CORRESPONDENCE - 75E - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6/1/Z017 i : ?3 : 03 PM Melissa Hammond PTWWW Page 5 Maria D. Huizar June 1,2017 Page 5 whether the particular interest in the property that the City seeks to take is necessary. In the absence of substantial evidence supporting such a determination, the Resolution of Necessity will be invalid, The property owner is informed and believes that viable PProject alternatives exist that would provide all of the amenities of the proposed Project but at a substantially reduced cost and with less private property. Those alternatives would materially reduce the need to acquire any private property for construction of the proposed Project. However, the City has failed to consider those project alternatives, Barring such consideration, the City cannot make an informed determination as to whether the Subject Property is actually necessary for the project. 5. Tile city Is ]area ,able of Conduct, r„ F2ir ;_,: al, And Im partial I>i . rin; Qn Ibie Proposed Ado i ion•.o.f The Resul flan of Necessi! It is believed that the. City has already committed itself to the proposed taking, so any hearing resulting in the adoption of the resolution by the City would he a predetermined result, The proposed resolution hearing is a pretense andartifice, and any resolution adopted under these circumstances would be voidable by a court of competent jurisdiction. (See, Redevelopment Agency v, Norm's Slauson (1985) 173 CaLApp.3d 1121, 1127.) As a condition precedent to the exercise of the power of eminent domain, a public agency "must hold a public hearing to determine whether a particular taking meets the [requirements of Civil Code section 1245.235, i,e., is for a public use, necessary, and designed in such a manner to cause the least private injury]...." (Norm's Slauson, supra, 173 Cal..App.3d at p. 1125 [Emphasis added].) "Implicit in this requirement,„is the concept that,,.the [ajgency 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.,.," (id,, at pp. 1125.1126) "[A]n agency that would take private property...must,,.conduct a fair hearing and make its determination on the basis of evidence presented in a judicious and.nonarbitrary fashion." (.Id., at p, 1129.) in the absence of a fair and impartial hearing, the resolution of necessity is void. if the condemning agency fails to conduct itself in this manner, then the resolution is not entitled to its ordinary conclusive effect and the burden of proving the elements for a particular taking rests on the government agency with the court being the final • adjudicator. (Norm's Slauson, supra, 173 Cal.App,3d at pp. 1128-1129.) "The governmental agency in such a situation cannot act arbitrarily and then seek the benefit of 2f097{9),I