Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-04 CRA !: . . . .', EJC:adg 2/27/84 RESOLUTION NO. 84-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS FOR THE INTER CITY COMMUTER STATION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND IN SETTLEMENT OF THAT LITIGATION ENTITLED EDWARDS et al. v. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY etc. et al., O.C.S.C. NO. 38-58-60 WHEREAS, on July 6, 1982, the City Council of the City of Santa Ana adopted and approved the Redevelopment Plan for the Inter City Commuter Station Redevelopment Project Area by Ordinance No. NS 1636; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health & Safety Code Sections 33000 et~) the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana (hereinafter nthe Agency") is charged with the responsibility of carrying out the Redevelopment Plan for the Inter City Commuter Station Redevelopment Project Area (hereinafter "the Project Area"); and WHEREAS, an action entitled Edwards et al. v. City of Santa Ana etc. et al; Orange County Superior Court No. 38-58-60 has been filed challenging the validity of the Plan; and WHEREAS, the Agency desires to settle and resolve the above-entitled litigation; and WHEREAS, the parties to the above-entitled action have agreed to a STIPULATION, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit I; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency in enacting this Resolution is acting in reliance on said STIPULATION and the carrying out of its terms in good faith by the parties thereto~ and WHEREAS, this Resolution shall be construed in accordance with the following recitals of the Agency's interest: (a) With respect to the exercise of eminent domain by the Agency, it is the intent of the Agency to waive its right of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes as follows: ,þ :' ~ . . . .,' , RESOLUTION NO. 84-4 PAGE TWO (I) as to all properties in the Project Area owned by plaintiffs (2) as to all residential and those commercial properties described in Exhibit 2, attached hereto through and including December 31, 1988. (b) Nothing in this Resolution is meant to prohibit the Agency from using eminent domain in order to carry out the public purposes which the City could carry out if there were no Redevelopment Plan. (c) Nothing in this Resolution is meant to prohibit the Agency or any property owner from agreeing to utilize eminent domain proceedings in connection with the acquisition of property by the Agency. NOW THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Exemption From Eminent Domain Pursuant to the authority granted to the Agency to exempt properties from its power of eminent domain by Section 33399 of the Health & Safety Code, the Agency does hereby declare: (a) The property of plaintiffs Junior Lee Edwards located at 1110 N. Poinsettia Street and Henry Lomakin at 1041 Logan Street is exempt from eminent domain by the Agency for the duration of the Redevelopment Plan or any amendment or extension thereof. (b)(i) All presently residential properties located within the Project Area are exempt from acquisition by eminent domain under the Redevelopment Plan by the Agency through and including December 31, 1988, and during this period the Agency shall have no power of eminent domain as to the residential properties ex- empted by this Section l(b)(i) except for those public uses for which the City of Santa Ana would be able to exercise eminent domain if there were no Redevelopment Plan for the duration of the Redevelop- ment Plan or any amendments, or extensions thereof. As used in this Resolution, the term nresidential properties" means a complete parcel of land together . . . . RESOLUTION NO. 84-4 PAGE THREE with a structure presently being used for residential purposes whose use is not changed or all or any part of a structure presently being used for residential purposes whose use is not changed. (ii) The commeracial properties described in Exhibit No.2 attached to this Resolution and by reference made a part hereof, are exempt from acquisition by means of eminent domain under the Redevelopment Plan for a period ending December 31, 1988 and during said period, the Agency shall have no power of eminent domain as to the commercial properties so described except for those public uses for which the City would be able to exercise eminent domain if there were no Redevelopment Plan. (c) With respect to the residential properties and the commercial properties exempted from eminent domain pursuant to Section I subdivisions (a) and (b) above, the Agency shall not request or cause the City to exercise its power of eminent domain in order to take any of the residential properties or the commercial properties exempted herein. As used herein, the term nAgencyn means the members of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana or any successor organization acting in such capacity. (d) During the period of time in which the residential properties and commercial properties are exempt from the Agency's power of eminent domain as described in Section I, subdivisions (a) and (b) above, and to the extent necessary to prevent their being taken by eminent domain by the Agency, said residential proper- ties and commercial properties shall be deemed to be non-conforming uses under the Redevelopment Plan and the Agency shall allow them to remain in their present use and allow the structure so exempted to remain in their present structural configuration whether or not the said residential properties and commercial prop- erties comply with the City's General Plan or the zoning or design standards for the Inter City Com- muter Station Redevelopment Project Area. . . . ,,' RESOLUTION NO. 84-4 PAGE FOUR (e) Nothing in this section shall constitute a waiver or restriction on the right of the City or the Agency to take action including condemna- tion, with respect to violations of City or Agency codes or standards which are found to be a danger to the public health or safety, including those the City could abate in the absence of the Redevelop- ment Plan for the Inter City Commuter Station Redevelopment Project Area. Nevertheless, the power of the Agency will not be used to take any exempted property which is rendered contrary to the City's Zoning Ordinance as the result of Agency action. (f) Nothing in this section shall prevent the or the Agency from utilizing eminent domain with the consent of the property owner, or from paying relocation benefits as required by law. SECTION 2: Tax Increments Thirty percent (30%) of the tax increments or tax in- crement generated or related revenues, or moneys repayable from tax increment from the project area shall be set aside solely and exclusively for low and moderate income housing related activities such as rebates, low interest rehabilitation loans, public improvements or assisting in low income housing con- struction. SECTION 3: Relocation (a) Exi sting property owners in the project area wi 11 have the first right to participate in the redevelopment of property in the project area in accordance with Health & Safety Code §§ 33380 and 33381. (b) No business engaged in auto salvage or towing shall be caused to cease doing business by reason of redevelop- ment at its current location without the consent of the owner until an alternative location within the City of Santa Ana is available for immediate occupancy by said business. (c) The Agency will make available to all participants any and all financing programs available for the purchase of land and/or operating equipment and necessary improvements to property and buildings, provided said participants otherwise qualify for such financing program or programs. . . . , RESOLUTION NO. 84-4 PAGE FIVE (d) The Agency will retain the right to make standard street alignment and will pay the costs necessary for implemen- tation of that alignment. SECTION 4. Ambiguity Any ambiguity which may be found to exist regarding this Resolution including its Recitals shall be interpreted in accordance with the intention set forth in the Recitals and with the intent to permanently resolve and terminate the above- entitled lawsuit and the issues raised therein. SECTION 5: When Resolution Effective This Resolution is adopted on the date recited below. Nevertheless, it shall be effective only when the Judgment attached hereto as Exhibit No.3 is filed in the Superior Court of Orange County. Such Judgment shall be a final, non- appealable judgment resolving all of the issues raised therein and determining that the Redevelopment Plan is in all respects valid and legal, including all actions of the Agency and the City taken in adoption and implementation of the said Redevelop- ment Plan, and entitling the Agency to the receipt of all taxes to be allocated to the Agency pursuant to the terms of the Plan. SECTION 6: Resolution a Part of the Judgment The Judgment shall not be effective (and this Resolu- tion shall not be effective) unless it contains by reference the provisions of this Resolution, fully agreed to by all of the parties, and all of the parties shall acknowledge as part of the judgment that it is entered into for the purpose of settle- ment and resolution of the action. ADOPTED this 27th day of by the following votes:----- , 1984, Februarv AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Bricken, Griset, Johnson, Luxembourger, MEMBERS:McGuigan, Young MEMBERS: None ~ / MEMBERS:Acosta~h~/~~¿{¿/~~~~~ ./7 / ~/ / - . R.W. xembourger Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Rex Sw son, Executive Director/Recording Secretary ,)' 1 2 3 . 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 . 25 26 27 JC/fm 28 /27/84 C. ROBERT FERGUSON Attorney at Law 301 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 600 Pasadena, CA 91101 (818) 795-4181 Attorney for Plaintiffs EDWARD J. COOPER, City Attorney 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 834-4900 Weiser, Kane, Ballmer & Berkman 354 S. Spring Street, Suite 420 Los Angeles, CA 90013 (213) 617-0480 Attorneys for Defendants SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE JUNIOR LEE EDWARDS, et a1., No. 38-58-60 Plaintiffs, STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT v. CITY OF SANTA ANA, et a1., Defendants. WHEREAS, 1. On July 6,1982, by Ordinance No. NS-1636, . the City Council of the City of Santa Ana adopted and approved , the Redevelopment Plan for the Inter City Commuter Station Redevelopment Project. 2. On September 2, 1982, the plaintiffs herein filed the above-entitled action challenging the validity of the said Redevelopment Plan. E;,(;::3;"[ u,---Jr:.'.'."".'.~ . . . ..i 1 3. Within the time allowed therefor the defendants 2 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana, City of Santa 3 Ana, City Council of the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, 4 Auditor-Controller of the County of Orange appeared herein. 5 6 4. The plaintiffs and defendants Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana, City of Santa Ana and City 7 Council of the City of Santa Ana and their attorneys have 8 agreed upon mutually acceptable terms for the settlement of 9 10 the within action. 5. The defendants Redevelopment Agency of the 11 12 City of Santa Ana, City of Santa Ana, and the City Council of the City of Santa Ana (hereinafter the "City Defendants") desire to obtain a judgment herein validating the Inter City 13 14 Commuter Station Redevelopment Plan and Ordinance No. NS- 15 16 1636. 6. Plaintiffs desire, pursuant to said judgment, 17 to obligate the City Defendants to carry out and abide by 18 certain terms and conditions as more particularly set forth 19 in the Resolution which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" 20 and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth 21 at this point. 22 NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPUI.ATED by and , between the plaintiffs and the City Defendants and their 23 24 attorneys that: 25 The City Defendants shali, ~ithin thirty-five 1. 26 (35) days after executing this Stipulation, bring or cause to be brought the Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit "A" 27 28 III DU;wrr __=2-:.:.L.....::.;. . . . , " , 1 2 before the defendant Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana for its approval or disapproval. 3 If defendant Redevelopment Agency of the City 2. 4 5 of Santa Ana adopts said Resolution in the form attached hereto, then the Superior Court of the/County of Orange, 6 7 upon being presented with a certified copy of the adopted Resolution, shall further file the Stipulated Judgment, the 8 original of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." 9 3. It is stipulated and agreed by all of the 10 11 plaintiffs and the City Defendants to this action as follows: Each of the parties to this action agrees that 12 13 they will not relatiate against any other party, or its "supporters" because of that other party's involvement in 14 this action. "Supportersn of a party means, as to the 15 16 plaintiffs, the individuals listed in Exhibit "c" to this Stipulation, and, as to the defendants, their officers, 17 officials and employees. In the event that an action is 18 brought by a party to this action, or any supporter, against 19 a party, alleging that an act or acts have been undertaken 20 21 for the purpose of retaliating against the plaintiff in such action because of the said plaintiff's involvement in this 22 23 . action, and if the said plaintiff proves said allegation, , resulting in a final judgment in favor of said plaintiff, 24 then said plaintiff shall be entitled ~o his reasonable attorneys fees, but only to the extent th~t they were necessary 25 26 to prove the said claim. On the other hand, if the said 27 plaintiff does not prevail and if the court, pursuant to a motion brought, determines that the said claim was made 28 EjmWiT ""3",...,.L....- . . . ,.i , 1 2 without substantial justification, then the defendants in said action shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees, 3 4 but only to the extent they were necessary to defend against the claim and to bring the said motion. 5 6 The City and Agency agree that all of the 4. residential property described in Exhibit "A" shall be 7 8 incorporated into the neighborhood integrity program. 5. The parties agree that the plaintiffs shall 9 be awarded attorneys fees, costs and expenses in the total 10 amount of $19,910.36 and that said amount will be the entire 11 12 amount awarded to the plaintiffs as attorneys fees, expenses and costs herein. 13 6. Immediately upon execution of this Stipulation, 14 15 the plaintiffs shall dismiss with prejudice Edwards et a1. v. City of Santa Ana, et a1., Orange County Superior Court No. 38-58-60 as to all defendants except the Redevelopment 16 17 Agency of the City of Santa Ana and City of Santa Ana. 18 7. upon dismissal of all defendants except the 19 20 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana and City of Santa Ana, a Judgment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 21 22 "B" shall be entered in Edwards et al. v. City of Santa Ana, et al., Orange County Superior Co~rt No. 38-58-60. Said 23 24 judgment shall be a final judgment resolving all of the' 25 issues raised and determining that the Redevelopment Plan for the Inter City Commuter Station Redevelopment Project is 26 27 III III III 28 EX¡-¡ ¡:J rr ............L.......... -4- . . ~ ,,', 1 valid and legal. Further, the parties hereby expressly and 2 irrevocably waive their right of appeal. 3 4 This Stipulation may be signed in duplicate originals, the total of such signed duplicate originals constituting 5 6 the entire agreement. Dated: THE PLAINTIFFS 7 8 Jun1or Lee Edwards 9 10 Henry Lomakin 11 Attorney for Plaintiffs 12 13 C. Robert Ferguson THE CITY DEFENDANTS 14 15 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF CITY OF SANTA ANA 16 17 By: Executive Director 18 Attorneys for City Defendants EDWARD J. COOPER, City Attorney WEISER, KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN 19 20 By: 21 22 THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND THE CITY COUNCIL THEREOF . 23 24 By: , 25 26 27 28 ["1,."""":1" ...~J-...-.....;.; '" o~';, ......... -5- . . . INTER CITY Blue Bird Towing - S. Scott 1001 N. Logan ( not in project area) Town & Country Auto Salvage - Lee - 929 East 5th Deaver Wfg - Donald Chandler - 902 East 2nd Ken Case - 1018 N. Lincoln ( not in project area) Ford Truck - Tony Delio - 518 North poinsettia Pacific Plumbing - R. A. Schusto - 615 East Washington Santa Ana Diesel - Tom Martinez - 730 North Poinsettia Bruce Metals - Larry K. - 920 East 6th Rice Wrecking - 500 Yoon - 905 East 2nd M & M Trucks - Donald Blakely - ll36 East Washington Orange ço. Crating - Charlie Mayo -, 921 East Santa Ana Blvd. Freeway Auto Wrecking - Ron Meers - 1107 East Washington Men - Cal - 1003 East 4th S & G Roofing - Roger Glazer - 1000 East 6th Big N. Tool Grinding Co., Inc. - Oaks Newcome - 1008 N. Lincoln ( not in) Hills Garage - Edwards - 1110 N. Poinsettia EXHIBIT "2" .,' . . . ': ,\ . 1 2 3 C. ROBERT FERGUSON Attorney at Law 301 E. Colorado Blvd., Pasadena, CA 91101 (818) 795-4181 Suite 600 4 Attorney for Plaintiffs 5 EDWARD J. COOPER, City Attorney 20 Civic Center Plaza 6 Santa Ana, CA 92701 (714) 834-4900 7 Weiser, Kane, Ballmer & Berkman 8 354 S. Spring Street, Suite 420 Los Angeles, CA 90013 9 (213) 617-0480 10 Attorneys for Defendants 11 12 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 14 15 JUNIOR LEE EDWARDS, et a1., No. 38-58-60 16 Plaintiffs, JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT 17 v. 18 CITY OF SANTA ANA, et al., 19 20 Defendants. 21 22 In the above-entitled cause, plaintiffs Junior Lee Edwards and Henry Lomakin and def~ndants Redevelopment' 23 Agency of the City of Santa Ana, City of Santa Ana, and ~ity 24 Council of the City of Santa Ana, having stipulated that 25 Judgment be entered validating the Intei:City Commuter 26 Station Redevelopment Project and the Redevelopment Plan JClfm 27 III 127/84 28 III c::¡: ::rr ....m:;.........""'. -l- . ' . . . ..,". 1 adopted for such Project by the City Council of the City of 2 Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-1636 of July 6, 1982. 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: 4 1. That the City of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS- 5 1636 is lawful and valid in all respects and without qualification. 6 2. That the Inter City Commuter Station Redevelopment 7 Project and the Redevelopment Plan for such Project adopted 8 by Ordinance No. NS-1636 of the City of Santa Ana are lawful 9 and valid and without qualification. 10 That the implementation of the Inter City 3. 11 Commuter Station Redevelopment Project and the Redevelopment 12 Plan for such Project by the Redevelopment Agency of the 13 City of Santa Ana from the adoption of Ordinance No. NS-1636 14 through and including the adoption of Agency Resolution No. 15 84-4 is lawful and valid, and without qualification. 16 4. That the allocation and payment of tax revenues 17 and other funds to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of 18 Santa Ana for the Inter City Commuter Station Redevelopment 19 Project, pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment 20 Law, Article XVI, Section 16 of the California Constitution, 21 and such other laws or regulations which specify the powers . 22 and authority of the Agency, and the receipt and expenditure , 23 of such funds by the Redevelopment Agency for the Inter City 24 Commuter Station Redevelopment Project are lawful and valid 25 and without qualification. 26 5. That the plaintiffs and the Redevelopment 27 Agency of the City of Santa Ana are obligated to carry out 28 terms and conditions of the Stipulation and Resolution No. '-"""""',,,'1-," -; -_..-.~..- .""",. . ------------. -2- ..:~, ,. r- '; 1 84-4 adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of 2 Santa Ana on , 1984 which are included in 3 this Judgment by reference and agreed to by all the parties . 4 herein. The plaintiffs are obligated to take or cooperate 5 in, all actions reasonably necessary on their part to assist 6 the Agency in good faith in carrying out the Stipulation and 7 Resolution No. 84-4 and to carry out the terms required of 8 them. The Redevelopment Agency and any and all successors 9 thereto are lawfully obligated to carry out and accomplish 10 the terms and conditions of Resolution No. 84-4. 11 6. Plaintiffs are hereby awarded attorneys fees, 12 costs and expenses in the total amount of $19,910.36 for 13 costs, fees and expenses of whatever nature and no other . 14 award of costs, 15 action. 16 Dated: 17 fees or expenses shall be allowed in this ,1984. Judge of the Superior Court 18 Approved: 19 C. Robert Ferguson 20 21 Attorney for Plaintiffs 22 Edward J. Cooper, City Attorney Weiser, Kane, Ballmer & Berkman , - 23 24 By: Attorneys for Defendants Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana and City of Santa Ana 25 26 27 28 [;{w"rr ...;;..;;J,,~..",:.:.:;.