CORRESPONDENCE - 75D - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PALMIERI TYLER City of Santa Ana June 6, 2017 Page 4 • No showing the City needs this property. • No showing this project is greatest public good. Uncertainty as to what the "project" is, • No showing taking any portion of this property is consistent with the least private injury. There is no analysis or comparison to other possible takings. • No showing need, urgent or otherwise, to take any property now. No schedule provided despite being referenced in the staff report. What is the "schedule." Why was a schedule set? Who set it? When? Why must it be maintained? What are the consequences of failure to maintain? Why has it not been provided? Conversely, if a schedule has been set, the decision is a foregone result. The Government Code Section 7267.2 offer requirement is not a quasi -legislative determination subject to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235. Even so, the offers do not comply with Government Code Section 7267.2. They are invalid. The City has not made any offer or approved any offer or appraisal made. The offers rely on an "extraordinary assumption" that environmental remediation is both required and will cost approximately three quarters of a million dollars. First, no showing that the site to be acquired should be subject to environmental remediation. Further, the purported remediation is based on the wrong standards not applicable to this location. 'Phe investigation purports to use "San Francisco' standards. We and the property are not in San Francisco. San Francisco is not the oversight jurisdiction. The purported investigation and asserted remediation fails to identify the relevant oversight jurisdiction. Assuming no specific oversight jurisdiction, using the wrong standards based on the wrong policies results in an invalid and unsupported remediation hypothesis. Thus, the offer is invalid. The underlying assumed remediation cost estimate is not valid. It is inconsistent with highest and best use. It is inconsistent with the highest price definition and the market. Factually, there is no cleanup order. Other than as a tool in the eminent domain acquisition, there is no investigation. There is no showing a deduct of this magnitude is required by the market. The purported cleanup is based upon grossly unnecessary and excessive excavation. Given that the whole purpose of the report is to be used as deduct against any offer, it appears it is based on making it as expensive as possible to coerce negotiations which in itself is improper. * Government Code Section 7267.2 does not provide for an assumed deduction from the offer for environmental remediation much less "remediation" that is 2101919.1.