CORRESPONDENCE - 75C - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

/}I'%'ALVARADOSMITH March 15, 2016 Page 4 which then allowed the City to create the Project, which, as noted in the City's materials' "is the only specific project proposed by the Redevelopment Plan". The City's Environmental Impact Report for this Project (in both past and current phases) was expressly based upon the Redevelopment Plan. To create the foundation for the prior "blight" finding that is still the basis for the Project, the City's baseline documents note that businesses like the Subject Property are "older" uses that are disjointed and unappealing in character, with little resources to invest as a "local" business serving Hispanic customers who primarily walk to purchase goods and services. The City's documents further note that the Redevelopment Plan and Project will remove older business to attract new private sector development to the area. The stated goal of the Project is to acquire . the remnant parcels from the Subject Property and its neighbors to put new zoning in place to encourage private development. This goal is explicitly illegal, but nonetheless, the City has put forward the Resolution of Necessity for the Subject Property to accomplish the redevelopment goals that spur this Project onward. Therefore, the basis for the Resolution of Necessity is flawed, and the specific necessity findings that must be made in order to adopt the Resolution are entirely lacking. First, the public interest and necessity do not require the Project. Code of Civil Procedure §1240.030(a) The Project is an illegal redevelopment Project, and because the City is acquiring more than the property necessary for the road widening, the Project is not a valid public purpose, and the public interest and necessity do not require it; instead, the economic motivations of the City are driving the acquisition of private property not for a public purpose, but rather to benefit private development, an illegal end. Redevelopment Agency v. Norm's Slauson (1985) 173 Ca1.App, 3d 1121; Santa Cruz Redevelopment Agency v. Izant (1995) 37 Cal.App.4`" 141; City gfStockton v. Marina Towers, LLC (2009) 171 Cal.App.4" 93; San Bernardino County Flood Control v. Grabowski (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 885 Second, the project is not planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. Code of Civil Procedure §1240,030(b), The City's RON lacks any discussion of this element, rendering any potential finding of necessity capricious, lacking evidentiary support and a gross abuse of discretion. The City cannot show that the injury to the Subject Property (from a full take) was considered in any way. The consideration in assessing the injury to the owner of the Subject Property is the very discretion and weighing of facts and evidence that is discussed in. Norm's Slauson, supra, at 1127. The public body must acknowledge the impact on the property owner from the Project, ' This quotation is taken from the City's Bristol Street Corridor Specific Plan Amendment, which was publicly circulated and on the brink of being considered at a public hearing of the City's Planning Commission until challenged by my firm on behalf of the Bristol Street Coalition. 4050975.1 -- N 1475,1