HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-02 CRA
:.:~
t
.
.
';;'/'
, ,.
EJC:adg
2/27/84
RESOLUTION NO. 84-2
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ESTABLISHING CONDITIONS
FOR THE SOUTH MAIN STREET REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AND IN SETTLEMENT OF THAT LITIGATION ENTITLED
PEEBLER et al. v. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY etc. et al.,
O.C.S.C. NO. 38-58-59
WHEREAS, on July 6, 1982, the City Council of the City
of Santa Ana adopted and approved the Redevelopment Plan for the
South Main Street Redevelopment Project Area by Ordinance No.
NS 1639;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of
the State of California (Health & Safety Code Sections 33000 et
~) the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana (herein-
after "the Agency") is charged with the responsibility of carrying
out the Redevelopment Plan for the South Main Street Redevelopment
Project Area (hereinafter "the Project Area"); and
WHEREAS, an action entitled Peebler et al. v. City of
Santa Ana etc. et al; Orange County Superior Court No. 38-58-59
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 is enacting this
Resolution is acting in reliance of 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:
(I) as to all plaintiffs' presently
owne~perties in the Project Area
, .
'.
RESOLUTION NO. 84-2
PAGE TWO
t
(2) as to all properties which front
on First Street and that portion of
South Main Street between First Street
at the north and south to Warren Avenue
through 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 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) The properties currently owned by plaintiffs
Gerald Peebler located at 203-205 So. Main, 112,
114,116,118 & 120 E. Walnut, 202-206 So. Cypress,
and John Ralph Albert located at 917,919 & 919-1/2
So. Sycamore, 1024,1026,1026-1/2 & 1026A South Main,
Street are exempt from eminent domain by the Agency
for the duration of the Redevelopment Plan or any
amendment or extension thereof.
.
(b) All presently residential properties located
within the Project Area are exempt from acquisition
by eminent domain under the Redevelopment Plan by
the Agency. The Agency shall have no power of
eminent domain as to the residential properties
exempted by this Section lIb) 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
Redevelopment Plan or any amendments, or extensions
thereof. As used in this Resolution, the term
"residential properties" means a complete parcel of
land together with a structure presently being used
for residential purposes which use is not changed
or all or any part of a structure presently being
used for residential purposes which use is not
changed.
:., ..
RESOLUTION NO. 84-2
PAGE THREE
t
(c) All property which fronts on First Street and
that portion of South Main Street between First Street
at the north and south to Warner Avenue, shall be ex-
empt from acquisition by eminent domain pursuant to
the Redevelopment Plan through December 31, 1988
and the Agency shall have no power of eminent domain
as to those 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.
(d) With respect to the properties exempted from
eminent domain pursuant to Section 1 subdivisions
(a), (b) and (c), the Agency shall not request or
cause the City to exercise its power of eminent
domain in order to take any of the properties so
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.
.
(e) During the period of time in which the properties
are exempt from the Agency's power of eminent domain
as described in Section 1, subdivisions (a), (b) and
(c), above, and to the extent necessary to prevent
their being taken by eminent domain by the Agency,
said 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
properties comply with the City's General Plan or
the zoning or design standards for the South Main
Street Redevelopment Project Area.
.
(f) 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 North Harbor Boulevard 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.
t
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 84-2
PAGE FOUR
(g) 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 reloca-
tion benefits as required by law.
SECTION 2:
Tax Increments
Twenty percent (20%) of the tax increments or tax in-
crements generated or related revenues, or moneys repayable from
tax increments 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. Twenty percent (20%) of tax increments shall be
utilized for public improvements including parking and financial
incentives such as rebates and commercial improvements and re-
duced interest rehabilitation loans on Main Street North of
Warner Avenue and on First Street, provided, however, no Agency
funds shall be used for center dividers on Main Street between
First Street and Warner Avenue or on First Street.
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 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 determin-
ing 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 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.
t
.
.
.' .,'
RESOLUTION NO. 82-4
PAGE FIVE
SECTION 5: The Judgment shall not be effective (and this
Resolution shall not be effective) unless it contains by refer-
ence 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 settlement 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
~~
Director/Recording Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
8
.
18
. 0
.1.-
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
1 C. ROBERT FERGUSON, Attorney
301 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite
2 Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (818) 795-4l81
3 Attorneys for plaintiffs
at Law
600
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
8 Los Angeles, CA 90013
9 Telephone: (213) 617-0480
10 Attorneys for Defendants
11
12
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
13
14 GERALD PEEBLER, et al.,
CASE NO. 38 58 59
15
16
Plaintiffs,
STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT
v.
17
CITY OF SANTA ANA,
Defendants.
WHEREAS:
1.
On July 6, 1982, by Ordinance No. NS-1639, the
City Council of the City of Sant~Ana adopted and apprcved the
Redevelopment Plan for the South Main Street Redevelop~nt
Pro ject.
2.
On September 2, 1982, the plaintifs herein filed
26
27
the above-entitled action challenging the validity of the said
Redevelopment Plan.
28
3.
Within the time allowed therefor, the defendants
-l-
"v~.r;"~-.' .:r. LJn.~.".tðl r
!;,-""", n",")mF"'O" -t>
"" ,:. ".,:'
8
.
.
1
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana, City of Santa
2
Ana, City ,Council of the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange,
3
4
Auditor-Controller of the County of Orange appeared herein.
4.
The plaintiffs and defendants Redevelopment
5
6
Agency of the City of Santa Ana, City of Santa Ana and City
Council of the City of Santa Ana and their attorneys have
7
agreed upon mutually acceptable terms for the settlement of
8
9
the within action.
5.
The defendants, Redevelopment Agency of the
10
11
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 south Main
12
13
Street Redevelopment plan and Ordinance NO. NS-1637.
14
6.
plaintiffs desire, pursuant to said judgment,
15
to obligate the City Defendants to carry and abide by certain
16
17
terms and conditions as more particularly set forth in the
Resolution which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incor-
18
porated herein by reference as if fully set forth at this point.
19
20
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between
the plaintiffs and the City Defendants and their attorneys that:
21
22
1.
The City Defendan~ shall, within thirt¥-five
(35) days after executing this Stipulation, bring or c\use to
be brought the Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit "A" before
23
24
the defendant Redevelopment Agency of t~e City of Santa Ana for
its approval or disapproval.
25
26
2.
If defendant Redevelopment Agency of the City of
27
Santa Ana adopts said Resolution in the form attached hereto,
28
then the Superior Court of the county of orange, upon being
EXHIBIT 4.,..#!A~..2.~ S"
-2-
'. ,. "
.
t
19
20
21
22
23
, 24
25
26
27
28
1
2
presented with a certified copy of the adopted Resolution,
shall, further file the Stipulated Judgment, the original
3
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
4
3.
It is stipulated and agreed by all of the
5
6
plaintiffs and the City Defendants to this action as follows:
Each of the parties to this action agrees that they
7
will not retaliate against any other party, because of that
8
9
other party's involvement in this action.
In the 'event that
action is brought by a party to this action alleging that an
10
act or acts have been undertaken for the purpose of retaliating
11
12
against the plaintiff in such action because of the plaintiff's
involvement in this action, and if the said plaintiff proves
13
14
said allegation, resulting in a final judgment in favor of said
plaintiff, then said plaintiff shall be entitled to his reason-
15
able attorney's fees, but only to the extent that they were
16
necessary to prove the said claim.
On the other hand, if the
17
18
said plaintiff does not prevail and if the court, pursuant to
a motion brought, determines that the said claim was made with-
out substantifal justification, then the defendants in said
action shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, but
only to the extent they were necessary to defend against the
.
claim and to bring the said motion.
4.
The City and Agency agree that all of th\ res-
idential property described in exhibit "An shall be incorpor-
ated into the neighborhood integrity program.
5.
The parties agree that the plaintiffs shall
be awarded attorney's fees, costs and expeneses in the total
amount of $19,910.36 and that said amount will be the entire
E",p".-. J. "~tt..3.-t) ~
'Ar"";I,,,,"r""! -..
-3-
, " ':", "
.
,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
, 24
25
26
27
28
1
amount awarded to the plaintiffs as attorney's fees, expenses
2
and costs herein.
3
4
6.
Immediately upon execution of this Stipulation,
the plaintiffs shall dismiss with prejudice Peebler, et al. v.
5
6
City of Santa Ana, et al., orange County Superior Court No.
38 58 59 as to all defendants except the Redevelopment Agency
7
of the City of Santa Ana and City of Santa Ana.
8
9
7.
Upon dismissal of all defendants except the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana and City of Santa
10
11
Ana, a Judgment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit nBn
shall be entered in Peebler, et al. v. City of santa Ana, et
12
àl.,; orange County Superior Court No. 38 58 59.
Said judgment
13
shall be a final judgment resolving all of the issues raised
14
and determining that the Redevelopment plan for the South Main
15
Street Redevelopment project is valid and legal.
Further, the
parties hereby expressly and irrevocably waive their right of
appeal.
III
III
III
III
III
III
,
III
III
III
III
III
EXI,mm .1"...þ~.//t'b 5"
-4-
:",:' .:-/
.
,
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
, 24
25
26
27
28
1
2
This Stipulation may be signed in duplicate originals,
the total of such signed duplicate originals constituting the
3
4
entire agrement.
5
6
DATED:
7
8
9
Attorney for Plaintiffs
10
11
C. Robert Ferguson
12
13
14
By:
15
Attorney for City Defendants
EDWARD J. COOPER, City Attorney,
City of Santa Ana
WEISER, KANE, BALLMER, & BERKMAN
By:
By:
THE PLAINTIFFS
Gerald peebler
John Albert
THE CITY DEFENDANTS
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Executive Director
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND THE
CITY COUNCIL THEREOF
.
,
EiU¡¡SIT .J..t.fA1"-~"tS-
-5-
.
-
,
,.'-d
"
1 C. ROBERT FERGUSON, Attorney
301 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite
2 Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (818) 795-4181
3 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
at Law
600
4 Edward J. Cooper, City Attorney (S.B. #059253)
20 Civic Center plaza
5 Santa Ana, California 92701
6 Telephone: (714) 834-4900
7 Weiser, Kane, Ballmer and Berkman
354 S. Spring Street, suite 420
8 Los Angeles, CA 90013
9 Telephone: (213) 617-0480
10 At torneys for Defendants
11
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
13
14 GERALD PEEBLER, et al.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
, )
)
)
)
CASE NO. 38 58 59
lS
16
plaintiffs,
JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION
FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
v.
17 CITY OF SANTA ANA,
18
Defendants.
19
20
In the above-entitled cause, plaintiffs Gerald
21 peebler and John Albert and defendants Redevelopment Agency
.
22
23
of the City of Santa Ana, City of Santa Ana, and City Council
,
of the City of Santa Ana, having stipulated that Judgment be
24
entered validating the South Main stree~ Redevelopment Project
25
and the Redevelopment plan adopted for such Project by the
26
city Council of the City of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-1639
27
of July 6, 1982.
28
III
EXHIBIT"" .3
-l-
.:,:~' "~:y
.
.
,
1
2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1.
That the City of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-1639
3
is lawful and valid in all respects and without qualification.
4
2.
That the South Main Street Redevelopment project
5
6
and the Redevelopment Plan for such project adopted by Ordinance
No. NS-1639 of the City of Santa Ana are lawful and valid and
7
without qualification.
8
9
3.
That the implementation of the South Main Street
Redevelopment Project and the Redevelopment plan for such Pro-
10
11
ject by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana from
the adoption of Ordinance No. NS-1639 through and including the
12
13
adoption of Agency Resolution No. 84-2 is lawful and valid, and
without qualification.
14
15
That the allocation and payment of tax revenues
4.
and other funds to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa
16
17
Ana for the South Main street Redevelopment Project, pursuant
to the California Community Redevelopment Law, Article XVI,
18
19
Section 16 of the California Constitution, and such other laws
or regulations which specify the powers and authority of the
20
Agency, and the receipt and expenditure of such funds by the
21
Redevelopment Agency for the South Main street Redevelopment
22
project are lawful and valid and~ithout qualification.
23
24
That the plaintiffs and the Redevelopme~ Agency
5.
of the City of Santa Ana are obligated to carry out terms and
25
26
conditions of the Stipulation and Reso14tion No. 84-2 adopted
by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana on
27
, 1984, which are included in this Judgment
28
by reference and agreed to by all of the parties herein.
The
-2-
"...
-' .
. " .~ '. ~_.~:.
.
-
,
1
plaintiffs are obligated to take or cooperate in, all actions
2
reasonably necessary on their part to assist,the Agency in good
3
faith in carrying out the Stipulation and Resolution No. 84-2
4
and to carry out the terms required of them.
The Redevelopment
5
6
Agency and any and all successors thereto are lawfully obligated
to carry out and accomplish the terms and conditions of Reso-
7
8
lution No. 84-2.
6.
Plaintiffs are hereby awarded attorney's fees,
9
costs and expenses in the total amount of $19,910.36 for costs,
10
11
fees and expense of whatever nature and no other award of costs,
fees or expenses shall be allowed in this action.
12
13 DATED:
14
lS APPROVED:
16 C. ROBERT FERGUSON
17
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
18
19
Attorney for Plaintiffs
20
EDWARD J. COOPER, City Attorney
City of Santa Ana
Weiser, Kane, Ballmer & Berkman
21
.
22
23
,
By:
Attorneys for Defendants,
Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Santa Ana and City
of Santa Ana
24
25
26
27
28
-3-