(Los Alamitos, 2/22/11) As the hospital’s 25 year plan made it’s way through the City Council, concerns were raised about vacatng Kaylor Avenue, which is integral to the expansion of the hospital in Phase II but not the Medical Office Building in Phase I.
Thus, the first public hearing on the city’s “vacating” their easement on Kaylor Avenue is set for tonight’s 7 p.m. Council meeting. . . after the Council is scheduled to give final approval to the expansion plan itself!
Since the hospital expansion can’t be built without Tenet taking ownership of Kaylor, that sure sounds to me like a case of getting the cart ahead of the horse.
It’s also pretty emblematic of the haste with which the Council majority and City Staff are ramming this whole expansion plan through, although they certainly could have done worse.
The problem is, nobody seems to be willing to take a few extra months to solicit broad public input and actually try to address the multiple issues raised. Shoot, the Council couldn’t even take the time to refer the city’s largest development project to the Traffic Commission. Or even actually guarantee that anything beyond the Office Building & it’s parking structure would be built.
Advertisement:
My mom told me that “haste makes waste,” & our Council could be making a lot of waste with their haste to move forward on a hospital that won’t be built for seven years!
The Kaylor Conundrum
One huge example: the issue of who actually owns Kaylor Ave.
Passing the plan before title on Kaylor is cleared up could mean constructing a design that will actually make it impossible for the Phase 2 and 3 hospital expansion to be carried out.
Tonight’s staff report on Kaylor appears to ignore the attached title company’s request for the subdivider to abandon their intereest in Kaylor, which apparently still belongs to “Katella Industrial Development, Inc” (Title report, section B, item # 10 (p. 4))
When I asked City Manager Jeff Stewart and Development Director Steven Mendoza about this, their position was that the city owned the street, or maybe it was Tenet (they seemed to take both positions during our conversation). They based that on “Covenant and Agreement to Hold Property as one Parcel” Tenet had recorded in August of 2002.
I appreciated both Mr. Stewart and Mr. Mendoza taking time to discuss this on a very busy day, but in the end we could only “agree to disagree,” although with 30 years experience as a broker I do think I have a fair amount of expertise in Property Title issues.
Nevertheless, after this morning’s conversation, I discussed the city staffs’ position with a man who has worked in both the Title and real estate businesses, and who was also on the Council when the “Covenent” was filed.
After our conversation, Mr. DeBolt sent his opinion via e-mail to Mr. Mendoza. I subsequently copied it to Mr. Stewart (who promptly & professionally acknowledged receipt) and all five of our Council Members.
I’d like to get that same letter into as many hands as possible, so, with Mr. DeBolt’s permission, here it is [bolding mine]:
Steven [Mendoza],
I was talking to Dave Emerson and he told me you were under the impression the ‘Covenant to Hold as one parcel’ somehow demonstrates ownership of Kaylor by the medical center. And that title insurance is only to benefit Tenet. If I misunderstood what Dave told me, I apologize.
Keep in mind my background prior to selling real estate was in the title and escrow business with Transamerica Title in Phoenix AZ and LA County.
The covenant has nothing to do with Kaylor.
I was on the council in 2002. The covenant was a condition of approval of the MOB in front of the hospital.
At the time there was not enough spaces in front of the hospital or on that parcel (West of Kaylor) to meet the city code requirement for parking. The LAMC had purchased a bunch of lots on Catalina and Kyle to be used for parking. Since those new parking spaces were not on the same parcel as the MOB they could not be used to meet the parking requirement.
Since ownership of both parcels, East and West of Kaylor was with LAMC the covenent to hold both as one parcel was (hopefully) recorded on both parcels to “tie” them together for purposes of compliance with the city code regarding parking requirement. This does not stop them from selling one or both parcels to someone else, but it does prevent further development on either parcel to the extent they, including a new owner cannot meet any additional parking requirements. The covenant is an encumbrance upon both parcels, it is not a conveyance.
STAFF REPORT: “…Thus, the City of Los Alamitos will incur no liability in vacating this easement.” I don’t understand that statement or its relevance to the covenant.
The legal descriptions of the parcels in the covenant do not include the legal description of “Kaylor Street”. I doubt the covenant would attach to the “after acquired” title of Kaylor St. A good question for a title officer at a title company.
The need for title insurance is probably more for the benefit of the city, than Tenet. The City is the one making the claims that the hospital owns Kaylor. It is even in the first ‘Whereas” of the Resolution to Vacate the easement.
With the title report, the city now has actual knowledge of the fee title ownership of the land called Kaylor Street, over which the city has an easement. The Council now has actual knowledge that city staff have accepted and processed an application for a specific plan project over land for which no permission was obtained by the fee title owner. In my opinion, to proceed with the approval of that Specific Plan exposes the city to serious liability not only from the fee title owner in the title report, but also from Tenet, who relied on the city representations.
You have a preliminary title report. For a few thousand dollars the title company will definitively determine ownership and the steps that would need to be taken in order to vest the tiitle in Tenet’s name. And they will insure that vesting. You should be requiring title insurance to guarantee of Tenet’s ownership of Kaylor following the vacating of the City easement.
Art DeBolt
And it makes no sense to move forward with the final approval of the 25 year expansion plan until Tenet has actually purchased that title insurance. As things stand now, that might require a corporate declaration from a corporation that may no longer exist, because, according to the Title Report attached to the Staff report on the vacation of Kaylor, to insure Title:
This company will require the following in order to insure title in, or a conveyance or encumbrance from the entity named below.
Name: Katella Industrial Developments, Inc., a Corporation
(a) A copy of the by-laws or articles of association (sometimes known as the “agreement” or “charter”).
(b) A copy of the resolution of the association approving the present transaction and identifying the subject land. The resolution should also state that the transaction is necessary for the business purposes of the association and should name the parties who are authorized to execute documents for the association.
(c) Articles of incorporation
(Schedule B, # 10, Orange Coast Preliminary Title Report on Kaylor)
And we haven’t even addressed the prior easement from the water company at the north end of Kaylor, including an easment for a water line that runs down the middle of the street.
Let alone real traffic mitigation, and a written guarantee that the hospital will be built. All we know we’re getting is yet another Medical Office Building, twice the size of the one it replaces.
If you were wondering why the Council Majority fired Traffic Commission Chairman Art DeBolt, maybe you know why. Maybe it was the same reason they fired our former city attorney, who drafted the trash ordinance requiring it go to the low bidder. And why they fired the chief financial officer, who questioned their balancing of last year’s budget.
Hopefully, the majority will finally decide to start looking out for the interests of the community tonight.
If not, I’m wondering if a recall might not be in order.
If you’re at or watch either the 5 p.m. or 7 p.m. meetings tonight, please take a few minutes to report on what you saw in the post I’ll put up before 7.
As always, your comments, diplomatically expressed, are welcome, regardless of your viewpoint. The goal is to get the best result for the city, not to prove who’s right.
Related posts:
- Planning Commission focuses on General Plan Issues tonight
- Commission reorganization, Shell station liquor license, solar panels, on tonight’s Planning Commission Agenda
- Your reporting and comments on tonight’s Planning Commission & Hospital Hearing
- Agenda plus your reporting/comments on tonight’s Planning Commission Meeting
