CORRESPONDENCE - 75C - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ff ALVARADOSMITH March 15, 2016 Page 6 The Citv Failed To Conduct The Requisite Environmental Analysis Another failed perquisite to the exercise of the power of eminent domain here is the completion of environmental analysis as required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). City of San Jose v. Great Oaks Water Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1005. Here, the City's Resolution claims that the CEQA analysis of the Project was completed in 1989, with the addition of "subsequent addenda". This statement is false. The Project has significantly changed in the vicinity of the Subject Property since the 1989 EIR, which again was based upon redevelopment. Moreover, the City circulated and was on the precipice of adopting an Addendum to the Final Bristol Street Corridor Specific Plan EIR in 2014 and 2015. This addendum dealt explicitly with the Project and its environmental impact, yet contained lengthy recitations to the blight findings and redevelopment components of the Project's earlier phases. When we were forced to challenge this Addendum before the City's Planning Commission, the Addendum was suddenly withdrawn. However, the very preparation and circulation of the Addendum in 2014 and 2015 demonstrated that the environmental impact of the Project was still underway and incomplete at that time. The Project's environmental review was never finished as a result, yet the City is now trying to adopt this Resolution. As a result, the City's Resolution of Necessity lacks the CEQA review, analysis and mitigation measures to be adopted, and any attempt to do so is further evidence of the gross abuse of discretion posed by the promulgation of the RON for the Subject Property. Great Oaks, supra; Burbank -Glendale Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577. The City's Offer Is Lacking And Does Not Comply With Government Code §7267.2 The City's offer is far below the statutorily mandated "just compensation" for the Subject Property. The Subject Property has frontage on Bristol Street, a busy arterial corridor (with a recent traffic count of 41,200 cars per average day). The Subject Property's location is key as it boasts a stable demographic profile, little to no development area available and good access. Locations similar to the Subject Property vie for limited product in such location, and as such represent a value "premium" paid by niche participants for well -located buildings. The City's offer for the Subject Property was based upon an appraisal and offer letter from November 2015, more than four months old at this point and hardly reflective of the current real estate market. More importantly, the sales used in the underlying appraisal date from 2014 and mid -2015, with the majority outside of the Santa Ana market. Thus, the offer is based upon a flawed evaluation consisting of non -comparable properties violative of Evidence Code §816. In conclusion, the prudent course of action here is to not adopt the Resolution of Necessity for the Subject Property. The 'Resolution of Necessity lacks the required findings of 4050975.1 -- N 1475.1