Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - 75DCity Council Meeting Correspondence Item No. 75D PUBLIC HEARING: EMINENT DOMAIN -1922 (ALSO KNOWN AS 2006) AND 2002 W 5TH ST (OC STREETCAR PROJECT) Date of Agency, Received after` Correspondence deadline. 6/6/2017 Paula A. Schaefer Attorney at Law U.S. Nank Building 6/6/2017 Sue Haugen Attorney at Law Palmieri Tyler 6/6/2017 Sue Haugen Attorney at Law Palmieri Tyler Wednesday, June 7, 2017 Page 1 of 1 Alcala, Abigail From: Mitre -Ramirez, Norma Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 9:36 AM To: Alcala, Abigail Subject: FW: June 6 2017 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 75-D Public Hearing Attachments: 6 6 2017 Letter to City of Santa Ana.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Abigail, Please enter correspondence for item 75D in database, scan and upload to Granicus. Kind Regards, Norma Mitre Sr. Deputy Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana I Clerk of the Council Office 20 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701 714-647-52371 nmitre@santa-ana.org From: Paula Schaefer[mailto:paula@paulaschaeferlaw.comj Sent: Tuesday, lune 6, 2017 5:08 PM To: eComment <eComment@santa-ana.org> Cc: valfed4l@yahoo.com Subject: June 6 2017 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 75-D Public Hearing City Clerk: Please see the attached letter, which will be read at the Public Hearing this evening, and has also been sent via facsimile. Best regards, Paula A. Schaefer, Attorney At Law U.S. Bank Building 9042 Garfield Avenue, Suite 312 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 www.paulaschaeferlaw.com 562-826-7968 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy, or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in the communication. If you have received this communication in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the communication. Nothing in this communication should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document. Thank you. June 6, 2017 Via Facsimile (714) 647-6956 and Email City of Santa Ana Attn: City Clerk Maria Huizar 20 Civic Center Plaza M-30 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Re: Opposition to Eminent Domain taking of parcels 007-100-04 and -05, property of Valdivia Family Trust Dear City Clerk: On behalf of the Valdivia Family Trust (Trust), Federico (Fred) Valdivia (Trustee), this letter is submitted objecting to the City of Santa Ana's proposed adoption of a resolution of necessity relating to the above identified parcels. This letter preserves the Trust and the Trustee's objections and notifies the members of the City Council that the Trust concurs with the Letter of Opposition that has been filed on behalf of SA Recycling, LLC. The Trust will be represented at the public hearing by the Trustee, by a Trust beneficiary, Daniel Valdivia, and by the Trust's real estate agent, Jerry Armstrong. Despite my request for a continuance of the public hearing due to a previously scheduled commitment, my request was denied and as a result, I am unable to be present at the hearing. The Trust and its beneficiaries urges the City Council to hold a public hearing that will allow a robust discussion of the merits of the proposed taking. Best regards, f�tula A. Schaefe4r" 90,12 Garfield Avenue, Sjite 312, Huntington aeach, California 9264€ t' 56).8267968 (Jut�ia(q;paU1.'SCIlu2feY dl•V.COI'i; WY�iW.C)auju$�-P.ia2fCri:'a�N.CS3iT�. Alcala, Abigail From: Mitre -Ramirez, Norma Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 9:32 AM To: Alcala, Abigail Subject: FW: Opposition to Eminent Domain Taking of SA Recycling Facility Attachments: Letter to City of Santa Ana.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Abigail, Please enter correspondence for item 75D in database, scan and upload to Granicus. Kind Regards, Norma Mitre Sr. Deputy Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana I Clerk of the Council Office 20 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701 714-647-52371 nmitre@santa-ana.ore From: Sue M. Haugen Imailto:shaugen@ptwww.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 4:43 PM To: eComment <eComment@santa-ana.org> Cc: Michael H. Leifer <mleifer@ptwww.com>; Michael Kehoe <mkehoe@ptwww.com>; Michelle M. Pase <M Pa se @ ptwww.co m> Subject: Opposition to Eminent Domain Taking of SA Recycling Facility Good Afternoon, Please see attached correspondence in support of Objection to Resolution of Necessity. Thank you. A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Sue Haugen I Assistant to Ronald M. Cole and Michael L Kehoe Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP 1900 Main Street, Suite 700 Irvine, CA 92614 Direct Dial (949) 851-7237 Fax (949) 851-1554 shaugenkptwww.com I ptwww.com ANGELO J, PALMIERI (1928-1995) ROBERT F: WALDRON (1827-1998) DENNIS W. GHAN' DAVID U, PARR' CHARLES H, KANTER' PATRICK A. HENNESSEY DON FISHER WARREN A. WILLIAMS JOHN R, LISTER MICHAEL H. LEIFER RICHARD A, SALUS NORMAN J, RODICH MICHAEL L. O'ANGELO STEPHEN A.. SCHECK DONNA L. SNOW RYAN M. EASTER ELISE M, KERN PALMIERI TYLER MELISA R. PEREZ MICHAEL I, KEHOE CHADWICK 0. BUNGH ANISHJ. BANKER RYAN M, PRAGER ERIN SALGARA NADERI ERICA AT SOR08KY JOSHUAJ,MARX ERIN K. OYAMA KATHERINE M. SHAW JANE DONAHUE DAVALOS BRIAN GLICKLIN CAROLYN H, CLARK STEVEN OH NAZANI N, TEMOURIAN MICHAEL C, ONO, OF COUNSEL RONALD M, COLE, OF COUNSEL MICHAEL J, GREENE', OF COUNSEL ROBERT D. IHRKE, OF COUNSEL GREGORY N, WEILER, OF COUNSEL ALAN H, WIENER', OF COUNSEL JAMES E. WILHELM, RETIRED DENNIS 0. TYLER', RETIRED 'A PROFFSSIONAL COFPOPATION A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W June 6, 2017 VIr�L FAC�iTiYIILC f714) 647-6956 & �NiATT, City of Santa Ana Attn: City Clerk Maria Huizar 20 Civic Center Plaza M-30 Santa Ana, CA 92702 RO. Box 19712 Irvine, CA 92623-9712 Michael H. Leifer Direct Dial (949) 651-7294 Direct Fax (949) 625-5412 mleifer&twwWcom Refer To File No, 36019-062 Document I.D. 2101919.1 Re: Opposition to Eminent Domain taking of SA Recycling facility at 2002 and 2006 West 5th Street. Dear City Clerk: SA Recycling, LLC submits this further letter in objection to the City of Santa Ana's proposed adoption of a resolution of necessity relating to 2002 and 2006 West 5th Street, Santa Ana, California 92703, APN 007-100-04 and -05 (the "subject property"). To preserve objections to the right to take, we are only required to appear and object to the asserted eminent domain taking, We are objecting and appearing, Information has been withheld. As limited by time and available information, we are providing procedural and substantive objections, City Clerk has informed our office we have 2 minutes to present our objections at the hearing, It is patently arbitrary for the City to find it has given interested parties/owners "reasonable opportunity to be heard" in 120 seconds as to "whether the City has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements... as well as any other matter regarding the right to take." Such assertion is nothing more than a litigation tactic for the City's attorneys to later claim "all" issues had to be raised. Such assertion is contrary to law, fact and fairness. 1900 Main Street, Suite 700, Irvine, CA 92614-7328 1 T 949,851.9400 1 F 949.851.1554 1 ptwww.cnln PALMIERI TYLER City of Santa Ana June 6, 2017 Page 2 We object to every aspect and component of the proposed resolution to condemn and "any other matter regarding the right to take" as referred to in the proposed resolution to condemn. We object on CEQA growids. The City appears to change the project considered in the EIR. The EIR was not a maintenance yard project. The staff report is inconsistent with the proposed resolution language. We object to adoption of an eminent domain resolution based on the Political Reform Act, common law principles and the City of Santa Ana Code of Ethics and Conduct prohibiting bias and conflicts of interest, For example, the Political Reform Act prohibits/restricts public officials from acting based upon bias and conflicts of interest. According to the Staff Report, which is quite general and vague, the project purports to benefit the City and the entire downtown area in particular. Any council member who knows or has reason to know that they have a financial interest in the area purportedly benefitted by this project must abstain from participating in making or in any way use his official position to influence the malting of a public decision. Due to the scope and nature of the Project, it is believed that Council members do, or are likely to have, financial interests in the making of this decision. A great deal of information concerning the making of this decision has not been provided to SA Recycling and the property owner despite requests being made. Inadequate time has been provided by the City concerning the eminent domain taking. Again, overall there is lack of proper notice to appropriate parties and with regard to scope of the eminent domain taking resolution, • Insufficient and erroneous information provided. • Contradictory statements between staff report and proposed resolution. • Inadequate documents provided, • The few documents actually referenced in staff report were not included as exhibits to the Staff Report. • No notice of the hearing on the "cooperative agreement' or "amendment to the cooperative agreement." • No notice defining project as the OC Streetcar Maintenance and Storage Facility, No CEQA compliance of such "project." Contradictory information concerning the "project." 2101919.1 PALMIERI TYLER City of Santa Ana June 6, 2017 Page 3 No notice given to property owner and/or occupant concerning the "strategic goals" at time of the adoption of the "strategic goals." No notice that adoption of the so-called goals required the eminent domain taking of the subject property, No notice that the cooperative agreement or amendment required acquisition of the subject property. No notice that the that the OC Streetcar Maintenance and Storage Facility project required the eminent domain taking of the subject property. « "Design Cooperative Agreement": Adoption of said agreement either made findings of need and necessity or it did not. If it did, then no notice provided to owner and occupant and such findings further show City precommitted. If it did not, it cannot support the acquisition now. The City is not the lead agency through this process. From the property acquisition standpoint it is the caboose agency. From the property owners and tenant perspective, OCTA has been the lead agency. Yet, OCTA is not purporting to make any findings or adopting a legally compliant resolution. We object to statements in the staff report to documents not provided such as the "revised work plan" and the April 4, 2017 "amendment to the cooperative agreement." If such documents are pivotal/crucial to acquisition, then notice of the hearings as well as the documents should. have been provided to owner and occupant. If not pivotal/important, then they are not relevant. The City has not and cannot show the need to take the subject property or that condemning the subject property causes greatest public good and least private injury. No direct relationship. No direct showing that any of the strategic plan goals require condemnation of the subject property (or at this time). To the extent such goals did make such a showing, it further demonstrates precommitment rendering this approval of the resolution an inevitability rather than a good faith determination of pros and cons. No notice of the hearing or the substance of the cooperative agreement. • The project as described by staff fails to show the need to take the subject property for a maintenance yard. • The City already owns/controls property that better meets strategic goals/project. • Subject property is an inferior location for a proposed train maintenance yard as a "through -put station" provides a superior train maintenance yard. • Here, the City is considering only one location, with no alternatives, 2101919.1 PALMIERI TYLER City of Santa Ana June 6, 2017 Page 4 • No showing the City needs this property. • No showing this project is greatest public good. Uncertainty as to what the "project" is, • No showing taking any portion of this property is consistent with the least private injury. There is no analysis or comparison to other possible takings. • No showing need, urgent or otherwise, to take any property now. No schedule provided despite being referenced in the staff report. What is the "schedule." Why was a schedule set? Who set it? When? Why must it be maintained? What are the consequences of failure to maintain? Why has it not been provided? Conversely, if a schedule has been set, the decision is a foregone result. The Government Code Section 7267.2 offer requirement is not a quasi -legislative determination subject to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235. Even so, the offers do not comply with Government Code Section 7267.2. They are invalid. The City has not made any offer or approved any offer or appraisal made. The offers rely on an "extraordinary assumption" that environmental remediation is both required and will cost approximately three quarters of a million dollars. First, no showing that the site to be acquired should be subject to environmental remediation. Further, the purported remediation is based on the wrong standards not applicable to this location. 'Phe investigation purports to use "San Francisco' standards. We and the property are not in San Francisco. San Francisco is not the oversight jurisdiction. The purported investigation and asserted remediation fails to identify the relevant oversight jurisdiction. Assuming no specific oversight jurisdiction, using the wrong standards based on the wrong policies results in an invalid and unsupported remediation hypothesis. Thus, the offer is invalid. The underlying assumed remediation cost estimate is not valid. It is inconsistent with highest and best use. It is inconsistent with the highest price definition and the market. Factually, there is no cleanup order. Other than as a tool in the eminent domain acquisition, there is no investigation. There is no showing a deduct of this magnitude is required by the market. The purported cleanup is based upon grossly unnecessary and excessive excavation. Given that the whole purpose of the report is to be used as deduct against any offer, it appears it is based on making it as expensive as possible to coerce negotiations which in itself is improper. * Government Code Section 7267.2 does not provide for an assumed deduction from the offer for environmental remediation much less "remediation" that is 2101919.1. PALMIERI TYLER City of Santa Ana June 6, 2017 Page 5 arbitrary, excessive and fails to apply any appropriate standard for investigation/remediation given the property at issue. • OCTA/City is not obliged and has not definitively resolved to oblige itself with remediation at all, let alone the grossly excessive excavation. The remediation assertion is an improper attempt to devalue property and coerce a settlement in violation of the federal and state right of way acquisition requirements including but not limited to the Government Code. s City, not OCTA, purports to condemn. No showing the City personnel with requisite authority have authorized, approved or analyzed the appraisals or offers. • The appraisal and offers have been rendered inapplicable by the passage of time. o Date of value asserted almost a year ago. Half of the property appraised based on data from 2015 to 2013 -- information cased from two to four years ago! Other portion of property based on data a year to over two years ago. o Thus, Just Compensation based upon a current taking has not been offered. • The appraisals do not comply with the federal and state transportation agency requirements that govern this project. o No showing the City cannot obtain a more current appraisal despite recognition that market has improved since 2013 and despite federal and state acquisition requirements that mandate the City do so. The information concerning scarcity of potential relocation sites demonstrates that there is higher demand than previously assessed. o Fails to value the larger parcel. The appraiser improperly and arbitrarily divides the property into separate parts to reduce value inconsistent with both actual and highest and best use. o Fails to value property as used -- The appraisal is not valuing what is actually being taken. It values a hypothetical lower and lesser use. o Fails to value property at highest and best use. o Inconsistent appraisal positions between real estate and improvements. • The offer for improvements pertaining to realty are part of real property being taken but the offer and underlying appraisal fail to value all the improvements 2101919.1 PALMIERI TYLER City of Santa Ana June 6, 2017 Page 6 being taken as evidenced by the improvements at the subject property and the appraisals failure to include/value all such improvements despite inspection of the subject property (including but not limited to attached telephone systems, wiring safety switch, various piping, storm water system, air compressor, car rack, ramps, concrete paving (ferrous yard and nonferrous building), etc.). No showing what "precise legal guidelines" followed by appraisers. No showing that the City has any idea what guidelines were followed, No showing OCTA knew what "guidelines" were followed. The staff report asserts adoption of a resolution will allow negotiations to continue while pursuing condemnation. If that is true, the City's conduct is illegal and improper. Negotiations are required for every acquisition. If that statement is in fact false, the City's position that this eminent domain taking resolution is necessary to allow for negotiations is illegal. This hearing is supposed to be a real deliberation of the pros and cons of condemnation. In fact, the decision to take this property by eminent domain (assuming the ownership does not capitulate) is a fait accompli. SA Recycling incorporates into the record all internal and external communications by OCTA concerning the sought for eminent domain taking of this property and prior correspondence with the City and OCTA. SA Recycling also incorporates all prior meetings and communications with OCTA concerning the proposed acquisition of the subject property. We reserve all rights. cc: Client Michael I. Kehoe 2101919.1 Alcala, Abigail From: Mitre -Ramirez, Norma Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2017 9:36 AM To: Alcala, Abigail Subject: FW: SA Recycling - Noreas Statement in Support of Objection to Resolution of Necessity Attachments: Noreas Statement.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hello Abigail, Please enter correspondence for item 75D in database, scan and upload to Granicus. Kind Regards, Norma Mitre Sr. Deputy Cleric of the Council City of Santa Ana I Clerk of the Council Office 20 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701 7 14-647-5237 1 nmitre@santa-� From: Sue M. Haugen [mailto:shaugen@ptwww.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2017 5:12 PM To: eComment <eComment@santa-ana.org> Cc: Michael H. Leifer <mleifer@ptwww.com>; Michael Kehoe <mkehoe@ptwww.com>; Michelle M. Pase <M Pa se @ ptwww.co m> Subject: SA Recycling - Noreas Statement in Support of Objection to Resolution of Necessity Good Afternoon, Please see attached Noreas Statement in Support of Objection to Resolution of Necessity. Thank you. P LMIERI TYLER LE A T T 0 R N E Y S A T L A W Sue Haugen I Assistant to Ronald M. Cole and Michael I. Kehoe Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP 1900 Main Street, Suite 700 Irvine, CA 92614 Direct Dial (949) 851-7237 Fax (949) 851-1554 shaugen@ptwww.com I ptwww.com 1 This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP that may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM N SUBJECT Santa Ana Recycling Site: 2002 W. 5th Street, Santa Ana, California DATE 6/6/2017 CLIENT Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm, & Waldron LLP SUBMITTED TO Michael Leifer, Esq. and Michael Kehoe, Esq. NOREAS PROJECT PAL 015 PREPARED BY Essi Esmaili, PhD, PG NOREAS, Inc. (NOREAS) reviewed two available documents, prepared by Eco & Associates Inc. (Eco) related to the environmental conditions at the subject Site. Based on the information reviewed (Eco, 2016a and Eco 2016b), the following summarizes Eco's findings and recommendations: a. Shallow soil (mainly 0.5 feet to 2.5 feet) has been found to be impacted by petroleum hydrocarbon products, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and total petroleum hydrocarbon(TPH). b. Eco compared the detected concentrations of VOCs and TPH with Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), developed by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for Commercial or Industrial Shallow Soil Exposure in northern California (February 2016). Based on this comparison, Eco concluded that an area of approximately 20,500 square feet, with a depth varying from 7 feet to 1.5 feet, is impacted with petroleum hydrocarbon constituents that require some form of remediation. Accordingly, Eco has estimated that 4,280 tons of soil needs to be excavated and hauled offsite for disposal, at a cost of $684,267.90. NOREAS does not agree with the Eco's conclusion and recommendation for the following reasons: 1. The nature of soil impact is petroleum hydrocarbons. As such, application of San Francisco ESLs is not justified for this Site. The California State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) has developed the Low -Threat Policy to administer the petroleum Cleanup Programs. The purpose of the Policy is to establish consistent statewide case closure criteria for low -threat petroleum sites. Low -Threat Policy includes concentrations of petroleum constituents in soil that will have no significant risk of adversely affecting human health (Table 1 of Low Threat Policy). Accordingly, only petroleum constituents detected in boring location SBI -14 (Eco, 2016a) at 2 feet would exceed such Low -Threat Policy concentrations. 2. The need for remediation, if required, is determined in consultation with a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction over the Site. NOREAS is not aware of involvement of any regulatory agency on this project. Therefore, Eco's recommendation is only an opinion and not supported by concurrence of a regulatory agency. 11paEe 2002 W. 5`h Street, Santa Ana, California Technical Memorandum SUBJECT Santa Ana Recycling Site: 2002 W. 5th Street, Santa Ana, California DATE 6/6/2017 CLIENT Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm, & Waldron LLP SUBMITTED TO Michael Leifer, Esq. and Michael Kehoe, Esq. NOREAS PROJECT PAL 015 PREPARED BY I Ess! Esmaili, PhD, PG 3. The estimated amount of excavation by Eco (4,280 tons) is an overestimation based to application of San Francisco ESLs that do not apply to the Site and assumptions regarding the depths of excavation (7 feet to 1.5 feet) that are not supported by the Site data. 2.0 REFERENCES Eco & Associates, Inc. 2016a. Limited Phase II Envirommnetal Site Assessment, Santa Ana Recycling Facility, 2002 W. 5th Street, Santa Ana, California. August 16. Eco & Associates, Inc. 2016b. Cost Estimate for Remediation of Hydrocarbon Impacted Soil at SA Recycling Facility, 2002 W. 5th Street, Santa Ana. August 29. State Water Resources Control Board, Low -Threat Underground Storage Tank Case Closure Policy 21Page 2002 W. 511 Street, Santa Ana, California Technical Memorandum u Petition to Oppose the Relocation of SA Recycling To be considered by Santa Ana City Council June 6, 2017, I am a resident of the City of Santa Ana and I sell recycled metal to SA Recycling at 2006 W. 51h Street. The ability to sell recycled metal is very important to me and my family. The use of this land for a train maintenance station instead of a recycling center would be bad for me, my family and the surrounding area. Removing the recycling center at this location would mean the citizens of Santa Ana would have n where local to bring the recycled* ecycl d etal. I oppose a decision by the city to remove SA Recycling fro th location \ Date. Signature. Print name. Address. Date. s Petition to oppose the displacement of SA Recycling by Eminent Domain from its 51^ Street Location. To be considered by Santa Ana City Council June 6, 2017, 1 am a resident or neighbor of the City of Santa Ana and I sell recycled metal to SA Recycling at 2006 W. 5th Street. The ability to sell recycled metal to SA Recycling at the Sth Street location is very important to me and my family. I have heard that the City/Transportation Agency wants to eminent domain SA Recycling for a small train yard. Taking SA Recycling out by Eminent Domain would be bad for me, my family and the surrounding area. This is an important location to bring recycled metals. Recycling metals locally is very important to me, my family and the community for the economy and the environment. SA Recycling is the metal recycling lea I oppose the use of Eminent Domain to remove SA Recycling from this location. Print name. �_ , Petition to Oppose the Relocation of SA Recycling To be considered by Santa Ana City Council lune 6, 2017, I am a resident of the City of Santa Ana and I sell recycled metal to SA Recycling at 2006 W. 5th Street. The ability to sell recycled metal is very important to me and my family. The use of this land for a train maintenance station instead of a recycling center would be bad for me, my family and the surrounding area. Removing the recycling center at this location would mean the citizens of Santa Ana would have nowhere local to bring the recycled metal. I oppose a decision by the city to remove SA Recycling from signature. ., P Int name. . Date. Date. Petition to Oppose the Relocation of SA Recycling To be considered by Santa Ana City Council June 6, 2017, I am a resident of the City of Santa Ana and I sell recycled metal to SA Recycling at 2006 W. 5t" Street. The ability to sell recycled metal is very important to me and my family. The use of this land for a train maintenance station instead of a recycling center would be bad for me, my family and the surrounding area. Removing the recycling center at this location would mean the citizens of Santa Ana would have nowhere local to bring the recycled metal. I oppose a decision by the city to remove SA Recycling from yhisl cation. Lc I Date. Petition to Oppose the Relocation of SA Recycling To be considered by Santa Ana City Council June 6, 2017, 1 am a resident of the City of Santa Ana and I sell recycled metal to SA Recycling at 2006 W. 5" Street. The ability to sell recycled metal is very important to me and my family. The use of this land for a train maintenance station instead of a recycling center would be bad for me, my family and the surrounding area. Removing the recycling center at this location would mean the citizens of Santa Ana would have nowhere local to bring the recycled metal. I oppose a decision by the city to remove SA Recycling from this location.. fecv I oa IC 1-7 g t e. .int nm Address. Date. re Print name. Address. Date. Signature. Print name. ✓C+ G- Signature. Print name. re. Print nam Addr ss. Print name. _ Date. Signature. Print name. Address. Date. re. Print name. Addres . r/ Date. Signature. Print name. Address. (21 V142121 900C re. rintn m ,,Address. Print name. Address. Date. Signature. Print name. Address. Date. re. Print name. Address. Date. Date. Date. Signature. Print name. Address. Date. Signature. Print name. Address. Date. Signature. Print name. Address. Date. Signature. Print name. Address. Date. Signature. Print name. Address. Date. Signature. Print name. Address. Date. Signature. Print name. Address. Date. Signature. Print name. Address. Date. Signature. Print name. Address. Date. Signature. Print name. Address. Date. Signature. Print name. Address. Date. Via US Mail and Fax to 714-647-6956 Clerk of the City Council City Hall City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza M-30 Santa Ana, CA 92702 7W MAY 24 Pm ?� 08 May 23, 2017 CITY OF SANTA ANA CLERK OF;? - Re: Notice of Hearing regarding adoption of Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Real Property by Eminent Domain (Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.2350) Properties: 1922 (also known as 2006) and 2002 W. 5t" Street, Santa Ana, CA 92703 APN: 007-100-04 and 05 Dear Ms. Huizar: On behalf of my client, Federico Valdivia, Trustee of The Valdivia Family Trust, I respectfully request a 30 -day continuance of the above-described hearing. It is not possible for the Trust to be properly prepared to address the issues to be raised and adequately represented at that meeting with only 15 days' notice. Further, there is a scheduling conflict for that particular evening that prevents all parties from attending. The Trust requests a meeting with appropriate City officials prior to the scheduled hearing. This meeting will be attended by legal counsel, representatives of the Trust, and a representative from the tenant currently operating its business on both parcels. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to arrange a meeting prior to the hearing and to advise me as to the new date of the hearing. Best regards, PZa� chaefer cc: Federico Valdivia, Trustee Jeff Farano, Sr., SA Recycling 9042 Garfield Avenue, Suite 37.2, Huntington Beach, California 92646 t 562 826 7968 e paula@paulaschaeferlaw.com www, pat laschaeferlaw.cor