Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutD-1 - Cannery Village Lots• �U i L AGENDA ! NQ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER February 24, 1986 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: CANNERY VILLAGE LOTS F ThE t o � G��' NCIL CITY` iElv-MAC APR 2 8 119186 During the Council meeting of February loth the Council continued the public hearing concerning the acquisition of the Cannery Village lots and requested a capsule history of said project. Below is a history that probably is not all inclusive, but it contains the actions recorded by my office. 1. May 21., 1984. The Traffic Engineer submitted a report to the Off-street Parking Committee listing several schemes for a parking lot/structure in the Cannery Village area. 2. May 23, 1984. The City Attorney's Office submitted a memo to the Chairman of the Off. -Street Parking Com- mittee concerning sections of the state law and munici- pal code that. regulated parking both on -street and off-street. 3. July 30, 1984. The City Attorney's Office provided supplemental information concerning parking to members of the Cannery Village Parking Committee. This memo also included a summary of a meeting with representa- tives of the Assistance League. Said meeting occurring on June.15, 1984. 4. August 27, 1984. A memo was submitted to the City Council from the Off-street Parking Committee recommend- ing that an appraisal be authorized to determine value on the three adjacent lots to the Assistance League, with said appraisal being used to initiate negotiations for City acquisition. This was authorized by the City Council. 5. October 22, 1984. The appraisal on the three lots establishing a value of $498,000 was received by the City. 6. November 2_, 1984. The City Attorney's Office submitted a proposal for consideration to representatives of the Page -2- Assistance League for the lease and/or purchase of the Assistance League property. This memo was in- tended for discussion only. 7. February 8, 1985. A letter was sent to representatives of the Assistance League, signed by Councilman Bill Agee, requesting a response to the previous proposal submitted by the City Attorney. 8. February - December, 1985. Little or no progress was made by the City for the acquisition of the three lots because there was no progress or meaningful dialogue between the City and the Assistance League. 9. October 28, 1985. The City Council authorized the preparation of a resolution directing the staff to make a specific offer on the three lots adjacent to the Assistance League. 10. November, 1985. An updated appraisal was obtained stating the value is still considered to be $498,000. 11, December 9, 1985. A resolution was placed on the Council is agenda and approved by the. City Council, authoriz- ing the staff to negotiate for the acquisition of the parcels adjacent to the Assistance League. Since December 9, 1965, there have been a number of letters and meetings, most of which are known because of their recent history to members of the City Council. Again, this history probably is not all inclusive, but does reflect the notes that are maintained by this office. l ROBERT L. WYNN 0 0 a ECENEDj�AFTER AGENDA PR1 V ri _3 Won /,, Ann TIDE & n/fOCIATE/inc. February 20, 1986 Members of the City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Members: NEWCITY PF PORT REACH ','Ir IF FEB 90 986 & 2 MECEIVED CITY fiEC , 1 t;, This letter is written to clarify an issue that has come up at the last two City Council hearings on the property at 411 and 413 - 30th Street in Cannery Village. Your city attorney has stated twice that he told me about the condemnation action prior to the council hearing granting approval for construction. While Bob Burnham may have intended to call me prior to that hearing, he will find when he checks his records that in fact, he called me on.the morning of December l.lth, two days later, and adivs.ed me that my client's project was heard and a -resolution was adopted to begin -negotiations for condem- nation. (See attached copy of memo of our telecon.) I immediately calked Ken Delano and Wanda Aggio for additional information and a copy of the staff report. I then called my client, who told me he too was unaware of.condemnation proceedings. If I had been notified prior to the council hearing, it stands to reason I would have been there with my client to protest the resolution for condemnation. The rest is part of your public records from testimony at the Council hearings. My knowledge of this situation is incidental and has no bearing on the decision that now sits before you, but I. did not want you to be confused about what I knew and what I did not. In addition, I would also like to note that the city appoints a good many committees to study changes within the city. Sometimes studies go on at great length before changes are made, and often no changes are made. It has been claimed that the RUDAT study designated these properties for parking. Please refer to the attached copies of the RUDAT report that supports development of_.this project and indicates si.tesfor parking which are NOT these sites in question. It is:quite likely that the adhoc committee has been discussing these sites for parking; this was released for public knowledge only a few weeks ago, and certainly the City Council has not yet acted upon recommendations from that adhoc committee. I have enclosed comments from the study that support our project and indicate those sites designated for infill parking. I do hope, however, that the City Council sees its way clear to allots this Members A.I.A. 470 Old Newport Blvd., Neuiport Beoch, Colifornio 92663 0 Phone 714/645-5854 9 Members of the City Countil February 20, 1986 Page 2 Project to proceed. I too agree that public parking is needed' in this area, but I am also aware that rejuvenation is also needed and I believe this project would be a positive addition to that goal. I know negotiations are proceeding to acquire the. Assistance League's three lots for parking; perhaps the shopper, visitor and merchant would be better convenienced by offering two separate parcels of land for parking. This would also allow for a smaller immediate financial burden to the city while the slow process of revitalization takes place. It might also be worthwhile to check with the Building Department to see if other property owners are proposing projects at this time. t,in cerel , rion S. J annette Architect, A.I.A. Enclosures: 2 cc: Bob Burnham, City Attorney Sandy Gilchrist Sharon Haire BRIon !. JEAnnETTE & RHOCIATE! lnC. im ra ro 144 4J 4.1 4J a Ql ro l a a C U }4 i-) ; i•r Q _ V ^� tn •ri. +J m v u W a w , 3 N O 0) ui W ul v E" rt� N Ci W43 3 .X 44 .fit O W � m V 4'P O .0 w u in rCi C C1 .0 0 Va lu ^ 1� ; +� ,H Q. � > -- .14 G {� U .a N U yy D 4.) . O •`' ' ro � a` a k to w 4-1 Ow C a 7 to 0W .G rl to # t U 4J 4-j W N C�+a � ro D� X CO >, 4•� a` a� O nW a .0 wva ro p ud1 CA) p .-" -1f p -116 Q ro �4 , Q . 1a1 r4-1 v Q tn•rix"ia o ' � � .ro u� a to u '� N�� ro ro v 0 v to 0 ja 41) �+ rai � AC Nrl � r ro � U� f3i r-4j , � p W >_ (n O - p aj p rHj W 'rob ror,W mro >,ro'n ro o 9� H Co.O(nC�, 'H 3-4 0 C iJ -14 � ro ..V, w v a r 0� �' b ;� cai •.oi 41 C6 1 g 9 '•NI � iA a r-4 •,q v (n ro �,p.� CZ ,C • A W O ro � ai �' " �' rz 0 w U 4-1 ro -P a u0 q O 1 a a � p Q, u sq 'H tn tr+ ro iv a Mm0 C. a� 2fu 0 o W U w O r-q C O 4CNF N U 1,4 3-W Av > W ro G v 4) Hq X J-- ro m H -w J Q ri QJ P H r� I•*i a � O .-a p CJ co 4J C1 I -L) O c w o o +1 � v Lo ' 04 41 � ,q o,`�� a ri 3 > y W > 1? W ro '� �4 � � a � u .ij �-o •H a.J 0 a `0 ro A+roO y' E „C� w ?� a 4 r-I � 4pp3 O .0 .0 Lei 3 O .rJ.ti C C 0 C a •4 04 C4 H ro � A a itp -P N O GC1 ;.0 � U: ro '}I "i ° �4 " rt a :. w a.pHO.roH ro o H 04 W C •ri t4 •r•l 31rtro 043 u .......... .... CM 7?) (OUN(IL AGENDA , i City Council - �j Agenda Item No. D4 NO. - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH BY THE Ci i Y COUNCIL CITY O= PdE4�'�L�RT BEACH OF THE CITY MANAGER 3't Tait COJNCIi FEB 24 198E February 10, 1986 CITY OF NEWPORa BEAQ C'e7' G i r,r':,' - �� :�' FEB 10 085 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Executive Assistant SUBJECT: CANNERY VILLAGE LOTS ACTION: Open hearing, close hearing. If desired, accept environmental document and approve Resolution No. indicating necessity and intent to acquire real property through eminent domain. BACKGROUND: This item was continued from the two previous meetings and previous staff reports are attached. This action is subject to CEQA and an environmental document is attached. Proper notification to property owners was discussed at the previous meeting and the City Attorney will provide a report on this subject. KJD.ets Attachments LINO MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY February 3, 1986 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Carol A. Korade, A.ssistant City Attorney RE: Notification of Property Owners of Hearing and Intent to Adopt Resolution of Intent to Condemn 411-415 30th Street, Newport Beach The California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.23-5 governs the procedure for notification of property owners of the Hearing and Intent to Condemn Real Property. This code section states that the property owner on the county assessment roll is to be given "reasonable" notice and opportunity to be heard. This is satisfied by mailing or personal delivery of the notice or any other procedure that gives the property owner reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard. The following are the steps that were taken to provide the property owners with proper notification of the Hearing and Intent to Condemn 411-415 30th Street, Newport Beach. The Notice of Hearing and Intent to Adopt Resolution of Intent to Condemn 411-415 30th Street scheduled for the January 13, 1986 City Council Hearing was served by mail on. December 13, 1985 on the following: 1. Mr. Richard L. Lawrence 505-29th Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 2. Txomin, N.V. 1 Plymouth Irvine, CA 92715 -1- . • i 3. Txomin, N.V. c/o Oakley C. Frost, Esq. Baldikoski, Frost, Charles & Collett 270 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 4. Bridgman, Mordkin, Stegmeier, Gould & Shapiro, Inc. Attorneys at Law 8926 Bolsa Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 5. Mrs. Anita Metz Grossman 333 South Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 The above are the names and address contained in the list of persons to be notified as set forth in the Litigation Guarantee from Safeco Title Insurance Company, dated November 25, 1985. The Notice of Hearing and Intent to Adopt Resolution of Intent to Condemn 411-415 30th Street scheduled for the January 272 .1986 City Council Meeting was served by mail on January 9, 1986 on the following: 1. Thomas E. Keefer 212 Magnolia Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 2. Bridman, Mo'rdkin, Stegmeier, Gould & Shapiro, Inc. Attorneys at Law 8926 Bolsa Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 3. Mrs. Anita Metz Grossman 333 South Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 4. Mr. Richard L. Lawrence 505-29th Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 5. Txomin, N.V. 1 Plymouth Irvine, CA 92715 -2- .3 • 6. Txomin, N.V. c/o Oakley C. Frost, Esquire Baldikoski, Frost, Charles & Collett 270 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 7. Txomin, N.V. P. O. Box 2037 Balboa Island, CA 92662 8. Sharon Hare Post Office Box 2037 Balboa Island, CA 92662 9. Brian Jeannette & Associates 470 Old Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 10. Gilsand Company 410-31st Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 11. Sandy Gilchrist 410-31st Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 The Notice of Hearing and Intent to Adopt Resolution of Intent to Condemn 411--415 30th Street scheduled for the February 10, 1986 City Council Meeting was served personally by messenger or by mail on January 31, 1986 on the following: 1. Thomas E. Keefer 212 Magnolia Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 (Personal) 2. Bridman, Mordkin, Stegmeier, Gould & Shapiro, Inc. Attorneys at Law 8926 Balsa Avenue Westminster, CA 92683 (Personal) 3. Mrs. Anita Metz Grossman 333 South Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 (Mail) -3- 4. Mr. Richard L. Lawrence 2025 W. Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (Personal) 5. Txomin, N.V. P. 0. Box 237 Balboa Island, CA 92662 (mail) 6. Txomin, N.V. c/o Oakley C. Frost, Esquire Baldikoski, Frost, Charles & Collett 270 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 (Mail) 7. Txomin, N.V. c/o Oakley Frost One City Boulevard, W. 41900 Orange, CA 926.68 (Mail) 8. Sharon Hare Post Office Box 237 Balboa Island, CA 92662 (Personal) 9. Brion Jeannette & Associates 470 Old Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 (Personal) 10. Gilsand Company 410-31st Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 (Personal) Il. Sandy Gilchrist 410-31st Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 (Personal) -4- The preceding notification provides the property owners with reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard at the Hearing and Intent to Adopt Resolution of Intent to Condemn 41 1 -415 30th Street, Newport Beach. CAK/mIh i Carol "A. Korade - Assistant City Attorney -5- A 1 i NEGATIVE HCLA-PATIO'N i TO: Secretary for Resources 1416 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95614 1 x Count"; Clerk of the County of Orange p.O.Bo� 83S, Santa Ana, CA 9.2702 FROM: PLANNING 1)CPAP7:ENT CITY OF I?C":PORT B£F>Cii P.O. BOX 1768 NZ''PGRT BEECH, CA 92658-2915 NAME OF PROJECT: Cannery Village Land Acquisition � PROJECT LOCATION;: 411-415 30th Street, Newport Beach, CA PROD=CT DESCRIPTION: Adoption of a resolution indicating necessity and intent to acquire real property through eminent domain. F'IN'DING: Pursuant to the provisions of City Cou�nti l Policy K--3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Co", ittee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATHON MEASURES: NONE INITIAL STUDY PRLPAXRED BY City of Newport Beach INITIAL STUDY ".VAILr:ELE FOR REVIEW AT: 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA Gr.I, RAC .'��D rL^ FIL.';G. cz Environmental Coordinator Date: January 29, 1986 _ 7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To Be Completed By Lead Agency) Background I. Name of Proponent 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 3. 4. S. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes May No I. Earth. Will the proposal result in: o. Unstable earth conditions or in changes / in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction r V or overcovering of the sail? C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e.: Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or .off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erasion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of o river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? z. 0 g. Exposure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar. hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate,. either locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in a ith_er marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? Yes M rye No Ef VZ 0 4. 5. 0 7. 0 Yes Maybe No Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, craps, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? C. Introduction of new species of plants into on area, or in a barrier to the normal f replenishment of existing species? 1/ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers o-f any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and f shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, / rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Noise. Will the -proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? f ✓ Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? r% Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in; a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural / resources? /0 • Yes M be No b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. 1llill the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including,but not limited to. oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? .12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result .in: a. Generation of substantial additional' vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 1.4. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? C. Schools? VZ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? I$. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Yes M►5e No I/ 12 L� Ll IV. b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cu.Itural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred Uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Yes May No V/ z . G. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts / will endure well into the future.) t/ c. Does the project have in -pacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources :where the :impact .on each .resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is .significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects / on human beings, either directly or indirectly? �/ Discussion of Environmental Evaluation Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 13 On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared./ l I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. 1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environ- ment., and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. to Signature For �y • Council Agenda Item No. I-2 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER January 27, 1986 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Executive Assistant SUBJECT: CANNERY VILLAGE LOTS ACTION: If desired, adopt Resolution No. indicating necessity and intent to acquire real property through eminent domain. BACKGROUND: This item was continued from the meeting of Janu- ary 13, 1986. This report provides new and supplemental in- formation to the previous staff report which is attached. OWNERSHIP: Confirmation of ownership has been received regard- ing the property at 411- 13 30th Street. Richard L. Lawrence has responded in writing that he sold the property to TXOMIN N.V. and a copy of a grant deed conveying the property from Mr. Lawrence to TXOMIN, which was recorded December 2.0, 1985, has been received. PROCEDURE: The approval of this resolution would authorize the City Attorney to commence eminent domain procedures by filing a complaint in Superior Court against the property owners. Oppor- tunities for continued negotiation on price would occur both be- fore and during a trial. After presentation of evidence by both sides, the court would rule on the legitimacy of the City's action and the appropriate amount of compensation. Depending on the rulings, the court would either dismiss the case or issue an Order of Possession. If the complaint is dismissed for any reason including the City's election to abandon the proceedings, the defendants would be entitled to attorneys' fees and other damages, if any. An appropriate resolution is attached to the previous staff report. A two-thirds vote (5 of 7) is required for approval. r KJD:ets zCENNETH ELIN0 Attachments IS Council Agenda Item No. J-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER January 13, 1986 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Executive Assistant SUBJECT: CANNERY VILLAGE LOTS ACTION: If desired, adopt Resolution No. indicating necessity and intent to acquire real property through eminent domain.. BACKGROUND: On December 9, 1985, the City Council approved Resolution No. 85-10.5 authorizing staff to negotiate: for the purchas-e of real property at 411-415 .30th Street for public purposes relating to vehicle parking. Appraisals of the property were made and property owners were contacted. SUMMARY: The following summarizes the facts regarding each property: Address: 411-13 3'0th Street. Size: 60' X 93' Use.: Vacant with approved plans for residential -commercial condominium. Owner: Diehard L. Lawrence is the last owner of record, (i.e., there is no recorded grant deed in favor of anyone else.) However, Mr. Lawrence confirmed verbally that his interest has been contracted to TXOMIN N.V. who is now in escrow to sell the property to the Gilsand Company. Appraised Value: $320,000 Rcspons.e by Owner: Lawrence indicated his disinterest verbally. TXOMIN and G.ilsand are adamantly opposed as indicated in the attached correspondence. TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL - Page 2 :'address: 415 30th Street size: 30' X 93' Owner: Thomas E. Keefer. and Sally M. hickey are the recorded owners. Keefer in- dicates he controls the property.. Appraised Value: $178,000 Response by Owner: Keefer ,indicated verbally that he is not opposed to sellinq but believes a higher price is justified. He cited the Tax Collector's assessed value of $216,648. He indicated he would follow-up in writing but this has not yet been received as of this writing. The attached resolution sets forth the reasons why it is necessary to condemn this property. Approval of this resolution would commit the City, for all practical purposes, to .an expenditure of at least $498,000.00. KJD:ets Attachments KENNETH D)LINO I7 • 9 '' THE GILSAND COMPANY :k FULL SERVICE MORT(�;Af;E RAtiKE R December 18 1985 Kenneth J. Delino CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 33GO Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: 411-413 30th Street, Newport. Beach, CA Dear Mr. Delino: I am in receipt of your letter dated December 12, 1985. I find this letter incredible in that the City of. Newport Beach is fully .aware of our plans to start construction of our corporate headquarters on the subject lots within the next few weeks. we have .an open escrow scheduled to close momen- tarily. The City Council has heard and approved our application. The timing of the City's Resolution No. 85-105 hardly appears to be coincidental. Knowing all along our intentions to build our corporate headquarters, the City has permitted us to expense thousands of dollars while all the time realizing their intentions to force acquisition of these lots. We will resist with all legal remedies available to us. Sincerely, THE GI'LSr D COMPANY rr John%A\. Gilchrist Pre�,id nt JAd,: d cc: Ben Jackson Brion Jeannette 410 31st S'FRLET, CANNERY VILLAGE, NEWPORT BI:A(Ai. LA 92661 (714) 67i-4961 CJ Mr. Kenneth J. Delino Executive Assistant CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 SUBJECT PROPERTY: ADDRESS: ASSESSORS PARCEL NO: TRACT: Dear Mr. Delino, TXOMIN N.V. P.O. Box 237 Balboa Island, Ca. 714-675-5792 December 20, 1985. N E 92662 DES4. K 24 1985 3aueH SC.�� 411/413 30th St., Newport Beach 47-042-14 Lots 6 & 7 in Block 331 of Lancaster's Addition to Newport Beach. I am in receipt of the following information from you which included: 1. Copy of letter to Richard L. Lawrence indicating your interest in negotiating with him for the above referenced piece of property. 2. Copy of resolution No. 85--105. 3. Copy of appraisal report dated 12/6/85 (value as of 10/31/8.5) . As you may now be fully aware, the owners of this property as lasted on public record in Orange County and the City of Newport Beach are "Txomin N.V.". Txomin N.V. has still not been notified officially of your intent to negotiate with us regarding purchase of this property, nor have we ever reveived any notices as to your intentions for development of this property. The copies you have sent to me are directed to Richard L. Lawrence and not to Txomin N.V.. Wj a - 2 - As you are also aware, this property has been in open escrow with "The Gilsand Company" and was scheduled to close shortly. Your actions have considerably delayed this important closing, and created untold problems, and many thousands of dollars in excess costs to both The Gilsand Company and Txomin V.V.. It is unbelievably inconceivable to us that you can introduce a resolution to the City Council and have it passed without the owners of the property being made aware of your intentions, and that you can study and research this property for your own use for 18 months without notifying the owners. It is also inconceivable that plans were approved through the City Council on November 25, 1985 submitted by The Gilsand Company to build their corporate headquarters on this property, when the City was fully aware of their own intentions for development of this property. It appears at this point, that the City of Newport Beach has not fully researched this action, nor the serious consequences to all. parties concerned. Upon official written notification by the City of Newport Beach of their intentions, to Txomin N.V., Txomin N.V. will take whatever appropriate and necessary action is needed to rectify this incredulous situation. Cordially, TXOM.IN N.V. S. Haire cc: The Gilsand Company Bob Wynn, City Manager Philip Mauer, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. A R E;SOLL'T I ON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T14 F. C I TY OF NEWPORT BEACH DECLARING NECESSITY TO CONDEMN REAL PROPERTY WHEREAS, the area of the City of Newport Beach known ns r"annery Village is the subject of a specific area plan sludy; WHEREAS, analysis has demonstrated that the shortage of vehicle parking space is inhibiting the redevelopment necessary to correct general deterioration of the aging structures in the Cannery Village area; WHEREAS, the City Council Off -Street Parking Comnittee has identified certain lots on 30th Street which could best provide convenient parking to the Cannery Village area (hereinafter the "vehicle parking project"). WHEREAS, the identified lots are described as: Address: Assessor Parcel Numbers: Legal Description: (hereinafter the "Property"). 411-413 30th Street and 415 30th Street 047-042-14 047-042-15 Lots 6 and 7 and Lot 8 in Block 331 of Lancaster's Addition to Newport Beach, County of Orange. Slate of California as recorded on a map in Book 5, Page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California, WHEREAS, the Property is either vacant or under- developed; WHEREAS., the City Council has reviewed the analysis and the recommendation of the Off -Street Parking Committee; so 10 .2/ WHEREAS, Government Code Section 37350.5 authorizes the Pity to acquire the Property by eminent domain. WHEREAS, after notice to the Property owners, the City Council held a public hearing on January 13, 1986 to hear protests and take testimony regarding the vehicle park 1nb project and the condemnation of the Property; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Reach resolves as follows: Section 1: The public interest and necessity require the development of a vehicle parking project on the Property. Section 2: The vehicle parking project is planned in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. Section 3. The Property is necessary for the eomplet.ion of the proposed vehicle parking project. Section 4: That the City Council of the City of Newport Beach declares the necessity to condemn the Property and its intent to acquire the Property through eminent domain. ADOPTED this day of ATTEST: y Clerk. Mayor -Z- . 1985. Council Agenda Item No. J-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER January 13, 1986 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Executive Assistant SUBJECT: CANNERY VILLAGE LOTS ACTION: If desired, adopt Resolution No. indicating necessity and intent to acquire real property through eminent domain. BACKGROUND: On December 9, 1995, the City Council approved Resolution No. 85-105 authorizing staff to negotiate for the purchase of real property at 411-415 30th Street for public purposes relating to vehicle parking. Appraisals of the property were made and property owners were contacted. SUMMARY: The following summarizes the facts regarding each property: Address: 411-13 30th Street Size: 60' X 93' Use: Vacant with approved plans for residential -commercial condominium. Owner: Richard L. Lawrence is the last owner of record, (i.e., there is no recorded grant deed in favor of anyone else.) However, Mr. Lawrence confirmed verbally that his interest has been contracted to TXOMIN N.V. who is now in escrow to sell the property to the Gilsand Company. Appraised Value: $320,000 Response by Owner: Lawrence indicated his disinterest verbally. TXOMIN and Gilsand are adamantly opposed as indicated in the attached correspondence. s3 E 0 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL - Page 2 Address: 415 30th Street Size: 30' X 93' Owner: Thomas E. Keefer and Sally M. Hickey are the recorded owners. Keefer in- dicates he controls the property. Appraised Value: $178,000 Response by Owner: Keefer indicated verbally that he is not opposed to selling but believes a higher price is justified. He cited the Tax Collector's assessed value of $216,648. He indicated he would -follow-up in writing but this has not yet been received as of this writing. The attached resolution sets forth the reasons why it is necessary to condemn this property. Approval of this resolution would commit the City, for all practical purposes, to an expenditure of at least $498,000.00. KJD:ets Attachments LA DELINO .4 - TI-IE GIL- SAND COMPANY A FULL SERVICE MORTGAGE BANKER rt 9. \iv.J 1 Dec i 9 1985 December 18, 1985a�1� wOwl N Kenneth J. Delino CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: 411-413 30th Street, Newport Beach, CA Dear Mr. Delino: I am in receipt of your letter dated December 12, 1985. I find this letter incredible in that the City of Newport Beach is fully aware of oux plans to start construction of our corporate head.quarters'on the subject lots within the next few weeks. We.have an open escrow scheduled to close momen- tarily. The.City Council has heard and approved our application. The timing of the City's Resolution No. 85-105 hardly appears to be coincidental. Knowing all along our intentions to build our corporate headquarters, the City has permitted us to expense thousands of dollars while all the time realizing their intentions to force acquisition of these lots. We will resist with all legal remedies available to us. Sincerely, THE G S D COMPANY John/A. Gilchrist Pre id nt cc: Ben. Jackson. Brion Jeannette 410 31 st STREET, CANNERY VILLAGE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (714) 675.4961 0 Mr. Kenneth J. Delino Executive Assistant CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 SUBJECT PROPERTY: ADDRESS: ASSESSORS PARCEL NO: TRACT: Dear Mr. Delino, TXOMIN N.V. P.O. Box 237 Balboa Island, Ca. 92662 714-675-5792 December 20, 1985 E R 4J�e_ Dec 2 4 �Y cl1kH "N ee�rk 411/413 30th St., Newport Beach 47-042-14 Lots 6 & 7 in Block 331 of Lancaster's Addition to Newport Beach. I am in receipt of the following information from you which included: 1. Copy of letter to Richard L. Lawrence indicating your interest in negotiating with him for the above referenced piece of property. 2. Copy of resolution No. 65--105. 3. Copy of appraisal report dated 12/6/85 (value as of 10/31/85) . As you may now be fully aware, the owners of this property as listed on public record in Orange County and the City of Newport Beach are "Txomin N.V.". Txomin N.V. has still not been notified officially of your intent to negotiate with us regarding purchase of this property, nor have we ever reveived any notices as to your intentions for development of this property. The copies you have sent to me are directed to Richard L. Lawrence and not to Txomin N.V.. -6 r - 2 - As you are also aware, this property has been in open escrow with "The Gilsand Company" and was scheduled to close shortly. Your actions have considerably delayed this important closing, and created untold problems, and many thousands of dollars in excess costs to both The Gilsand Company and Txomin N.V.. It is unbelievably inconceivable to us that you can introduce a resolution to the City Council and have it passed without the owners of the property being made aware of your intentions, and that you can study and research this property for your own use for 18 months without notifying the owners. It is also inconceivable that plans were approved_ through the City Council on November 25, 1985 submitted by The Gilsand Company to build their corporate headquarters on this property, when the City was fug aware of their own intentions for development of this property. It appears at this -point, that the City of Newport Beach has not fully researched this action, nor the serious consequences to all parties concerned. Upon official written notification by the Cite of Newport Beach of their intentions, to Txomin N.V., Txomin N.V. will take whatever appropriate and necessary action is needed to rectify this incredulous situation. cc: The Gilsand Company Bob Wynn, City Manager Philip Mauer, Mayor ordially TXOMIN N.V. S. Haire 2-7 Council Agenda Item No. I-2 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ACTION: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER January 27, 19.86 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Executive Assistant CANNERY VILLAGE LOTS BY Tt E CiVi COUNCIL CITY OF NEW -PORT BEACH If desired, adopt Resolution No. indicating necessity and intent to acquire real property through eminent domain. JAN 2 7 1986 BACKGROUND: This item was continued from. the meeting of Janu- ary 13, 1986. This report provides new and supplemental in- formation to the previous staff report which is attached. OWNERSHIP: Confirmation of ownership has been received.regard- ing the property at 411- 13 30th Street. Richard L. Lawrence has responded in writing that he sold the property to TXOMIN N.V. and a copy of a grant deed conveying the property from Mr. Lawrence to TXOMIN, which was recorded December 20, 1985, has been received. PROCEDURE: The approval of this resolution would authorize the City Attorney to commence eminent domain procedures by filing a complaint in Superior Court against the property owners. Oppor- tunities for continued negotiation on price would occur both be- fore and during a trial. After presentation of evidence by both sides, the court would rule on the legitimacy of the City's action and the appropriate amount of compensation. Depending on the rulings, the court would either dismiss the case or issue an Order of Possession. If the complaint is dismissed for any reason including the City'.s election to abandon the proceedings, the defendants would be entitled to attorneys' fees and other damages, if any. An appropriate resolution is attached to the previous staff report. A two-thirds vote (5 of 7) is required for approval. KJD:ets KENNETH ELLNO .Attachments Z 49 0 9 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL - Rage 2 Address: 415 30th Street Size: 30' X 93' Owner: Thomas E. Keefer and Sally M. Hickey are the recorded owners. Keefer in- dicates he controls the property. Appraised Value: $178,000 Response by Owner: Keefer indicated verbally that he is not opposed to selling but believes a higher price is justified. He cited the Tax Collector's assessed value of $216,648. He indicated he would follow-up in writing but this has not yet been received as of this writing. The attached resolution sets forth the reasons why it is necessary to condemn this property. Approval of this resolution would commit the City, for all practical purposes, to an expenditure of at least $498,000.00. KJD:ets Attachments ) ". 4,� KENNETH 1. DELINO 30 Council Agenda Item No. J-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER January 13, 1986 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Executive Assistant SUBJECT: CANNERY VILLAGE LOTS ACTION: If desired, adopt Resolution No. indicating necessity and intent to acquire real property through eminent domain. BACKGROUND: Oft December 9, 1985, the City Council approved Resolution No. 85-105 authorizing staff to negotiate for the purchase of real property at 411-415 30th Street for public purposes relating to vehicle parking. Appraisals of the property were made and property owners were contacted. SUMMARY: The following summarizes the facts regarding each property: Address: 411-13 30th Street Size: 60' X 93' Use: Vacant with approved plans for residential -commercial condominium. Owner: Richard L. Lawrence is the last owner of record, (i.e., there is no recorded grant deed in favor of anyone else.) However, Mr. Lawrence confirmed verbally that his interest has been contracted to TXOMIN N.V. who is now in escrow to sell the property to the Gilsand Company. Appraised Value: $320,000 Response by Owner: Lawrence indicated his disinterest verbally. TXOMIN and Gilsand are adamantly opposed as indicated in the attached correspondence. Z? �M THE GILSAND COMPANY A DULL SERVICE MORT(;A(;E HANKER December 18, 1985 Kenneth J. Delino CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: 411-413 30th Street, Newport Beach, CA Dear Mr. Delino: I am in receipt of your letter dated December 12, 1985. I find this letter incredible in that the City of Newport Beach is fully aware of our plans to start construction of our corporate headquarters on the subject lots withinthe next few weeks. We have an open escrow scheduled to close momen- tarily. The City Council has heard and approved our application. The timing of the City's Resolution No. 85--105 hardly appears to be coincidental. Knowing all along our intentions to build our corporate headquarters, the City has permitted us to expense thousands of dollars while all the time realizing their intentions to force acquisition .of these lots. We will resist with all legal remedies available to us. Sincerely, THE G. D COMPANY Joh At. Gilchrist PreAid nt JAd•d cc: Ben. Jackson. Brion Jeannette 410 ,31 sr STREET, CA]�NERY V1LLA(.:E, NE'WPORT BEAC K C:A 92663 (714) 675-4961 31 0 0 Mr. Kenneth J. Delino Executive Assistant CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3.300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 SUBJECT PROPERTY: ADDRESS: ASSESSORS PARCEL NO: TRACT: Dear Mr. Delino, TXOMIN N.V. P.O. Box 237 Balboa Island, Ca. 92662 714-675-5792 December 20, 1985 �;-'- S.� DEC 24 1985 r r'rr .yens A�r.y. ill 411/413 30th St., Newport Beach 47-042--14 Lots 6 & 7 in Block 331 of Lancaster's Addition to Newport Beach. I am in receipt of the following information from you which included: 1. Copy of letter to Richard L. Lawrence indicating your interest in negotiating with him for the above referenced piece of property. 2. Copy of resolution No. 85-105. 3. Copy of appraisal report dated 12/6/85 (value as of 10/31/85). As you may now be fully aware, the owners of this property as listed on public record in Orange County and the City of Newport Beach are "Txomin N.V.". Txomin N.V. has still not been notified officially of your intent to negotiate with us regarding purchase of this property, nor have we ever reveived any notices as to your intentions for development of this property. The copies you have sent to me are directed to Richard L. Lawrence and not to Txomin N.V.. 3Z 0 - 2 - As you are also aware, this property has been in open escrow with "The Gilsand Company" and was scheduled to close shortly. Your actions have considerably delayed this important closing, and created untold problems, and many thousands of dollars in excess costs to both The Gilsand Company and Txomin N.V.. It is unbelievably inconceivable to us that you can introduce a resolution to the City Council and have it passed without the owners of the property being made aware of your intentions, and that you can study and research this property for your own use for 18 months without notifying the owners. It is also inconceivable that plans were approved through the City Council on November 25, 1085 submitted by The Gilsand Company to build their corporate headquarters on this property, when the City was fully aware of their own intentions for development of this property. It appears at this point, that the City of Newport Beach has not fully researched this action, nor the serious consequences to all parties concerned. upon official written notification by the Cite of Newport Beach of their intentions, to Txomin N.V., Txomin N.V. will take whatever appropriate and necessary action is needed to rectify this incredulous situation. cc:: The Gilsand Company Bob Wynn, City Manager Philip Mauer, Mayor Cordially, TXOM.IN N.V. S. Haire 33 y RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COONCIL OF THE CfTY OP NEW.PORT BEACH DEC LAR l NG NE•:C.ESS I TY TO CONDEMN REAI. PROPERTY WI1F.IREAS, the area of the C:r ty of Newport Beach known as +'-annery. ViIlabe is the subject of a specific area p1tin ,,tudy; WHEREAS, analysis has demonstrated that the shortage of vehicle parking space is inhibiting the. redevelopment necessary to correct general deterioration of the aging structures in the Cannery Village area; WHEREAS., the City Council Off -Street Parking Committee. has identified certain lots on 30th Street which Could best provide, convenient parking to the Cannery Village area (hereinafter the "vehicle parking. project"), MERFAS, the identified lots are described as: address: Assessor Parcel Numbers: Legal Description: (hereinafter the "Property"). 411-413 30th Street and 415 30th Street 047-042-14 047-042-15 Lots 6 and 7 and Lot S in Block 331 of Lancaster's Addition to Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California as recorded on a map in Book 5, Page 14 of Evlisc.eIIaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California, WHEREAS, the Property is either vacant or under- developed; WHEREAS; the City Council has reviewed the analysis and the recommendation of the Off -Street Parking Committee; MC WHEREAS, Government Code Section 37350.5 authorizes the City to acquire the Property by eminent domain. WHEREAS, after notice to the Property owners, the C'it.y Council held a public hearing on January 13, 1996 to hear protests and take testimony regarding the vehicle parking project and the condemnation of the Property; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows - Section l: The public interest and necessity require. the development of a vehicle parking project on the Property. Section 2. The vehicle parking project is planned in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good .and the least private injury. Section 3 The Property is necessary for the completion of the proposed vehicle parking project. Section 4: That the City Council of the City of Newport Beach declares the necessity to condemn the Property and its intent to acquire the Property through eminent domain. ADOPTED this day of , 1985.. Ma yo r ATTEST: ty Clerk =2- 35-- 17� • Txomin N.V. P.O. Box 237 Balboa Island, Ca. 92662 January 9, 1985 City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Attn: City Clerk This letter is written to you regarding the item which is scheduled to appear at your City Council meeting on January 13, 1986..Item #J-1 under new business. I have not seen how it is presented or written, so I am sorry I cannot refer to it by name other than it does concern property owned by Txomin N.V. in Cannery Village. This item is being brought to the City Council for hearing on this date, and the only notification we have received is by telephone from Ken Delino. Please be aware that the owner and principal of this company is out of the country, .and is at sea until sometime during the week of January 20, 1985. He is completely unaware of the events leading to this hearing as he has been gone since the first part of December 1985. I would respectfully request that this hearing be rescheduled until January 27, 1986 or a later date, so that he may be made aware of what is happening. This property, as you are aware, is currently in escrow and the escrow was scheduled to close the last week of December of 1985. The recent actions taken by the City of Newport Beach have caused this escrow to be delayed and have created. numerous other problems for Txomin N.V. 36 - 2 - I feel it is only right that the owner of the company should be able to represent himself at this hearing or designate someone to do it for him. I am his real estate agent, and the manager of his properties, but I do not have the right to represent his company in such a serious matter with the City of Newport Beach. Nor do I have the authority or the right to hire legal counsel for him.to assit in representing him for this hearing. Please advise me at your earliest convenience as to when this can be rescheduled. Thankyou. ordially, Sharon C. Haire 675-5792 631-0812 cc: Bob Wynn, City Manager Ken Delino, Asst. City Manager The Gilsand Company Phil Mauer, Mayor SCH/s 37 "RE OL PRINTED-JI 7 L 4-o 6,o L -A- V f (JA N 1 -31986) S a s c C: Mr.& Mrs. Tom Keefer 2)2 Maqnclia Cc-sta Mesa, CA .92627 965: AGENDA ~" NO - ' SAND COMPANYelly A FULL SERVICE MORTGAGE BANKER g EWPOR, MAR 619$6 BY THE CiT� COUNCIL RECEIVED C CITY March 6, 1986 MAR 24 1986 Re. Cannery Village Lots 411/413 30th St. Pending resolution 85-105 City Council Philip Maurer,: Mayor Members of the. City Council Members of the Planning Ccnmi.ssion CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach,: Ca. 92663 Dear Mr. Maurer, Members of the City Council and Nimbers of the Planning Commission, This letter is written to indicate to the City Council and the Planning Cangission of Newport Beach, our most evident continued interest in camtpleting our project on the above mentioned lots in Cannery Village. The delays have put this project in.a great deal of jeopardy and we have spent an inordinate amount of time and money making sure that we have obtained the proper approvals from the Planning C aniission as well as final approvals fran the City Council and the Coastal Commission. At this time, all approvals have been obtained and we are ready to proceed with our project at the earliest possible anent. As you are aware, this will provide Cannery Village with a much Date needed project that will be more than beneficial to the area ,o � SWT&: by providing the new construction of a beautiful new building y0t which the area sorely needs and has been looking and waiting for:; WU ci"M e� Fntofney ❑ Bldg. Dir. ❑ ++Sery Dir. El I, � R Dir. nnih 01r. ElP011 e Clef 13 Pail+. Dir Other.,16. 410 31st STREET, CANNERY VILLAGE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (714) 675.4961 MAILING ADDRESS POST OFFICE BOX 7970, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 - 2 - We do request that the City Council reschedule the hearing on the use of these lots as soon as possible, and not wait until the presently scheduled meeting of April 28, 1986 to make this decision. The length of time this was recently continued was almost 60 days, and T believe there was soar misunderstanding as to the length of time discussed between my attorney, Mr. Ben Jackson, and Bob Burnham. We did ask for a delay, but not for this great length of time. We are more than confident that the highest and best use for this piece of property is to }wild this project and to find other more suitable locations for the areas parking needs. Sincerely, COMPANY r J A. Gilchrist P s dent JAG/s cc: Ben Jackson Brian Jeannette Tx=in N.V. THE GILSAND COMPANY A FULL SERVICE MORTGAGE BANKER 410 31 st STREET, CANNERY V1LIAGE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (714) 675.4961 3 a sr- 8(n C. BEN NETT JACKSON.JR.- JOHN R. SUCKLING OF COUNSEL SCOTT S. POLLARD MICHAEL T. MITCHEi-L 'A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JACKSON & SUCKLING ATTO.RNEVS AT LAW AN ASSOCIATION INCLUOING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE: ONE CIVIC PLAZA SUITE 250 NEWPORT BEACH, CALIPQRNIA 92660 M4) 6.40-6300 March 21, 1986 PICKFAIR BU.IL61NG, SUITE .102 LA GRANAOA STREET POST OFFICE BOx 2001. RANCHO SANTA FE, CALIFORNIA 92067 (619) 756-.29OS REPLY TO: N S nICE[ Y":1 g C1 y A 77"-1 �. I Mr. Robert Burnham q is Newport Beach City Attorney OlTY nF 3300 Newport Boulevard a�_ Newport. Beach, California 92663 c C,41F .\ f n � r .T � .. f. RE: Eminent Domain Proceedings re 411-413 30th Street, Newport Beach,, California/The Gilsand Company Dear Mr. Burnham: Approximately two weeks ago, you called to advise me that Mr. John A. Gilchrist, President of The Gilsand Company, had written a letter to Mayor Maurer asking that the City Council decision on the condemnation of the property at 411-413 30th Street, Newport Beach, California, be delayed no longer.; and complained that such a request by The Gilsand Company was contrary to an agreement which you and I, on behalf of The' Gilsand'Company, had reached concerning an acceptable period for The Gilsand Company to delay in pursuing any action to construct the building which had already been approved by the City of Newport Beach on the property. At that time, I had not seen Mr. Gilchrist's letter; but since have received a copy of it. First, let me state 'my understanding of what 1.1ndicated would be an acceptable delay to The Gilsand Co.mpany,'and the context in which that statement was made. During January of 1986, it became clear that The Gilsand Company was dissatisfied with the treatment they had received in connection with the approval of their application for the construction of a building on the property, and the immediately following notice that the City of Newport Beach intended to commence condemnation proceedings of the same property. The concerns of both The Gilsand Company, the City of Newport Beach and other interested parties were presented at the hearings before the City of Newport Beach City Council during January and early February, 1986. Further, in early February, 1986, you and I had some discussions of the needs and desires of our respective clients; which discussions were put in abeyance following our telephone conversation in which you advised me that the City of Newport Beach was serious- ly considering at least one other alternate location for a park- ing structure instead of the 30th Street properties, and were having "serious" discussions with another property owner an that E Burnham/City of Newport Beach. March 21,.1986 Page 2 respect. You asked if The Gilsand Company would be willing to wait up to 60 days for that process to be completed and the City Council to make a final deliberation on the condemnation issue. After discussions with Mr. Gilchrist, I advised you that that 'would be acceptable. Therefore, we expected that within 60 days, you would have completed your search for alternate loca- tions, reported to the City Council, and the City Council'would be ready to make a decision as to the disposition of the issue of condemnation of the 411-413 30th Street property.. Following your receipt of Mr. Gilchrist's letter of March 6, 1986, and during our then next conversation, you indicated that you felt that Mr. Gilchrist's requests were contrary to our agreement, and also, you advised me that the.matter would come before the City Council on its meeting at April 14, 1986. How- ever, at that time the City Council had continued the hearing until April 28, 1986. Since the City Council had continued the consideration of the condemnation question to its April. 28, 1986, meeting, it was then clear that no action would be taken for well past the 60-day period. Mr. Gilchrist has set forth in his letter of March 6, 1986, the reasons for his concern: the delays have placed the final acquisition and improvement of the property in 3eopardy, The Gilsand Company has expended a sub- stantial amount of money in planning and approvals for the improvement of the property, and each day's delay results in additional expense. In any event, I find nothing in Mr. Gilchrist's letter which is contrary to or not in keeping with my statement to you that The Gilsand Company was willing to wait an additional 60 days for the City Council to conclude its deliberations and make a final decision on the condemnation proceeding, considering that the hearing had already been continued past the 60-day period. From our perspective, we would like to go forward with acquiring and improving the property; but more important, we need a decision from the City Council. , rtrully y,6urs, C! BBNN]ITT JACKSON, JR. CBJ/bt ("2 Council Agenda Item No. J-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER January 13, 1986 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM Executive Assistant SUBJECT: CANNERY VILLAGE LOTS BY THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF I4EWPORT REACH JAN 13 1980- r �.� •lL; a si4�l�i .-. ACTION: If desired, adopt Resolution No. indicating necessity and intent to acquire real property through eminent domain. BACKGROUND: On December 9, 1985, the City Council approved Resolution No. 85-105 authorizing staff to negotiate for the purchase of real property at 411-415 30th Street for public purposes relating to vehicle parking. Appraisals of the property were made and property owners were contacted. SUMMITRY: The following summarizes the facts regarding each property: Address: 411-13 30th Street Size: 60' X 93' Use: Vacant with approved plans for residential -commercial condominium. Owner: Richard L. Lawrence is the last owner of record, (i.e., there is no recorded grant deed in favor of anyone else.) However, Mr. Lawrence confirmed verbally that his interest has been contracted to TXOMIN N.V. who is now in escrow to sell the property to the. Gilsand Company. Appraised Value: $320,000 Response by Owner: Lawrence indicated his disinterest verbally. TXOMIN and Gilsand are adamantly opposed as indicated in the attached correspondence. • TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL - Page 2 Address: 415 30th Street Size: 30' X 93' Owner: Thomas E. Keefer and Sally M. Hickey are the recorded owners. Keefer in- dicates he controls the property. Appraised Value: $178,000 Response by Owner: Keefer indicated verbally that he is not opposed to selling but believes a higher price is justified. He cited the Tax Collector's assessed value of $216,648. He indicated he would follow-up in writing but this has not yet been received as of this writing. The attached resolution sets forth the reasons why it is necessary to condemn this property. Approval of this resolution would commit the City, for all practical purposes; to an expenditure of at least $498,000.00. KJD:ets Attachments KENNETH DELINO w THE: ILSAND COMPANY A FULL SERVICE MORTGAGE BANKER December 18, 1.985 Kenneth J. Delino CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 RE: 411-413 30th Street, Newport Beach, CA Dear Mr. Delino: 9$ , r� � ,� "t.4. I am in receipt of your letter dated December 12, 1985. I find this letter incredible in that the City of Newport Beach is fully aware of our plans to start construction of our corporate headquarters on the subject lots within the next few weeks. We have an open escrow scheduled to close momen- tarily. The City Council has heard and approved our application. The timing of the City's Resolution No. 85-105 hardly appears to be coincidental. Knowing all along our intentions to build our corporate headquarters, the City has permitted us to expense thousands of dollars while all the time realizing their intentions to force acquisition of these lots. We will resist with all legal remedies available to us. Sincerely, THE GALS D COMPANY John/A. Gilchrist Pre id nt cc: Ben. Jackson Brion Jeannette 410 31 st STREET, CANNERY VILLAGE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 (714) 675.4961 0 Mr. Kenneth J. Delino Executive Assistant CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 SUBJECT PROPERTY: ADDRESS: ASSESSORS PARCEL NO: TRACT: Dear Mr. Delino, TXOMIN N.V. P.O. Box 237 Balboa Island, Ca. 92662 714-675-5792 December 20, 1985 DEc 2 41985 411/413 30th St., Newport Beach 47-042-14 Lots 6 & 7 in Block 331 of Lancaster's Addition to Newport Beach. I am in receipt of the following information from you which included: 1. Copy of letter to Richard L. Lawrence indicating your interest in negotiating with him for the above referenced piece of property. 2. Copy of resolution No. 85-105. 3. Copy of appraisal report dated 12/6/85 (value as of 10/31/85) . As you may now be fully aware, the owners of this property as listed on public record in Orange County and the City of Newport Beach are "Txomin N.V.". Txomin N.V. has still not been notified officially of your intent to negotiate with us regarding purchase of this property, nor have we ever reveived any notices as to your intentions for development of this property. The copies you have sent to me are directed to Richard L. Lawrence and not to Txomin N.V.. LI �m As you are also aware, this property has been in open escrow with "The Gil.sand Company" and was scheduled to Close shortly. Your actions have considerably delayed this important closing, and created untold problems, and many thousands of dollars in excess costs to both The Gilsand Company and Txomin N.V.. It is unbelievably inconceivable to us that you can introduce a resolution to the City Council and have it passed without the owners of the property being made aware of your intentions, and that you can study and research this. property for your own use for 18 months without notifying the owners. It is also inconceivable that plans were approved through the City Council on November 25, 1985 submitted by The Gilsand Company to build their corporate headquarters on this property, when the City was full aware of their own intentions for development of this property. It appears at this point, that the City of Newport Beach has not fully researched this action., nor the serious consequences to all parties concerned. Upon official written notification by the City of Newport Beach of their intentions, to Txomin N.V., Txomin N.V. will.take whatever appropriate and necessary action is needed to rectify this incredulous situation. cc: The Gilsand Company Bob Wynn, City Manager Philip Mauer, 'Mayor -dially� TXOM.IN. N . V . S. Haire S COUNCIL AGENDA NO. J-4 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER BY THE CiT7 COUNCIL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH December 9, 1985 DEC 910185 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: ACQUISITION OF LOTS IN CANNERY VILLAGE Since October of 1983 the Off -Street Parking Committee has been meeting and reviewing a number of items, one of which is a parking structure in Cannery Village. it was represented to the Committee, and subsequently to the City Council, that three lots belonging to the Assistance League may be made available to the City at little or no cost. At that time it was also represented that three lots adjacent to the Assistance League property were on the market for sale and could be acquired by the City. On August 27, 1984 the City Council authorized an appraisal of the three lots on the market adjacent to the Assistance League. I believe it was the understanding of the City Council that if the three lots could be acquired at market value and combined with the three lots belonging to the Assistance League,.and to be ac- quired by the City at little or no cost, that a parking structure would then be feasible. Each of the lots are 30' x 93'. The three lots would, therefore, be 90' x 93' and the six lots would be. 18 0' x 93'.. The appraisal conducted by virtue of the August 27th authorization and dated October 22, 1984, established a value of $498,000 for the three lots adjacent to the Assistance League. This value does not include relocation assistance to the parcel at 415 30th Street, which currently contains the. stained glass works business. There is no assessment available for the reloca- tion assistance, but it is estimated that the City could expect a cost of relocation of between $5,000 and $10,000. No contact was ever made with the owners of the property concerning the City's acqu•stion because little or no progress had been made with the: Assistance League. It is currently the belief that the Assistance League property,. if acquired, will require a full market value payment by the City. During the Council meeting of October 28th the Council authorized a resolution to be placed upon the evening agenda for formal Council review for approval or disapproval authorizing the staff to negotiate for the acquisition of the parcels adjacent Page -2- to the Assistance League. authorization. The subject resolution contains this Inasmuch as the October 22, 1984 appraisal was over a year old a new appraisal was commissioned. The value contained in the new appraisal, dated November 1985, is $499,500. An appraisal of the Assistance League property has also been authorized and, hopefully, this appraisal will be completed with- in 30 days. In summary, therefore, the staff needs direction from the City Council whether to proceed with the acquisition of the three parcels. Approval or disapproval of the subject resolution will give the desired direction. 1 ROBERT L. WYNN Attachment 5 ram_ . .Ery War S O • Y A i Ar4 ry« W 3fti3 0 RESOLUTION NO. 85-105 .A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NE)VPORT BEACH AUTHORIZING STAFF TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 411-415 30TH STREET IN CANNERY VILLAGE WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has, for the past 18 months, studied and evaluated the feasibility of locating a public parking lot or structure on property located 411-415 30th. Street in Newport Beach (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, an appraisal of the property was completed in November, 1985., on the assumption the City would be able to acquire an interest in adjacent property to permit the construction of a large lot or facility; and WHEREAS, prior to commencing negotiation for the acquisition of any property, a public entity should obtain an appraisal of the fair market value of the property to be acquired, and the City Council has authorized an update of the previously prepared appraisal to ascertain fair market value; and WHEREAS, the update appraisal values the property at $4.99,500.00; and WHEREAS, a public entity should make every reasonable effort to acquire property through negotiation prior to initiating emninent domain proceedings; and WHEREAS, proposed parking lot and parking .facility is consistent with all elements of the Newport Beach General Plan and Zoning Ordinances applicable to the property; and -1- WHEREAS, the proposed parking facility is consistent with provisions of the draft Cannery Village Specific Area Plan and this Plan should be approved in the near future. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach declares as follows; 1. The City Manager is, or his designee, is authorized to enter into negotiations to purchase the property located at 411-415 30th Street, Newport Beach. 2. The City Manager, or his designee, is directed to continue negotiations with the Assistance League to acquire the property or an appropriate interest therein, located at 417-421 30th Street, Newport Beach. ADOPTED this 9th day of.. - December 1985. ATTEST: - ayor 5 ely AY City Clerk -2- �J • • COUNCIL AGENDA NO. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 27, 1984 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: Off -Street Parking Committee SUBJECT ACQUISITION OF LOTS IN CANNERY VILLAGE BY THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF NEWPORT BENCH AUG 2 71984 . ,4 1 �t l 1 Since October of 1983 a Committee, consisting of Mayor Evelyn Hart, City Council Members Bill Agee and Ruthelyn Plummer, Planning Commissioners Paul Balalis, Dave Goff and James Person, with staff members James Hewicker, Rich Edmonston, Ben Nolan, Robert Burnham and Robert Wynn, have met and reviewed (a) a fair and equitable in lieu* parking fee; (b) a parking structure in Cannery Village; and (c) a parking management plan for Balboa Peninsula. While this Committee is not prepared to make recommendations on assignments (a) and (c) above, the Com- mittee is making specific recommendations concerning (b) above. Attached, you will find a map showing portions of the Cannery Village. This map shows the three lots currently be- longing to the Assistance League. Next to these lots, also shown on the attachment, are three other lots that are currently on the market. It is the belief of the Committee that the As- sistance League lots could be made available to the City, provid- ing a parking facility either surface or multi -leveled is con- structed on the lots. The Parking Committee believes that the acquisition of the three adjoining lots to those of the Assist-- ance.League could provide a greater area on which to develop an off --street parking facility. The Assistance League lots will be discussed in the following paragraph. The adjoining three lots currently under private ownership could be acquired for approxi- mately $171,666 each, for a total cost of $5.15,000. This equates to $61.53 per sq. ft., inasmuch as each lot is 30' x 93' for a combined total of 8,370 sq. ft. Two appraisers in the area familiar with the land values in the Cannery Village, have preliminarily placed land values between $60.00 to $65.00 per sq. ft. The estimated price, therefore., of $515,000 for the three lots appears to be within the range of values as stated by the two appraisers. Funds for this project could be obtained from the City's General Fund, the Off -Street Parking Fund., or a combination of the two funds. The City has accumulated since 1967 in the Off -- Street Parking Fund (as of July 1, 1983) $452,934. This is a total of all of the Parking Districts established by the City Council when the Districts were set up in 1967. These Districts are, Newport Boulevard area, Newport Business area, Balboa busi- ness area, 31st Street area, Coast Highway area., Lido Shopping Center, 9­1 �J 0 E • Page --2-- Newport.-Balboa Boulevard area, and the "A" and "B" Street park- ing lots. With respect to the Assistance League lots, a meeting was held on June 15, 1984 with representatives of the Assistance League. The topics discussed at that meeting can be summarized as follows: 1. The League has checked with its regional office and has received approval to lease the property. 2. Prior to entering into a lease the Assistance League would consult with their Attorney. 3. The Assistance League representatives were advised that the Committee was considering a number of possibilities in- cluding, but not necessarily limited to, the following: a.) City and the Assistance League would enter into a long-term lease. The City would construct a parking structure and after recovering the cost of construction, share parking revenues with the League or pay a fixed rent. b) City and the Assistance League would enter into a short-term lease with the City having an option to convert to a long-term agreement if the City were able to acquire three adjacent parcels. 4. The League representatives explained their plans to expand the size of their facility on 32nd Street. Preliminary plans call for a 6001 increase in the size of the dental clinic. Some existing parking spaces may be lost in the expansion. General- ly, they exhibited a willingness to cooperate if a parking structure is provided. The details of the Assistance League cooperation will have to be negotiated if the City Council authorizes the next step in this process. It is recommended by the Committee that staff be authorized to negotiate with the Assistance League the use of the property for possible public parking facilities, and that staff be authorized to obtain a formal appraisal on the three adjoining parcels with which to initiate negotiations for City acquisition. Even though the City has received two preliminary estimates of value, it is believed prudent and consistent with the California State law that the City obtain a formal appraisal establishing a value. In addition, the City may be obligated to pay relocation assistance to one of the lessees on the lots currently operating a stained glass business. The appraisal would be.of some assistance in determining the value of relocation assistance. • Page -3- The Committee favors the following recommendations: That the staff be authorized to negotiate with the Assistance League the use of their lots by the City for public parking purposes. �2. That an appraisal be authorized.to determine value on the three adjacent lots to the Assist- ance League with said appraisal being used to initiate negotiations for City acquisition. Attachment OFF-STREET PARKING COMMITTEE By: BILL AGEE, Chairman psi ref O h zr�o ' N ho H rY � J � zJ, _ � •O `zi 4 O ~ ,H�B2 aR75 O '• ��• O � � y a. � J uir' e 2 2jA d / 4 IR fyjry. 'ram