HomeMy WebLinkAbout89-108RESOLUTION NO. 89-108
REL:mb(6)
10/12/89
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, RULING ON WRITTEN
AND ORAL OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING WRITTEN FIND-
INGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED
FROM AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS AND TAXING ENTITIES
AND RULING ON SUCH WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE BRISTOL CORRI-
DOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, a Redevelopment Plan for the Bristol Corridor
Redevelopment Project has been prepared by the Community Redevelop-
ment Commission of the City of Santa Ana; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 1989, a duly noticed joint
public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan was conducted
by the City Council, Redevelopment Agency and the Community
Redevelopment Commission of the City of Santa Ana; and
WHEREAS, any and all persons having any objections to
the proposed Redevelopment Plan or who deny the existence of
blight in the Project Area, or the regularity of the prior pro-
ceedings, were given an opportunity to submit written comments,
or to give oral testimony at the joint public hearing, and show
cause why the proposed Redevelopment Plan should not be adopted;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has directed Agency staff to
prepare written responses to written objections received from
affected property owners and taxing entities in detail, giving
reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions
and has reviewed such responses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has heard and considered all
evidence, both written and oral, presented in support of and in
opposition to the adoption of Redevelopment Plan for the Bristol
Corridor Redevelopment Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds, on the basis of the sub-
stantial evidence contained within the Report to the City Council
submitted by the Community Redevelopment Commission of the City
of Santa Ana and other substantial evidence in the record, that
conditions of blight exist within the Bristol Corridor Redevelop-
ment Project, and that written evidence received before or at the
joint public hearing and oral evidence in opposition received at
the joint public hearing is not persuasive to the contrary.
116
RESOLUTION NO. 89- 108
PAGE TWO
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby makes the findings in
response to each written objection of an affected property owner
or taxing entity as set forth in Exhibit "A" and incorporated
herein by this reference.
SECTION 3: The City Council, the Redevelopment Agency, and
the Community Redevelopment Commission of the City of Santa Ana
have duly complied with all the provisions, requirements, and
procedures of Articles 4 and 4.5 (commencing with Section 33330
of chapter 4) of the California Community Redevelopment Law
relating to the preparation and adoption of the Redevelopment
Plan for the Bristol Corridor Redevelopment Project.
SECTION 4: The City Council, accordingly, overrules any and
all objections to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the
Bristol Corridor Redevelopment Project.
ADOPTED this 20th day of N0¥embe~ , 1989.
ATTEST:
J/~yce C. Guy / ~
CYlerk of the Council% !
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Young Aye
Acosta --~ye
Griset '--'~ye
May -~ye
McGuigan
Norton Y~
Pulido Y~
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
CERTIFIED MAIL. RETURN RECEIPT REOU~STED
O~tober 11, 1989
2348
City Clerk,
City of Santa Aha
26 Center Plaza, P.O.
Santa Aha, California
Box 1988
92702
Re: PROPOSED REDEVELOI~ENT PLAN FOR THE
SANTA ANA-BRISTO~. CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Dear Clerk:
This office represents Kassabian Partnership whose individual
members are the owners of a shopping center lo~ated at the
northwest corner of Bristol a~d Edinger, Santa Aha,
California, also known as 1442 Bristol Street.
The purpose of this letter is to provide a formal statement
of objections to ~he proposed redevelopment plan to the
extent that it impacts my clients' property and their tenants
inconsistently with the goals of the project.
As you know, the shopping center is only approximately 2
years old, due to the quality of construction and design it
is ce~cainlya positive contribution to' the community.
Additionallyt the tenants have now been in possession of the
premises, their businesses are generally operated on a daily
basis, including uss of the parking area.
It is uncertain from the proposals as to exactly what portion
of my clients* property could be taken, however to the extent
that it impacts upon th~ ~sege by the tenants and their
customers and members of the community, it will constitute a
negative influence.
JEFFREY
I..I ~' BER
O~rtober 11, 1989
City Clerk,
City of Santa Aha
Page Two
Since the redevelopment project is inteP~ed to eliminate
various suffering from economic dislocation and disuse, any
taking by the agency would actually exacerbate economic
dislocation. The plan also seeks to replan and redesign
areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized, however
since the center was only built approximately two years ago
certainly the redevelopment plan could not ao~mplish those
goals as to this particular property. Installing new or
replacement of existing public improvements would not be
necessary since that has also occurred very recently in
connection with the subject property and the purpose of
protecting and promoting sound development has also occurred
in regard to my clients~ property.
There are other itemized goals of the redevelopment plan
including provision for increased sales and other fees and
taxes to the city of Santa Aha as well as creation and
development of local Job opportunity. If any portion of my
clients' property is taken including any parking areas, this
will actually decrease the availability of sales, fees, taxes
and revenues because tenant and/or customer access to the
shopping center will be limited.
It is my belief that if you were to completely review each of
the objectives of the redevelopment agency and compare that
to any taking that may be applied to my clients~ proper~y it
would be determined that such taking would actually defeat
the goals and purpose of the redevelopment plan rather than
accomplish it's benefits.
Obviously, we do not believe that redevelopment in the
abstract is inappropriate, for areas that are blighted or
need redevelopment, it should be encouraged. All that we ars
· aying is that as to the particul&r property in question,
with the recent development of it, approval by governmental
agencies, together with the quality and appearance of the
project, that any interference with such project would not bs
beneficial to anyone.
119
Ootober 11, 1989
City Clerk,
City of Santa A na
Page Three
That~c you for your consideration.
JEL~kl
cc= Zohrab Kassabian
=1071
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF
JEFFREY E. LIEBER
E. Liebh-r
Dan Young
MAYOR PRO TEM
John Acosta
COUNCILMEMB[RS
Daniel E. Griset
Ron May
Palricla A. McGuiian
Rick Norton
Miguel A. Pulido
CITY OF SANTA ANA
20 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA · P.O, BOX 1988
SANTA ANA, CALITORNIA 92702
ALL-AMERICA CITY 1982~3
CITY MANAGER
David N. Ream
CiTY Al-lORN EY
Edward J. Cooper
CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
lanice C. Guy
October 30, 1989
Jeffrey E. Lieber
Warner Center Business Park
5850 Canoga Avenue, Suite 400
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Subject:
Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Bristol Corridor
Redevelopment Project
Kassabtan Partnership Property, 1442 Bristol Street
Dear Mr. Lieber:
This letter is in response to your letter of October 1l, 1989, wherein
you delineate your clients' objections to inclusion of their property
within the proposed project area. You note that their property was
improved approximately two years ago and state that any taking of their
property would actually conflict with the goals of the Plan.
As described in detail in the Agency's Report to City Council on the
subject project, the project area qualifies as a blighted area pursuant
to the criteria set forth in Article 3 of the California Co~nunity
Redevelopment Law insofar as it contains any or all of the conditions
outlined in Sections 33031 and 33032 of the statute. These conditions
include: buildings which suffer from age, obsolescence, deterioration,
dilapidation, and mixed character or shifting of uses throughout the
project area as a whole; the existence of inadequate public improvements
and facilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action
without redevelopment; and a prevalence of depreciated values, impaired
investments, and social and economnic maladjustment.
Certain individual properties within the project area may not be
deteriorated properties. These properties have been included: 1) in
order to plan and carry out the project as a uniform whole; 2) because
such properties are impacted by the substandard conditions existing on
surrounding properties, and correction of such conditions may require the
imposition of design, development, or use requirements on the standard
properties in the event they are rehabilitated or redeveloped by their
owners; 3) because such properties will share in the physical, social and
economic benefits which will accrue to the area through the elimination
of substandard conditions, including the replacement or provision of new
public improvements and facilities serving the project area; and 4)
because such properties are part of a blighted area.
Jeffrey E. Lieber
October 30, 1989
Page Two
To remove the Kassabian Partnership property from the project area would
be inappropriate since it would fra§ment the planning process, possibly
lessen the potential for correction of the blighting influences in
surrounding areas and reduce the possibility of achieving the policies of
the City's General Plan in an orderly manner. Therefore, this property
should remain in the project area.
It is quite probable that the major impact to your clients' property will
be a result of the City's proposal to widen Bristol Street. We believe
that the tools made available to this Redevelopment Agency by this Plan
will be helpful in mitigating those impacts. For instance, it might be
possible to acquire portions of adjoining parcels to replace land which
is now used for parking which could be taken by the street widening
project.
In addition, we would like to direct your attention to several Sections
of the Redevelopment Plan which may also address your clients' concerns.
Sections 303 and 304 provide opportunities for Owner Participation and
extend preferences for persons engaged In business in the project area,
and Section 406 contains provisions for Agency determina~lo~l of
conforming properties. A property owner may apply for a Certificate of
Conformance which confirms that a particular parcel conforms to
applicable City codes and the Plan. Please {eel free to call me at
714/647-5360 if you wish to discuss these issues in more de~ail.
Sincerely,
......
Robert B. Hoffman i~./, /
Redevelopment & Real Estate Manager
RBH/dt/9
October 3.3, 2.969
Santa Ane Redevelopment Agency
city of santa Aha
20 Civic Center Plaza M-25
Santa Aha, CA 92701
Attn: Mr. Robert Hoffman
l~: ProPosed Bristol Corridor Redevelopment Pro4ect
This office represents AMT Partners, owners of the
neighborhood shopping center at_42G-43n ~==~ 17th street in
~he city of santa Ans. The major tenants in the center are
Alpha Beta Markets and CVS Drugs.
Our clients have instructed us to file this letter
Of objection on their behalf to the above redevelopment
project which would permit the eventual condemnation and
acquisition of their center.
our clients deny the existence of blight in the
project area, and request the agency to permit the private
eector to take care of any economic obsolescence which may be
found to exist.
The use of the redevelopment laws to permit ~he
acqusitlon of a commercial shopping center from one ~roup of
private citizens in Order to turn it over to another private
developer is an abuse of the power of eminent domain, and
should not be approved by this ugency. Ali of ~he goals
sought tO be achieved by this proposed redevelopment plan can
be accomplished through cooperative effort on the part of the
ownere of the property in questio~.
?--$9 TUE I 4 : 07 ,,.TI~I"IES C: NE 1' L Es,:,I, P~, I~1~
'123
Santa ~na Redevelopmant Agancy
october 13, 1959
Page 2
On behalf of our clients, we respectfully request
that this agency disapprove the proposed redevelopment
pro~ect,
dlh
Roqe~ M. Sullivan
cc: 'AMT Partners
MAYOR
Dan Youn§
MAYOR PRO TEM
John Acosta
COUNCILMEMBERS
Daniel E. Griset
Ron May
Patricia A. McGui§an
Rick Norton
Mi§uel A. Pulido
CITY OF SANTA ANA
20 ClVlC CENTER PLAZA · P.O. BOX 1988
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702
ALL-AMERICA CITY lg~2-83
CITY MANAGER
David N. Ream
CITY ATTORNEY
Edward J. Cooper
CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
Janice C. Guy
October 30, 1989
Roger M. Sullivan
Sullivan, Workman & Dee
Twelfth Floor
800 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2521
SubJect:
Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Bristol Corridor
Redevelopment Project
AMT Partners, 420-430 West 17th Street
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
This letter is in response to your letter of October 13, 1989, in which
you delineate your clients' objection to having their subject property
included in the proposed project area and deny the existence of blight tn
the project area.
As described in detail in the Agency's Report to City Council on the
subject project, the project area qualifies as a blighted area pursuant
to the criteria set forth in Article 3 of the California Community
Redevelopment Law insofar as it contains any or all of the conditions
outlined in Sections 33031 and 33032 of the statute. These conditions
include: buildings which suffer from age, obsolescence, deterioration,
dilapidation, and mixed character or shifting of uses throughout the
project area as a whole; the existence of inadequate public improvements
and facilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action
without redevelopment; and a prevalence of ~epreciated values, impaired
investments, and social and economntc maladjustment.
Certain individual properties within the project area may not be
deteriorated properties. These properties have been included: 1) in
order to plan and carry out the project as a uniform whole; 2) because
such properties are impacted by the substandard conditions existing on
surrounding properties, and correction of such conditions may require the
imposition of design, development, or use requirements on the standard
properties in the event they are rehabilitated or redeveloped by their
owners; 3) because such properties will share in the physical, social and
economic benefits which will accrue to the area through the elimination
of substandard conditions, including the replacement or provision of new
public improvements and facilities servlng the project area; and 4)
b'ecause such properties are part of a blighted area.
Roger M. Sullivan
October 30, 1989
Page Two
To remove the A~r Partners' property from the project area would be
inappropriate since it would fragment the plaontng process, possibly
lessen the potential for correction of the blighting influences in
surrounding areas and reduce the possibility of achieving the policies of
the City's General Plan in an orderly manner. Therefore, this property
should remain in the project area.
In addition, we would like to direct your attention to several Sections
of the Redevelopment Plan which may also address your clients' concerns.
Sections 303 and 304 provlde opportunities for Owner Participation and
extend preferences for persons engaged in business in the project area,
and Section 406 contains provisions for Agency determination of
conforming properties. A property owner may apply for a Certificate of
Conformance which confirms that a particular parcel conforms to
applicable City codes and the Plan. Please feel free to call me at
714/647-5360 if you wish to discuss these issues in more detail.
Sincerely,
Robert B, Hoffman t~ ~'
Redevelopment & Real Estate Manager
RBH/dt/9