CORRESPONDENCE - 75F - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Santa Ana November 25, 2020 Page 3 greatest extent practicable, make every reasonable effort to acquire property by negotiation."(8 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 2004) Const. Law, § 972.) As noted above, the City'sinitial offer was based on anoffer of compensation that neglected to account for curative measures that must be made to the Subject Property as a result of the Project. Wells Fargo broughtthe issue to the City's attention, but the Cityhas failed to make a revised and proper offer sufficient to place Wells Fargo in the same pecuniary position it would be if a portion of the Subject Property were not taken by the City via eminent domain proceedings. As the City's offer was predicated upon an artificially low valuation of the interests to be acquired from the Subject Propertyand the curative measures that must be made to the Subject Property, that offer was inadequate as a matter of law and would not constitute an effort to acquire the property interests "expeditiously and by negotiation"as required by California Government Code section 7267.1. (Gov. Code, § 7267.1.) 3.The City's Proposed Project Is Not Planned Or Located In The Manner That Will Be Most Compatible With The Greatest Public Good and The Least Private Injury. One of the necessity components that must be analyzed when considering the adoption of a resolution to authorize the taking of private property is whether the proposed project for which the property is sought to be taken is planned or located in a manner that is most compatible with the greatest public good and causes the least private injury. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1240.030, subd. (b).)In the absence of substantial evidencesupporting the City's determination as to the planning and location of the proposed project, the resolution of necessity is invalid. In this case, the Projectviolates the "least private injury"requirement.Most notably, the Project calls for the permanent closure of the driveway closest to the intersection on Warner Avenue.It is the closure of this driveway that requires Wells Fargo to completely reconfigure the Subject Property by, among other things, changing the location of the Drive-Through ATMs, changing locations of the canopies covering the Drive-Through ATMs, redesigning on-site traffic flow, changing locations of driveways, relocating the electrical transformer and repaving/restriping the parking lot.Wells Fargo has repeatedly explained to the City the problems associated with closing the driveway on Warner Avenue and urgedthe City to redesign the Project in a manner that would not require the closure of the driveway.Despite this, the City has insisted on proceeding with the Project that includes the permanent closure of the driveway on Warner Avenue, causing great injuryto Wells Fargo in the process. To be sure, less injurious alternatives to the Project are available. The simplest solution would be to redesign the Project so that the driveway on Warner Avenue would not need to be closed. This solution has been rejected by the City.In short, the Project was not designed in a way that is most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury.