11/06/1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . . The Executive Director stated that Staff has discussed this many times. He stated that there have been a couple of hearings on this matter, and a public hearing with regards to entering into an Owners Participation Agreement with Heritage Development. Mr. Friis was in the audience and had the opportunity to further discuss the matter of his property, but did not do so. The Executive Director stated that there have also been other meetings that this has been discussed. The Executive Director further stated that as to the relocation activities, the Agency had done more than is legally required, and emphasized that Staff has met the requirements of the law and the Gilmaker Agreement. Agency member Bricken asked the acquisition price Staff was offering the Friis'. Staff responded $42,000. Mr. Bricken then asked the price the Friis' felt they should be offered. Staff responded that the Friis' had not made a counter offer. Discussion and concern ensued over the fact that a counter offer had not even been proposed. Mr. Leo J. Friis, one of the owners of the property, addressed the Agency stating that they were shown property which exceeded the $42,000 the Agency offered. Mr. Friis further stated that he was never shown the appraiser's figures on his property, and doesn't feel that the amount offered was the appraiser's figure. Staff first offered $32,000 for the property, and later offered the $42,000. Mr. Friis stated that he thought, under those circumstances, that it would not do any good for him to make a counter offer. He then stated that he felt this property was worth $105,000, and that he would accept that amount for his property. Mr. Waldron stated that he and his clients were addressing the Agency to ask that the property not be condemned because they have not been extended the privileges that Gilmaker was extended, and becuase his clients have not been able to relocate to another place because the money they have been offered is less than half of anything suitable that has been shown to them, and feels that before the property is condemned, his clients should have another place to relocate to. Again, Mr. Bricken expressed his concern that a counter offer had not been submitted by the Friis' or their representative, and was very unclear as to the difference of opinion between the Friis' and the Agency. The Executive Director explained that Staff is requesting the condemnation because they have not been able to get the Friis' to come to terms, and that the overall project for this area is being stalled. The Executive Director further stated that he didn't believe that stalling the issue would get the Agency "off dead center", and believes that the issue is for the Courts to settle. A motion was made by Mr. Bricken to adopt Resolution 78-31: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES IN THE HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT SITE IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND DECLARING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY THEREFOR, with the stipulation that the Agency will not go to the Court for filing until the Friis' complete their half of the negotiation process and the Agency knows whether or not they are in disagreement over dollars. The motion died for a lack of a second. A motion was made by Mr. Yamamoto to continue this condemnation for one month giving the Friis', their attorney, and the Redevelopment Agency time to get together and work out some sort of deal. If negotiations cannot be reached, then the property should be condemned and should go to the Courts. The motion died for a lack of a second. -3-