CORRESPONDENCE - 75F - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City of Santa Ana November 25, 2020 Page 4 4.The Hearing On The Proposed Resolution of Necessity Is Inappropriate Because The Agency Is Already Irrevocably Committed To Adopting The Resolution Of Necessity Wells Fargo is concerned that no meaningful consideration of its objections and concerns will take place at the hearing of the resolution of necessity concerning the proposed Project given thatthe Cityappears to have already committed itself to acquiring the Subject Property. Redevelopment Agency v. Norm's Slauson(1991) 173 Cal.App.3d 1121, addressed such a situation. In that case, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Park brought an action in eminent domain to take a major portion of a restaurant's parking lot. The redevelopment agency's attempt to take the property in question was preceded by an agreement between the agency and a developer by which the agency agreed to acquire the propertyfor transfer to the developer and the developer would build a condominium project thereon. The Court of Appeal started its analysis with an explanation of the purpose of a hearing on a resolution of necessity: "Implicit in this requirement of a hearingand the adoption of a resolution of necessity is the concept that, in arriving at its decision to take, the Agency engage in a good faith and judicious consideration of the pros and cons of the issue and that the decision be buttressed by substantial evidence of the existence of the three basic requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, section 1240.030."Id.at pp. 1124-25. In affirming the trial court's determination that the agency had no right to take the property, the court concluded that: "\[i\]t seems clear that the hearing which led to the adoption of the resolution of necessity was a sham and the Agency's policy-making board simply 'rubber stamped'a predetermined result."Id.at p. 1127. The Court also stated that: "By the time the agency actually conducted a hearing to determine the 'necessity'for taking the property in question, it had, by virtue of its contract with the developer and issuance of revenue bonds, irrevocably committed itself to take the property in question, regardless of any evidence that might be presented at the hearing." Id. The concerns raised by the court in Norm's Slausonapply with equal vigor here as the City has irrevocably committed to acquire the Subject Property in order to proceed with the Project. Presumably, numerous contracts have been executed with various third party vendors and contractors and the City will simply be "rubber stamping"a predetermined result. Accordingly, Wells Fargo is concerned that despite what objections or evidence may be presented at the December 1, 2020 hearing on the resolution of necessity for the proposed Project, the hearing will be nothing more than a procedural technicality due to the fact that the City has irrevocably committed itself to take the Subject Property.