HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-03 CRA
j
.
.
.
'\'
EJC:adg
2/27/84
RESOLUTION NO. 84-3
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS
FOR THE SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD FAIRVIEW STREET
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND IN SETTLEMENT OF THAT
LITIGATION ENTITLED GIBSON v. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
etc., et al., O.C.S.C. NO. 38-58-61
WHEREAS, on July 6, 1982, the City Council of the City
of Santa Ana adopted and approved the Redevelopment Plan for the
South Harbor Boulevard Fairview Street Redevelopment Project Area
by Ordinance No. NS 1638;
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~na
(hereinafter nthe Agency") is charged with the responsibility of
carrying out the Redevelopment Plan for the South Harbor Boulevard
Fairview Street Redevelopment Project Area (hereinafter "the
Project Arean); and
WHEREAS, an action entitled Gibson v. City of Santa Ana
etc. et al; Orange County Superior Court No. 38-58-61 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 1; 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 accord-
ance 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 through December 31, 1988.
,.I:
.
.
.
'f
RESOLUTION NO. 84-3
PAGE TWO
(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 I:
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) All property within the Project Area are
exempt from acquisiton by eminent domain under
the Redevelopment Plan by the Agency through
December 31, 1988 and during said period, the
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Santa Ana shall have no power of eminent domain
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.
(b) 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 "Agency" means the members
of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Santa Ana or any successor organization acting
in such capacity.
..-
.
.
.
",
RESOLUTION NO. 84-3
PAGE THREE
(c) Nothing in this section shall constitute a
waiver or restriction on the right of the City or
the Agency to take action including condemnation,
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 Redevelopment
Plan for the South Harbor Boulevard Fairview Street
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.
(d) Nothing in this section shall prevent the City
or the Agency from utilizing eminent domain with the
consent of the property owner, or from paying re-
location benefits as required by law.
SECTION 2:
Tax Increments
Sixty percent (60%) of the tax increments or tax in-
crement generated or related revenue or moneys repayable from
tax increment from the project area shall be set aside solely
and exclusively for low and moderate income housing and related
activities such as rebates, low interest rehabilitation loans,
public improvements or assisting in low income housing con-
struction.
SECTION 3:
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 4:
When Resolution Effective
This Resolutionis 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
.
.
.
.....
RESOLUTION NO. 84-3
PAGE FOUR
the Redevelopment Plan is in all respects valid and legal, in-
cluding all actions of the Agency and the City taken in adoption
and implementation of the said Redevelopment 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 5:
Resolution a Part of the Judgment
The Judgment shall not be effective (and this Resolution
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 purposes of settle-
ment and resolution of the action.
ADOPTED this 27th day of
by the following votes:-----
February
, 1984,
AYES: MEMBERS: Bricken, Griset, Johnson, Luxembourger,
McGuigan, Young
NOES: MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MEMBERS: Acosta
"J
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~,
Edward. oop r
Agency ega unsel
.
.
.
JC/fm
/27/84
, "
1 C. ROBERT FERGUSON
Attorney at Law
2 301 E. Colorado Blvd.,
Pasadena, CA 9110l
3 (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
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
IS ALBERT GIBSON,
NO. 38-58-61
16
Plaintiff,
STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT
17 v.
18 CITY OF SANTA ANA, et a1.,
19
20
Defendants.
21 WHEREAS,
22
1.
On July 6, 1982, b~ Ordinance No. NS-1638,
23 the City Council of the City of Santa Ana adopted and approved
24 the Redevelopment Plan for the South Harbor Boulevard-
25 Fairview Street Redevelopment Project.
26
2.
On September 2,1982, the piaintiff herein
27 filed the above-entitled action challenging the validity of
28
he said Redevelopment Plan.
c:nDrr ___L---------.........
-1-
.
.
.
",-
1
3.
Within the time allowed therefore 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
4.
The plaintiff and defendants Redevelopment
6 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 the wi thin action.
10
5.
The defendants Redevelopment Agency of the
11 City of Santa Ana, City of Santa Ana, and the City Council
12 of the City of Santa Ana (hereinafter the "City Defendants")
13 desire to obtain a judgment herein validating the South
14 Harbor Bou1evard-Fairview Street Redevelopment Plan and
15 Ordinance No. NS-1638.
16
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 HE~BY STIPULATED by and.
23 between the plaintiff and the City Defendants and their,
24
attorneys that:
25
1.
The City Defendants shall~: within thirty-five
26
(35) days after executing this Stipu1ation,'bring or cause
to be brought the Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
27
28 III
-2-
___h'.'{""'.""..""
/
.
.
.
...'
1 before the defendant Redevelopment Agency of the City of
2 Santa Ana for its approval or disapproval.
3
If defendant Redevelopment Agency of the City
2.
4 of Santa Ana adopts said Resolution in the form attached
5 hereto, then the Superior Court of the County of Orange,
6 upon being presented with a certified copy of the adopted
7 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 that defendants
10 herein will not retaliate against any plaintiff because of
11 that plaintiff's involvement in this action.
In the event
12 that an action is brought alleging that an act or acts have
13 been undertaken for the purpose of retaliating against the
14 plaintiff because of plaintiff's involvement in this action,
15 and if plaintiff proves said allegation, resulting in a
16 final judgment in his favor, then plaintiff shall be entitled
17 to his reasonable attorneys fees, but only to the extent
18 that they were necessary to prove the said claim.
On the
19 other hand, if the said plaintiff does not prevail and if
20 the court, pursuant to a motion brought, determines that the
21
said claim was made without substantial justification, then
22 the defendants in said action shall be entitled to reasonable
23 attorneys fees, but only to the extent they were necessâry
24
to defend against the claim and to bring the said motion.
25 III
26 III
27 III
28 III
~j:.-___L-...---...
"
.
.
.
",~
1
4.
The parties agree that the plaintiffs shall
2
be awarded attorneys fees, costs and expenses in the total
3
4
amount of $19,910.36 and that said amount will be the entire
amount awarded to the plaintiffs as attorneys fees and costs
5
6
herein.
5.
Immediately upon execution of this Stipulation,
7
8
the plaintiffs shall dismiss with prejudice Gipson v. City
of Santa Ana, etc., et a1. Orange County Superior Court No.
9
38-58-61 as to all defendants except the Redevelopment
10
Agency of the City of Santa Ana and City of Santa Ana.
11
6.
Upon dismissal of all defendants except the
12
13
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana and City of
Santa Ana, a Judgment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit
14
"B" shall be entered in Gibson v. City of Sa.nta Ana, et al. ,
15
Orange C~unty Superior Court No. 38-58-61.
Said judgment
16
shall be a final judgment resolving all of the issues raised
17
18
and determining that the Redevelopment Plan for the South
Harbor Bou1evard-Fairview Street Redevelopment Project is
19
20
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
,
21
22
.
23
24
25
26
27
28
( ...'"
f:XIW'..Xf ....-..".., ,,'-"--
-4-
5 the entire agreement.
6 Dated:
7
8
9 Attorney for Plaintiff
10
11 C. Robert Ferguson
12
13
. 14
15 By:
.' '.~
1
2
3
.
4
16
17
18
19 By:
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
26
27
28
valid and legal.
Further, the parties hereby expressly and
irrevocably waive their right of appeal.
This Stipulation may be signed in duplicate originals,
the total of such signed duplicate originals constituting
THE PLAINTIFF
Albert Gibson
THE CITY DEFENDANTS
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF CITY
OF SANTA ANA
Executive Director
Attorneys for City Defendants
EDWARD J. COOPER, City Attorney
WEISER, KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND
THE CITY COUNCIL THEREOF
.
By:
,
tìa¡¡n!T -------L----------....
-5-
."
,,'~'
.
.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
26
27
28
1
2
at Law
600
C. ROBERT FERGUSON, Attorney
301 E. Colorado Blvd., suite
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (818) 795-4181
Attorneys for plaintiffs
3
4
Edward J. Cooper, City Attorney (S.B. #059253)
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, California 92701
5
6 Telephone: (714) 834-4900
7
Weiser, Kane, Ballmer and Berkman
354 S. Spring Street, Suite 420
Los Angeles, CA 90013
8
9
Telephone: (213) 617-0480
10
11
Attorneys for Defendants
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
14
CASE NO. 38 58 61
ALBERT GIBSON,
15
plaintiffs,
JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION
FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
v.
CITY OF SANTA ANA,
Defendants.
In the above-entitled cause, plaintiff Albert Gibson
and defendants Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana,
City of Santa Ana, and City Coun~l of the City of Santa Ana,
having stipulated that Judgment be entered validating tþe South
Harbor Boulevard-Fairview Street Redevelopment Project and the
Redevelopment Plan adopted for such project by the City Coundil
of the City of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-1638 of July 6, 1982.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1.
That the City of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-1638
EXHIBIT"" .3
-l-
.."
.
.
.
,'-'
1
is lawful and valid in all respects and without qualification.
2
2.
That the South Harbor Boulevard-Fairview Street
3
4
Redevelopment project and the Redevelopment plan for such Pro-
ject adopted by Ordinance NO. NS-1638 of the City of Santa Ana
5
6
are lawful and valid and without qualification.
3.
That the implementation of the South Harbor
7
Boulevard-Fairview Street Redevelopment project and the Rede-
8 velopment plan for such project by the Redevelopment Agency
9
of the City of Santa Ana from the adoption of Ordinance No.
10
NS-1638 through and including the adoption of Agency Resolu-
11 tion No. 84-3 is lawful and valid, and without qualification.
12
4.
That the allocation and payment of tax revenues
13 and other funds to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
14
Santa Ana for the South Harbor Boulevard-Fairview street Re-
15
development project, pursuant to the California Community
16
17
Redevelopment Law, Article XVI, Section 16 of the California
Constitution, and such other laws or regulations which specify
18
the powers and authority of the Agency, and the receipt and
19
expenditure of such funds by the Redevelopment Agency for the
20
South Harbor Boulevard-Fairview Street Redevelopment project
21
are lawful and valid and without ~ualification.
22
23
5.
That the plaintiff and the Redevelopment,!\gency
of the City of Santa Ana are obligated to carry out terms and
24
conditions of the Stipulation and Resolùtion No. 84-3 adopted
by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of ' Santa Ana on
25
26
27
, 1984, which are included in this Judgment
by reference and agreed to by all of the parties herein.
The
28
plaintiff is obligated to take or cooperate in, all actions
-2-
" '.:~
.
~
.
I
2
reasonaDly necessary on his part to assist the Agency in
good faith in carrying out the Stipulation and Resolution
3
4
No. 84-3 and to carry out the terms required of them.
The
Redevelopment Agency and any and all successors thereto
5
6
are lawfully obligated to carry out and accomplish the terms
and conditions of Resolution No. 84-3.
7
8
6.
Plaintiff is hereby awarded attorney's fees,
costs and expenses in the total amount of $19,910.36 for
9
10
costs, fees and expense of whatever nature and no other
award of costs, fees or expenses shall be allowed in this
11
action.
12
DATED:
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
13
14
IS
APPROVED:
C. ROBERT FERGUSON
16
17
Attorney for plaintiff
18
19
EDWARD J. COOPER, City Attorney
City of Santa Ana
Weiser, Kane, Ballmer & Berkman
20
21
22
.
By:
Attorneys for Defendants
Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Santa Ana and City
of Santa Ana
,
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-