06/16/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . . 2. The redevelopment of property with improvements in excess of 50 years of age serves as an inducement for further redevelopment of surrounding areas within the Redevelopment Project Area. The least private injury is demonstrated by the fact that the property is tenant occupied and the tenants will receive relocation benefits pursuant to the relocation guidelines. The property is necessary for the project because it is required to conform to the Owner Participation Agreement previously adopted by the Agency. The project is planned and located pursuant to hearings previously held by the Redevelopment Commission and the Redevelopment Agency. The project will provide commercial uses for the area and will represent a redevelopment of the property; thereby, generating increased commercial and office space, employment and additional tax base for the citizens of Santa Ana. The Vice Chairman then asked to hear from the public. Mr. Ralph C. Morones, one of the owners of the property, addressed the Agency stating that he questioned whether the taking of this parcel was in the public interest since the credit union would not be available to the general public. He further stated that he feels there is a conflict of interest in that City officials handling the condemnation are eligible to be members of the credit union. He also feels that little or no consideration has been given as to the price of the property. The Vice Chairman asked if anyone else would like to address the Agency on this matter. There being no response, the Executive Director reported that prior to the meeting Edith Morones and Roger Morones had requested to speak. Mr. Roger Morones approached the Agency and stated that he and his wife, Edith Morones, were in agreement with what his brother, Ralph, had said. Mr. Howard Way, 801 W. Tenth Street, Santa Ana, addressed the Agency expressing his approval and desire for the proposed development. There being no further comments from the public, the Vice Chairman closed the public hearing. Discussión was then held between the Agency members. Mr. Yamamoto and Mr. Griset stated that they were members of the credit union and that, perhaps, they should abstain from the question. The City Attorney was asked to address this. After'determining that the Agency members were not on the Board of Directors, the City Attorney stated that, in his opinion, this was not a conflict of interest. Mr. Bricken requested that the City Attorney's response be included in the Minutes verbatim. The Secretary stated that she did not take the City Attorney's response verbatim. Mr. Bricken then requested the City Attorney to provide a written opinion regarding this matter as part of the official Minutes. The City Attorney's opinion is attached and marked as Exhibit "A". Mr. Luxembourger asked if any of the Redevelopment staff served on the Board of Directors for the Credit Union. The Executive Director responded that no staff served on the Board of Directors, but that some of the staff may have deposits in the credit union. A motion was made by Mr. Bricken, seconded by Mr. Serrato and carried by the following roll call vote to adopt Resolution 80-63: -3- ý'