Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2006, PH 5 - PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REVIEW AND RECONSIDERATION OF RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ELIGIBILITY FOR THE ROSE council �I a� ac;en6A REpoizt �N�m� PH 5 CITY O'F SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Jay Walter, Public Works Director SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REVIEW AND RECONSIDERATION OF RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ELIGIBILITY FOR THE ROSE GARDEN INN CAO RECODEIENDATION 1. That Council open and conduct a public hearing to review the City's initial determination. that the owners of the Rose Garden Inn are not eligible to receive relocation assistance in connection with the Calle Joaquin Relocation Project. 2. That the Council upon conclusion of public hearing and based on consideration of the evidence presented makes the findings for the denial of the Rose Garden Inn's request. DISCUSSION Background The request for relocation as by the Rose Garden Inn stems from a public project to construct roadway and other improvements to the freeway interchange between 101 and Los Osos Valley Road .(the Calle Joaquin Relocation Project). Modifications to the interchange include the relocation of Calle Joaquin so that it wraps around the back of the Rose Garden Inn before connecting to the existing Calle Joaquin in front of the Rose Garden Inn (Attachment 1). In order to make these public improvements it was necessary to acquire a small, unoccupied portion of the Rose Garden Inn's property from its property owners. This property could not voluntarily be acquired from the owners. As a result, an eminent domain proceeding brought by the City of San Luis Obispo is now on file in the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court: Attachment 1 shows the unoccupied portion of the Rose Garden Inn's property to be acquired and the general vicinity of the Calle Joaquin Realignment Project (the "Project") is shown on Attachment 2. California Law Regarding Relocation Benefits California law allows persons or businesses displaced by a public project to recover what are commonly known as relocation benefits. The payment of relocation benefits is an administrative procedure completely separate from eminent domain proceedings. Relocation benefits are not determined in an eminent domain proceeding. Rather, the City decides the amount of relocation benefits and provides them to the displaced property owner ("displacee"). The displacee may challenge that determination in court in a separate proceeding, but only after a City Council has Relocation Assistance Public Hamtng� Page 2 made a final decision on the subject. Generally, relocation benefits consist of moving expenses, re-establishment expenses, and monetary assistance with higher rental payments at a new location. In California, relocation benefits are available only to persons who will be displaced by, or who will move as a result of a public project, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Chapter 6, Section 6034(a). The Project only involves the acquisition of minor right of way and slope easement interests located on the unoccupied southern and northwestern portions of the subject property. This acquisition does not result in any displacement from the existing motel. As a result, it is staff's and outside Legal Counsel's opinion that the Rose Garden Inn should not be afforded displacee status or be considered eligible for relocation assistance. Necessary Findings are Not Met In order to find that the Rose Garden Inn is eligible to receive relocation assistance, the City Council must find and determine that the Rose Garden Inn will be forced to physically move or be displaced from the property. As mentioned above, only an unoccupied portion of the Rose Garden Inn's property has been taken in connection with the Project. The motel buildings will not be impacted by the Project. Further Analysis of the Inn's Claim for Relocation Benefits The Rose Garden Inn's representatives have attempted to rely upon the California Department of Transportation's (CalTrans) Right of Way Manual ("Manual") to support their claim for relocation benefits (June 16, 2006 request for relocation letter- Attachment 3). They believe that the provisions for eligibility provided under the Manual are more favorable to their claim for relocation benefits than the California Code of Regulations. However, the Manual is only applicable to CalTrans projects in which federal funds are being used. The Project at issue here is not a CalTrans project, and no federal funds are involved. In any case, the Manual's definition of an eligible "displaced person" is similar to the California Code Regulations definition mentioned above. In particular, the Manual defines a "displaced person" as someone who moves from real property as the direct result of the acquisition of property for a public project. CalTrans Right of Way Manual, section 10.01.03.01. All of the citations mentioned in the June 16, 2006 letter are from the inapplicable CalTrans Right of Way Manual. Attachment 4 is the City's September 1, 2006, response (prepared by outside Legal Counsel)to the Rose Garden Inn, denying eligibility for relocation benefits. The Rose Garden Inn contends that as a result of the Project, the Inn's buildings will have to be reconfigured so that its entrance is located on the opposite side of the property from where it is now. Among other things, the Rose Garden Inn wants compensation for moving its reception building to the other side of the property, and reconfiguring its motel units at the rear of the property so that they face the relocated Calle Joaquin Road. The Rose Garden Inn is making an identical claim for these construction costs in the pending eminent domain matter, and that claim will ultimately be decided by a jury. However, the Staff believes that.this claim is not within the purview of relocation benefits because the Rose Garden Inn is not a"displaced person." vZ Relocation Assistance Public I eanng� Page 3 In summary, the Rose Garden Inn does not have eligibility for relocation benefits because: 1. The Rose Garden Inn has not been required to move from its property as a result of the Proj ect; 2. The Rose Garden Inn does not meet the definition of a "displaced person" under the California Code of Regulations; 3. The Rose Garden Inn's claims for reconstruction of the motel buildings to face the relocated Calle Joaquin Road will be decided in the pending eminent domain proceeding. Recommended Process for the Public Hearing It is recommended, and the Rose Garden Inn property owners and their legal counsel have been so advised, that Council's Public Hearing on this topic be conducted as follows: The Rose Garden Inn's representatives should be permitted to make a 20-minute presentation supporting its position regarding relocation assistance, the City staff should be provided a 10-minute period to detail its recommendation regarding relocation assistance, and the Rose Garden Inn should have a final five minute period in which to rebut the City staffs recommendations. It is further recommended that strict adherence to these guidelines be enforced. Following the hearing, if Council finds, based on its consideration of any documentary evidence, testimony, comments, and oral case argument that may be presented, and all other evidence and records pertaining to this matter, that the evidence warrants the necessary findings to support the City's position that the Rose Garden Inn is not entitled to receive relocation assistance, then staff recommends that the City Council, in the exercise of its discretion, and taking vote on this matter, deny the Inn's request for relocation assistance reconsideration. The Council may take action following the hearing or provide direction to staff in order that a resolution can be brought back for Council adoption at a future meeting. FISCAL IMPACT Denial of the relocation benefits may result in displacees seeking redress in court, resulting in potential unknown costs to the City. Allowing for award of relocation benefits will result in the City determining the amount of such benefit based on moving expenses, re-establishment expenses, and increased rental expenses. If the displacees later object to that amount, they may proceed to Court, again resulting in potential unknown costs to the City. All documentary evidence which the Rose Garden Inn intends the City Council to review has been previously submitted. Petitioners were notified by letter on October 30, 2006, that all materials to be considered had to be submitted no later than November 9, 2006. Materials timely submitted will be copied and distributed to Council prior to this hearing. Relocation Assistance Public .mg ' Page 4 ALTERNATIVE Further Stag'Review. Direct staff to review displacees' claim for relocation benefits and return to Council with a recommendation on an appropriate amount of relocation expenses to be provided to displacees. This alternative is not recommended because staff does not believe that displacees have a valid claim for benefits. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Overview Photograph 3. June 16, 2006 Request Letter from William S. Walter 4. September 1, 2006 Response Letter G:\Agenda-Ordinances-Resol\Relocation Assistance Rose Garden[nn-Agenda Rpt.DOC 7 ATTACHMENT 1 0 is 30 45 LEGEND Harmon Pared(betbre takes) 1:1250 slope mmmm(so City Raw. TWnP0rOFY COMbliftli EaSentaft CME)(3 tftol NN L APN: 053-171-025 icr 0 N vul j2 a. CALLS JOAQUIN REALIGNMENT ASSOCIATES EEC W�RMW= wwas a mama EXHIBIT C - APN. 053-171-025 CHECK".DRAWN BY.. TR CHECK 0653 ��"a rn �\l�Knb � � � / a v �,,. si'"`�v'•�.Yy i��c}t���z`�...�fl���.t� rt 4 F .. �,,�zk -Or 't' YL j 'Si.` Lr ,;. •3, �.. St's T � 0.4 ` fi•id �.J`�t•� e�+ [w Ci>C � b 3 .t'ni v�lf,.'r Y.^jl�,. ,Y'C n -l':.� ,lr i �.�� 't '?Va :3r �v.•:S c i 4 'r,��q r ;l t 1G�jteP t s 1�tC.'Ssfy Yl j a. �` +.,•. � S3J" � !1}" t a.i 1, ._� �' �fry"�rtyCy }1 � +l�ys ��/�i' �h'� f tr•'��D3Y �yG� �"'' , ,� A ` ,fir F '.f ✓� •�. ' > �j�.�h t Yv..'�}{�a. : a Y ��'�� rW Fp tib�Y � � � f r `•1 a � ( by 't ��f��C�.V�t '',lt ' It y/)�'�Y��ttveyY S n$r' Tc I 1 u r r 1 rx •.i s� tY'eVT tit r � ct{ °r. �}� .\ � � .y n ��� 1.n Net rte] � i rr s•' \��' •e �".✓<2{�• � _ '± �^^y,x= '--:'' t i �� f 'rte r° t ` M� rh f � �,;;.9'. . • ♦��r '. vhf � ��. •. r v a \ rr+l f �y 4• 4�•' � 41` I- :if r f u - �.Ili� ` r I 1\ J M ~ .1 ti• •'' �'<. �:. � a � • � �r \r.'tr'Y � k 1 6���1 U � - _ATTACHMENT LAW OFFICES WILLIAM S. WALTER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATON TELEPHONE 1605) 541-6601 THE BELLO MOUSE EMAIL FACSIMILE (805) 541-6640 679 MONTEREY STREET WWALTERQTCSN.NET SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93401 June 16,2006 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S.MAIL Anthony W.Bagnette,Esq. Price Postal&Parma,LLP 200 East Carrillo Stieet,Fourth Floor Santa Barbara, CA 931010 Jonathan P.Lowell City Attorney City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 RE: Relocation Assistance Eligibility for Rose Garden Inn Gentlemen: Our preliminary review of the above referenced matter indicates the availability of relocation assistance in partial take situations, while we acknowledge that such assistance may not be duplicative of just compensation awarded through condemnation. Section 10.05.01.00 provides that, "Relocation can be to the remaining portion of the property if a partial acquisition has occurred. (See 10.05.13.01: Reestablishment payments for moves to the remainder.)" "Reestablishment payments can be paid to a business that must reconfigure or make modifications to the remainder in order to accommodate the displaced portion of the business." This assistance includes the following categories: Sec. 10.05.05.01 Transportation of Personal Property-, Sec. 10.05.05.02 Disconnecting/Dismantling; Sec. 10.05.05.03 Utility and Service Lines; Sec. 10.05.05.04 Telephone Equipment; Sec. 10.05.05.05 Modifications to Personal Property; .Sec. 10.05.05.07 Storage of Personal Property; Sec. 10.05.05.08 Move and Storage Insurance; Sec. 10.05.05.10 Licenses, Permits,Fees and Certification; Sec. 10.05.05.11 Professional Services; C` ATTACHMENT 3 Price Postel&Parma,LLP City Attorney, City of San Luis Obispo June 16,2006 Page 2 Sec. 10.05.05.12 Re-lettering and Reprinting; Sec. 10.05.10.01 Loss of Tangible Personal Property; Sec. 10.05.10.02 Purchase of Substitute Personal Property; Sec. 10.05.10.03 Cost to Sell Property; Sec. 10.05.11.00 Misc. Expenses; Sec. 10.05.14.00 Reestablishment Expenses; See. 10.05.14.02 One time Advertisement of Replacement Location; Sec. 10.05.14.03 Exterior Signing; Sec. 10.05.15.00 Non-Occupant Owner Reestablishment expenses; -See. 10.05.22.00 Compensation for Loss of Goodwill. Please provide this office at your earliest opportunity with copies of the applicable relocation assistance regulations for this project,in light of whether it is receiving federal or state funding. In addition, please provide us with information regarding the claims and eligibility determination process, including any administrative appeals and a description of such appellate bodies, forms and documentation requirements,and other applicable information. We would appreciate your prompt attention to this matter so that we can avoid, as we are sure the City will appreciate, any potential duplication with the claims to be asserted in the pending condemnation proceedings. Very truly yours, William S. Walter cc: Wayne Hanson Western Inns Steven Mugglebee,Esq. 0656 PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LL ATTACHMENT ARTHUR R. GAUDI COUNSELLORS AT LAW JAMES H. HURLEY,JR. J.TERRY SCHWARTZ 200 EAST CARRILLO STREET, SUITE 400 DAVID W.VAN HORNE SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA DANIEL C. DAVID PETER D. SLAUGHTER SUSAN M. BASHAM DOUGLAS 0. ROSSI 93101-2190 ERIC.P. HVOLBOLL CRAIG A. PARTON CLYDE E.WULLBRAN DT RETIRED PARTNERS KENNETH J. PONTIFEX MAILING ADDRESS P. O. BOX 99 JOHN KERR WILSON CHRISTOPHER E. HASKELL SANTA BARBARA, CA 93102-0099 TERRY JOHN CONNERY TIMOTHY E. METZINGER DAVID K..HUGHES TODD A.AMSPOKER PENNY CLEMMONS MARK S. MANION TELEPHONE (805) 962-0011 MELISSA J. FASSETT OUR FILE NUMBER IAN M. FISHER FACSIMILE (805) 965-3978 ANTHONY W. BAGNETTE SMOHARRAM AM ZODEH 18931.8 (Calle Joaquin) SAM ZODNIFER K. HANRAHAN KRISTIN M. R. SLABEY LESLEY E. CUNNINGHAM September 1, 2006 VIA U.S. MAIL William S. Walter Walter&Bornholdt 679 Monterey St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: City of San Luis Obispo v. Hanson, et al. San Luis Obispo County Superior Court No. CV050169 Dear Mr. Walter: The City of San Luis Obispo ("City") has reviewed your letter of June 16, 2006 and does not believe your clients are eligible for relocation assistance as a result of the Calle Joaquin Relocation Project ("subject project"). The citations you submitted in support of your claim that relocation assistance is warranted in the subject case are not applicable to the subject project. Although you did not identify them as such, Sections 10.05.05.01-05, 10.05.05.07, 10.05.05.08, 10.05.05.10, 10.05.05.11, 10.05.05.12 , 10.05.10.01-03, 10.05.11.00, 10.05.14.00, 10.05.14.02, 10.05.14.03, 10.05.15.00, and 10.05.22.00 are all apparently from Chapter 10 of the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) manual. However, the subject project, as defined in the City's Resolution No. 9635 (2004 Series) approved December 7, 2004, is a municipal project to realign Calle Joaquin, not a CalTrans project. The City utilizes 25 CCR Chapter 6 to determine an applicant's eligibility to receive relocation assistance. Unlike the protections you allege are afforded you pursuant to CalTrans Manual Section 10.05.01.00', 25 CCR § 6034 requires that a party physically move or be displaced from the property before that party is considered a displacee and is considered for relocation benefits. (25 CCR § 6008(f) defines displaced persons as "Any person who moves from real property, or who moves his personal property from real property...")The subject project involves the condemnation of minor right of way and slope easement interests located on the unoccupied southern and northwestern portions of the subject property. This take does not ' It should be noted, it appears-after a cursory review of CalTrans Manual Section 10.01.03.01,that your claim for relocation would most probably not be supported even if the.subject project were a CalTrans project. Additionally,Section 10.05.13.01 cited in the parenthetical in paragraph 2 of your letter details what a displacee (assuming such status is granted) is not entitled to payment for and does not support any claim for relocation benefits. ATTACHMENT 14 William S. Walter September 1,2006 Page.2 result in any displacement from the existing motel. As a result,your clients are not afforded displacee status nor are they eligible for relocation assistance. Pursuant to your request, a copy of 25 CCR Chapter 6 is forwarded. Finally, you may pursue an administrative appeal pursuant to 25 CCR §§ 6156 and 6158 in the form of either an informal oral presentation or seek a formal review and reconsideration by the City Council. Such request for an administrative appeal should be submitted through: The City Attorney's Office c/o Jonathan Lowell City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 This request must comply with 25 CCR Chapter 6 and be submitted pursuant to the time requirements of 25 CCR §§'6156(d) and 6158(d)(1) and(2). Very truly yours, Anthony W. Bagnette for PRICE,POSTEL&PARMA LLP cc. Jonathan Lowell Timothy Bochum 0658 s�tu�o `J RECEIVED _ N'U'V 1 a 2006 SLO CITY CLERK aV�CEN'SE� MEMORANDUM From the Office of the City Attorney November 14, 2006 To: Mayor and City Council Via: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer From: Jay Walter, Public Works Director Subject: Postponement of Public Hearing for Review and Reconsideration of Relocation Assistance Eligibility for the Rose Garden Inn (Item PH 5) Legal counsel for the owners of the Rose Garden Inn has requested that the hearing be postponed. The City Attorney's office and our outside condemnation counsel will work with the requestors' lawyers to schedule a new hearing date and clarify the procedures applicable to the hearing. The rescheduled public hearing will be renoticed, so there is no need for the Council to continue the November 14 hearing. It is recommended the Council direct staff to reschedule this public hearing in the future on a date to be determined. RDC AiG. $J COUNCIL g CDD DIR J5 CAO j FIN DIR RED FILE WCAO FIRE CHIEF MEETING AGENDA i$ATTORNEY PW DIR ieCLERK/ORIG POLICE CHF DATE O ITEM # �f1 S 13 DEPT HEADS (iiREC DIR ®�/B Et UTIL DIR G� T/2�BksE ($HR DIR y.A•C4.erE� Y C'Ra eAJCie.G Y-, y. e-,49-7c,e- LAW OFFICES WILLIAM S. WALTER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE (SOS) S41-6601 THE BELLO HOUSE EMAIL FACSIMILE (6051 541-6640 679 MONTEREY STREET WWALTEROTCSN.NET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 November 14, 2006 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Todd Amspoker, Esq. Anthony W. Bagnette, Esq. Price Postai &Parma, LLP 200 East Carrillo Street, Fourth Floor Santa Barbara, CA 931010 Jonathan P. Lowell City Attorney City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Clerk, City of San Luis Obispo (Personal Delivery) 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Relocation Assistance Eligibility for Rose Garden Inn Dear Sirs: This will confirm the conversation Marsha Forrest of my office had with Lauren Beers of Mr. Amspoker's office this afternoon in which Lauren told Marsha the public hearing for the review and recossideTanon of r:,locatior, assistance eligibility for the Rose Garden inn has been taken off calendar and will not go forward. Therefore, I will not attend the City Council Meeting tonight, November 14, 2006. Very truly yours, William S. alter cc: Wayne Hanson Stephen T. Mugglebee, Esq.