HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/1992, 3 - INITIATION OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS AS TO PORTIONS OF THREE (3) PROPERTIES FOR THE MISSION PLAZA EXPANSION PROJECT (SPRADLIN, 1019-23 BROAD STREET; MILLER & WALTER, 679 MONTEREY STREET; AND VARGAS, 667 MONTEREY STREET) ��IN�i �I� IIIpp�I:I�III�I( San MEETING GATE:
city of lues OBispo ITEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
.SROM: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney .
SUBJECT: Initiation of Eminent Domain Proceedings as to Portions of
Three (3) Properties for the Mission Plaza Expansion Project
(Spradlin, 1019-23 Broad Street; Miller & Walter, 679
Monterey Street; and Vargas, 667 Monterey Street)
RECOMMENDATION:Initiate Eminent Domain Proceedings to Acquire Portions
From the Above-entitled three (3) Properties by Adopting the
Attached Eminent Domain Resolutions.
DISCUSSION:
The parcels are identified on the Subject Property Maps Attached to each
Resolution. The Resolutions of Necessity Require Four Affirmative Votes of
the City Council for Passage. The Properties to be acquired through
eminent domain are as follows:
Remaining
Creek Area Level Area Total Area
1. Vargas 7432 sq. ft. 3492 sq. ft. 10,924 sq. ft. 23 , 504 sq. ft.
? . Miller/
Walter 4137 sq. ft. 1758 sq. ft 5895 sq. ft. 12 , 147 sq. ft.
3. Spradlin 4036 sq. ft. 190 sq. ft. 4226 sq. ft. 7 , 071 sq. ft.
It is necessary that the above portions of property be acquired by the City
for the Mission Plaza Expansion Project. The acquisition is unimproved
land. No buildings are being acquired. The project consists of, and is
intended, among other things, to provide park and recreation facilities,
public walkways, and flood control.
An Environmental Impact Report was certified on January 2 , 1980 by
Resolution No. 4067 at which time conceptual approval was granted for the
Mission Plaza Expansion (Taylor Plan) . The City's General Plan, including
the Park and Recreation Element, designated and approved the aforementioned
property acquisitions and implementation of the public project. Attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference is a project description as set
forth on pages 1 through 3 of the Final EIR.
The public use and necessity has been established by the aforementioned
General Plan, carious reports and studies, and the proposed public use as
a public park/pedestrian walkway coupled with flood control, all of which
will constitute an established public use under the law. The addition of '
landscaping in conjunction with the park and walkway will act as a positive
benefit to the properties.
I
����� i��NIIIIIIIP �IIBIU city of san ,s owpo
i
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
The City hired Reeder, Gilman & Associates to appraise the land acquisition
on behalf of the City. Mr. Reeder met with all property owners prior to
making his appraisal. City staff offered the appraisal figure and have
attempted to reach agreement with the owners on the terms and conditions
for voluntary sale of the property; however, agreement for the acquisition
have not been reached at this time.
The following written contacts were made by Special Eminent Domain Counsel
erman H. Fitzgerald with the property owners after the appraisal was
completed:
S radlin: Letters of May 29, 1992 ; June 18, 1992 ; June 24 , 1992 ; June 30,
1992 ; July 24, 1992 ; July 24 , 1992 (2nd letter, same date) .
filler Walter: Letters of May 29 , 1992 ; July 24, 1992 ; August 6, 1992 ;
August 11, 1992 ; August 31, 1992 .
Vargas: Letters of May 29, 1992 and July 24, 1992 ; no reply or
acknowledgement received from Mrs. Vargas.
It is now appropriate to institute eminent domain proceedings since the
City is at an impasse with the property owners. Under state law procedure,
a hearing is held by the City Council prior to initiating eminent domain
proceedings. (Please refer to the Letter of Instructions from Herman H.
Fitzgerald, dated October 23, 1992 . )
The hearing is for the limited purpose of considering whether to adopt the
Resolutions of Necessity, which entails a consideration of the following
four items:
a) Whether the public interest and necessity require this project;
b) That the project is planned or located in a manner that will be
most compatible with the most public good and least private
injury;
C) That this property sought to be acquired is necessary for this
project; and
d) Whether the offer required by Government Code section 7267. 2 has
been given.
The state law makes clear that this hearing is not for the purpose of
hearing testimony as to what the property is worth, or whether the
appraisal is valid, or whether the City has made a fair offer to the
property owner.
2
3��
�����► i►�Illllll�p�' 9�U111 city of san . .is oBispo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
OTIFICATION:
e property owners have been given notice of this hearing by letter dated
ctober 22 , 1992 from the Office of Special Eminent Domain Counsel Herman
. Fitzgerald.
PTIONS:
1) Adoption of Resolutions of Necessity. This is the recommended
action.
2) Do not adopt Resolutions of Necessity. This would terminate
further proceedings for the acquisition of this property.
3) Continue this item for additional information or action to adate
certain.
iISCAL IMPACT:
he appraised value of the property to be acquired is $215, 000. Between
he funds designated . in the 1991-93 Financial Plan for Mission Plaza
mprovements (approximately $164 . 300 remaining) , and the proceeds from the
'990 Certificates of Participation for open space/parkland acquisition
,$900, 000) there are sufficient funds available to accomplish this
acquisition, including costs of eminent domain proceedings.
I
GJ/sw
Attachments:
1. Excerpts from EIR
2. Resolutions of Necessity (Exhibits A, B, & C)
3 . Notice of Intention
4. Letter from Herman H. Fitzgerald
I
3
INTRODUCTION
In August 1979 the San Luis Obispo City Council reaffirmed its support for
extension of Mission Plaza along San Luis Creek from Broad Street to Nipomo
Street. The council also tentatively approved a schematic site plan and
authorized preparation of an environmental impact report and additional
design work.
This environmental impact report has been prepared to evaluate the basic
effects of such an extension and to identify alternative design features
and ways of reducing harmful impacts .
The California Environmental Quality Act requires environmental impact
reports to be prepared when projects have the potential to significantly
harm the environment. This report is intended to provide the public and
those government bodies approving all or parts of the project with complete.
and accurate information on which to base their decisions.
This is a draft. After it has been reviewed by the public and concerned
agencies, and modified to reflect their criticisms and suggestions which
are judged to be valid, it will be presented to the City Council . The City
Council must decide if the report is adequate for its use.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
" Physical Features
Public, pedestrian access will be extended from the existing Mission Plaza
downstream along San Luis Creek from the Broad Street bridge to the Nipomo
Street bridge (see Figure 2, site plan) . There will be a four-foot-wide
walkway under the Broad Street bridge. Its surface will be about one foot
above the adjacent stream--just high enough to clear water levels typical
for April through November . Climbing- to the elevation of th'e' Nipczo Street
bridge , the' path will continue as a meandering walkway along the north side
of the creek.
The conceptual plan includes a small amphitheater midway between the two
streets on the north side of the creek. The stage would be. slightly higher
than summer water level , with the most distant seating terrace about six feet
higher than the stage. The amphitheater and some areas bordering the walk -
way would be lawn.
A pedestrian bridge will link the opposite sides of the creek. It will be
aligned with the principal entry to the creek area--a walkway next to the
city parking lot. On the south (Higuera Street) side of the creek, there
will be two walkways, one passing under the bridge and descending to just
above water level and a second which will be developed along an easement as
businesses along Higuera are developed or remodeled.
Groundcover 'and trees will be planted as shown in the site plan. Overhead
wires will be put in underground conduit.
A retaining wall will be built along the north side of the creek as it
approaches the Nipomo Street bridge. It will be vertical and about 12 feet
1
(Excerpt from E.IR) /�s , /
Broadrr
t.
iN
'4,4 f;_ 7.,
CO
Oa �6•• (5 F- W(�
• s}�-i.•i�S}'•"_"' < LSA 43
r a DOM w
LL
CL
goz
ug -
Nipomo St. m � �
iLL
� � z
(EIR)
high where it reaches the bridge abutment, and about six feet high and
sloped as it reaches the steps to the pedestrian bridge. (This wall is
intended to provide additional channel capacity and to better direct flood
water as it approaches the Nipomo Street bridge. )
The project site is a little less than one acre and includes about 540 feet
of creek.
Construction
The project will include site preparation (removal of trees and plants ,
excavation, removal of debris and rubble) , construction of walls , paths , and
bridge abutments and installation of electrical service, lights , new plants,
irrigation system, and the pedestrian bridge. Construction equipment such
as pneumatic hammers, skip loaders, trucks , and cranes will be used on the
site and in some cases within the creek.
Continuing Use and Maintenance
The site will be used informally for strolling, sitting, and water play by
children and docs . It will . be used formally for small public gatherings ,
including perfor-nances at the amphitheater which may include amplified
speech or music. More detailed descriptionsof construction methods , contin-
uing uses and maintenance activities are provided in the section which
discusses impacts.
Aoprovals Required
The decision to carry out the project, including what features will be incor-
porated, how it will be built, and when, will be made by the San Luis Obispo
City Council , with advice from the project architect (Richard Taylor &
Associate,' Santa Barbara) , the Desion Review Board, city staff, and the
public.
A permit to do work within the creek will be required by the California
tm
Deparent of Fish and Game______ -'
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/EXISTING CONDITIONS
General Setting
The project site is surrounded by urban development: streets, parking lots,
commercial buildings, multifamily residences , and public buildings (see
Figure 1). Here, San Luis creek flows within generally well defined banks ,
with the bottom about 16 feet below the surrounding ground surface. The
channel in this block ranges from 40 to 60 feet wide, while the bridge abut-
ments at either end have openings of 30 feet.'- The creek banks are over-
grown with largely non-native plants. While during the winter the creek
carries a highly variable amount of storm water and sediment, most of the
- year it is shallow, clear, and regularly flowing.
3
(EIR) J-4
CXFCR.v:4 ?L C I I I I I I ��
I1�11111111111111111 1111111111 11111.11�I1��11 1���
I"• I .Grr.�W'YL 1
Q Z Q
/y III I IIS
LLJ to
V I
��+ Z Z
v o ~ IL
0 CL V tL > O U*JeeO s1 ?� �1
z
>T111
Z IIII
1 1 (x 0
BROAD .
o
Xv
h�
o z
>`- Z
BROAD STREET
uj
uj
ice
a
ui
• o
z
c�
a
a
S
; .i: :::.:•::::•::•:•s: .: :: s:
;`; ;2=
O
NiPOMO STREET o
cn >
0
1L
(EIR. 4) ^�
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY,
THE EXPENDING OF FUNDS THEREFOR, THE
DESIGNATION OF PERSONNEL TO ACCEPT DEEDS AND GRANTS
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND THE INSTITUTION OF
EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS RE:
667 Monterey Street (Vargas)
WHEREAS, California Code of Civil Procedure, Title VII of Part
3 , Sections 1230.020, 1240.010, 1240,020, and 1240. 110, and
Sections 37350. 5, et seQ. , of the Government Code of the State of
California authorizes the City of San Luis Obispo to exercise the
power of eminent domain for the purposes of taking property or
property interests necessary to carry out any of the City's powers
or functions; and
WHEREAS, the public interest and necessity require the
acquisition of a portion of the real property hereinafter described
as 667 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for a public
use, namely for a public park, including pedestrian walkways and
access purposes, as part of the City's park and recreation
facilities; and
WHEREAS, Kathy Vargas (hereinafter "Owner") is the record
owner of the property to be acquired, herein described as a portion
of 667 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, California; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is authorized to exercise
the power of eminent domain for the purpose of taking such property
by virtue of Government Code Section 37350. 5 and Code of Civil
Procedure Sections 1230. 020, 1240. 010, 1240. 020 and 1240. 110; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, Section
1245.235, notice and opportunity to be heard was given to the
person shown on the last equalized county assessment role as the
owner; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 7267. 2 the owner
of record was offered just compensation for the real property
hereinafter described, and provided with a proper Appraisal Summary
Statement; and
WHEREAS, the Project was designated and approved after
extensive study and public consultation to be located in the most
advantageous area of the City and in such a way as to impair and
obstruct as little private property as possible and to provide
access to the San Luis Creek area.
��,B 19 'A" ��
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page Two
WHEREAS, on January 2 , 1980 by Resolution No. 4067 this
Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Mission Plaza Extension Project pursuant to State and City laws;
and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 1981 by Resolution No. 4484, this Council
certified that the Project was compatible with land use plans of
surrounding jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, on July 22 , 1981 the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo determined that the land acquisition for the
Project was consistent with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 1982 by Resolution No. 4866, this Council
approved and determined that this Project is consistent with the
City's General Plan, in particular the Park and Recreation Element
of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, after public noticed hearing on January 2 , 1980, and
pursuant to the certified Environmental Impact Report, this Council
conceptually approved the design and plans of the Project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, as follows:
1. That the portion of the real property situated at 667
Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, California, to be acquired herein
is described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by
reference, a diagrammatic illustration of the parcel of real
property and that portion to be acquired herein;
2 . The public interest and necessity require the acquisition,
construction, completion and implementation of the Mission Plaza
Extension Project; said Project is a public park project, a public
use, and that portion of the property described as 667 Monterey
St. , San Luis Obispo, California, as set forth in the attached
Exhibit "A" , is to be taken for such public use;
3 . The public interest and necessity require the acquisition
of that portion of the real property described above and on Exhibit
"A" and the taking of said real property described above and on
Exhibit "A" and the taking of said real property and all interests
is necessary for the construction, completion and operation of the
Project, and it is hereby directed, that said real property and
interests described above is to be acquired by the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, by eminent domain proceedings as hereinafter
set forth;
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page Three
4 . Said Project is planned and located in the manner that
will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least
private injury; that said Project will provide a pedestrian walkway
and access for, inter alis, creek maintenance, thus benefiting the
general public;
5. That the statutory offer required by Government Code
Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner of record;
6. The City Attorney and the City Administrative Officer are
authorized and directed to perform all acts necessary on behalf of
the City for the acquisition of said interest in real property, and
said City Attorney and City Administrative are further authorized
to instruct Special Condemnation Counsel HERMAN H. FITZGERALD
and/or CHRISTINE C. FITZGERALD to prepare, institute, and prosecute
to conclusion on behalf of this City, a proceeding in eminent
domain, or any such proceedings as may be required for the
acquisition of the property described above which cannot be
acquired through negotiation and purchase and to do any and all
other things in connection with such proceedings as in his/her
judgment may be necessary or convenient to the successful
conclusion of said proceeding or proceedings;
7. The City Administrative Officer is hereby authorized to
expend funds available to the City for the acquisition of the said
real property and interests;
8.. The City Administrative Officer is hereby individually
authorized and directed to consent to and accept, on behalf of the
City, all deeds and grants conveying any interest in the property
as hereinabove described;
9. The City Administrative Officer is hereby authorized and
directed to record a certified copy of this Resolution in the
Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo. It
may thereafter be referred to in any acceptance by any of the
officers or agents referred to herein with the same effect as
though a certified copy of this Resolution were attached to the
document accepted.
UPON MOTION of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page Four
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of ,
1992 .
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
PRM:
�ve Officer
16
JIF
Pr O t' V 1.73 to m t ( w•:... ^ % ,. \. 7 `lyy
:� u O �+ Oam z /
cp tT
m lVA O
►, 7. S n
fA
qD
VF
ti. at
tr-
.• p ._ r r OSr Mil 1: `11 fi �IJ�i �\ 1 �.. w 1 1� •j cn
.i• ::iii . �,, .
14
•� .i j - •S\� 'ai: 11
it J� ' . '•'�' � ` �j
Ilk
UR
Z.
41 ' ' •.
13
r' a E
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY,
THE EXPENDING OF FUNDS THEREFOR, THE
DESIGNATION OF PERSONNEL TO ACCEPT DEEDS AND GRANTS
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND THE INSTITUTION OF
EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS RE:
679 Monterey Street (Miller/Walter)
WHEREAS, California Codb of Civil Procedure, Title VII of Part
3, Sections 1230A20, 1240.010, 1240, 020, and 1240. 110, and
Sections 37350. 5, et sea. , of the Government Code of the State -of
California autlforizes the City of San Luis Obispo to exercise the
power of eminent domain for the purposes of taking property or
property interests necessary to carry out any of the Cityfs powers
or functions; and
WHEREAS, the public interest and necessity require the
acquisition of a portion of the real property hereinafter described
as 679 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for a public
use, namely for a public park, including pedestrian walkways and
access purposes, as part of the City's park and recreation
facilities; and
WHEREAS, Peter C. Miler, Rosemary D. Miller and William S.
Walter (hereinafter "Owner") are the record owners of the property
to be acquired, herein described as a portion of 679 Monterey
Street, San Luis Obispo, California; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is authorized to exercise
the power of eminent domain for the purpose of taking such property
by virtue of Government Code Section 37350.5 and Code of Civil
Procedure Sections 1230. 020, 1240. 010, 1240. 020 and 1240. 110 ; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, Section
1245. 235, notice and opportunity to be heard was given to the
person shown on the last equalized county assessment role as the
owner; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 7267 .2 the owner
of record was offered just compensation for the real property
hereinafter described, and provided with a proper Appraisal Summary
Statement; and
WHEREAS, the Project % was designated and approved after
extensive study and public consultation to be located in the most
advantageous area of the City and in such a way as to impair and
obstruct as little private property as possible and to provide
access to the San Luis Creek area.
E H E S
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page Two
WHEREAS, on January 2 , 1980 by Resolution No. 4067 this
Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Mission Plaza Extension Project pursuant to State and City laws;
and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 1981 by Resolution No. 4484, this Council
certified that the Project was compatible with land use plans of
surrounding jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 1981 the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo determined that the land acquisition for the
Project was consistent with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 1982 by Resolution No. 4866, this Council
approved and determined that this Project is consistent with the
City's General Plan, in particular the Park and Recreation Element
of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, after public noticed hearing on January 2 , 1980, and
pursuant to the certified Environmental Impact Report, this Council
conceptually approved the design and plans of the Project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ,IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, as follows:
1. That the portion of the real property situated at 679
Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo, California, to be acquired herein
is described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by
reference, a diagrammatic illustration of the parcel of real
property and that portion to be acquired herein;
2. The public interest and necessity require the acquisition,
construction, completion and implementation of the Mission Plaza
Extension Project; said Project is a public park project, a public
use, and that portion of the property described as 679 Monterey
St. , San Luis Obispo, California, as set forth in the attached
Exhibit "A" , is to be taken for such public use;
3 . The public interest and necessity require the acquisition
of that portion of the real property described above and on Exhibit
"A" and the taking of said real property described above and on
Exhibit "A" and the taking of said real property and all interests
is necessary for the construction, completion and operation of the
Project, and it is hereby directed that said real property and
interests described above is to be acquired by the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, by eminent domain proceedings as hereinafter
set forth;
3��
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page Three
4 . Said Project is planned and located in the manner that
will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least
private injury; that said Project will provide a pedestrian walkway
and access for, inter alia, creek maintenance, thus benefiting the
general public;
5. That the statutory offer required by Government Code
Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner of record;
6. The City Attorney and the City Administrative Officer are
authorized and directed to perform all acts necessary on behalf of
the City for the acquisition of said interest in real property, and
said City Attorney and City Administrative are further authorized
to instruct Special Condemnation Counsel HERMAN H. FITZGERALD
and/or CHRISTINE C. FITZGERALD to prepare, institute, and prosecute
to conclusion on behalf of this City, a proceeding in eminent
domain, or any such proceedings as may be required for the
acquisition of the property described above which cannot be
acquired through negotiation and purchase and to do any and all
other things in connection with such proceedings as in his/her
judgment may be necessary or convenient to the successful
conclusion of said proceeding or proceedings;
7. The City Administrative Officer is hereby authorized to
expend funds available to the City for the acquisition of the said
real property and interests;
8 . The City Administrative Officer is hereby individually
authorized and directed to consent to and accept, on behalf of the
City, all deeds and grants conveying any interest in the property
as hereinabove described;
9 . The City Administrative Officer is hereby authorized and
directed to record a certified copy of this Resolution in the
Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo. It
may thereafter be referred to in any acceptance by any of the
officers or agents referred to herein with the same effect as
though a certified copy of this Resolution were attached to the
document accepted.
UPON MOTION of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page Four
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of ,
1992 .
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROV FORM:
ty A inistrative Officer
At orn
in
+;� � Z _... •. .'� \�. - :. � fes. . .:ti+ ' .
' • .•/4.• is /� .( �• 4.Y�� _,
O.� • l • • I ••/'tea A�-�.•. ' ,v �'
eH IA
qj 25 pa
rte.. u OI V O a m z ,
Li
O
u.' C O m N V ~ '. -1 /'///`�� � 1• }C�: \ \ '` a O i — y A
- N
LAulpi• 7 T •r�.. •,� �.,y +y /a / y♦ .I • . •..
�.• '+' yq(u/� {�•�,��.ice -4 • \ '�
r+ OV t
N N •1 , IJ�IIt• ,..:�IYlv+�I7i•i .O• �-f '\TJI •i \ •\�• �I ' y
LX
— Li J m mtjtPO uj O '•I jj!Il' •t �+���a �. ♦/• i♦�. •) �j�, . •�
ID 10 Ni
CD
`;t .il T .�$:"S �I:Tp. -.! �,• ' V ;:.0 • L,
Nk
rl
Ann
: . a is \ ,�• .1:.
Jf
• s LLL•• j• .
'3 .tom t —.1,1CT
y0
it
1'
4 . .
EXHIBIT "A" ,�7
RESOLUTION NO. (1992 Series)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY,
THE EXPENDING OF FUNDS THEREFOR, THE
DESIGNATION OF PERSONNEL TO ACCEPT DEEDS AND GRANTS
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND THE INSTITUTION OF
EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS RE:
1019-23 Broad Street (Spradlin)
WHEREAS, California Code of Civil Procedure, Title VII of Part
31 Sections 1230.020, 1240. 010, 12401020, and 1240. 110, and
Sections 37350.5, 'et sea. , of the Government Code of the State of
California authorizes the City of San Luis Obispo to exercise the
power of eminent domain for the purposes of taking property or
property interests necessary to carry out any of the City's powers
or functions; and
WHEREAS, the public interest and necessity require the
acquisition of a portion of}-the ftal pl*bperty hereinafter described
as 1019-23 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for a public
use, namely for a public park, including pedestrian walkways and
access purposes, as part of the City's park and recreation
facilities; and
WHEREAS, G. D. Spradlin (hereinafter "Owner") is the record
owner of the property to be acquired, herein described as a portion
of 1019-23 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, California; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is authorized to exercise
the power of eminent domain for the purpose of taking such property
by virtue of Government Code Section 37350. 5 and Code of Civil
Procedure Sections 1230. 020, 1240. 010, 1240. 020 and 1240. 110; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, Section
1245.235, notice and opportunity to be heard was given to the
person shown on the last equalized county assessment role as the
owner; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 7267.2 the owner
of record was offered just compensation for the real property
hereinafter described, and provided with a proper Appraisal Summary
Statement; and
WHEREAS, the Project was designated and approved after
extensive study and public consultation to be located in the most
advantageous area of the City and in such a way as to impair and
obstruct as little private property as possible and to provide
access to the San Luis Creek area.
EXHIBIT 11C97
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page Two
WHEREAS, on January 2 , 1980 by Resolution No. 4067 this
Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Mission Plaza Extension Project pursuant to State and City laws;
and
WHEREAS, on May 14, 1981 by Resolution No. 4484 , this Council
certified that the Project was compatible with land use plans of
surrounding jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, on July 22, 1981 the Planning Commission of the City
of San Luis Obispo determined that the land acquisition for the
Project was consistent with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 1982 by Resolution No. 4866, this Council
approved and determined that this Project is consistent with the
City's General Plan, in particular the Park and Recreation Element
of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, after public noticed hearing on January 2, 1980, and
pursuant to the certified Environmental Impact Report, this Council
conceptually approved the design and plans of the Project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, as follows:
1. That the portion of the real property situated at 1019-23
Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, California, to be acquired herein is
described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by
reference, a diagrammatic illustration of the parcel of real
property and that portion to be acquired herein;
2. The public interest and necessity require the acquisition,
construction, completion and implementation of the Mission Plaza
Extension Project; said Project is a public park project, a public
use, and that portion of the property described as 1019-23 Broad
Street, San Luis Obispo, California, as set forth in the attached
Exhibit "A" , is to be taken for such public use;
3. The public interest and necessity require the acquisition
of that portion of the real property described above and on Exhibit
"A" and the taking of said real property described above and on
Exhibit "A" and the taking of said real property and all interests
is necessary for the construction, completion and operation of the
Project, and it is hereby directed that said real property and
interests described above is to be acquired by the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, by eminent domain proceedings as hereinafter
set forth;
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page Three
4 . Said Project is planned and located in the manner that
will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least
private injury; that said Project will provide a pedestrian walkway
and access for, inter alia, creek maintenance, thus benefiting the
general public;
5. That the statutory offer required by Government Code
Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner of record;
6. The City Attorney and the City Administrative Officer are
authorized and directed to perform all acts necessary on behalf of
the City for the acquisition of said interest in real property, and
said City Attorney and City Administrative are further authorized
to instruct Special Condemnation Counsel HERMAN H. FITZGERALD
and/or CHRISTINE C. FITZGERALD to prepare, institute, and prosecute
to conclusion on behalf of this City, a proceeding in eminent
domain, or any such proceedings as may be required for the
acquisition of the property described above which cannot be
acquired through negotiation and purchase and to do any and all
other things in connection with such proceedings as in his/her
judgment may be necessary or convenient to the successful
conclusion of said proceeding or proceedings;
7. The City Administrative Officer is hereby authorized to
expend funds available to the City for the acquisition of the said
real property and interests;
8. The City Administrative Officer is hereby individually
authorized and directed to consent to and accept, on behalf of the
City, all deeds and grants conveying any interest in the property
as hereinabove described;
9. The City Administrative Officer is hereby authorized and
directed to record a certified copy of this Resolution in the
Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo. It
may thereafter be referred to in any acceptance by any of the
officers or agents referred to herein with the same effect as
though a certified copy of this Resolution were attached to the
document accepted.
UPON MOTION of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Resolution No. (1992 Series)
Page Four
the foregoing Resolution was adopted this day of ,
1992 .
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Administrative Officer
i At orno
tttltt ZISIHX9
• z
36 T
e'+ '•;l l' � S � ! � � 6
1 i !
•CG OOH ,1� •.• 1 :C.�..'tl ti. � ! - .
� •�. � 41 icy. !�.•.• '�•.� ..�. �� 'e �_� �� I. r �1 `�t'
13
IF
• .! �'t� — • � •�. •.�•~}••�/ / ` !`moi�`�tt\�^ ,`� :i` }�
IL
rl Y � •„ �.A-v, ,1� {� fir..!-
10 !a 1
t� /I • =
cn
m
Cid
►►//•♦� .�• 1 t !` ` C{1l1't .7'
v` •� Y� � . `: . r �,` rr •� \♦ �.iC ��•jJ I�� • •1 11 I I• O
R in n A
F ll !
= �� .' N1
I • __ `/ ''\ is li/ft n/y/}.rl Or�•
`,O R, '�S \. a �: '• ��i N in
m 0 O �aJa9
' 1: •. • ', t' •. - , ������,? �' N „ •. Cly
o in en en
0 CO
.. •, 1 I CeP;�!
LAW OFFICES OF
�1�T H. Fi T^//"E A U R LING AVENUE. SUITE 302
1LVV � ��(�\JGlll�.i BURLINC;AM E, CALIFORNIA 94010
TELEPHONE (415) 349-5195
A PROFESSIONAL CORPOMnON FACSIMILE (4151 348-3518
MERMAN H. FITZGERALD
CHRISTINE C. FITZGERALD
October 22, 1992
Ms . Kathy Vargas
642 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: City of San Luis Obispo Property Acquisition
(Acquisition of 667 Monterey Street)
Mission Plaza
Dear Ms . Vargas :
Enclosed herewith please find a corrected Notice of Intention
of the City of San Luis Obispo to adopt a Resolution of Necessity
for the acquisition of the above-entitled real property .
The correction involved a typographical error in which the
words "Redevelopment Agency of" appeared in the title and caption
of the Notice . The Resolution hearing will be before the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo and the adoption, if.
approved, will be by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo . The "Redevelopment Agency" is not involved with this
hearing or acquisition.
Very truly yours,
qR4M-A4NFITZ D
HHF :mlh
Enclosure
bcc: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, Esq.
(Notice of Intention, 1)
NOTICE OF INTENTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY BY
EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
TO: Ms . Kathy Vargas
642 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE : Acquisition by the City of San Luis Obispo of a portion
of 667 Monterey Street situated in the City of San Luis
Obispo, County. of San Luis Obispo, State of California
THIS NOTICE is given to you as the owner (appearing on the
last equalized County assessment rolls) of that certain real
property located in the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo
County, California, and referred to herein as 667 Monterey Street .
PLEASE BE ADVISED that the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis
Obispo County, California, intends to adopt a resolution
authorizing the acquisition of a portion of the property described
above and delineated on Exhibit "A" (attached hereto and
incorporated by reference as though set forth at length herein) .
Said acquisition is needed and sought for municipal purposes,
i.e . , park and recreation with resulting flood control benefits .
You, as the owner of the property .have a right to appear and
be heard at the meeting of the City Council set for November 17,
1992 at 7 :00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, 'California, to be heard on the
following matters :
1 . Whether or not the public interest and necessity require
the proposed project;
2 . Whether or not the project is planned or located in the
manner that will be most compatible with the greatest
public good and least private injury;
3 . Whether or not the property described on Exhibit
"A" is necessary for the proposed project; and
4 . Whether the offer required by Government Code
Section 7267 .2 has been given.
Your right to appear and be heard on the above matters is
conditioned upon your filing a written request to appear and
be heard within fifteen (15) days after the date that this notice
N of I, 2
h o+L !
is mailed to you as indicated by the attached proof of mailing.
Dated: October 1992 .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BY:
HERMAN -A�--?rTZGZKkLD
Attorney for City San
Luis Obispo
All written requests to be heard shall be directed and
addressed as follows :
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, Esq.
City Attorney
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
P .O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Notice Intention
N of I, 3
" -7
Como
:.,'� • ( � •moi.. I�-• I I / ••-•• "� '�•,' �.�,.ati'- :
La
co
90
ap
,1i
ift
VA
tj
LU 0
CD
VA 2w
Ll
ur N r — ..� �..�... •! -•w� . . , .•; .• (, �' ` I '
CPO,
'j
aw 1- '• ��SI �/�� p•1hl'a �-'l \ ��`S` `y urI ,�.�•'' •
a V N N W ..) �IIII{ iipA _ •. S _ va "� ,� !
w 1 .
�. V V N DD `11 r rtJJ Y :tj -J• -� J v `• /� '• w
, �r J S3 �- � ,I4�t I �r..I,i 4� �p� `\� •. � ..� ' Cir
NUN
Pli ca
PC
— � �. 111 y ��{ t� :l'.T 7' '74 '•..i' - '� � /,
a � •— i:.
e Z
r• a
0-2
' N of I, 4
PROOF QF SERVICE
I am employed by the law firm of Herman H. Fitzgerald in the
County of San Mateo, California . I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to the within action. My business address
is 345 Lorton Avenue, Suite 302, Burlingame, California 94010 .
On this date I served the within :
NOTICE OF INTENTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR
THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
on the interested parties in this cause by placing a true copy of
said documents in a sealed envelope in the United States mail,
first-class with postage fully prepaid at Burlingame, California
addressed as follows :
Ms . Kathy Vargas
642 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct . Executed on October 22, 1992 at Burlingame,
California.
MICHELE L. HUDAK
N of I,5
LAW OFFICES OF
w48 LO RTAVENUE. SUITE 02
HrIxAT H. GERALD BURUNGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
TELEPHONE (4181 348-5198
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION FACSIMILE X4181 348-3818
MERMAN M. FITZGERALD
CHRISTINE C. FITZGERALD
October 22, 1992
Peter C. Miller
Rosemary D . Miller
William S . Walter
679 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re : City of San Luis Obispo Property Acquisition
(Acquisition of 679 Monterey Street)
Mission Plaza
Dear Mr. and Mrs . Miller and Mr. Walter:
Enclosed herewith please find a corrected Notice of Intention
of the City of San Luis Obispo to adopt a Resolution of Necessity
for the acquisition of the above-entitled real property .
The correction involved a typographical error in which the
words "Redevelopment Agency of" appeared in the title and caption
of the Notice . The Resolution hearing will be before the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo and the adoption, if
approved, will be by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo. The "Redevelopment Agency" is not involved with this
hearing or acquisition.
Very truly yours,
VRAM-A43440-ITZ 0
HHF :mlh
Enclosure
letter to miller/Walter
bcc: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, Esq.
N of T A ��`
NOTICE OF INTENTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY BY
EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
TO: Mr. Peter C. -Miller
Ms . Rosemary D. Miller
Mr. William S. Walter
679 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE : Acquisition by the City of San Luis Obispo of a portion
of 679 Monterey Street situated in the City of San Luis
Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California
THIS NOTICE is given to you as the owner (appearing on the
last equalized County assessment rolls) of that certain real
property located in the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo
County, California, *and referred to herein as 679 Monterey Street .
PLEASE BE ADVISED that the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis
Obispo County, California, intends to adopt a resolution
. authorizing the acquisition of a portion of the property described
above and delineated on Exhibit "A" (attached hereto and
incorporated by reference as though set forth at length herein) .
Said acquisition is needed and sought for municipal purposes,
i.e . , park and recreation with resulting flood control benefits .
You, as the owner of the property have a right to appear and
be heard at the meeting of the City Council set for November 17,
1992 at 7 :00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, to be heard on the
following matters :
1 . Whether or not the public interest and necessity require
the proposed project;
2 . Whether or not the project is planned or located in the
manner that will be most compatible with the greatest
public good and least private injury;
3 . Whether or not the property described on Exhibit
"A" is necessary for the proposed project; and
4 . Whether the offer required by Government Code
Section 7267 .2 has been given.
Your right to appear and be heard on the above matters is
conditioned upon your filing a written request to appear and
N of I, 7
be heard within fifteen (15) , days after the date that this notice
is mailed to you as indicated by the attached proof of mailing.
Dated: October 15?C9 , 1992 .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BY:
HERMAN D
Attorney for eity San
Luis Obispo
All written requests to be heard shall be directed and
addressed as follows :
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, Esq.
City Attorney
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
P .O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Notice Intention
N of I, 8
J J�
ol
tn
Coen
+H(aH
W Li
Z 1' r ♦ �.. ir.�rr:'•n.�i• ,.is •s \• • - 1 /... • 1
tam a m 7.M• +
pj
f ) C 0 Cb
O m N V M _Z,` .�/m.. 'Ir.'^(; f.• \ 'a �` = ; •.'O a. �l 1:
rA
/ a to u OI - c :• '1. _ .•+.ate \ .� ;t
cp
i; • ~ O Ot J I
Lit
r r• ab,
il, I IIS. ` �, e ' tj} • s 1 e
tp
ISI L _ � �;,I i�., �.� t!i i� ::�'i�_/� r `. :C'• :�, i. /\
jJ4 t
ty
it
• `_
\&T �.• a� _ i 5
j - �1..1t 1 � 1\ ! a •1 /A•*'eJ•• •� I : `• '< I.rr
G , , l' • `.� , ;: ;, is � t•' a
N
of 'I, 9 ,S
PROOF OF SFRVTrF
I am employed by the law firm of Herman H. Fitzgerald in the
County of San Mateo, California . I am over the age of eighteen
years and not a party to the within action . My business address
is 345 Lorton Avenue, Suite 302, Burlingame, California 94010 .
On this date I served the within:
NOTICE OF INTENTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR
THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
on the interested parties in this cause by placing a true copy of
said documents in a sealed envelope in the United States mail,
first-class with postage fully prepaid at Burlingame, California
addressed as follows :
Mr. Peter C. Miller
Ms . Rosemary D . Miller
Mr. William S . Walter
679 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct . Executed on October 22, 1992 at Burlingame,
California.
MICHELE L. HUDAK
N of I, 10
LAW OFFICES OF
NZ'(�h/( A*T H.
�i�7'i'7f�FRAi LORTON AVENUE. SUITE 9
11L�111�1f�v it � ��(,LJ BURLIN OAM E. CALIFORNIA 94010
TELEPHONE Id161 348-6198
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION FACSIMILE 14181 348-3818
HERMAN H. FIT20CRALO
CHRISTINE C. FITZGERALD
October 22, 1992
Mr. G.D . Spradlin
La Familia Ranch
P .O. Box 12.94
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Re: City of San Luis Obispo Property Acquisition
(Acquisition of 1019-23 Broad Street)
Dear Mr. Spradl.in:
Enclosed herewith please find a corrected Notice of Intention
of the City of San Luis Obispo to adopt a Resolution of Necessity
for the acquisition of the above-entitled real property .
The correction involved a typographical error in which the
words "Redevelopment Agency of" appeared in the title and caption
of the Notice . The Resolution hearing will be before the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo and the adoption, if
approved, will be by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo. The "Redevelopment Agency" is not involved with this
hearing or acquisition.
Very truly yours,
I
HERMAN H. F I T��3
HHF:mlh
Enclosures
letter to spradlin
bcc: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, Esq.
N of I, 11
3 33
NOTICE OF INTENTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO,
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION
OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY BY
EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
TO: Mr. G.D. Spradlin
La Familia Ranch
P.O. Box 1294
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
RE: Acquisition by the City of San Luis Obispo of a portion
of 1019-23 Broad Street situated in the City of San Luis
Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California
THIS NOTICE is given to you as the owner (appearing on the
last equalized County assessment rolls) of that certain real
property located in the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo
County, California, and referred to herein as 1019-23 Broad
Street .
PLEASE BE ADVISED that the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis
Obispo County, California, intends to adopt a resolution
authorizing the acquisition of a portion of the property described
above and delineated on Exhibit "A" (attached hereto and
incorporated by reference as though set forth at length herein) .
Said acquisition is needed and sought for municipal purposes,
i.e . , park and recreation with resulting flood control benefits .
You, as the owner of the property have a right to appear and
be heard at the meeting of the City Council set for November 17,
1992 at 7 :00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, to be heard on the
following matters :
1 . Whether or not the public interest and necessity require
the proposed project;
2 . Whether or not the project is planned or located in the
manner that will be most compatible with the greatest
public good and least private injury;
3 . Whether or not the property described on Exhibit
"A" is necessary for the proposed project; and
4 . Whether the offer required by Government Code
Section 7267 .2 has been given.
Your right to appear and be heard on the above matters is
conditioned upon your filing a written request to appear and
be heard within fifteen (15) days after the date that this notice
N of I, 12
is mailed to you as indicated by the attached proof of mailing.
Dated: October O?p2 , 1992 .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
- BY: JMA��-'40"Wvvz
HERMAN ITZG D
Attorney for City San
Luis Obispo
All written requests to be heard shall be directed and
addressed as follows :
Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, Esq.
City Attorney
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
P .O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Notice Intention
N of I, 13
3-3.�
• //•.-�•. ' 1 I __ +4• • tel••
Y. I ••:/• • • Y
�\ rl -
Job-/. .� 'I^I '' / Y,:•s�.i��• Imo' �i ,
HeH
r r-'1 '
14
P' a pj to WO. _ \•.� i.. i - :. \ ` ./ f t .
m J it/.� .• R•• `.,.. \ r~w `- 1
too irk_: 1
r
1 I Q LI
• �1 J � � — � - p l•i. �• I���(�. ••�f ��1(� •tom ••• � ` �� A •- .
cc .'I.
' tliaj .'� •1:1:1 y:• - iii � _
jn; :I i+
. :- .ti� �+�j, i _ • . •�` {.': tee:
p. .�
1 t ! "- ' Itis t ;►: _ _ .7 ;' ; I,.s'....49
IM
�, �1 .� • • 1' • I! 1, �.+
bc
• • ' 3 L I" "� � 1 ht: • "�e � V
dr
it I � [? - 1 i '~`{. •– �•M: i•
13
-q.. '� ,• . :_ —1 Z''I a row?.
•' � r
N Of T_, 14
PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed by the law . firm of Herman H. Fitzgerald in the
County of San Mateo, California . I am over the age of eighteen
• years and not a party to the within action. My business address
is 345 Lorton Avenue, Suite 302, Burlingame, California 94010 .
On this date I served the within:
NOTICE OF INTENTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR
THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
on the interested parties in this cause by placing a true copy of
said documents in a sealed envelope in the United States mail,
first-class with postage fully prepaid at Burlingame, California
addressed as follows :
Mr. G.D . Spradlin
La Familia Ranch
P .O. Box 1294
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct . Executed on October 22, 1992 at Burlingame,
California .
MICHELE L. HUDAK
N of I, 15
LAW OFFICES OF .
HERMAN H. MGERMD 345 LORTON AVENUE, SUITE 302
9
BURLINGNGAM E, CALIFORNIA 94010
TELEPHONE (415) 348-5195
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION FACSIMILE (4151 348-3518
HERMAN H. FITZGERALD
CHRISTINE C. FITZGERALD
October 23, 1992
City Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo
P .O. Box 8100
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Attention : Jeffrey G . Jorgensen, Esq.
Re : Acquisition of Property by Eminent Domain
Mission Plaza Expansion Project
1019-23 Broad Street/679 Monterey Street/667 Monterey Street
To the City Council :
The following memorandum sets forth the procedures for the
adoption of the Resolution of Necessity for the acquisition of
portions of the above-entitled properties .
The law requires that the City must send a written notice by first
class mail to each person whose property is to be acquired by
eminent domain and whose name and address appears on the last
equalized county assessment roll of the City' s intention to adopt
a Resolution of Necessity regarding those proceedings . Secondly,
the City must adopt the Resolution of Necessity itself determining
that the public interest and necessity require the acquisition of
such property interests and directing the filing of eminent domain
proceedings .
To comply with the law a Notice of Intention to Adopt a
Resolution of Necessity has been prepared and forwarded to the
property owner. No City authority is needed to send this Notice .
It is a requirement of the Eminent Domain Statutes .
At the hearing on the Resolution, the City will hear all persons
whose property is to be acquired by the Eminent Domain Resolution
speak in relation to the adoption of the Resolution of Necessity
and the directing by you of the filing of eminent domain
proceedings for the acquisition of the real property interest for
the public project . Please note that this is not a public
hearing. The City is only required to hear those persons to whom
the Notice of Intention has been mailed and who have filed a
timely request as specified in the Notice.
(Letter, 1)
As set forth above, the City is not required to -hear the general
public regarding the Resolution of Necessity. The law gives the
right to be heard only to those whose property interests are to be
acquired. Moreover, if no property owner files a written request
pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245 .235 (b) and
(c) , no such hearing need to be held and the City can proceed to
consider and vote on the Resolution. The only issues that the
owners may speak to are as follows :
(a) Whether the public interest and necessity require the
project;
(b) Whether the project is planned and located in the manner
that would be most compatible to the greatest public
good and the least private injury;
(c) Whether the property sought to be acquired is
necessary for the project; and
(d) Whether the offer required by Government Code Section
7267 .2 has been given .
The above are the only four matters that may be discussed. There
can be no discussion as to the value of the property interests nor
the basis of the valuation .
If the Resolutions are adopted, eminent domain proceedings will be
filed thereafter.
However, continued efforts will be made by the staff to acquire
the property by negotiations with any of the owners or their
representatives . In that manner, the staff would hope to
minimize, if not eliminate, the expense and effort involved in
litigation to both the City and the property owners .
The staff recommends, with my concurrence, that upon conclusion of
the Resolution hearing, you make the findings set forth in the
Resolution and adopt the Resolution of Necessity .
A vote of 4 members of the City Council is necessary to adopt the
Resolution .
I will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Respectfully yours,
HERMAN H. F21fZGERALD
HHF :dlm
Forms:ACO LETTER
(Letter, 2) r
3'3 i
F F:011 LF=ICIN eRhY.HPi 11 . 17. 1392 1`: 42 P.
_EYING AGENDX
DATE-//-/7-292 ITEh'F
LOW CPPICE5
LASIirx 8c Gn&HA_*i
RICHARD LASKIN SUITE BAD TELEPHONC
ARNOLD K. GRAHAIA BOO NORTH BLAND BOULEVARD (010) 547-4800
(JI.'LUSON M. PERRY CLn N'DAI.7{, CALIYORIIA 01203.1244 3) 4e8 6v. -
RICHAND w. nA 5TCN TELCCOPICR
LYNN I IMARA IBIS) 247-ZIOO
TELECOPIER & FLRST.CLASS MAIL
November 16, 1992
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
900 Palm Street COPIMTO:
P.O. Box 8+100 00 DeAction ❑ Fn
San Luis Obispo, California 90301 6a-CDUncg ❑ CDDDM
�,c�o ❑ FW.DM
f,ArtcA ❑ Fere:aia
Re: MISSION PLAZA PROJECT 3A779UNEY ❑ FwDIIt
Resolution of Necessity Hearing: 11/17/1992 ffamwoR;a ❑ POLJCea-L
Owner: William S. Walter, et, al. ❑ MCM.TFAM GC
REDIX
C READ PILE ❑ Da .
Property Address: 679 Monterey Street Q! li f
San Luis Obispo, CA pSf;T-ttlr 1Zaaoimo
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
This office represents William S. Walter, as 'Trustee for the William Silas Walter
Trust, which is the owner of a one-half undivided interest in the property commonly known
as 6'79 Monterey St., San Luis Obispo, California.
Our client, who is a local attorney acid Adjunct. Lecturer in the Department of City
and Regional Planning, Cal Poly, regrets being unable to attend the City's hearing on this
important matter, but he is presently on a sabbatical leave attending the Department of
Land Economy, University of Cambridge, England. Mr. Walter regrets that while City's
actions concerning the possible acquisition of a portion of this property was considered
nearly two years ago, the City has been slow to complete its ,appraisals and to make any type
of Government Code-required offer, taking over one year to complete the appraisals, and
thus failing to move forward with this proposed project until the time that he is out of the
Country and thus at a considerable disadvantage in responding to this serious mal-ler. Only
The City and its attorneys can explain why the process has been so slow, and why the City
has chosen to proceed at the present time.
Our client, Mr. Walter, objects to the proposed Resolution of Necessity on a number
of grounds which are outlined below. His real concerns address both the procedure (a
boilerplate Resolution) and the substance of the proposed project. From a very general
standpoint, the City appears to be putting; the cart before the horse. It has, albeit slowly,
taken steps and focussed upon condemnation and acquisition while forgetting the: must
important thing: What type of project, if one is to be pursued by the City, is best lbr this
extremely important and valuable portion of the City. RECEIVED
;MOV 171992
CITY COUNCIL'
SAN LUIS 081SBDi CA �.
3-coo P.M.
F F.Ci 11 IR:.K 114 t: 6F:FH A11 11 . 17. 19 1 15: :- F. 3
LAW OFFICES
LASKIPr Fie GRAN 4—M
San Luis Obispo
November 11, 1992
Page 2
In focusing upon the exercise of the City's extraordinary condemnation powers, the
City has ignored spending the necessary energies and preparatory funds to properly analyze
the proposed project, including conducting the required public hearings as a part of the
review process. Instead, the City now resorts to a simple, unapproved plan, the
Environmental Impact Report, and the concept of the future of the Mission Plaza going
back over twelve years to 198(►, completely ignoring significantly changed circumstances, the
requirements and obligation of law, and the overall public interest..
I. THE CITY HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH CEQA AND
THEREFORE CANNOT MAKE ANY OF THE SUGGESTED
FINDINGS OR ADOPT THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION
The foundational problem with the City's present proposed acquisition is the failure
to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Previously, and of public
record, representatives of our client asked City officials for information pertaining to CEQA
compliance; e.g. the Initial Study, Notification of Affected or Concerned Agencies,
Notification to the State Clearinghouse, the Proposed Negative Declaration, a current
environmental impact report, and other documents. The request was stone-walled by the
City Attorney, who asked that the request be put in writing.
CEQA does not caluntenance stone-walling or written requests, to hide legal or
environmental analysis deficiencies. instead, it contemplates and expressly requires the
fullest public participation and openness in the process of environmental review. At this
juncture, there is no evidence that the City has complied with CEQA whatsoever in
resurrecting a 12-year old project as a basis for condemnation and proposed findings that
the project is in the public interest, that the public necessity requires THiS project rather
than a range of analyzed alternatives, whether the project is planned or located in the
manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private
injury, and whether the property described in the resolution is necessary for the project.
What was finally supplied by the City in response to our client's request for CEQA
infonnation was the 1980 Final Environment impact Report. There is no evidence of any
further environmental update or review whatsoever.
The 1980 Final E1R, however, is legally inadequate to support the proposed findings
or Resolution of Necessity. The legal requirements of CEQA are clear that where there are
or may be changed circumstances, a previously prepared E1R is inadequate. There are
significant changed circumstances with this proposed project which require that a new EIR
be prepared prior to the hearing on or the adoption of any Resolution of Necessity. The
proposed project is simply stale, its is the environmental analysis underlying its proposal.
FROM LF_1,1:4 l•n'RHFI1 11 . 17. ]5°= 1v: :° F. i
LAW OP7ir_E5
Lasx1-'%7 & GRAHAM
San Luis Obispo
November 17, 1992
Page 3
The significant and materially changed circumst,mces include:
1. The proiect itself has chanced. As shown on Figure 2 of the Final EIR, the
pedestrian access proposed in the project did not include the area behind the Earthling
Bookstore from Broad Street. Instead, the City has partially implemented a different project
involving more extensive construction on the opposite (from the project) side of the Creek,
including direct pedestrian access from Broad Street. Indeed, the construction of the
opposite access involved extensive Creek work, is materially different from the proposed
project., and therefore, renders all of the significant hydrological and other calculations in the
old EIR, and thus its conclusions, inapplicable and out of date. Similarly, the pattern of
pedestrian access on the opposite side of the Creek is entirely different from that discussed
in the Final EIR which changes the entire balance which must go into the City's analysis
aboutthe type of project, if any, which is appropriate on the proposed takings areas. As
decision makers, you simply need a current document which weighs the variety of options
in light of significant revised and constructed projects on the opposite creek-side. You
cannot, for instance, make an informed decision as to whether the type of project on the
proposed takings area needs to be actively pedestrian, or whether serious alternatives should
be provided, such as passive and attractive open space, possible retention of Creek flows to
create superior wildlife habitat(small lakes and ponds--much as has been achieved upstream
in recent years), and a visually attractive habitat-enhanced area which puts wildlife and
habitat resources over active use of the creek side area. The issue is one of balance of uses
within this unique area, not a mechanical repetition of the pattern of upstream uses based
upon a failure to think about intervening changes.
2. There have been physical c}tanoes as well. The Creek has not rtmained static
for the past 12 years. The area on the Spradlin property, for instance, no longer has
sufficient soils to provide a place for access without the significant importation of fills, and
substantially more Creek work and engineering than was previously analyzed in the old EiR.
On our client's property, the gentle sloping toward the creek bottom was changed
dramatically and materially during the "March Miracle" of 1991, significantly reducing the
area for access which is outside of the existing Creek. The profiles and cross sections which
provide the basis of the 1980 EIR are no longer accurate, therefore, the factual basis
generated in the old EIR is faulty, and the hydrology is suspect and notproperly
documented with current data. In addition, the intervening upstream Creek alterations by
the City need to be analyzed, and most important, the extensively revised project on the
opposite side of the Creek needs to be reviewed as impacting hydrology, project alternatives,
impacts, and mitigation.
FF 01i LASKIN C GF::HG11
11 . 11. 195?
LAW CRriCES
LASHI-v Fie GRAHA24
San Luis Obispo
November 17, 1992
Page 4
3. There have also been obvious habitat cham7es. There is no mention in the old
EIR of the existing population of ducks and other wildlife. Anyone cats observe, as tourists
and children often do now, the significant flock of ducks who nest in areas which this stale
project would turn into tot lots and pedestrian access duplicating the access on the opposite
side of the Creek constructed in the intervening years. It is obvious that the wildlife would
not survive the pedestrian access work during cons, -uetion. Do the policy makers want
wildlife habitat or pedestrian access? Only a new EIR can provide the information
necessary for such analysis.
The text of the old Elft itself supports the need for a new EIR in light of changed
projects and circumstances, for careful analysis before attempting to justify boilerPte
et .
findings about public interest and necessity, greatest puhlic good and least private injury
, c
c
For example:
P,1 -- The importance of an L-IR is acknowledged ;and the potential of the old
Project to significantly impact the environment was clearly recognized. The need for
"complete and accurate informatinn on which to bass" decisions was also acknu�ledged.
P.3 -- The fact that the proposed project will include site preparation, removal of
trees and plants, excavation, removal of debris and rubble, construction of walls, paths,
bridge abutments, irrigation system, the use of construction equipment such as pneumatic
hammers, skip loaders, trucks, and cranes evert within the Creek.
Id, -- The use of the water areas by dogs, large groups of Persons in public
gatherings in and adjacent to the Creek.
Id. -- The jurisdiction of the Fish and Games Department is acknowledged, and yet
there is no indication of current consultation with that Department in the last 12 years, or
in light of the changed conditions.
P. 4 -- The project site comprises about 1.5% of the length of the creek within the
city limits.
P. 4 -- The fact that physical change is on-going: "Violent winter storm flows often
alter the bottom configuration, remove and redeposit silt, and remove vegetation by
scouring.
P. 6 -- The fact that physical change is on-going: "Stich velocities erode unprotected
bank sails. Rapid water movement on the south side of the channel has removed most loose
sediments, le<tNIng a rocky surface atop highly organic clay:'
FRO11 LR..I: 11i & GPAH F;M 1 ] . 1+. 19?2 1 `: 45 P. e
• Ll+�v OFFICES
L.ASXTV & GRAHAM
San Luis Obispo
November 17, 1992
Page 5
P. 7 -- "The existing trees and shrubs provide shade, and therefore cooler water than
would otherwise be possible, as well as habitat for girds and privacy for neighboring
residential uses."
P. 7 -- The importance of passive, non-access values of the creek area: "... this
section of creek and those immediately above and below it accommodate it wick variety of
wildlife, perhaps all the more valuable because of the experiences provided for residents and
visitors within the city. THIS HABITAT IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
IT IS ONE OF THE FE-W REMAINING SEMI-NATURAL AREAS WITHIN THE CITY
AND A SEGMENT OF THE ONLY PL-RENNIAL STREAM BETWEEN CHORRO
CREEK TO THE NORTH AND ARROYO GRANDE (LOPEZ) CREEK TO THE
SOUTH:'
P. 10 -- The air quality discussion is dated and in need of revision to reflect changed
cirr.umstances.
P. 13 -- The project was analyzed with reference to dated flood control master plans,
now in need of updating.
P. 14 -- The potential of the old project . . . and the necessity of evaluating the
present conditions: "A preliminary evaluation by the City's Engineering Division has
concluded cross-sectional areas of the proposed channel would have to be enlarged by 20%
to 30% to accommodate the flaw recommended in an Army Corps of Engineers study. Such
a channel enlargementmay he considered another alternative to the proposed project.
Enlarging the channel would reduce the area available for creekside landscaping attc9 public
use." This alternative analysis should be updated, and the Corps of Engineers consulted
prior to any further action.
Pp. 14-15 -- All of the alternatives and mitigation discussion needs to be re-analyzed
in light of the changed circumstances. At present, tete record is legally inadequate.
P. 14 -- There is an acknowledgement that the walkway under Broad Street will
reduce the flow capacity of the structure., which was at that time to be compensated for by
removal of accumulated material on the opposite side of the channel. The opposite side of
the channel has now been materially changed, and this must be re-analyzed.
P; 16 -- "Night lighting and the presence of people will reduce the impression of the
site as a natural area." This impact needs to be. re-evaluated in light of changed
circumstances and public improvements.
F F.'GI'1 LAEKIN & IF:FHPM 11 . 17. 1532 15: 4 F'. 7 '
LAW CFFICES
LAGFCIN & GRAHAM
San Luis Obispo
November 17, 1992
Page h
P. lb -- Also in need of re-evaluation is the following impact: "The retaining wall
along the northern bank. . . will be a drastic change from the present bank with shrubs,
grass, and trees."
P. 17 -- The impacts of the application of chemical weed killers is glossed over; and
in light of changing legal requirements and an understanding of toxic impdets adjacent to
creeks, this too needs re-analysis.
P. 1S -- Use of equipment within the channel, disruption of the channel bottom,
dislodging sediment is acknowledged.
P. 19 -- The loss of privacy for property owners on our client's side of the Creek is
acknowledged and the alternative of providing access only on the other side, where it now
exists, is discussed. This needs a current evaluation in light of changed circumstances. The
change in the extent of aesthetic sensitivity is indicated in the "Design Review Board"s
recommendation for a chain-link fence -- which by current standards would not likely he
endorse.d.
P. 21 --The impact of public gatherings upon neighboring properties is acknowledged.
A contemporary review of mitigation measures is required to assure that the project is
designed to minimize private damage.
P. 21 -- Public creek use impacts is acknowledged: "Children and dogs will play in
the creek, huild small dams, and throw rocks. These activities will create minor
sedimentation and will disrupt habitat for invertehrates, fish and sonic birds."
P. A-5 -- The insignificant issues need to be re-evaluated, including consistency with
community plans and goals. The only analysis which was done was relative to out of date
general plans and Land Use Elements adopted in 1977 and Downtown Goals adupted in
October 1979. Nothing has changed since then?
P. A-ti -- Many public agencies and departments were consulted 12 years ago. This
demonstrates the need to renew those contacts to determine current agency attitudes in light
of changed circumstances. (L-.g. Fish and Gagne, Water Quality Control Board, U.S. EPA,
Corps of Engineers, etc.) Similarly, the treed to distribute a new EIR, and notices of
availability, is illustrated by the efforts 12 years ago--which require updating.
FP ON LNSK1N : GF,NHNi1 11 . 17. 199: 1`: 47 F.
Law ORP;CeS
LpgWTN & GRATIA-M
San Luis Obispo
November 17, 1.992
Page 7
11. PROCEDURAL I.RREGULARTTIES
Our clients were originally sent a boilerplate Notice which was so carelessly considered
that it made reference to the City Redevelopment Agency, an entity which does not evert
exist. The project review needs to be more than re-processed boiler--plate findings prepared
for other agencies, and reprinted by word processing devices for this situation without any
further thought or serious consideration.
In behalf of other owners, Mr. Spradlin asked the Special Counsel for a copy of the
regulations the City was following for the acquisition. He was told that there were no
applicable regulations. This indicates that in dealing with these property owners this City
has not complied with, and is apparently unaware of the Uniform Real Property Acquisition
and Relocation Assistance Guidelines promulgated by the State Department of Housing and
Community Development, and binding upon the City. The breach of those guidelines has
been extensive, including the inspection of properties (Mr. Spradlin's especially) without
prior notice, and even misrepresentation of the owner's authorization to tenants. It cannot,
therefore, be found that the requirements of the Government Code have been met by the
City.
Many other procedural and civil rights irregularities, including unreasunable
precondelnnation activities, have been raised by various owners in correspondence: over the
years, and are incorporated herein by this reference, including all of the allegations of past
prior misconduct. . Unequal treatment of these properties has been the rule for
approximately 20 years, in order to reduce their market values in anticiputiot of
condemnation,including unequal and preferential spot zoning of the Children's Museum site
without applying similar parking and setback requirements to the rest. of the block simply
because that would increase the market value of those properties and the flexibility of uses.
This block is the only portion of the City which pays assessments and is within the Parking
District, allowing off-site parking requirements, but without an implementing ordinance to
allow for the benefits of the District its addition to its financial (business license) burdens.
The long history of appraisal after appraisal, preparation and display of plans for public uses
of these properties, often displaying the use of the entire properties, has negatively impacted
their value. When Miller & Walter submitted plans to improve their properly, their
planners were bluntly told that the plans would not be approved because of City acquisition
interests. This pattern of misconduct has heen expansive and oppressive, unjust and
unconstitutional, and abusive.
FR0r1 LRSKIH :4 GRGHNr1 11 . ]'. 12°i 16: 4 F . 3
LAW OFFICES
LASHIN 8C GR MMLM
San Luis Obispo
November 17, 199?
Page ;3
For these reasons, the owners object to the enactment and findings of the Resolution
of Nec-essity as arbitrary and capricious, not supported by substantial evidence, contrary to
the requirements of law on abuse of discretion, and part of a long pattern of oppressive pre-
condemnation activity.
Very truly yours,
2
mold K. Graham
of LASKIN & GRAHAM
AKG'sjp
ee: Clients
.STING AGENDA
- PETER C. MILLER,-INC. DATE --a -/17 V2- ITEM #
A LAw CORPORATION -
-79 Monterey Street Fax: (805)541-5766
an Luis Obispo, California 93401 RECEIVED Telephone: (805)541-6601
COPIES TO:
BY HAND DELIVERY NOV 1 7 1992 ❑•DaulaAction ❑ FYI
e_C" ❑ CDDDIR
November 17, 1992 CITY CLERK W-�/CAO 11 FIN.DIR.
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA IM ACAO ❑ EIRECHIEF
Honorable Mayor Dunin and City Council Members OeATrMNEY ❑ FWD13L
G/�CLERK/ORIG. ❑ POUCE CN.
City of San Luis Obispo ❑ MGMT.TEAM G REC.DIR
990 Palm Street 13 CTRFTADFILE ❑QUnLDIR
San Luis Obispo, California
Dear Mayor Dunin and Council Members:
My wife and I own a one-half interest in the real property
located at 679 Monterey Street and which is subject to your
proposed Resolution of Necessity which is on tonight's Council
Agenda, Item 3. We object to the City's adoption of a Resolution
of Necessity on the following grounds:
a. The City is not authorized by statute to exercise the
power of eminent domain for the purposes indicated for
acquisition of our property.
b. The stated purpose is not a public use.
C. The City does not intend to devote our property to the
stated purpose.
d. There is no reasonable probability that the property's
date of use will be within the statutory period or within a
reasonable time thereafter.
e. Our property is not subject to acquisition by the power
of eminent domain for the stated purpose.
f. The public interest and necessity do not require the
proposed- project.
g. The proposed project is not planned or located in the
manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good
and the least private injury.
h. Our property is not necessary for the proposed project.
i. The City has not complied with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act in that the existing
Environmental Impact Report is inadequate. Until the City
complies with the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act, it cannot be known whether the project is feasible
at all, feasible as proposed, or feasible in some other
configuration. Until this is known it cannot be determined
whether (a) the public interest and necessity require the
San Luis Obispo City Council
November 17, 1992
Page 2
project; (b) the project is planned or located in the manner that
will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the
least private injury; or (c) the property sought to be acquired
is necessary for the project. The existing Environmental Impact
Report is only a "focused" one and is nearly 13 years old.
Because of subsequent changes to conditions in the area of the
proposed project and changes in the proposed project itself, a
new environmental study will need to be performed. Our belief is
that the new study will have to be broader than the earlier EIR.
The new study will need to be at least a Supplemental EIR and
probably a totally original EIR.
j . For the past several years the City has clouded our
ability to use, finance or develop our property as we have wanted
through the unofficial statements and actions of its agents and
employees, which statements and actions have indicated to us and
to the general public the City's intent to at some point condemn
all or a large part of our property. This has constituted a
violation of Section 7267 . 1 of the Government Code. It is
apparent that the project as presently proposed would not fully
implement the City's intentions with regard to the taking of our
property. Other portions, or the entire remainder, of our
property would remain under a similar cloud until the City
finally adopts a comprehensive plan for the area of our property.
The City should adopt such a comprehensive plan before
determining to take the portion it wants for the presently
proposed project in order to spare us from the continual cloud of
uncertainty and the prospect of multiple eminent domain
proceedings. This would allow us a degree of certainty as to our
ability to use whatever was left over to us after the taking.
k. The City has not made an offer satisfying the
requirements of Government Code Section 7267. 2. Deficiencies in
the City's performance include (1) the amount offered is
substantially lower than what it truly believes would be just
compensation for our property and (2) the amount stated for
damages to the remaining real property is stated at zero, when
damages for our severance from the creek frontage and other
severance damages are actually very substantial.
1. All other grounds provided by law.
Please include these remar s 'n your official record for
this hearing. Thank you.
e t 1 y r
ti
ter filler
PCM:ms
y
o
D;«Acdoi Cl ''FETING AGENDA
9'=M ca ❑ CDD DIP. SATE -I 7- ,Z # ``j'
❑ FN.DiR.
I� ACAO ❑ F[TiEC SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
� A77OIL'V'r'Y El F•W DiR_
.-LM/ORIG. ❑ POLICE CH.
_,:1Cra.TF.Ah4 G RECDIR INITIATION OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
CJ, C F.FAD Fi1F ❑, UP.L DIR
1 (C,EFTILE AGENDA ITEM 16 1992
d RC'+ ERO
TO: CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: HERMAN H. FITZGERALD
SUBJECT: INITIATION OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS AS TO PORTIONS
OF THREE (3) PROPERTIES FOR THE MISSION PLAZA EXPANSION
PROJECT (SPRADLIN, 1019-23 BROAD STREET; MILLER & WALTER
679 MONTEREY STREET AND VARGAS, 667 MONTEREY STREET)
This Supplemental Staff Report is submitted in response to
the objections filed by letter dated November 13, 1992 by the Law
Offices of Laskin and Graham on behalf of the three above-entitled
properties relative to the Eminent Domain Resolution hearing set
for November 17, 1992 .
This response is in the same sequential order as set forth in
the November 13, 1992 Laskin and Graham letter as follows :
1 . The City fully complied with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Resolution No. 4067
January 2, 1980 by which the Council certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Mission Plaza Extension
Project . (See proposed Resolution, page 2) .
2 . The public interest and necessity do require the project
in that the project was designed and approved only after extensive
study and public consultation, will be utilized to benefit the San
Luis Creek Area and has been certified as being compatible with
the land use plans of surrounding jurisdiction and the City' s
General Plan on May 14, 1981 by Resolution No. 4484 and on July
22, 1981 by the Planning Commission and on June 15, 1982 by C. FP ��
NOV t .1 1992
CITY CLERK
SAN LU:S 081SP0,CA
City Council through Resolution No. 4866 . (See proposed
Resolution, page 2) .
3 . See response to #2 above .
4 . See response to #2 above .
5 . There is no conflict of interest or improper influence
known to the City Attorney' s office nor to the office of Special
Eminent Domain Counsel, Herman H. Fitzgerald.
6. The actual taking considered by the proposed Eminent
Domain Resolution is the exact taking set forth in the City' s
Notice of Intention and Appraisal Summary Statement representing
the City' s acquisition offer.
7 . The City' s appraisal fully satisfied the requirements of
Government Code Section 7267 .2 . The amount of the City' s offer
cannot be considered at the Eminent Domain Resolution hearing
meeting.
8 . The proposed acquisition is intended to be used for the
Mission Plaza Project within the time required by law. CCP
Section 1240 .220 requires that the City plan to use the property
within seven (7) years from the date the Eminent Domain Complaint
is filed. The City intends to use the property well within the
seven (7) year requirement .
9 . There is no excess property being taken for this
project . All the property is necessary for the project .
10 . The proposed taking for a public use, i .e . , public park
purposes, including pedestrian walkways and access purposes, as
part of the City' s park and recreation facilities pursuant to
Government Code Section 37350. 5 .
i
11 . The statutory Government Code and Code of Civil
Procedure sections set forth in the first paragraph of the
proposed Resolution provide the legal power of the City to take
the property by eminent domain .
12 . The taking is not for profit, nor for recoupment nor for
any unauthorized purpose and is a proper use of the condemnation
power.
13 . The taking for public park purposes, etc . is a
recognized public use under California law.
14 . The City is authorized to acquire the properties for
public park purposes under the Code of Civil Procedure sections
and the Government Code sections set forth in the proposed
Resolution on page 1 .
15 . The City' s proposed use is a use authorized under the
law pursuant to the Code sections set forth on page 1 of the
proposed Resolution.
16. That portion of the properties being acquired are
necessary for the project under the .law.
17 . The proposed project is necessary for the purposes set
forth therein all having been determined by prior hearings before
the City Council and the Planning Commission as set forth on pages
2 and 3 of the proposed Resolution.
18 . There are no portions of the proposed acquisition
presently being utilized for an existing public use. In the
alternative, in the event any portion of the properties are .being
utilized for an existing public use, the proposed project is for a
more necessary public use.
19 . The City has fully complied with Government Code Section
7267 .2 in providing an adequate appraisal summary to the property
owners as part of its offer .
20 . The purpose of acquisition for a public park, including
pedestrian walkways and access purposes, is a proper public use
under the law.
21 . The City intends to devote the properties to the uses
stated in the proposed Resolution, i .e . , public park, including
pedestrian walkways and access purposes .
22 . That portion of the properties being acquired for the
stated public purpose, i .e . , public park purposes, etc. are
subject to acquisition for those purposes by eminent domain.
Very truly yours, 2
HERMAN H. FITXGERALD
HHF :mlh
FR011 LASKIH & GPNHgl1 _ 11 , 1E . 1PF2 252 7 P. -
_TING AGENDA
DATE / - ITEM#:,.LLAW OPFiC ES
L.kSXIN & GRAIiAM
OICMAFD LASKIN SUITE e4O TELEPHONE
ARNOLD K. CRAMAM e00 NCFlTM 6FnNO SOUL[VA.4D alal 947d8CO
(x101 ee6-0%)0.
OAE090N M. PERRT GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA IDIPO3.1Z-44
FICMARD W. MAR�_TON T[L[COPICIt
LYNN I. IDA�A (91A) GLT-.9 u�f,1
RV
NOV 1 6 1992 November 13, 1992 0°�TOi Aim 0 FYI
'otes ❑ CDD DIR
12 ee=xi.1
CITY CLERK O ❑ FIN.DIR
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA CEDRAO ❑ FIRECHPIEF
��,//�,=LNEY FW D
CYC[ERK/ORIG. ❑ POLICE M
City Council ❑ MGMT.TEAtit C1 rEcD1R
City of San Luis Obispo ❑ C.READ FILE 0 LIM DR .
900 Palm Street
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, Calif. 93403-8100
Re: MISSION PLAZA PROJECT:
Objection to City of San Luis Obispo's
Intention to Adopt Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Property
Ownerships:
679 Monterey Street ('.'falter)
667 Monterey Street (Vargas)
1019-23 Broad St. (Spradlin)
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
This objection to the above-referenced proposed condemnation is made on behalf of
the owners of real property located at 679 Monterey Street, 667 Monterey Street, and 1019-
23 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, California, which properties are the subject of the hearing
at the City Council's Intent to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity to acquire by -eminent
domain on November 17, 1992.
The adoption of the Resolution of Necessity by the City Council is objected to on the
following grounds:
1. The City has failed to comply with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has not
addressed the significant effects on the environment which may
be caused by the City's proposed project for which it intends to
acquire the properties subject to this hearing.
2. The publiclint.erest and necessity do not require the project and
the accompanying acquisition of the properties for the proposed
project.
FP011 L A S K 114 & CF,RNF11 I1 . IB. 1P52 1 ' F
LAW C�FiCCS
LASILIN Se GRAHAM
City Council
November 13, 1992
Page 2
3. The proposed project is not planned or located in a manner
that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good
and least private injury. The City has not properly. or
adequately evaluated or considered the private injury which will
occur to the owners from the project, and has not weighed or
balanced other alternatives which would lessen the private injury
while permitting the proposed project.
4. The acquisition of these properties as proposed is not necessary
for the project.
5. The vote by the City Council in deciding whether to adopt the
Resolution of Necessity will be affected by a colltlict of interest
or other improper inilue.nce.
6. The actual taking exceeds the taking described in the legal
description attached to the City's dUluitition offer.
7. The sums offered to acquire the properties herein made by the
City pursuant to Government Code Section 7267.2 are
inadequate.
8. The proposed acquisition will not be used for the stated
purpose within the time period required by law.
9. The proposed taking is of excess property not authorized by
law.
10. The proposed taking is for a use not authorized by law.
11. The condemnor lacks the power to take the affected properties
by eminent domain.
12. The proposed taking is an iliiproper use of the condemnation
power, is for profit, for recoupment, and for other unauthorized
Purposes.
13. The proposed acquisition is not for a public use.
FF011 LA5KINGFP.Y.H14 11 . 16. 1??_ 15 F. 4
LAW GFFICES
LASKIN & GRAx-iA*s
City Council
November 13, 1992
Page 3
14. The City is not authorized to acquire the properties for the
stated use.
15. The City's proposed use of the properties in the manner
proposed is not authorized by law.
16. The properties being acquired, and the totality thereof, are not
necessary for the project.
17. The proposed project is not necessary for the stated public use.
18. Portions of the proposed taking arc already devoted to an
existing public use, and the proposed project and takings are
not a more necessary public use.
19. The City has not complied with Government Code § 7267.2.
20. The stated purpose is not a public use.
21. The City does not intend to devote the properties sought to be
acquired to the stated purpose.
22. The properties are not subject to acquisition by eminent domain
for the stated purpose.
We request that these formal objections be included as a part of the record of
proceedings at the hearing on the Resolution of Necessity now set for November 17, 1992.
Yours very truly, /
aw,4,ij e. 'S�
Arnold K. Graham
of LASKIN R GRAHAM
AKG/cf
cc: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen, City Attorney
Herman Fitzgerald, Special Counsel