HomeMy WebLinkAboutAcquisition of Property by Eminent Domain - Resolution 6348 REQLOST FOR CITY COUA L ACTION � -
January 21, 1
Date
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator
Prepared b Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administra o
y COUNCIL
OVED
Property Acquisition - Garfield Avenue Widening:
Subject: Resolution of Need and Necessity p 19�
r • CITY CLERK
Consistent with Council Policy? X] Yes [. ] New Policy or Excep ion AJ-G 3/�
Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Under the-terms of the Holly Seacliff-Development Agreement, it is the City's responsibility
to acquire the rights-of-way for all street widenings within the project. The final parcel
required for the Garfield Avenue widening between Goldenwest and Edwards Streets needs to
be acquired. Construction has progressed to the point where possession is now necessary. A
Resolution for Need and Necessity, approved by the City Council, is needed for the City's
acquisition of that parcel by condemnation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Following the statuatory procedure provided by.the City Attorney, approve the Resolution of
Need and Necessity and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same.
ANALYSIS:
The widening of Garfield Avenue is an integral part of the implementing of the Holly Seacliff
Development Plan from Golden West Street to west of Edwards Street. The precise street
alignment of Garfield was approved by Council on December 16, 1991 by Ordinance #3127.
Seacliff Partners has acquired all the properties necessary for this widening with the exception
of a portion of.the Blasgen property necessary for this right-of-way widening. The portion
required from AP #110-200-21 is the southerly 27' x 330' or 8,910-square feet. The property
was appraised for the nominal.amount of $1,000 in that it would be required of the owner to
both dedicate and improve, at his expense, in the event he were to develop this unimproved
vacant land.
The Real Estate Services Division, together with outside legal services, Rutan and Tucker, has
been negotiating with the owners for the required parcel since the first offer to purchase was .
mailed on February 25, 1991 and has been unable to acquire this property. The property is
owned by a number of people under a. trust agreement represented by a Mr. Michael W.
Blasgen, located at 33 Whipporwill Rd., Chiappaqua, N.Y. 10514. The next step in the
acquisition process is the request for the Resolution of Need and Necessity.
FUNDING SOURCE: ;.
$1,000 paid for by Seacliff Partners, Account # E-SF-AS-179-44-00.
January 21, 1992
Page (2)
ALTERNATE ACTION:
Do not widen and improve this portion ofthe right-of-way.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Proposed Resolution
2. Plat Maps
0099U
RESOLUTION NO. 6348
A RESOLUTION OF PUBLIC NECESSITY OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS A PORTION OF A PARCEL KNOWN
AS THE BLASGEN PARCEL TO PERMIT STREET WIDENING
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 3127 on January 6, 1992 , the
City Council of the City of Huntington Beach (the "City")
adopted Precise Plan of Alignment No. 91-1, (the "Project") ;
and
The City Council is authorized under Government Code
section 37350.5 to utilize the power of eminent domain to
acquire real property for the purpose of street widening; and
That certain real property known as Assessor's Parcel
Number 110-200-21 (a portion of) , which is more particularly
described in the legal description attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein (the
"Property") , is adjacent to Garfield Avenue in the City; and
The City Council has determined that it is in the
interest of the City to widen Garfield Avenue to its maximum
width in accordance with the Project; and
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 , on November
5; 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington
Beach adopted Resolution No. 1453, said resolution stating
the findings and determinations of the Planning Commission
that the location, purpose, and extent of the proposed
acquisition of the Property conforms with the City's General
Plan; and
All persons whose names and addresses appear on the last
equalized assessment roll for the Property were given notice
of the intention of the City to adopt a Resolution of Public
Necessity and to direct the institution of eminent domain
proceedings, and informing them of their right to be heard on
said matter pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1245. 235; and
A public hearing was held by the City Council on January
211 1992, at which the matters set forth above and in Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1240. 030 were discussed, including
the following matters: (a) whether the public interest and
necessity require the acquisition of the Property;
(b) whether the street widening is planned or located in the
manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public
good and the least private injury; (c) whether the Property
is necessary for the street widening project; (d) whether an
offer of just compensation pursuant to Government Code
Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of
record; and (e) whether the Agency's offer of just
compensation was refused by the owner or owners of record,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1: That the above Recitals are all true and
correct and are incorporated herein.
Section 2 : That the City Council does hereby find and
determine:
-2-
�� 6348
� r
A. That the City Council, pursuant to Government
Code Section 37350. 5, is empowered to condemn
any property necessary to carry out the public
purposes of the Project.
B. That the public interest and necessity require
construction and completion of the Project.
The Project is mandated by the City's General
Plan and the City's Zoning Ordinances
identifying the Property as a necessary site
for such street widening.
C. That the proposed Project is planned- and
located in a manner that will be most
compatible with the greatest public good and
least private injury.
D. That the acquisition of the Property described
in Exhibit "All attached hereto is necessary to
permit construction and completion of the
Project. Without inclusion of the Property,
the Project could not be completed.
E. That EIR 89-1 is a Program EIR and that no new
environmental effect could occur and no new
mitigation measures will be required beyond
those identified in EIR 89-1.
F. That the mitigation measures identified in EIR
89-1 that apply to street widening haven been
incorporated into the Project.
-3-
6346
G. That the street widening to be accomplished by
the Project is itself a mitigation measure
identified by EIR 89-1.
H. That offers of just compensation pursuant to
Government Code Section 7267 . 2 have been made
to all owners of record of the Property, that
reasonable diligence has been used to locate
every interested owner, and that the City
Council's offer of just compensation was based
on an appraisal of the Property, and that the
City Council's offer was for the full appraisal
amount.
I. That due to the refusal of the owner or owners
of record to accept the City Council's offer of
just compensation, the Project cannot be
completed except by the City Council's power of
eminent domain.
J. That the public interest and necessity require
acquisition of an easement for street and
public utility purposes and that such
acquisition is necessary for the Project.
K. That the Property, acquisition of which is
required for the public interest and necessity,
is situated in the City of Huntington Beach,
County of Orange, State of California, and is
more particularly described in the legal
description attached hereto as Exhibit "A" ,
-4-
6348
y
previously incorporated herein.
Section 3 : The City Attorney, in conjunction with
special counsel, the law firm of Rutan & Tucker, is hereby
authorized and directed to commence an action in the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of
Orange, in the name and on behalf of the City against those
persons who appear as owner or owners of record or who are
known to have any claim or interest in the Property for the
purpose of acquiring the property by eminent domain for the
public use described herein, to make application for
possession of the Property prior to judgment, and to do all
things necessary to prosecute the action to its final
determination in accordance with the provisions of law
applicable thereto.
Section 4: City Council staff is hereby authorized and
directed to take any appropriate action consistent with the
purposes of this Resolution, including but not limited to the
-5-
6348
withdrawal of necessary sums to deposit with the court as the
probable amount of compensation that will be awarded in the
eminent domain proceedings to acquire the Property.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on this
21st day of January, 1992 .
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk ""9� City Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: I ITIATED APPROVED:
City Aftinistrator= Directo of Public Works
APPROV S TO 1RM:
Specia Counsel
Rutan & Tucker
9/184/003821-0005/043
-6-
6348
6348
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BEING THE NORTHERLY 27,M FEET OF THE SOUTHERLY 55.00 FEET OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, IN THE
RANCHO LAS BOLSAS IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE,
1 i
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
EXCEPT THAT PORTION WITHIN GARFIELD AVENUE (SHOWN AS GARFIELD STREET
ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 3, PAGE 28 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF
ORANGE COUNTY.) ,
EXHIBIT "A"
kSDEN &
SOCIATES LEGAL DESCRIPTION
CIVIL ENGINEERS—PUNNERS—LAND SURVEYORS 0859-273-1 1 1/30/90
19012 COWAN,SUITE 210 - IRVINI; CA 92714 WO. No. Date �—
714/660-0110 FAX:660-0419 En r PER Chk. She 1 Ot
a '+
Res. No. 6348
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City
Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of
members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative
vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council
at a regular adjourned meeting thereof held on the 27th day
of January 1992 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
Rohitaill.P, Moulton-Pat-t-PrSnn, Winchell, Silva, MacAllister, Kelly
NOES: Councilmembers:
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Green
L�e��17ZG�i
1 y er an ex-officio Werk
of the City Council of the City
of Huntington Beach, California
N /vs "o9'¢4'E
v✓
V '
� SEC. 3 4t
3 9G 13/9 87�
Ng9• a9'Sl9'"�' -
CsA.E'F/ELD '4 1/E
� � W
Q d N
OED/BAT/orV ,q,PE�(
• Z.T.oo ' N 7� U
S c�
., 34
�1�E'F/�•LD �89"o9'�f9~E �26 3 �. 7�' �1�•,✓(/l�E'
ALDEN & SKETcy * TO ACOOM
SSOCIATES LEGAL.. ��ScR/P�'�o/V
CIVIL ENGINEERS-PLANNERS-LAND SURVEYORS 8g9.-2Ty,�-� a�• r .// .PC
p
19012 COWAN,SUITE 210 • IRVINE,CA 92714 WO.NO.
7141660-0110 FAX:660-04It ChM.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
To Honorable Jim Silva, Mayor From Gail Hutton
and Members of the City Council City Attorney
Subject Mayor' s Statement before Date January 8, 1991
Noticed Hearing on Eminent
Domain Resolution
Before the noticed hearing on the Resolution of Necessity at the
City Council meeting on January 21, 1992, the Mayor should
announce the following:
1. This agenda item is a special noticed hearing held under
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 .
2. The subject matter of this noticed hearing is limited to
the following items:
A. Whether the public interest and necessity require the
proposed project, which is the widening of Garfield
Avenue near the intersection of Edwards Street in the
City of Huntington Beach.
B. 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.
C. Whether the property described in the resolution is
necessary for the proposed project.
i
i
Honorable Jim Silva, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
January 8, 1991
Page 2
3 . The amount of compensation is not at issue during this
noticed hearing. It will be decided by the courts at a
later date, should the resolution be adopted.
4 . A two-thirds majority is required to adopt the resolution.
5. Only those persons who have previously requested to appear
and be heard, under Code of Civil Procedure Section
1245.235, shall be heard at this time.
[Other comments by the Mayor, as appropriate, may also be made,
but the above items 1 through 5 must be stated before opening
the noticed hearing. ]
Gail Hutton
City Attorney
cc: Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator
Connie Brockway, City Clerk