CROW / TOLER• A
SECOND ADVANCE AGREEMENT ON FUTURE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
ASSISTANCE.
This advance in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) is made and agreed upon
between the San Juan Capistrano Community Redevelopment Agency ("Agency "), and Phyllis
Crow and Sue Toler owners of the Moonrose ("Tenant') located at 31766 Camino Capistrano in
the City of San Juan Capistrano. This cash advance is to be considered a pre -payment of a
portion of the Settlement Agreement that will be available to the Tenants of the Moonrose upon
their vacancy of the premises. This advance in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00)
will be paid to the Tenant upon their execution of the Settlement Agreement, but no later than
12:00 p.m. on June 9, 1995.
The Settlement Agreement offered the Tenant provides a settlement figure of forty-seven
thousand dollar ($47,000) upon the Tenant's vacation of the premises by June 30, 1995.
On May 4, 1995, The Agency entered into the first Advance Agreement with the Tenant in the
amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). This Second Advance Agreement is also in the
amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The total remaining settlement figure due the
Tenant is thirty-seven thousand dollars ($37,000.00).
This advance is made in good faith on behalf of the Agency to assist the Tenant in the inventory
sale and moving costs associated with the Tenant's move from the premises.
Executed on tJ is 9th day of June, 1995.
Director
P His Cro oo se Sue Toler, Moonrose
r
0
This advance in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) is made and agreed upon
between the San Juan Capistrano Community Redevelopment Agency ("Agency "), and Phyllis
Crow and Sue Toler owners of the Moonrose ("Tenant') located at 31766 Camino Capistrano in
the City of San Juan Capistrano. This cash advance is to be considered a pre -payment of a
portion of displacement or relocation assistance that will be available to the Tenants of the
Moonrose upon their vacancy of the premises. The Agency and Tenants mutually agree that we
are in discussions regarding their displacement from the premises located at 31766 Camino
Capistrano.
This advance is made in good faith on the following terms:
The terms of the displacement or relocation will be successfully negotiated between the
Agency and the Tenants.
2. The Tenant of the Moonrose having been advised of their rights under California
Redevelopment Law will be cooperative and make every effort to vacate the premises
prior to the required 90 day notice to vacate pursuant to a relocation or displacement.
3. The Tenant will provide all necessary materials available to them to conduct a good will
analysis of Moonrose business activities conducted at 31766 Camino Capistrano. This
information will include among other things, tax returns for the last five years of
operation.
4. This advance is a pre -payment of any eligible relocation or displacement assistance and
will be credited against such assistance.
Executed on this 4th d' of May, 1995.
Director
Phy is Cr Mbonrose Sue Toler, Moonrose
r
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Agreement (`Agreement") is made on June 7, 1995 by and between San Juan Capistrano
Community Redevelopment Agency, a public body corporate and politic (`Agency"), and Sue Toler
and Phyllis Crow dba Moonrose, (`Tenant"). Agency and Tenant are hereinafter sometimes referred
to collectively as the "Parties."
RECITALS
A. Tenant operates a business commonly known as Moonrose, and is the occupant of Real
property and improvements located at 31766 Camino Capistrano (the "Property").
B. After notice and a public hearing in 1985, Agency acquired the Property for public use.
Tenant is in possession of the property pursuant to a rental agreement with Agency,
commencing January 15, 1983. Agency has now determined that the Property is to be put to
a use that will require the termination of Tenant's possession of the Property, and Tenant has
been provided notice thereof as provided by law.
C. The Parties' rights and obligations with regard to the termination of Tenant's possession of
the Property are in dispute. The Parties desire to establish their respective rights and
obligations with regard to the termination of Tenant's possession of the Property by Agency
upon the terms and conditions set forth below.
NOW THEREFORE, The Parties hereto agree as follows:
(a) Agency agrees to pay to Tenant the sum of $ 47,000.
(forty-seven thousand and 00/100 dollars)
(b) Tenant agrees that the payment received, pursuant to paragraph 1(a) above,
constitutes full satisfaction of any and all Agency obligations to Tenant, including
without limitation any obligations for relocation assistance, relocation benefits,
goodwill, compensation for personal property, furniture, fixtures and equipment, or
damages of any nature.
(c) Tenant agrees that on May 4, 1995 they entered into an "Advance Agreement on
Future Relocation Assistance" with the Agency. This Agreement provided for a
$5,000 (five thousand dollar) pre -payment of a portion of the settlement costs
identified in 1(a) above.
1
2. Possession of Property
Tenant shall be entitled to remain in possession of the Property, pursuant to the terms of the
existing rental agreement until June 30, 1995, (the "Vacation Date").
UNNEWWWOi • •i-•
Tenant represents and warrants to Agency that as of the Vacation Date, Tenant shall have
completely vacated the Property and returned possession of the Property to Agency.
(a) As of the Vacation Day, Tenant shall have removed all its removable personal
property, trade fixtures, furniture and equipment from the Property except for those
items described in Exhibit "A' attached, if any.
(b) Upon the Vacation Date, Tenant hereby transfers all right, title and interest in the
Property, the Lease and the fixtures and equipment described in EXHIBIT "A," if
any, to Agency, and warrants all to be free and clear from any liens or encumbrances.
(a) Tenant for itself, its agents, assigns and related entities, fully releases, acquits and
discharges Agency, and the officers, directors, employees, attorneys, accountants,
other professionals, insurers and agents of Agency (collectively "Agents") and all
entities related to Agency, from all rights, claims, demands, actions or causes of action
which Tenant now has or may have against Agency arising from the acquisition of the
Property, the Lease, or otherwise, including, but not limited to, any claim to
relocation assistance, relocation benefits or compensation for property or goodwill
from the Agency.
(b) This release is intended as a full and complete release and discharge of any and all
such claims that Tenant may or might have against Agency and its related entities
arising from the facts and circumstances described above in this Agreement. In
making this release, Tenant intends to release Agency, its related entities and agents
from any liability of any nature whatsoever for any claim or injury or for damages or
equitable or declaratory relief of any kind, whether the claim, or any facts on which
such claim might be based, is known or unknown to the party possessing the claim.
Tenant expressly waives all rights under Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State
of California, which Tenant understands provides as follows:
A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor
does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of
executing the release, which if known by him must have
materially affected his settlement with the debtor.
2
(c) Tenant acknowledges that it may hereafter discover facts or law different from or in
addition to those which it now believes to be true with respect to the release of
claims. Tenant agrees that the foregoing release shall be and remain effective in all
respects notwithstanding such different or additional facts or law or any part's
discovery thereof. Tenant shall not be entitled to any relief in connection therewith,
including, but not limited to, any damages or any right or claim to set aside or rescind
this Agreement.
(d) No party nor any Agents nor any related entities have made any statement or
representation to any other party regarding any fact relied upon in entering into this
Agreement, and each party expressly states it does not rely upon any statement,
representation or promise of any other party or any party's Agent or related entities
in executing this Agreement, except as is expressly stated in this Agreement. Each
party to this Agreement has made such investigation of the facts and law pertaining
to this Agreement, and of all other matters pertaining thereto, as it deems necessary,
and has consulted with legal counsel concerning these matters.
In the event of litigation relating to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
Tenant shall indemnify, defend and hold Agency harmless from and against any claims,
demands, liabilities, losses, judgements, expenses and attorneys' fees resulting from the breach
by Tenant of any provision of this Agreement or the falsity of any representation or warranty
made by Tenant contained in this Agreement.
This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties hereto, and supersedes any prior
written or oral agreements between them concerning the subject matter contained herein.
In the event that any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement shall be held
by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or against public policy, the remaining
provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
• .,
The provisions of this Agreement may be waived, altered, amended or repealed, in whole or
in part, only upon the written consent of all parties to this Agreement. The wavier by one
party of the performance of provision of this Agreement shall not invalidate this Agreement,
nor shall it be considered as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or other
provisions of this Agreement.
The headings, subheadings and numbering of the different paragraphs of this Agreement are
inserted for convenience only and shall not be considered for any purpose in construing this
Agreement.
MEMEL - I 1' '
The rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall be construed and enforced in accordance
with, and governed by, the laws of the State of California.
12. Successors In Interest
Subject to any restrictions against assignment contained herein, and to any legal limitations
on the power of the signatories to bind non -signatories to this Agreement, this Agreement
shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, the assigns, successors in interest,
personal representatives, executors, estate, heirs, legatees, Agents and related entities of each
of the parties hereto.
,•
Each party to this Agreement agrees to perform any further acts and execute and deliver any
further documents that may be reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions of this
Agreement.
-• ..
Each party hereto, by its due execution of this Agreement, represents to every other party that
it has reviewed each term of this Agreement with its counsel and that hereafter no party shall
deny the validity of this Agreement on the ground that the party did not have advice of
counsel. Each parry has had the opportunity to receive independent legal advice with respect
to the advisability of making this Agreement and with respect to the meaning of California
Civil Code Section 1542.
11
0 0
15. Parties Have Not Transferred Right Or Claims
The Parties hereto each represent and warrant to the other party that they have not assigned,
transferred or subleased to any third party any of the rights, claims, causes of action or items
to be released or transferred which they are obligated to transfer of to release as part of this
Agreement.
Each entity executing this Agreement represents that it is authorized to execute this
Agreement. Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of an entity, other than an
individual executing this Agreement on his or her own behalf, represents that he or she is
authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said entity.
Each party has cooperated in the drafting and preparation of this Agreement. In any
construction to be made of this Agreement, or of any of its terms and provisions, the same
shall not be construed against any party.
All notices, requests, demands and other communications required or permitted to be given
under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall either be delivered in writing personally or
be sent by telegram or by regular or certified first class mail, postage prepaid, deposited in the
United States mail, and properly addressed to the party at its address set forth below, or at
any other address that such party may designate by written notice to the other party:
To Agency:
City of San Juan Capistrano
Community Redevelopment Agency - George Scarborough
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
With copy to:
City of San Juan Capistrano
City Attorney's Office - Richard Denhalter
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
0
To Tenant:
Phyllis Crow & Sue Toler
Moonrose
31766 Camino Capistrano
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
0
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original,
and, when taken together with other signed counterparts, shall constitute one Agreement,
which shall be binding upon and effective as to all Parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement has executed this Agreement as of the date
first written above.
Approved as to form and content: AGENCY
By: A By
A ency Counsel G =-2 _ 95
Its:
Date: J"(,ve /* /9�J
TENANT:
Y ( i,
By:
Date:—6, —e �— 5
CITY OF SAN )CA% CAPISTRANO
San Juan Capistrano
Community
Redevelopment
Agency
June 23,1995
Ms. Phyllis Crow
Ms. Sue Toler
0
Moonrose
31766 Camino Capistrano
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
Re: Ratification of Settlement Agreement
Dear Ms. Crow and Ms. Toler:
0
At their meeting of June 20,1995, the San Juan Capistrano Community Redevelopment
Agency Board of Directors ratified their June 14th action in approving Settlement
Agreements with both Moonrose and San Juan Capistrano Antiques. A signed copy of the
Settlement Agreement was forwarded to you by letter dated June 15, 1995.
Please contact Cassandra Walker at 443-6320 if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Chen
ry
Agency Secretary
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano
California 92675
714 - 493-1171
5. RATIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS -MOON OSF AND SAN
JUAN CAPISTRANO ANTIQUES (3 1766 7
600
As set forth in the report dated June 20, 1995, from the Community Development
Administrator, the Settlement Agreements dated June 7, 1995, with Moonrose, in the amount
of $47,000, and with San Juan Capistrano Antiques, in the amount of $40,000, were ratified.
The Agreements constitute full satisfaction of any and all Agency obligations to the tenants,
including without limitation, any obligations for relocation assistance, relocation benefits,
goodwill, compensation for personal property, furniture, fixtures and equipment, or damages
of any nature. The tenants were entitled to remain in possession of the properties until
June 30, 1995.
Written Communication:
(1) Report dated June 20, 1995, from the Deputy Director of the Community
Redevelopment Agency, recommending that staff be directed to initiate a First -Time
Homebuyers Program and Rental Securement/Subsidy Assistance Program by
soliciting Requests for Proposal to privatize the Programs. The Programs will be
funded by Community Redevelopment Agency set-aside monies. The Report advised
that the recommendation to privatize the Programs had been made because the City
did not have sufficient staff expertise or time to implement the Programs. The item
had been continued from June 6, 1995, to allow the Mary Erickson Foundation
representatives time to present additional information for possible inclusion in the
Request for Proposal process.
(2) Memorandum dated June 15, 1995, from the Planning Director, forwarding issues
addressed by the Mary Erickson Foundation during two meetings held with staff, and
the staff response to those issues.
Mechelle Lawrence, Associate Planner, made an oral presentation, noting that staff
recommended that all of the Mary Erickson Foundation comments be included for
consideration by prospective consultants in the Request for Proposal responses. Mr.
Tomlinson advised that staff had not agreed with the Mary Erickson Foundation's
recommendation regarding the use of funding for purchase of units. That issue had been
included for consideration by the consultant and would be decided by the Board at a later
time.
CRA Minutes -3- 6/20/95
9
•
AGENDA ITEM June 20, 1995
TO: George Scarborough, Executive Director
FROM: Cassandra Walker, Community Development Administrator
SUBJECT: Ratification of Settlement Agreements for Moonrose and San Juan Antiques located
at 31766 and 31768 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano
By motion, ratify the Settlement Agreements with Moonrose and San Juan Antiques.
umm and Reco mends ion - On May 17, 1995, the Moonrose and San Juan Antiques tenants
were served a "Ninety Day Notice to Vacate" pursuant to Government Code Section 7267.3. The
Agency Board directed Staff to proceed with the relocation process and reach appropriate Settlement
Agreements with these tenants. Over the last few weeks, Staff has negotiated Settlement
Agreements with these tenants facilitating their vacation of the building at 31766 and 317868 Camino
Capistrano by June 30, 1995. The Agency approved the terms of the Settlement Agreements in
closed session on June 6, 1995.
Staff recommends that the Agency Board of Directors ratify the Settlement Agreements with the
Moonrose and San Juan Antiques to confirm their review of the executed agreements.
To facilitate the relocation and Settlement Agreements, two consultants were retained, Pacific
Relocation Consultants and Desmond, Marcello & Amster, to assist Staff with the transaction. The
total expenses associated with the consultant costs and Settlement Agreements are approximately
$95,000. These funds will come from the proceeds of the sale of the EI Peon Complex.
A copy of this item was sent to Phyllis Crow and Sue Toler of the Moonrose, and David and Dixie
Boehm of San Juan Antiques,
FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENT
CVA
es
t
Agenda Item -2- June 20, 1995
RECOMMENDATION:
By Motion, Ratify the Settlement Agreements with the Moonrose and San Juan Antiques.
Respectfully submitted,
C A,
Cassandra L. Walker
Community Development Administrator
rrr r r sn. - srn,un
i
i
£'
rr or sna iu. cneu*cneo�
San Juan Capistrano
Community
Redevelopment
Agency
June 8, 1995
Ms. Phyllis Crow
Moonrose
31766 Camino Capistrano
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
40
Re: Disoosition of Moonrose/San Juan Antiaues Buildina
Dear Ms. Crow:
At their meeting of June 6,1995, the San Juan Capistrano Community Redevelopment
Agency Board of Directors considered several options relating the future of the building
located at 31766 and 31768 Camino Capistrano. The Board selected the option that
would demolish the building, create a pedestrian activity area, relocate the current tenants,
and retain public parking.
Please contact Cassandra Walker at 443-6320 if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Cheryl Johnso
9
Agency Secretary
cc: Cassandra Walker
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano
California 92675
714-493-t 171
a i51a 1�fJ� •
FF i
eIIII .1 IAI 1111
San Juan Capistrano
Community
Redevelopment
Agency
June 8,1995
Ms. Phyllis Crow
Moonrose
31766 Camino Capistrano
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
Re: Disposition of Moonrose/San Juan Antiques Building
Dear Ms. Crow:
At their meeting of June 6,1995, the San Juan Capistrano Community Redevelopment
Agency Board of Directors considered several options relating the future of the building
located at 31766 and 31768 Camino Capistrano. The Board selected the option that
would demolish the building, create a pedestrian activity area, relocate the current tenants,
and retain public parking.
Please contact Cassandra Walker at 443-6320 if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Cheryl Johnso
9
Agency Secretary
cc: Cassandra Walker
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano
California 92675
714 - 493-1171
San Juan Capistrano
Community
Redevelopment
Agency
June 8,1995
0
Mr. and Mrs. Dave Boehm
San Juan Antiques
31768 Camino Capistrano
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
•
Re: Disoosition of Moonrose/San Juan Antiques Building
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Boehm:
At their meeting of June 6,1995, the San Juan Capistrano Community Redevelopment
Agency Board of Directors considered several options relating the future of the building
located at 31766 and 31768 Camino Capistrano. The Board selected the option that
would demolish the building, create a pedestrian activity area, relocate the current tenants,
and retain public parking.
Please contact Cassandra Walker at 443-6320 if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
Cheryl Johnson
Agency Secretary
cc: Cassandra Walker
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano
California 92675
714 - 493- I l71
San Juan Capistrano
Community
Redevelopment
Agency
June 8, 1995
Mr. Steve Nordeck
Mission Promenade
P. O. Box 440
Trabuco Canyon, California 92678
Re: Disposition of Moonrose/San Juan Antiques Building
Dear Mr. Nordeck:
At their meeting of June 6,1995, the San Juan Capistrano Community Redevelopment
Agency Board of Directors considered several options relating the future of the building
located at 31766 and 31768 Camino Capistrano. The Board selected the option that
would demolish the building, create a pedestrian activity area, relocate the current tenants,
and retain public parking.
Please contact Cassandra Walker at 443-6320 if you have any questions.
Very} truly yours,
Cheryl Johnson
Agency Secretary
cc: Cassandra Walker
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano
California 92675
714 - 493-1171
at fair market value, with the exception of low- and moderate -income properties and facilities
for non-profit entities.
Ms. Pendleton recommended that minor modifications be made to the proposed Policy with
regard to Residential Section A(1) and Exhibit 1.
Adoption of Council Policy No. 12:
It was moved by Director Hart, seconded by Director Jones, and unanimously carried that
Council Policy No. 12, Administration of City and Agency Lease Agreements, be adopted
with the following modifications suggested by staff:
Residential Section A(1): The phrase, "no later than the last day of the
month," was deleted.
Exhibit 1: The second sentence of the first paragraph was modified to read "It is very
important that your rent be paid in full unless other arrangements can be made." The
last paragraph was deleted.
: • 'i m • ►
•.r
I 0i; ; • • ; i .iI If Eli 'k0i .: •Kole)
11vaqw6j.,41nallm�
Written Communication:
Report dated June 6, 1995, from Cassandra Walker, Community Development Administrator,
recommending that the contract with Archaeological Advisory Group be approved in the total
amount of $23,356 to complete the archaeological report for Franciscan Plaza, Phase U. The
Report noted that the current Court -Appointed Receiver agreed to pay for the completion of
the report by deducting the cost of the report from the City's lease payment associated with
the parking structure lease.
Approval of Contract with Archaeological Advisory GrmW:
It was moved by Director Nash, seconded by Director Jones, and unanimously carried that
the contract with Archaeological Advisory Group be approved in the total amount of
$23,356, for the period ending June 30, 1996, to complete the archaeological report for
Franciscan Plaza, Phase 11.
�—� 2. DISPOSITION OF MOONROSE/SAN JUAN ANTIQUE BUTT DING - 31766-
31768 CAMINO CAPISTRB,ND (400.201
Written Co m ica ion: T
Report dated June 6, 1995, from Cassandra Walker, Community Development Administrator,
forwarding the following three options to consider for the disposition of the Moonrose/San
CRA Minutes -3- 6/6/95
0 0
Juan Antique building located at 31766-31768 Camino Capistrano: 1) demolition of the
building, 2) continued lease of the building, and 3) sale of the building.
Approval to Demolish Properties at 31766-31768 minoCapistrano:
It was moved by Director Hart, seconded by Director Jones, that Option #1 be approved to:
1) demolish the properties located at 31766-31768 Camino Capistrano; 2) continue the
public parking; and 3) relocate the existing tenants. The motion carried by a 4-1 roll call vote,
with Chairman Swerdlin voting in opposition. Chairman Swerdlin cited his preference for
selling the building in order to recover Agency funds.
XF111.1 34 !1.1 *3-1 LOIC9111 U1.1 -MI
The Board recessed to the Council meeting at 8:50 p.m. and reconvened in Closed Session at 9:50
p.m. for:
Conference with Real Property Negotiator per Government Code Section 54956.8 for
property located at the Capistrano Depot, 26701 Verdugo Street, with Cedar Creek Inn as
negotiating party, to consider price and terms of payment;
2. Conference with Real Property Negotiator per Government Code Section 54956.8 for
property located at the Old Elementary School site at the comer of El Camino Real and
Acjachema, Parcels A and B on Parcel Map 80-853, and related parcels, with Capistrano
Valley Unified School District as negotiating party, to consider price and terms of payment;
Conference with Real Property Negotiator per Government Code Section 54956.8 for
property located at 31731 Paseo Adelanto, with Solag Disposal Services as negotiating party,
to consider price and terms of payment;
4. Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation, per Government Code Section
54956.9(b), for significant exposure to litigation in three cases, and Government Code
Section 54956.9(c), the initiation of litigation in two cases;
5. Liability Claims per Government Code Section 54956.95, M&M Jewelers, et al, claimant,
against the San Juan Capistrano Community Redevelopment Agency; and
Liability Claims per Government Code Section 54956.95, San Juan Partners, claimant, against
the San Juan Capistrano Community Redevelopment Agency.
The Agency Secretary was excused therefrom, and the meeting reconvened at 11:15 p.m.
Mr. Denhalter advised there was no action to report on any of the items.
CRA Minutes -4- 6/6/95
0
AGENDA ITEM June 6, 1995
TO: George Scarborough, Executive Director
FROM: Cassandra Walker, Community Development Administrator
SUBJECT: Disposition of the Moonrose/San Juan Antiques Building at 31766 - 31768 Camino
Capistrano
By motion, approve one of the three options outlined below.
A. Summary and Recommendation - On February 21, 1995, The Agency Board of Directors
heard testimony regarding the disposition of the Moonrose/San Juan Antiques building, but deferred
action on the advise of the City Attorney. It is now appropriate for the Agency to consider the
disposition of the building.
The building was purchased in 1985 as one of the properties being acquired by the Agency for the
Historic Town Center project. Specifically, this property was purchased to facilitate the realignment
of Ortega Highway. On January 17, 1995, the City Council received the final report on the Historic
Town Center project as a result of a 21 month master planning process. The City Council selected
Alternative #2 as the recommended development master plan for the property. This alternative did
not provide for the realignment of Ortega Highway, but showed the area as a pedestrian entry into
the Historic Town Center area. City Council gave direction that if a future developer of the Historic
Town Center felt the realignment of Ortega Highway was beneficial, then the City Council would re-
consider the realignment in the context of a revised plan.
Now that a decision has been reached on the preferred master plan for the Historic Town Center, the
Agency Board of Directors can make a decision on the ultimate disposition of the Moonrose/San Juan
Antiques building. Staff recommends that the Agency Board of Directors approve one of the three
options outlined below at their discretion.
B. Bac ground - The Moonrose/San Juan Antiques building was constructed c. 1950. It is
not listed on the City's Inventory of Cultural and Historic Landmarks. The structure is a single story,
stucco building with red tile roof parapet treatment. It consists of two retail spaces in a building of
approximately 1,360 square feet on a 16,426 square foot site. The building and parking lot were
purchased by the Redevelopment Agency in 1985 for $341,043 to facilitate the realignment of the
Ortega Highway. The building is now occupied by two tenants - MooTose and San Juan Antiques.
Each of these businesses has been on a month-to-month tenancy.
n�
FOR CITY COUtiC1L AG I: �
J z
0
0
Agenda Item -2- June 6, 1995
This Agenda Item outlines the options available to the Agency for the disposition of the property.
Staff has structured three options for Agency consideration. Different costs are associated with each
of these three options. The Agency should consider not only the costs, but the ultimate benefit to the
public provided by each option.
Demolition of the building, relocation of the tenants, and creation of a pedestrian
walkway and activity area with other uses such as outdoor seating, vendor carts, etc.
and a public parking area.
2. Continue to lease the building, incorporate its design with Mission Promenade, and
create a pedestrian walkway and activity area on the remaining vacant area, and public
parking area.
3. Sell the building, requiring the new owner to incorporate its design with Mission
Promenade, and provide a public parking easement on the parking area to ensure
continued public parking.
The greatest value of the site lies in the flexibility it offers the Agency in terms of the future
development of the Historic Town Center area. By removing the building, the Agency has the
opportunity to create a pedestrian entry to the Historic Town Center area. It also has the ability to
create a pedestrian walkway or resting area and other activities, such as seasonal vending carts or
outdoor seating for nearby restaurants. Public parking would be retained.
The Demolition of the building would require the Agency to relocate the two existing tenants. The
relocation process would take approximately 90 days. This process has already been initiated because
of the impact of the adjacent construction. The costs associated with the demolition of the building
could total approximately $145,000:
1. Demolition of the Building: $15,000 (providing no hazardous material is discovered).
2. Design and improvement of pedestrian activity area: $30,000 +.
3. The physical relocation of the existing tenants ( Moonrose and San Juan Antiques) is
estimated at approximately $100,000 including consultant costs.
Currently the building generates $1,000 per month in lease income. This income would be lost.
Future income could be generated depending upon the variety of uses allowed in this area.
If the building were to be retained, the Agency would continue to receive approximately $1,000 in
rent. This rent would be increased to a fair market level between $1.25 and $1.75 per square foot.
A rent of $1.50 per square foot, because of the age and amenities of the building, would generate
u
Agenda Item
1911
•
$2,040 in rental income each month or $24,480 on an annual basis.
June 6, 1995
Staff suggests that the building be upgraded in terms of signage, lighting, painting and general facade
work to be consistent with the adjacent Mission Promenade development. The incorporation of the
pedestrian arcade along the Southside of the Mission Promenade should be considered as part of the
improvements for this building. The costs for upgrading the building have not been estimated, but
may approximate $100,000.
The area adjacent to the southside of the Moonrose/San Juan Antiques building should be improved
as discussed under Option #1 as a pedestrian walkway and activity area. The cost estimate for
improving this area is $30,000. Under this option, the Agency retains the ability to dispose of the
building at some time in the future and maintain the public parking.
Additionally, it should be noted that the tenants have been served with a 90 day notice to vacate. If
this option is selected by the Agency, the recommended improvements should be completed
concurrently with the adjacent project.
On November 3, 1994, the Agency received a letter offer to purchase the building from The Boehms
who currently lease the San Juan Antiques space. Their offer consisted of $150,000 for the building
and agreement to upgrade the exterior of the building in keeping with the design of the Mission
Promenade. For purposes of estimating this option, the Boehms offer of $150,00 is being used.
However, Staff believes that the property is worth substantially more than this based on recent sales
in the area.
The building encompasses 1,360 square feet of a 16,426 square foot lot. If the Agency decides to
sell the property, a public parking easement over the rear portion of the parcel currently occupied
by public parking should be obtained. The Agency should also place certain requirements for physical
improvements to the exterior of the building, incorporation of the Mission Promenade arcade, and
development of a pedestrian walkway.
C. Summary of Options - Staff has outlined three options associated with the disposition of the
Moonrose/San Juan Antiques building. Under each of the options, the Agency would bear some cost
and/or lose some revenue opportunity. Staff recommends that the Agency Board of Directors
consider both the financial and long-term public benefits associated with each option.
Option #1
Estimated cost to demolish the building (if no hazardous materials) $ 15,000
Estimated cost to relocate tenants $100,000
Estimated cost to create a pedestrian area $ 30,000
$145,000
ID
DAVID STROUD
ATTORNEY AT LAW
400 WEST TENTH STREET, SUITE 203
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701
M4) 833-7066
March 16, 1995
San Juan Capistrano City Council
San Juan Capistrano Planning Commission
San Juan Capistrano, California
Ll
Re: San Juan Capistrano Antiques and Historic Town Center Project
Gentlemen:
Please be advised this office represents the interests of David and Dixie Boehm, owners of the
above -referenced San Juan Capistrano Antiques with respect to recent
activities of various agencies of the City of San Juan Capistrano and the purchasers of the El
Peon Block Building commonly known as 26822-26842 Ortega Highway, San Juan Capistrano,
California.
It is with some degree of alarm and indignation that the undersigned is forced to inform the City
Council and Planning Commission that my clients (and apparently the citizens of San Juan
Capistrano) are being victimized by an organized and concerted effort to ensure that the building
now occupied by my clients' antique business will be uninhabitable and therefor of no value to
the City and its taxpayers.
This letter reiterates my clients' offer to purchase the building where Moonrose and San Juan
Antiques are presently located for the sum of $150,000.00. We trust that if this offer is not
satisfactory that the City allow said property to be offered for sale to the highest bidder. We
understand that there may be certain conditions imposed on the purchaser of the building by the
City, and my clients stand ready to negotiate openly and in good faith regarding the concerns of
the City as seller of this building.
This office is currently researching the apparently "secret" conditions under which the
negotiations took place between the City of San Juan Capistrano and the San Juan Partners
which purchased the above referenced El Peon Block. It appears that since the San Juan Partners
purchased this building at well below market price by any estimation, either the City, or the San
Juan Partners, or both, have caused all of the following to disrupt and interfere with my clients'
use and enjoyment of their property:
1. erected a fence completely around the area where San Juan Antiques is located
without a permit and without regard for the few businesses remaining in town;
2. caused a permit for the above mentioned fence without a hearing for those adversely
affected;
3. cut off all parking in front of my clients' store without a permit,
31�a/�c�s 4. restored one parking place in front of my clients' store after complaints from my
XX 5L 6—
I -S✓
c. m, V�
(2. fa i T V MAR 2 21995
0A SSAK)9p6
ID 0
clients (again without a permit or a hearing for those adversely affected),
5. taken control of the water pressure flowing into my clients' business without notice
and again, without a permit (resulting in the water being shut off at my clients' business for
anywhere from 4 to 6 hours per day;
6. convinced the City that the building where my clients' business is located must be
torn down in order to allow them to complete their retrofit of seismic additions again, without
notice or a hearing for those adversely affected,
Please be advised that all of the above has severely damaged my clients' business. If my clients
are forced out of their building they will be unable to reopen in any comparably priced location
and will lose their entire business. While we understand that the City is burdened with the task
of making crucial decisions for the overall betterment of the Historic Town Center which could
potentially damage a few for the benefit of all, we hardly agree with or understand the City's
lenient attitude in allowing items 1 through 6 above to occur. Even though lip service was paid
to my clients by various members of the staff concerning the blatant interference with my
clients' property rights (IE., the fence and water incidents), nothing was done to accommodate
my clients' rights or interests by the City, other than to give them one parking space and two
loading spaces which are never available for the use of my clients or their customers since
parking space is limited in the area. It is still therefor impossible (or extremely difficult and
inconvenient) to receive deliveries at the store because of this. In addition, the amount of
"driveway space" the city forced the San Juan Partners to give to my clients (after the illegal
fencing of my clients' store took place) is insufficient to allow a car, much less a delivery truck,
to make the corner in the limited space provided at the behest of the City of San Juan, and my
clients are left with a situation in which customers and delivery people alike are unable to park
near the shop. This constitutes a deprivation of property without due process of law, and indeed,
in derogation of law. It probably constitutes a course of conduct calculated to put my clients out
of business.
In the same manner that the City has dealt with the fence and water problems experienced by my
clients, it appears as if nothing will be done (other than to pay lip service for the sake of
appearances) by the City with respect to giving the concerned citizens of San Juan the
opportunity and right to be heard as regards the wisdom of tearing down Moonrose, and
ultimately San Juan Antiques; or more importantly, the wisdom of shelving the Boehms' offer to
purchase the building which houses San Juan Antiques.
I am advised that by making the "sweetheart deal" for the purchase of the El Peon Building with
Mr. Nordeck and his San Juan Partners the City now finds itself embroiled in costly and time
consuming litigation brought by those merchants whom the San Juan Partners agreed to assuage
or accommodate. Rest assured that my clients will join the melee of litigation if the City
continues on its apparent course of full cooperation with the whims and dictates of Mr. Nordeck
and the San Juan Partners to the detriment and disregard of my clients' rights.
We propose that the City seriously consider and publish my clients' offer to purchase the subject
real property, and submit the purchase to public scrutiny and open discussion and bidding.
Perhaps this will tend to ameliorate the "secret" bargain made with the San Juan Partners by the
City which they now seek to make even better through the elimination of my clients' business.
We submit that private greed of the San Juan Partnership is at the root of this problem. With my
clients' business eliminated and the building torn down, the San Juan Partners will gain valuable
store frontage and concomitant increases in rental rates they will be able to charge future tenants.
As you must be aware, as owners and landlords of retail commercial space, the San Juan Partners
have an actual or potential competitive relationship to my clients. As such, the conduct resulting
in the deterioration and ultimate destruction of my clients' business is actionable at law under a
number of legal theories, including but not limited to that of unfair competition and antitrust.
Through the use of the Cities' auspices these activities have either been perpetrated or have been
complacently allowed to continue.
If the City of San Juan, and its related agencies and employees continue to deprive my clients' of
due process of law, and continue in allowing my clients' proprietary rights to be trampled, the
City of San Juan will be joined as defendants with the San Juan Partners and Mr. Nordeck for
unfair competition, antitrust violations, retaliatory eviction, constructive eviction and for
violation of equal protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution. We trust that the City
will heed and consider my clients' fair offer to purchase, and that they will be given more than a
cursory opportunity to be heard. We also request that the matter be submitted to public scrutiny
since we believe there to be many more workable and profitable solutions to this problem (for
the City and for San Juan partners) than the destruction of the building where my clients'
business is located.
In view of the fact that the Ortega Highway extension project is dead, we submit that the tear
down of my clients' building serves no public purpose, and indeed, benefits only the San Juan
Partners. The seismic retrofitting of the El Peon Building does not constitute sufficient grounds
to destroy my clients' business. The City is urged to act reasonably and with restraint in this
matter. The seismic retrofitting can be accomplished in a manner which will not require the tear
down of Moonrose. It is submitted that the removal of Moonrose (and my clients) is the goal
sought by the San Juan Partners at any expense, including the deprivation of profit for the City
Treasury, and the deprivation of citizen rights as in the case of David and Dixie Boehm. We
trust that the City will not allow this situation to continue to damage my clients and that time
consuming and costly litigation with my clients can be avoided by allowing due process of law
to take its course and the opportunity for all to be heard.
Finally, we request that immediate action be taken to correct the situation which exists at San
Juan Antiques with respect to the continuous interruption in the water supply and to correct the
landlocked situation which exists with respect to customer parking and deliveries to the store.
Thank you for your anticipated time and attention in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
va ''ll�9L
David Stroud
Attorney for David and Dixie Boehm
San Juan Antiques
Dude Boehm
March 7, 1995
Dear San Juan Capistrano City Council Members:
Dixie and I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your
consideration regarding the disposition of the MOONROSE / SAN JUAN CAP. ANTIQUES
building . We feel the best course of action would be to save this part of old
San Juan Capistrano.
L'
The course of action that Cassandra Walker outlined before the council
sounded very appropriate. We want to see the city realize as much revenue from the sale
of these buildings as possible. We are anxious to have the city get these buildings
appraised and we look forward to negotiating with the city to acquire the buildings.
Dixie and I are open to the possibility of giving the city an easement for
parking or whatever the council would like to see the area used for. We have no
objection in having this area used as parking or a walking area. We also realize the
buildings need to be refurbished. If the council would like to see a better rendering of
what might be done to upgrade the exterior appearance, we would be willing to have our
architect create some possibilities.
We are proud to be part of San Juan's business community as well as a
resident. If we aren't considered in the sale we feel that at least we tried , and in a way are
victorious because the city will have sold the buildings for the best price possible. This is
the best of the three options. The city should not be forced to give this property away
because of lawsuits or other intimidation.
Sincerely,
David and Dixie Boehm
San Juan Capistrano Antiques
cc: George Scarborough, City Manager
X LO 5
CAS5A��2A MAR 71995
March 7, 1995
Ms. Carolyn Nash
Honorable Mayor
32000 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
Dear Mayor;
Moonrose Gifts is experiencing some major difficulties since the construction
crews have descended on beautiful downtown San Juan Capistrano. We realize you are
aware of our situation and appreciate all you are doing to help us survive this time of
change and redevelopment. However, we need help and we need it fast! Although the
City, the developer,and we, the merchants are living and breathing this whole process ,the
general public seems to be unaware and confused. We recieve numerous phone calls
every day from concerned customers with questions like... "Are you still in business? Are
they going to tear all those great old buildings down next door? Where do we park to get
through to Moonrose?
We have been bit hard by the removal of the street parking along Ortega Highway
and Camino Capistrano. Compound the situation with the removal of most of the parking
lot behind us, and the removal of a walking access through the back lot of our building ,
makes rear access impossible to our business. Never mind that this is the familiar way that
people have arrived at our location, parking in the rear and accessing the street through
the passageway. Our mission visitor foot traffic has all but stopped. The boarded
barracade directly across the street from the mission gives the impression that the whole
street is vacant. Our lifeblood, local customers, who frequently shop with us on a regular
basis are confused and are shopping elsewhere. We have received numerous
complaints for some of our patrons that they will not walk through the Swallows Inn to
get to the store.
We expected that the fate of our building would have been resolved by this point
and had started the relocation process. However the councils' ruling to delay this decision
has put us in a very unsettling position. We are trying to maintain a retail business with a
major mess all around us .Without knowing what our future holds regarding relocation
funds, we are unable to have a business plan and begin lease negotiations for a prime
location in the Mission Promenade Plaza where we obviously would like to be. We have
some ideas and suggestions to fix this unnessesary damage to our business and customer
base. Please consider these and act quickly so that we can move forward and get back to
running the business we love.
3f e
X b LOT S
MAR - 8 1995
Make the decision to take our building down as soon as possible
Rearrange the barrier fences surrounding the hard hat area in our
parking lot to include a pedestrian passageway through to Camino
Capistrano from the parking areas on El Camino Real. Perhaps a
flexible fence, movable on weekends when no construction is scheduled.
Signs, Signs, Signs! ....... Telling people where to park, Where
to pass through, perhaps a friendly explanation of the changes the
city is incorporating with directional signs, etc.
Perhaps a Welcoming mural and directional sign on the wooden barracade
in front of the old Cafe Capistrano.
A special circumstance permit to allow us to use more signs,
balloons, banners to attract customers during the construction period.
Notify code enforcement officer Margie Wagener of our predicament.
Thanking you in advance for your courtesy and consideration in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Phyllis I Crow
Sue A. Toler
Moonrose
31766 Camino Capistrano
S.7.C.,Ca. 92675
j"
--------------------
C j-4 n � 41
San Juan Capistrano
Community
Redevelopment
Agency
February 23,1995
9
Mr. Steve Nordeck
Swallow's Inn
31786 Camino Capistrano
San Juan Capistrano, California 92675
Dear Mr. Nordeck:
0
At their meeting of February 21, 1995, the San Juan Capistrano Community
Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors received public input regarding the disposition
of the Moonrose/San Juan Capistrano Antiques building located at 31768-31766 Camino
Capistrano. The Directors conferred with the Agency Counsel on this item in Closed
Session. When the Directors reconvened after Closed Session, the Agency Counsel
advised that there was no action taken to report.
We will notify you when this item is again scheduled for Community Redevelopment
Agency consideration. Please contact Cassandra Walker at 443-6320 if you have any
questions.
Very truly yours,
Cheryl Johnson
Agency Secretary
32400 Paseo Adelanto
San Juan Capistrano
California 92675
714 -493-1171
0
0
(1) The Developer Selection Process for the Historic Town Center be approved;
(2) Budget adjustments be made in the amount of $23,000 in fiscal year 1994-95 and
$25,000 for fiscal year 1995-96 for this Process, and,
(3) Funds be appropriated.
-- 2. DISPOSITION OF THE MOONROSE/SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO ANTIQUES
iYR il(Ti T(l A=C AT QI'C� Q11111A\/ Tw I.l ri11m ♦ITI i. ---
Written Communication: '
Report dated February 21, 1995, from Cassandra Walker, Community Development
Administrator, recommending that the Agency receive public input on this item, but defer
action pending consultation with the Agency's Legal Counsel regarding litigation impacts
relating to this decision. The Report summarized three options and associated costs for the
buildings, which included demolition of the building, identified as Option #1; continued lease
identified as Option #2; or, sale of the buildings, identified as Option #3.
Cassandra Walker, Community Development Administrator, made an oral presentation.
Dixie Boehm of San Juan Capistrano Antiques, suggested that should the building be sold,
consideration be given to adding a provision in the escrow instructions giving the Agency
First Right of Refusal to buy back the building.
Sue Toiler, one of the partners in Moonrose, urged that the disposition of the building be
decided as soon as possible because their business was down. She felt it would be best to
demolish the building. In an unrelated matter, she urged the City to protect the health of its
trees by reducing the potential for damage or destruction during construction.
Mr. Scarborough indicated he would contact Ms. Toiler to discuss her concerns further.
Motion to Defer Action:
It was moved by Director Nash, seconded by Director Campbell, and unanimously carried
that action on this item be deferred pending consultation with the Agency's Legal Counsel
regarding litigation impacts of the options in this matter.
The Board recessed to the Council meeting at 8:35 p.m. and reconvened in Closed Session at 9:20
p.m. for:
1. Conference with Legal Counsel, Anticipated Litigation, per Government Code Section
54956.9(b), for significant exposure to litigation in three cases, and Government Code
Section 54956.9(c), the initiation of litigation in two cases,
CRA Minutes -4- 2/21/95
AGENDA ITEM February 21, 1995
TO: George Scarborough, Executive Director
FROM: Cassandra Walker, Community Development Administrator
SUBJECT: Disposition of the Moonrose/San Juan Antiques Building at 31752 - 31762 Camino
Capistrano
RECOMMENDATION:
On advise of the City Attorney, Staff is recommending that the City Council receive public input on
the item, but defer action pending consultation with City legal counsel on litigation effects relating
to this decision.
SITUATION:
A. Summary nd Recommendation - Under the terms of the Disposition and Development
Agreement (DDA) executed between the Agency and San Juan Partners, the City Council was to
make a decision with regards to the Moonrose/San Juan Antiques building at the conclusion of the
Historic Town Center Master Planning process. On January 17, 1995, the City Council received the
final report on the Historic Town Center and selected Alternative #2 as the recommended
development master plan for the property. Alternative #2 does not provide for the realignment of
Ortega Highway, The Moonrose/San Juan Antiques building was purchased as part of the original
Historic Town Center project in 1986 to facilitate the realignment of Ortega Highway. Subsequent
master planning studies have shown this area as the realignment of Ortega Highway or a pedestrian
entry way into the Historic Town Center.
Now that a decision has been reached on the preferred master plan for the Historic Town Center, the
Agency Board of Directors can make a decision on the ultimate disposition of the Moonrose/San Juan
Antiques building. Staff recommends that the Agency Board of Directors approve one of the three
options outlined below at their discretion.
B. Background - The Moonrose/San Juan Antiques building was constructed c. 1950. It is
not listed on the City's Inventory of Cultural and Historic Landmarks. The structure is a single story,
stucco building with red tile roof parapet treatment. It consists of two retail spaces in a building of
approximately 1,360 square feet on a 16,426 square foot site. The building and parking lot were
purchased by the Redevelopment Agency in 1985 for $341,043 to facilitate the realignment of the
Ortega Highway.
FOR CITY COUNCIL AGEND?r_ C 2A
VVV 3 .7"
Agenda Item -2- February 21, 1995
When the Agency sold the adjacent property to San Juan Partners for development of the Mission
Promenade, Staff was still in the process of the Historic Town Center workshops. San Juan Partners
was concerned with the ultimate disposition of this property, as it affected their project. To provide
the developer with some indication of the Agency's long term intention with regard to this property,
the following language was incorporated into the sale document.
"The Developer is familiar with the plans for the future realignment of Ortega Highway and
the Historic Town Center Project. The two buildings located upon real property commonly
referred to as 31752-31762 Camino Capistrano will be removed, at the Agency's sole
expense, in the event of the Ortega Highway realignment. The City Council will make a
decision regarding the realignment of Ortega Highway and the Master Plan for the Historic
Town Center property. Once the City Council has made a decision regarding the Historic
Town Center, the Agency will consider the removal at its sole expense of these two buildings
at 31751-31762 Camino Capistrano to facilitate public parking and alternative uses."
The Agency was holding the property for the realignment of Ortega Highway. If the Ortega
Highway realignment was not part of the preferred development alternative, then the Agency was
retaining the flexibility of removing the building or keeping it for public purposes. The Agency has
selected Alternative #2 for development of Historic Town Center which does not include realignment
of Ortega Highway.
This Agenda Item outlines the options available to the Agency for the disposition of the property. San
Juan Partners processed plans through the City's Planning and Engineering processes which showed
the Moonrose/San Juan Antiques building as "to be removed by others." At this time, the Agency
should make a decision regarding the future of the building.
Staff has structured three options for Agency consideration:
Demolition of the building, relocation of the tenants, and creation of a pedestrian
walkway and activity area with other uses such as outdoor seating, vendor carts, etc.
2. Continue to lease the building, incorporate its design with Mission Promenade, and
create a pedestrian walkway and activity area on the remaining vacant area.
Subdivide the lot and sell the building, requiring the new owner to incorporate its
design with Mission Promenade, and provide continued public parking. It is
recommended that the Agency retain the public parking portion of the property.
Different costs are associated with each of these three options. The Agency should consider not only
the costs, but the ultimate benefit to the public provided by each option.
Agenda Item -3- February 21, 1995
Option #1 - Demolition of the Moonrose/San Juan Antiques
By removing the building, the Agency has the opportunity to create a pedestrian entry to the Historic
Town Center area. It also has the ability to create pedestrian walkway or resting area and other
activities, such as seasonal vending carts or outdoor seating for nearby restaurants. Public parking
would be retained.
The Demolition of the building would require the Agency to relocate the two existing tenants. The
relocation process would take approximately 90 days. The costs associated with the demolition of
the building could total approximately $145,000:
1. Demolition of the Building: $15,000 (providing no hazardous material is discovered).
2. Design and improvement of pedestrian activity area: $30,000 +.
3. The physical relocation of the existing tenants ( Moonrose and San Juan Antiques) is
estimated at $25,000 for each tenant. Up to an additional $25,000 for each tenant in
loss of business goods will be incurred depending upon the location of the relocation:
$100,000.
Currently the building generates $1,000 per month in lease income. This income would be lost.
Future income could be generated depending upon the variety of uses allowed in this area.
Option #2 - Continued Lease of the Building
If the building were to be retained, the Agency would continue to receive approximately $1,000 in
rent. This rent would be increased over time to a fair market level between $1.25 and $1.75 per
square foot. A rent of $1.50 per square foot, because of the age and amenities of the building, would
generate $2,040 in rental income each month or $24,480 on an annual basis.
Staff suggests that the building be upgraded in terms of signage, lighting, painting and general facade
work to be consistent with the adjacent Mission Promenade development. The incorporation of the
pedestrian arcade along the Southside of the Mission Promenade should be considered as part of the
improvements for this building. The costs for upgrading the building have not been estimated, but
could total $50,000.
The area adjacent to the southside of the Moonrose/San Juan Antiques building should be improved
as discussed under Option #1 as a pedestrian walkway and activity area. The cost estimate for
improving this area is $30,000. Under this option, the Agency retains the ability to sell the building.
Option #3 - Sell of the Building
On November 3, 1994, the Agency received a letter offer to purchase the building from The Boehms
who currently lease the San Juan Antiques space. Their offer consisted of $150,000 for the building
Agenda Item 4- February 21, 1995
and agreement to upgrade the exterior of the building in keeping with the design of the Mission
Promenade. For purposes of estimating this option, the Boehms offer of $150,00 is being used.
However, Staff believes that the property is worth substantially more than this based on recent sales
in the area. If the Agency elects to sell this property, a fair market value of the building will have to
be established by an appraiser and the property sold by competitive bid.
The building encompasses 1,360 square feet of a 16,426 square foot lot. In order to sell the building,
a legal minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet would have to be created according to the City's
Municipal Code Section 9-3.424. Creation of this lot would diminish the site size by close to 45%
to 9,226 square feet, and inhibit the ultimate use of the entire property by the Agency. It would also
result in the loss of 16 public parking spaces and could inhibit future circulation plans for the area.
A second alternative would be for the Agency to sell the entire site and retain a public parking
easement over the rear portion of the parcel currently occupied by public parking. The greatest value
of the site hes in the flexibility it offers the Agency in terms of the future development of the Historic
Town Center area.
If the Agency sells the property, the Agency should place certain requirements for physical
improvement to the exterior of the building, development of a pedestrian walkway, and public parking
easement.
C. Summary of Options - Staff has outlined three options associated with the disposition of the
Moonrose/San Juan Antiques building. Under each of the options, the Agency would bear some cost
and/or forego some revenue opportunity. Staff recommends that the Agency Board of Directors
consider both the financial and long-term public benefits associated with each option.
Option #1
Estimate to demolish the building (if no hazardous materials) $ 15,000
Estimate relocation costs $100,000
Estimate to create pedestrian area 30,000
$145,000
Option #2
Estimate to create the pedestrian area $ 30,000
Estimate to upgrade building 50,000
$ 80,000
Estimate annual lease revenue after improvements $ 24,480
(3.2 yrs to reimburse $80,000 cost)
Agenda Item -5-
Option #3
Estimate of appraisal
Estimate for Subdivision including Parcel Map
Estimate for Escrow costs
Revenue from sale of the building (Boehms' offer)
February 21, 1995
$ 5,000
$ 15,000
$ 2,000
$150,000
$128,000
Option #1 results in the highest cost to the Agency at $145,000. The Agency would also initially incur
costs under Option #2 to upgrade the building and pedestrian area. These costs would be offset by
the rental income of $24,480 a year. Under Option #3 the Agency would generate approximately
$130,000 from the sale of the building. However, the Agency will lose substantial flexibility with
regard to long-term uses of the site.
COMMISSION/BOARD REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Not applicable.
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Funding was not budgeted for any financial transactions associated with this property in fiscal year
1994-95. Funding for any of the options would need to be included as part of the mid -year budget
adjustment. Funding will be taken from revenue received from the sale of the downtown complex.
NOTIFICATION:
Copies of this report were sent to: Phyllis Crow-Moonrose; Dixie and Dave Boehm -San Juan
Antiques; Steve Nordeck-Mission Promenade.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
On advise of the City Attorney, Staff is recommending that the City Council receive public
input on the item, but defer action pending consultation with City legal counsel on litigation
effects relating to this decision.
2. Approve Option #1 to demolish the Moonrose/San Juan Antiques building. Direct Staff to
incorporate the funding as part of the mid -year budget adjustment, and approve appropriation
of the funds to undertake the selected option.
Approve Option #2 to continue to own the Moonrose/San Juan Antiques building and
upgrade its exterior in keeping with the Mission Promenade. Direct Staff to incorporate the
funding as part of the mid -year budget adjustment, and approve appropriation of the funds
•
Agenda Item
undertake the selected option.
0
-6- February 21, 1995
4. Approve Option #3 to sell the builsing under a competitive bid process. Direct Staff to
incorporate the funding as part of the mid -year budget adjustment, and approve appropriation
of the funds to undertake the selected option.
RECOMMENDATION:
On advise of the City Attorney, Staff is recommending that the City Council receive public input on
the item, but defer action pending consultation with City legal counsel on litigation effects relating
to this decision.
Respectfully submitted,
'ek,
Cassandra Walker
Community Development Administrator