CORRESPONDENCE - 75C - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ZALVARADOSMITH March 15, 2016 Page 3 A properly adopted RON is clothed with a presumption of finality, meaning that the three required findings above are deemed to have been made by the public entity's enabling body during the public hearing. § 1245.250. However, a RON does not have the conclusive effect contemplated by §1245.250 if its adoption or contents were affected by a "gross abuse of discretion." §1245.255(b); Redevelopment Agency v. Norm's Slauson (1985) 173 Ca1.App.3d 1121, 1127. As noted in that case at page 1126: "Implicit in this requirement of a hearing and 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 to take be buttressed by substantial evidence of the existence of the three basic requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, section 1240.030." [emphasis added.] Accordingly, a resolution of necessity not supported by "substantial evidence" is affected by a gross abuse of discretion, and is invalid. Id. "Substantial evidence" before a public body is "not synonymous with `any' evidence." Bowers v. Bernards (1984) 150 Ca1.App.3d 870, 873. Evidence that is not credible or not relevant does not constitute substantial evidence. Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995). 36 Cal.AppAth 1359, 1400. Thus, a public body must be presented with credible evidence on each of the three necessity prerequisites in § 1240.030 to support the adoption of a proper resolution of necessity. The Resolution Of Necessity Is Flawed, Does Not Allow The Necessary Finding Of Necessity Per Code of Civil Procedure &1240.030(a -c) And The Project Is A Pretext For An Illegal Redevelopment Project The City's Staff Report lacks any evidence to support the three necessity prerequisites, much less any credible evidence. The reasoning is simple — the road widening project is a pretext for the City to acquire these parcels, strip them of their operating businesses and improvements and then sell off the "remnants" to private developers to redevelop the area. The City's problem is that redevelopment was eliminated in Assembly Bill 26 in 2012. By way of background, the Project is masquerading as a street widening endeavor currently, but in its earlier phases was expressly based upon a 1989 redevelopment plan —the Bristol Corridor Redevelopment Plan, adopted on December 4, 1989 ("Redevelopment Plan"). The Redevelopment Plan declared the area surrounding the Subject Property as "blighted", 4050975.1 --N1475.1