My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 75E
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2017
>
06/06/2017
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 75E
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/6/2017 4:41:06 PM
Creation date
6/6/2017 4:39:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Agency
Public Works
Item #
75E
Date
6/6/2017
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
b/1/ZUiI 7 :Z3 : UPCI Melissa nammona PTWWW Page 6 <br /> Maria D. Huizar <br /> June 1, 2017 <br /> Page 6 <br /> having its decision afforded the deference to which it might otherwise be entitled." (Id, at <br /> p. 1129.) <br /> In Norm's Slauson, the Court held that the condemning agency's approval of the <br /> resolution of necessity was invalid when the agency "simply 'rubber stamped' a <br /> predetermined result" because,prior to any hearing on the resolution, it (a) entered into <br /> an agreement with a developer by which the agency agreed to transfer a portion of <br /> defendant/property owner's restaurant, and the developer agreed to construct a <br /> condominium thereon; and (b) issued and sold tax exempt bonds to pay for the <br /> acquisition. (1d, at p. 1127,) "In short, the agency, without any notice to Norm's [the <br /> • <br /> property owner], in effect sold the property and issued bonds to obtain the money to <br /> acquire the property all before taking any steps to condemn the property." (Id,, at <br /> • p. 1125.) <br /> Here, the Owners are informed and believe that the City has impermissibly <br /> committed itself to take portions of the Subject Property. <br /> By having already committed to the project, the City has left itself no discretion <br /> but to approve the resolution. (See, e.g., Norm's Slauson, supra, 173 Cal.App.Jd at pp. <br /> • 1127-1130; Code Civ. Proc., § 1245,255, subd. (b).) Accordingly, if the resolution is <br /> • adopted, the hearing which led to its adoption will have been a pretense and the City's <br /> • policy-making board will simply be "rubber stamping" a pre-determined result, If the <br /> resolution is adopted under such circumstances, it will be voidable on that basis. <br /> • <br /> Based upon the foregoing objections, we respectfully request that the City not <br /> adopt the resolution or, at a minimum, continue the hearing on this agenda item until such <br /> time as the objections are addressed. <br /> lithe City has any questions or comments concerning the content of this letter, it <br /> should contact the undersigned at the number listed above. <br /> Very toly;yours, <br /> / r <br /> . .. . <br /> .. / A a <br /> J. Banker <br /> AJB;ab <br /> cc: Client (via email) <br /> 2097759.1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.