasserman requested that this matter be continued to the next Agency meeting when Mr. Montgomery could be present to explain the owner's argument and objections. Absent approval of a continuance, Mr. Wasserman proceeded to state his objections. Mr. Wasserman stated that in the first letter of the notice of intent to adopt a resolution of necessity the Redevelopment Agency stated that the use was for senior citizen housing. In the second letter received by his clients, Mr. Wasserman stated that the proposed use was stated as public parking. In the third notice, Mr. Wasserman stated that the use was identified as redevelopment purposes. He requested information on what the specific use was. The Executive Director stated that the reason for the notice of intent was to eliminate a blighted structure from the community and to provide needed and necessary parking resources. In addition, Mr. Wasserman stated that the appropriate EIR procedures had not been filed for the proposed temporary parking use. The Executive Director responded that an EIR had been completed on the entire Redevelopment Project and in his opinion was appropriate for the proposed parking use. Mr. Wasserman stated that he objected to the Agency proceeding on the resolution of necessity because the taking of property was not in the public interest and was neither necessary nor a necessity for the public interest. Mr. Wasserman also objected to the Redevelopment Agency action because it was not in conformance with CEQA or the Redevelopment Law because an EIR had not been filed for a temporary parking use. The Chairman then requested any members of the public in favor of or in opposition to the proposed action to step forward. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Mr. Ward and seconded by Mr. Yamamoto to continue the public hearing on 510 N. Main Street to the next Regular Meeting. The motion failed on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Yamamoto, Ward Brandt, Garthe, Ortiz, Bricken Evans