Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/1989 - City Council Special MeetingSPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF COSTA MESA MARCH 7, 1989 At the call of the Vice Mayor, the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, met in special session on March 7, 1989, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, for the purpose of holding a public hearing concerning acquisition of properties for the Victoria Street Improvement project. Notice of the hearing was posted as required by law. ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Peter Buffa Vice Mayor Mary Hornbuckle Council Member Ory Amburgey Council Member Sandra Genis Council Member Edward Glasgow COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Manager Allan Roeder Assistant City Attorney Eleanor Frey .-Assistant to the City Manager Rick Pickering City Clerk°Eileen Phinney PUBLIC HEARING The Clerk announced that this was the time and place Acquisition of set for the public hearing to consider Resolutions of Properties for Necessity to condemn properties for the Victoria Street Victoria Street Improvement project between Canyon Drive and Harbor Improvements Boulevard. A list of properties being considered for acquisition, along with the owners' names, addresses of the properties, and assessor parcel numbers, are included with the Agenda and is on file in the Clerk's office. Letters were mailed to the property owners setting forth the time and place of the meeting, and notices of the special meeting were posted and mailed as required by law. Letters were received from the following property owners requesting to speak at this meeting: John C. Lockhart, owner of property at 2150, 2152, 2154, and 2156 Canyon Drive; Tracy -and Karrie Scott, owners of property at 2152 State Avenue; Martha E. Kirby, owner of property at 970 Victoria Street; Jack Parish, owner of property at 874 Victoria Street; Lynn E. Zimmerman, owner of property at 810 Victoria Street; Connie Walker, owner of property at 628 Victoria Street; and W. F. Bonner, Jr., owner of properties at 563, 565, 573, and 575 Victoria Street. Letters were also received from three owners whose properties were not on the Agenda: Jimmy Huffine, owner of property at 2150 Maple Street; David E. Caruso, owner of properties at 518 and 520 Victoria Street; and Gladys Diggins, owner of property at 2151 American Avenue. The Assistant to the City Manager referenced his memor- andum of March 1, 1989, stating that the Resolutions of Necessity concern all or a portion of 72 single-family residences. He announced that agreements have been reached with over 50 percent of affected property owners. The Assistant to the City Manager stated that the pri- mary issue to be considered is the City's right to acquire property under Government Code Section 1245.230, not negotiations for acquiring the properties nor their related values. Scott Property Joseph T. Daniel, 1100 Town & Country Road, Suite 950, Orange, attorney for Tracy and Karrie Scott, reported that he sent a letter to one of the City's consultants, Security Land and Right of Way Services, Incorporated, with a copy to the Assistant City Engineer, in which he specifically requested a copy of the appraisal for the Scott property. Mr. Daniel stated that he was told by Roger Cunningham of Security Land and Right of Way that he could not see the document, nor would a copy be made available to him because attorney work product privi- lege applies to the appraisal. Mr. Daniel stated that Government Code Section 7267.2 indicates quite clearly that the property owner may review the appraisal. In addition, Mr. Daniel asserted that Government Code Section 7261.1 states, "and the owner or his designated representative shall be given an opportunity to accont.- pany the appraiser during his inspection of the prop- erty". Mr. Daniel concluded his presentation by requesting Council to direct staff to provide him with a copy of the appraisal. Parish Property Jack Parish, 874 Victoria Street, suggested that the City select a different alignment for Victoria Street. He wanted to know what the City paid other owners so so he could determine what price he should be receiving for his property. Mr. Parish asked when the City would find a new property for him and indicated that he would like to move to the City of Tang Beach. The Assistant to the City Manager reported that the City's relocation consultants have talked to Mr. Parish about finding a Long Beach property. Zimmerman Property Lynn Zimmerman, 810 Victoria Street, stated that she has become disabled since she purchased her property and that her qualifications for a loan were questionable at this time. Ms. Zimmerman also informed the Council that the offer made by the City was not good enough. Walker Property Connie Walker, 628 Victoria Street, stated that the price which the City offered for her property will not cover the cost of relocation. She suggested that 19th Street be widened instead of Victoria Street. Bonner Property W. F. Bonner, owner of properties at 563-565 and 573-575 Victoria Street, ccamented that the present alignment will result in his having four uninhabitable units because the garages will be only six feet from the curb. He contended that it would be to the City's advantage to take his four front units which would allow for a deeper setback. C 383 Lockhart Property John Lockhart, owner of properties at 2150, 2152, 2154, and 2156 Canyon Drive, mentioned that the City's appraiser merely walked around the property and did not take into consideration all the assets on the site. Mr. Lockhart was not satisfied with the City's offer, and reported that the City's appraiser would not disclose appraisal information. Council Member Amburgey asked if it is appropriate to withhold the appraisal document from the property owner. The Assistant to the City Manager responded that the City's counsels advised that there are Goverment Code Sections which seem to contradict the information which Mr. Daniel presented in this regard. Pat Hennessey, law firm of Palmieri Tyler Wiener Wilhelm and Waldron, 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, reported that based on his research, he could only find that the property owner is entitled to being offered the full amount of the City's appraisal, but not the docu- ment itself. He mentioned that the property owners have the right to obtain their own appraisals, but he could find no legal authority directing the City to distribute its appraisals. Council Member Amburgey asked if staff knew of Lynn Zimmerman's medical problem and the fact that she may not be able to secure another loan. The Assistant to the City Manager responded that he did not feel it would be appropriate to discuss this issue in open session. Council Member Amburgey suggested adjourning to closed session so that Council could discuss some of the legal issues with the City's counsels. Responding to Council Member Genis's inquiry, the Assistant to the City Manager stated that offers were made during the first and second weeks of January, 1989, for appraisals completed in December, 1988. Council Member Genis asked if there were any provisions permitting the City to pay more than the $15,000.00 maximum set by State law for relocation costs. The Assistant City Manager replied there is no provision of which he is aware that would allow Council to do that, and it was his interpretation that to pay higher relo- cation costs would be a gift of public funds. Council Member Genis asked why appaisal documents were not made available, and whether a principle existed which protected them from the public. Mr. Hennessey responded that he did not have the authorities with him; however, during his research, he could find nothing that required the City to give appraisal documents to the property owners. Council Member Genis mentioned that under the Public Records Act, there are strict limitations on what cannot be shown to the public, and she wondered what limitation addressed this issue. Council Member Genis suggested that the property owners request copies of appraisal documents under the Public Records Act. Pat Hennessey commented that the value of a person's property cannot be kept secret by the City because an owner usually has some knowledge regarding the value of his property, and he can also obtain his own appraisal. Diggins Property Gladys Diggins, owner of property at 2151 American Avenue (not being considered at this public hearing), reported that she has been attempting for quite some time to obtain the appraisal on her property but the City would not give it to her. Council Member Amburgey reported that it is typical of lending institutions not to reveal the appraisal on a house when it is purchased or refinanced. The Assistant City Attorney commented that these issues are not germane to this public hearing. ADJOURNMENT' TO At 7:15 p.m., the Mayor adjourned the meeting to a CLOSED SESSION closed session in the first floor Conference Room to discuss appraisal procedure with the City's counsels and consultants. MEETING At 8:15 p.m., the Mayor reconvened the meeting in the RECONVENED Council Chambers. There being no other speakers, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Mayor Buffa asked staff to explain the law in regard to giving appraisal documents to the property owners. Roger Cunningham, Security Land and Right of Way Services, Incorporated, acquisition agent for the City, explained the process of acquiring property for public improvement. When acquiring property, the City has an obligation to offer the owner the fair market value of his property. In order to determine the fair market value, the City hires an outside appraiser who attempts to gain entrance to the property; however, in some cases he is not successful. When it is not possible to enter a property and obtain a complete appraisal, it results in a suspect appraisal because an interior inspection was not completed. Upon receipt and review of the appraisal information, an offer letter and Appraisal Summary Statement are prepared for presentation to the property owner, and the amount in the offer letter coincides with the amount of the appraisal contained in the Appraisal Summary Statement. The property owner is asked to acknowledge receipt of the documents, the City is informed that the offer has been made, and the relo- cation consultant is then requested to contact the owner. Mayor Buffa asked if staff found anything in the Govern- ment Code which would mandate the City's delivering the original appraisal or a copy of it to the property owner. The Assistant City Attorney responded negative- ly, explaining that there is a requirement for certain types of property, an owner -occupied residential prop- erty of four units or less, and it states that the owner shall have the opportunity to review a copy of the appraisal. She was not aware of anything in the Code that ccmpels the City to deliver a copy of that document to anyone. Responding to another question from the Mayor, the Assistant City Attorney stated that there is nothing in the Code to preclude the City from delivering a copy of the appraisal document to the owner; however, if the appraisal document were delivered to people other than those who have an interest in the property, such as an owner or a lender, there may be a privacy interest implicated, but that is not clear. 335 Mayor Buffa requested assurance that the property owners have seen the offer letter and Appraisal Summary State- ment. Mr. Cunningham responded that normal procedure is to have the owner sign a copy of the offer letter with the summary statement attached as an indication that he has received the documents; however, this does not constitute acceptance of the offer. Mr. Cunningham reported that in cases where the owner refuses to sign, he (or an associate) acknowledges in writing that he personally presented the documents and discussed the acquisition process. Responding to Mayor Buffa's question, Mr. Cunningham confirmed that he has documentation that all offers to the property owners were made by appropriate procedures. MOTION A motion was made by Council Member Amburgey, seconded Resolutions 89-25 by Council Member Glasgow, to adopt Resolutions 89-25 through 89-96 through 89-96, for each of 72 properties shown on the Adopted list attached to the Agenda, each resolution being entitled, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISI- TION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES FOR PUBLIC USE AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CONDEMNATION, based on the following findings: 1. That public interest and necessity require that the project is in accordance with the Master Plan of Streets and Highways as adopted by the City of Costa Mesa City Council and most recently revised November 21, 1988, and that the City has imple- mented the project in order to create an uncon- gested and fluid flow of traffic throughout the area. 2.- That the City staff has reviewed several alternate plans for the widening of Victoria Street and by virtue of adopting the subject alignment, the project is designed in a manner that requires the least amount of property taken and at the same time affects the least amount of property owners, thereby making this alignment the alternative that will be most compatible with the greatest good and the least private injury. 3. That, as a consequence to and in conjunction with the aforementioned facts, the attached described properties are necessary for the proposed project and their acquisition is only for that portion of the property actually required for the fabrication of the Victoria Street project. AMENDED MOTION At the request of the Mayor, Council Member Amburgey Added a Direction amended his motion by adding a direction to staff, and to Staff to Delay the consultants through staff, that no action shall be Action for Seven taken on this phase of the project for seven days and Days to Respond to during that time, the property owners and/or their Questions and designated representatives will have an opportunity to Provide Additional meet with City staff and/or City consultants to pursue Information to any questions which they feel were unanswered, or to Property Owners obtain additional information beyond the documentation already received. The amended motion was seconded by Council Member Glasgow. Council Member Amburgey pointed out that Council wishes to ensure that the property owners are treated fairly. Council Member Genis stated that she would not be sup- porting the motion because she was not satisfied that this is the best alternative for the project, and because she has a strong philosophical opposition to the taking of property. Vice Mayor Hornbuckle stated that this decision has been a difficult one, and she would be supporting the motion. The Assistant to the City Manager announced that two findings contained in the Resolutions of Necessity should be included in the motion. SECOND AMENDED Council Member Amburgey again amended the motion by MOTION including two additional findings: Added Two More Findings 4. The acquisition of said real properties are neces- sary for the project; and 5. The offer required by Section 7267.2 of the Government Code has been made to the owner or owners of record. The amended motion, adopting Resolutions 89-25 through 89-96, directing staff to meet with the property owners, and adding two more findings, was seconded by Council Member Glasgow, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Buffa, Hornbuckle, Amburgey, Glasgow NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Genis ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ADJOURNMENT The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Mayor of the City Costa Mesa ATTEST: ity Clerk o the City of Cos Mesa