Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/06/1978 . . . . -- . ~ MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 6, 1978 The Special Meeting of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana was called to order by Chairman David Brandt at 2:05 P.M. in the City Council Chambers, 22 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana, California. After the pledge to the Flag, roll was called: PRESENT ABSENT David Brandt Gordon Bricken Vernon Evans John Garthe James Ward Harry Yamamoto David Ortiz Others in attendance: Richard E. Goblirsch, Executive Director Tom Hammill, Real Estate Officer Stacey Creveston, Secretary Keith Gow, Acting City Manager/City Attorney Dan Stone, Assistant City Manager James Conkey, Deputy City Attorney Robert Waldron, Attorney Leo J. Friis, Property Owner APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes of the Special Meeting held on October 16, 1978 were approved on the motion of Mr. Evans, seconded by Mr. Ward and carried unanimously. RESOLUTION 78-31 -- CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDEMNATION OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT SITE The Chairman announced that this was the time and place for the continuation of the public hearing on the issue of the public necessity to acquire by condemnation property known as 619 West Third Street, Santa Ana, for redevelopment purposes. The Chairman stated that Staff has identified the property and the project and commented on the factors and evidence necessitating the condemnation action. Staff has also set forth why the public interest and necessity require the project; why the project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and why the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project. The Chairman then requested to hear from those people who received notice of the hearing and who have filed a written request to be heard. Mr. Robert F. Waldron, attorney representing the Friis', addressed the Agency members. Mr. Waldron handed out copies of James J. Friis' declaration (attached), and stated that Mr. Friis would not be able to attend the meeting due to illness. . . . . " Mr. Waldron reported that Mr. and Mrs. Leo J. Friis own an undivided one-half interest of the real property in question, and James J. Friis owns the other undivided one-half interest of the property, and that they oppose the acquisition of their property by condemnation. Mr. Waldron further stated that they feel that the Agency's project is not planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury, and feels that it will probably cause the greatest private injury. Mr. Waldron stated that several years ago an action was taken which contested the Redevelopment Plan by Joseph Gilmaker, in which certain limitations were agreed to on the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the Redevelopment Agency. The case was settled and in agreement, condemnation of that property was waived for seven years. The benefits were extended to other persons in the area. One item was that the seven years of waiver of eminent domain would be discussed with the other property owners in the project area. He stated that this has not been discussed with the Friis' at all. Also, in the agreement, the Agency agreed to extend the opportunity to all property owners within the Redevelopment Project Area to enter into an agreement which is the same or similar to the agreement made with Gilmaker. He also feels that this was not done. Mr. Waldron stated that he does not believe that the Agency has satisfied its obligation to relocate these individuals from their property, and feels that the Agency has failed to satisfy the necessary prerequisites to condemn the Friss property. He further stated that the Agency has not extended the Friis' the opportunity to enter into an agreement similar to the Gilmaker Agreement, nor has the Agency discussed the waiver of eminent domain; in fact, the Agency representatives never mentioned the existence of such an agreement. Mr. Waldron asked that the Resolution not be adopted until all provisions of the agreement have been met. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to speak on the matter. There was no response. The Chairman asked if there were any further comments from the Agency Staff. The Executive Director stated that Staff feels that they have followed all of the requirements with regards to Gilmaker and the law of relocation. Mr. James Conkey, of the City Attorney's office, addressed the Agency stating that in regards to the statement that Mr. Waldron made, that the Agency has not complied with the provisions of the agreement we entered into with Joseph Gilmaker in 1974, is not correct. Mr. Conkey read paragraph 5 of the agreement between Gilmaker: "The Agency shall extend the opportunity to all property owners within the Project Area to enter into an agreement which is the same or is similar to the subject agreement except, however, that the Agency shall in good faith discuss the waiver of eminent domain with any of such persons", and stated that this gives the opportunity for other owners to enter into an agreement similar to the agreement with Gilmaker, and that the last independent phrase refers to an Owners Participation Agreement, or refers to discussing with the particular owner of the property as to whether that owner would like to participate in the project that the Agency or Commission has approved. He stated that it was his understanding that the Friis' had been contacted and these things discussed with them. Mr. Waldron again approached the podium and stated that the answer Mr. Conkey gave to discussions of waiver of eminent domain was not satisfactory. According to James Friis' declaration, the Agency has not discussed this. -2- . . . . The Executive Director stated that Staff has discussed this many times. He stated that there have been a couple of hearings on this matter, and a public hearing with regards to entering into an Owners Participation Agreement with Heritage Development. Mr. Friis was in the audience and had the opportunity to further discuss the matter of his property, but did not do so. The Executive Director stated that there have also been other meetings that this has been discussed. The Executive Director further stated that as to the relocation activities, the Agency had done more than is legally required, and emphasized that Staff has met the requirements of the law and the Gilmaker Agreement. Agency member Bricken asked the acquisition price Staff was offering the Friis'. Staff responded $42,000. Mr. Bricken then asked the price the Friis' felt they should be offered. Staff responded that the Friis' had not made a counter offer. Discussion and concern ensued over the fact that a counter offer had not even been proposed. Mr. Leo J. Friis, one of the owners of the property, addressed the Agency stating that they were shown property which exceeded the $42,000 the Agency offered. Mr. Friis further stated that he was never shown the appraiser's figures on his property, and doesn't feel that the amount offered was the appraiser's figure. Staff first offered $32,000 for the property, and later offered the $42,000. Mr. Friis stated that he thought, under those circumstances, that it would not do any good for him to make a counter offer. He then stated that he felt this property was worth $105,000, and that he would accept that amount for his property. Mr. Waldron stated that he and his clients were addressing the Agency to ask that the property not be condemned because they have not been extended the privileges that Gilmaker was extended, and becuase his clients have not been able to relocate to another place because the money they have been offered is less than half of anything suitable that has been shown to them, and feels that before the property is condemned, his clients should have another place to relocate to. Again, Mr. Bricken expressed his concern that a counter offer had not been submitted by the Friis' or their representative, and was very unclear as to the difference of opinion between the Friis' and the Agency. The Executive Director explained that Staff is requesting the condemnation because they have not been able to get the Friis' to come to terms, and that the overall project for this area is being stalled. The Executive Director further stated that he didn't believe that stalling the issue would get the Agency "off dead center", and believes that the issue is for the Courts to settle. A motion was made by Mr. Bricken to adopt Resolution 78-31: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES IN THE HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT SITE IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND DECLARING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY THEREFOR, with the stipulation that the Agency will not go to the Court for filing until the Friis' complete their half of the negotiation process and the Agency knows whether or not they are in disagreement over dollars. The motion died for a lack of a second. A motion was made by Mr. Yamamoto to continue this condemnation for one month giving the Friis', their attorney, and the Redevelopment Agency time to get together and work out some sort of deal. If negotiations cannot be reached, then the property should be condemned and should go to the Courts. The motion died for a lack of a second. -3- ", . A motion was made by Mr. Bricken, seconded by Mr. Ward and carried unanimously by the following roll call vote to adopt Resolution 78- 31: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES IN THE HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT SITE IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND DECLARING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY THEREFOR. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brandt, Bricken, Evans, Garthe, Ward, Yamamoto None Ortiz Before the question was called for on the above motion, discussion was held confirming that negotiations would continue with the property owners even after the resolution to condemn was passed. AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTIES - ACQUISITION OF PROPERTIES A motion was made by Mr. Ward and seconded by Mr. Garthe to adopt Resolution 78-33: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE AGENCY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTIES IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. . Before the question was called for, discussion was held on the subject. Agency member Yamamoto expressed concern about acquiring these properties, and stated that there may be difficulties in acquiring the other properties in the future. The Executive Director reported that there are five parcels in question for the second phase of American National Properties' development. Active negotiations have not been started with regards to acquiring these parcels, so the Executive Director admitted that he did not know if the owners would voluntarily sell their property. He further reported that the owners of the five parcels had been notified of the Agency's intent to appraise their property. Two of the property owners have indicated to Staff that they have found replacement houses and would like to sell their property to the Agency at this time for the appraised value. . The Executive Director stated that the Owner participation Agreement between the Agency and American National Properties has been delayed because of a change that Public Works and the Agency are working on with regards to Roe Drive. He stated that American National Properties is now in the process of constructing the first 50 units of the motel, and is waiting for the Agency to deliver the remainder of the land for their second phase. The Executive Director stated that American National properties is willing to sign the agreement, but the paper work will take approximately 45 to 60 days to complete. The owners of the subject properties do not want to wait that period of time because they have other property they wish to acquire. Concern was expressed by several of the Agency members that there was no signed agreement between the developer and the Agency. The Executive Director explained that the prices offered for the properties were based on Agency appraisals, and that the property owners are willing to accept that price. If we wait to acquire the property, the Agency may end up paying more. . The Executive Director stated that Staff would be very happy to make this conditioned upon a letter agreement by the developer. The developer wants to construct the 100 units; 50 units is not economically feasible for him, but he is constructing the 50 units now because he owns the land. The developer has demonstrated his -4- . . . . good faith. The technical problem is that the paper work cannot be completed for 45 to 60 days. The motion was amended by Mr. Ward, and approved by Mr. Garthe, to read as follows: Adopt Resolution 78-33: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE AGENCY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENTS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTIES IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, subject to a letter of intent from American National Properties whereby they agree to acquire subject properties. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Brandt, Bricken, Evans, Garthe, Ward Yamamoto Ortiz ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Community Redevelopment Agency, the meeting was adjourned at 2:50 P.M. upon the motion of Mr. Evans, seconded by Mr. Garthe and carried unanimously. !JD j)(ß~ r David L. Brandt, Chairman ~~ Richard E. GobI" sch Executive Director' -5- .. . . Low 0lIl... - F. WALDIION '........atad '_11010101 Clrda )ri.a s.'t~~ft7H . 1 TO: 2 FROM: 3 4 5 6 Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana James J. Friis DECLARATION I, JAMES J. FRIIS, declare as follows: 1. I own an undivided one-half (1/2) interest in the 7 8 real property located at the northeast corner of Third and Parton Streets, commonly known as 301 North Parton, Santa Ana, California. 9 10 My parents, Mr. and Mrs. Leo J. Friis, are the owners of the other undivided one-half (1/2) interest. I make this declaration as I 11 12 believe that I will be unable to attend the hearing presently set for November 6, 1978 by the Community Redevelopment Agency of the 13 City of ßanta Ana by reason of my physical condition. I have 14 diabetes and have just recently been released from the hospital 15 where I was operated on for osteomylitis and had part of my foot 16 amputated. 17 2. Our property is improved with a concrete block 18 building. We have used the property over twenty (20) years for 19 our printing and book publishing business known as Pioneer Press. 20 21 3. I am in charge of operating the printing plant which consists of substantial physical improvements. Included among the 22 more significant items of our printing and business equipment are 23 24 the following: 25 26 A. Heidelberg letter press; B. Linotype; C. Windmill press; D. Chandler and Price press; 27 28 " . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . 10 11 E. Offset press; F. Hydraulic paper cutter; G. Folder; H. Movable type; 1. Paper stock; J. Arc lamp; K. Light table; L, Stitcher; M. Jogger; and N. Cellophane packager. 4. I would estimate that the weight of the Heidelberg 12 press alone is at least ten (10) tons. The other presses and 13 equipment would weigh several thousands of pounds and are designed 14 for our particular business. We specialize in printing books but also do other types of printing, such as labels. 15 16 5. It would be a severe hardship if we had to move and 17 cause irreparable injury to our business. In fact, I have serious 18 reservations if '.<le could continue in business any longer since we 19 have not been able to find any other comparable location that we cou d 20 afford with the money the Agency has offered us for our property. . 21 6. Our counsel has advised us of the settlement in the 22 case of Gilmaker v. Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of 23 Santa Ana, et al., Orange County Superior Court No. 206253 and in 24 which certain limitations were agreed to on the exercise of the 25 power of eminent domain by the Redevelopment Agency, I understand 26 that under the settlement agreement the Redevelopment Agency 27 expressly agreed to extend the opportunity to all property owners 28 within the Redevelopment project area to enter into an agreement Low 0lIl... _1 F. WALDRON I...."...'.d - "Ida. arcl. D"'. '4~Ar~~- -2- . . . . Low 0lIl... ROIERT F. WALDRON I._"tod - 80'". Cbcl8 DtI.. '4~Ar~~'F' . 1 which is the same or similar to the agreement made with Gilmaker. 2 The only exception made was that with respect to the question of 3 waiver of eminent domain (which the Agency had waived for a seven 4 5 (7) year period with Gilmaker) that the Agency would in good faith discuss the waiver of eminent domain with the other property 6 owners in its project area. 7 8 Contrary to the terms of its agreement, the Agency 7. has neither extended me or my parents the opportunity to enter into 9 an agreement similar to the Gilmaker Agreement, nor has the Agency 10 discussed with me or my parents the waiver of eminent domain. In 11 fact the Agency representatives have never even mentioned the 12 existence of such an agreement. 13 No arrangements have yet been made to relocate our 8. 14 business to another location that is within the price range of 15 We do not think it is the compensation the Agency has offered us. 16 either fair or equitable or legally proper for the Agency to 17 authorize condemnation of our property without first having 18 satisfied its affirmative obligation to provide us with a new 19 location which can feasibly be purchased from the proceeds of the 20 Agency's offer of compensation. 21 For the foregoing reasons, we contend that the Agency' 9. 22 project is not planned or located in the manner that will be most 23 compatible with the greatest public good and the least private 24 injury. Condemnation of our property will cause not the least 25 private injury but in any judgment, the greatest private injury and 26 at most a highly debatable and seriously questionable "public good". 27 In any event, it is clearly not the "greatest public good". 28 We further contend that the public interest and 10. -3 - .. . . Low 0lIl... IOIIiT F. WALDRON I....~re"d - ..Id.. CIrcle Dri.. ~~~~h:70S a 1 2 necessity do not require the acquisition of our property for re- development purposes and that our property is not necessary for :5 4 the project. 5 6 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 6a.-doft1 6n'l'<"/ :-,,~r\g Executed on Hovember ~r 1978 at "--I '~r California. 7 8 ~ ff ,~.. . . . \- --,a1ìu..:z.'<~,- '. z...'-~ J~11S J. FRII" - ~ V 9 10 11 12 1:5 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-