HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-05 CRA
r":
¡
'1
.
.
, ,
&,.'
EJClfm
2/27/84
RESOLUTION NO. 84-5
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ESTABLISH-
ING CONDITIONS FOR THE NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND IN SETTLEMENT OF
THAT LITIGATION ENTITLED RODRIGUEZ et a1. v.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, etc. et al. ,
O.C.S.C. No. 38-58-57
WHEREAS, on July 6,1982, the City Council of the
City of Santa Ana adopted and approved the Redevelopment
Plan for the North Harbor Boulevard Redevelopment Project
Area by Ordinance No. NS-1637; and
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 (hereinafter "the Agency") is charged with the responsibility
of carrying out the Redevelopment Plan for the North Harbor
Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area (hereinafter "the
Project Area"); and
WHEREAS, an action entitled Rodrigues et al. v. City of
Santa Ana, etc., et a1.; Orange County Superior Court No.
38-58-57 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:
, '
,
.
.
.
",'
RESOLUTION NO. 84-5
Page Two
(I) as to all plaintiffs' presently
owned property in the Project Area.
(2) as to all presently residential
properties in the Project Area, and
(3) as to the commercial properties
described in Exhibit No.2, attached
hereto, through and including Decem-
ber 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 or
receiving legally authorized relocation benefits.
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 properties of plaintiffs Maria Rodriguez
located at 410 and 414 North Harbor Boulevard and
of plaintiff Jack Engle located at 417 South
Harbor Boulevard are 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 Redevelop-
ment Plan by the Agency. The Agency shall have no
power of eminent domain as to the residential
properties exempted 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 Redevelopment Plan or any amendments, or
extensions thereof. As used in this Resolution,
the term "residential properties" means a complete
RESOLUTION NO. 84-5
Page Three
.
parcel of land together with a structure presently
being used for residential purposes whose use is
not changed or all of any part of a structure
presently being used for residential purposes
whose use is not changed.
.
(ii) The commercial 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 through and including Decem-
ber 31, 1988 and during this 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 "Agency" means
the members of the Community Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Santa Ana or any successor organiza-
tion 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 1, subdivisions
(a), (b) and (c), above, and to the extent neces-
sary to prevent their being taken by eminent
domain by the Agency, said residential properties
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 structures so exempted
to remain in their present structural configura-
tion whether or not the said residential properties
and commercial properties comply with the City's
General Plan or the zoning or design standards for
the North Harbor Boulevard Redevelopment Project
Area.
(e) Nothing in this section shall constitute a
waiver or restriction on the right of the City or
the Agency to take action, including condemnation,
.
.
.
.'
RESOLUTION NO. 84-5
Page Four
Section 2.
Section 3.
Section 4.
Section 5.
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.
(f) 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 relocation benefits as required by law.
Parking
On-street parking from Harbor Boulevard will not
be removed during the next ten years after the
adoption of this Resolution without providing
replacement parking for each 125 foot radius.
Tax Increments
Thirty percent (30%) of the tax increments or tax
increment generated or related revenues, or moneys re-
payable 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 in-
come housing construction.
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.
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
'.
.
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 84-5
Page Five
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.
Section 6.
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 settlement and resolution of the
action.
ADOPTED, this 27th day of
by the following vote: ----
February
,1984,
AYES: MEMBERS: Bricken, Griset, Johnson, Luxembourger,
McGuigan, Young
NOES: MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MEMBERS: Acosta
ATTEST:
;;s¡~
DlRECTOR/RECORDING SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
.
.
,
1
2
C. ROBERT FERGUSON, Attorney
301 E. Colorado Blvd., suite
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (818) 795-4181
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
at Law
600
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
8
weiser, Kane, Ballmer and Berkman
354 S. Spring street, Suite 420
Los Angeles, CA 90013
9
Telephone: (213) 617-0480
10
Attorneys for Defendants
11
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
13
14
MARIA RODRIGUEZ, et al. )
)
Plaintiffs, )
. )
v. )
)
CITY OF SANTA ANA, )
)
Defendants. )
)
STIPULATION RE: JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 38 58 57
15
16
17
18
19
20
WHEREAS:
21
1.
On July 6, 1982, by Ordinance No. NS-1637, the
22
23
City Council of the City of Santa-Ana adopted and apprõved the
Redevelopment plan for the North Harbor Boulevard Redev~lopment
24
project.
25
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
E'r~""\-! ( n."."'"
./",..., "'r;;"oo,,oo
..
.
..
,
1
2
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana, City of Santa
Ana, City Council of the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange,
3
Auditor-Controller of the County of Orange appeared herein.
4
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
8
agreed upon mutually acceptable terms for the settlement of
the within action.
9
5.
The defendants, Redevelopment Agency of the
10
City of Santa ana, City of Santa Ana, and the City Council
of the City of Santa Ana (hereinafter the .City Defendants")
11
12
desire to obtain a judgment herein validating the South Main
13
Street Redevelopment plan and Ordinance NO. Ns-1637.
14
6.
Plaintiffs desire, pursuant to said judgment,
15
16
to obligate the City Defendants to carry and abide by certain
terms and conditions as more particularly set forth in the
17
18
Resolution which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incor-
porated herein by reference as if fully set forth at this point.
19
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between
20
21
the plaintiffs and the City Defendants and their attorneys that:
1.
The City Defendants shall, within thirty-five
22
23
(35) days after executing this St~pulation, bring or cause to
be brought the Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit "A~ before
24
the defendant Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana for
25
its approval or disapproval.
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
I"")"I.'¡"'-I t...............
" ," ",¡ -----.-..
-2-
.
.
.
1
presented with a certified copy of the adopted Resolution,
2
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
plaintiffs and the City Defendants to this action as follows:
6
Each of the parties to this action agrees that they
7
8
will not retaliate against any other party, because of that
other party's involvement in this action.
In the event that
9
10
action is brought by a party to this action alleging that an
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
17
necessary to prove the said claim.
On the other hand, if the
said plaintiff does not prevail and if the court, pursuant to
18
a motion brought, determines that the said claim was made with-
19
out substantifal justification, then the defendants in said
20
action shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, but
21
22
only to the extent they were necessary to defend against the
-
claim and to bring the said motion.
23
24
4.
The City and Agency agree that all of th~ res-
idential property described in exhibit "A" shall be incorpor-
25
ated into the neighborhood integrity prògram.
26
27
5.
The parties agree that the plaintiffs shall
be awarded attorney's fees, costs and expeneses in the total
28
amount of $23,410.36 and that said amount will be the entire
- (,..........
{'}{HIB\ I "::3"'::""'"
.
.
..
"
1
2
amount awarded to the plaintiffs as attorney's fees, expenses
and costs herein.
3
4
6.
Immediately upon execution of this Stipulation,
the plaintiffs shall dismiss with prejudice Rodriguez, et al.
v. City of Santa Ana, et al., orange County Superior Court NO.
5
6
38 58 57 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 Ana, a Judgment in the form attached hereto as Exhibit nB"
11
shall be entered in Rodriguez, et al. v. City of Santa Ana, et
12 al.,¡ orange County Superior Court No. 38 58 57.
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
16
Street Redevelopm~nt Project is valid and legal.
Further, the
parties hereby expressly and irrevocably waive their right of
17 appeal.
18 III
19 III
20 III
21 III
-
22 III
23 III '
. 24 III
25 III
26 III
27 III
28 III
""I-'I"IT (...............
,,^ '1" ...........
-4-
1
2
3
'. 4
5
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
26
27
28
This Stipulation may be signed in duplicate originals,
the total of such signed duplicate originals constituting the
entire agrement.
By:
Attorney for City Defendants
EDWARD J. COOPER, City Attorney,
City of Santa Ana
WEISER, KANE, BALLMER, & BERKMAN
By:
6
DATED:
7
8
9 Attorney for plaintiffs
10
11
C. Robert Ferguson
12
13
. 14
15
16
By:
THE PLAINTIFFS
Maria Rodriguez
Jack Engle
THE CITY DEFENDANTS
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Executive Director
THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AND THE
CITY COUNCIL THEREOF
-
,
f:XH!BiT .............L...........
-5-
.
.
.
NORTH HARBOR
Corey Burnette - 3621 West 5th ( already exempt)
Youngs Turkey Ranch, Inc. ¿
Saddleback Turkey Ranch, Inc)- 3109 West lst
, '
HaJold La Perle - 1011-1013 North'Harbor Blvd.
George L. Young
Thomas Haliburda Racing Specialist -- 332lWest 5th
A. C. Enterprises - 520 South Harbor Blvd.
Ed Epperson - 3016 West 5th
Colonial Dairy -- 3122 West 5th
A & A Paint & Body ~ Harvey Hill - 3426 West 5th
A. C. Bonney - 206 N Figueroa
Lorens storage - Loren Seeber - 3110 West 5th
EXHIBIT "2"
. .
.
.
.
.',
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
C. ROBERT FERGUSON, Attorney
301 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (818) 795-418l
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
at Law
600
Edward J. Cooper, City Attorney (S.B. #059253)
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, California 92701
Telephone: (714) 834-4900
weiser, Kane, Ballmer and Berkman
354 S. Spring Street, suite 420
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 617-0480
Attorneys for Defendants
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
IS
16
MARIA RODRIGUEZ, et al., )
)
plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
CITY OF SANTA ANA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
CASE NO. 38 58 57
JUDGMENT ON STIPULATION
FOR ENTRY OF .JUDGMENT
17
18
19
20
In the above-entitled cause, plaintiff Maria Rodriguez
21
and Jack Engle, defendants Redevelopment Agency of the City of
22
23
Santa Ana, City of Santa Ana, an~City Council of the City of
Santa Ana, having stipulated that Judgment be entered v~lidating
24
the North Harbor Boulevard Redevelopment project and the Rede-
25
velopment plan adopted for such project'by the City Council
of the City of Santa Ana ordinance No. Ns-1637 of July 6, 1982.
26
27
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
28
1.
That the City of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-1637
EXHIBIT "iII"..3
-l-
c
.
.
.
..
1
is lawful and valid in all respects and without qualification.
2
That the North Harbor Boulevard Redevelopment
2.
3
project and the Redevelopment plan for such Project adopted by
4
Ordinance No. NS-1638 of the City of Santa Ana are lawful and
5
6
valid and without qualification.
3.
That the implementation of the North Harbor
7
8
Boulevard Redevelopment project and the Redevelopment Plan
for such project by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
9
Santa Ana from the adoption of Ordinance No. NS-1637 through
10
and including the adoption of Agency Resolution NO. 84-5 is
11
lawful and valid, and without qualification.
12
That the allocation and payment of tax revenues
4.
13
and other funds to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
14
Santa Ana for the North Harbor Boulevard Redevelopment Project,
15
pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law, Article
16
17
XVI, Section 16 of the California Constitution, and such other
laws or regulations which specify the powers and authority of
18
the Agency, and the receipt and expenditure of such funds by
19
the Redevelopment Agency for the North Harbor Boulevard are
lawful and valid and without qualification.
20
21
5.
That the plaintiff- and the Redevelopment Agency
22
23
of the City of Santa Ana are obligated to carry out te~s and
24
conditions of the Stipulation and Resolution No. 84-5 adopted
by the Redevelopment Agency of the City: :of Santa Ana on
25
, 1984, which are includea in this Judgment
26
by reference and agreed to by all of the parties herein.
The
27
28
plaintiff is obligated to take or cooperate in, all actions
-2-
, .. . .
, ..
. '.
~
-
..,
1
reasonably necessary on their part to assist the Agency in
2
good faith in carrying out the stipulation and Resolution
3
No. 84-5 and to carry out the terms required of them.
The
4
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. 84-5.
7
6.
plaintiff is hereby awarded attorney's fees,
8
9
costs and expenses in the total amount of $23,410.36 for
costs, fees and expense of whatever nature and no other
10
award of costs, fees or expenses shall be allowed in this
11
action.
12 DATED:
13
14 APPROVED:
15 C. ROBERT FERGUSON
16
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
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
23 Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Santa Ana and City
24 of Santa Ana
,
25
26
27
28
-3-