CORRESPONDENCE - 75D - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PALMIERI TYLER City of Santa Ana June 6, 2017 Page 3 No notice given to property owner and/or occupant concerning the "strategic goals" at time of the adoption of the "strategic goals." No notice that adoption of the so-called goals required the eminent domain taking of the subject property, No notice that the cooperative agreement or amendment required acquisition of the subject property. No notice that the that the OC Streetcar Maintenance and Storage Facility project required the eminent domain taking of the subject property. « "Design Cooperative Agreement": Adoption of said agreement either made findings of need and necessity or it did not. If it did, then no notice provided to owner and occupant and such findings further show City precommitted. If it did not, it cannot support the acquisition now. The City is not the lead agency through this process. From the property acquisition standpoint it is the caboose agency. From the property owners and tenant perspective, OCTA has been the lead agency. Yet, OCTA is not purporting to make any findings or adopting a legally compliant resolution. We object to statements in the staff report to documents not provided such as the "revised work plan" and the April 4, 2017 "amendment to the cooperative agreement." If such documents are pivotal/crucial to acquisition, then notice of the hearings as well as the documents should. have been provided to owner and occupant. If not pivotal/important, then they are not relevant. The City has not and cannot show the need to take the subject property or that condemning the subject property causes greatest public good and least private injury. No direct relationship. No direct showing that any of the strategic plan goals require condemnation of the subject property (or at this time). To the extent such goals did make such a showing, it further demonstrates precommitment rendering this approval of the resolution an inevitability rather than a good faith determination of pros and cons. No notice of the hearing or the substance of the cooperative agreement. • The project as described by staff fails to show the need to take the subject property for a maintenance yard. • The City already owns/controls property that better meets strategic goals/project. • Subject property is an inferior location for a proposed train maintenance yard as a "through -put station" provides a superior train maintenance yard. • Here, the City is considering only one location, with no alternatives, 2101919.1