CORRESPONDENCE - 50A - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.r_ November 13, 2014 Page 4 proposed homeless shelter at 1217 Normandy Place at its October 21, 2014 council meeting. Several members of the public, Supervisor John Moorlach, and State Senator Lou Correia all spoke to the issues associated with the City's September 2013 adoption of a zoning provision that would allow a homeless shelter to be located within a 995 acre area of the City, the County's intended purchase of 1217 Normandy Place for use as such a homeless shelter within that area, and the apparent lack of notice, outreach and involvement of the community in the selection of a homeless shelter site at 1217 Normandy Place. Supervisor Moorlach's comments were against the city council's proposed adoption of a moratorium on the implementation of the zoning ordinance permitting a homeless shelter, and rather were an indication that he, and perhaps other_ members of the Board of Supervisors, intended to proceed with the purchase of 1217 Normandy Place :for a homeless shelter. After further discussion the Santa Ana city council unanimously adopted a 45 day moratorium halting the implementation of the zoning ordinance that would permit a homeless shelter within the 995 acre area, including at 1217 Normandy Place. The adoption of this moratorium seemingly prevents the County from meeting its Conditions Precedent, as Purchaser, under the PSA to consummate the transaction in that with the moratorium in place, the County will not be in "receipt of all necessary governmental permits, licenses, conditional use permits and approvals for the use of the Property as a tnaiti- service center and shelter." (See PSA Section 5(a)(ii)) The County should immediately provide written notice to the Seller under the PSA that it rejects the purchase because 1) the agreement is contrary to law in that the PSA is not conditioned on prior environmental review consistent with CEQA, and 2) the City's moratorium blocks the County's intended use at the site. If the County remains silent for the remainder of the Feasibility .Period under the PSA, the County will be deemed to have accepted the condition of the property and that condition precedent to the sale will be deemed to have been satisfied. (See PSA Section 4(c)) The amendment to the PSA indicates, among other things, that the PSA .Feasibility Period expires on November 20, 2014. Action to be Taken What the County must do in this instance is disavow the contract and. reject the purchase of the property. It must do so by providing written notice to the seller disapproving of the property prior to the expiration of the "Feasibility Period" so as not to be deemed to have approved of the property. If the County falls to disavow the contract and closes the transaction with the seller, it will have squandered nearly $4 Whou in public funds on the purchase of property that cannot be used for the stated purpose because statutory prerequisites will have been flaunted. If the County cannot purchase property except for a public use, which it cannot, and the use here cannot be engaged due to the failure to first comply with CEQA, to what end is the County committing public funds? To be certain, our clients, and the community at large, have been engaged and will continue to be engaged in assisting in identifying and evaluating a suitable site closer to existing services focused on the homeless. We all understand there is a serious and timely need to serve 4091186.1 •-N1500.1