CC Min 1995-03-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

greatest public good and least private injury; 3) the property sought to be acquired is described as necessary to the project; and 4) the offer required by Section 7267.2 of the Government Code has already been made by a formal letter by the City Attorney's office. Councilwoman Steinfeld stated that the grade separation project was unnecessary; the design will cause a public fish pond at the bottom of the grade; and challenged the "public necessity" aspect of this project. Mayor Gasparini opened both public hearings at 9:30 P.M. Mayor Gasparini called upon Victor Holbrook, owner of the 1007 Jefferson Avenue property, who had asked to be heard at this hearing. Victor Holbrook read his statement regarding the eminent domain proceedings. (The letter is on file in the office of the City Clerk.) Mr. Holbrook's letter provided a chronology of all the events relating to the City's actions regarding his property and the grade separation project, and explanation of the appraisal process as it was presented to him and co-owner, Mr. Hale. Mr. Holbrook advised that he was advised to hire an attorney regarding prohibiting drilling on his property which he did, but later the City decided not to pursue its case to gain access to the property. Mr. Holbrook said the law states property owners are not be damaged, and asked for the City to pay for his attorney's fees. Mr. Holbrook asked for answers regarding the appraisal of the property and other procedural questions. Mr. Holbrook added that CalTrans ridership has decreased and this grade separation is no longer needed; and vandalism and the danger of kids walking on the trestle will result. Mr. Holbrook described the potential damage to his business and the City's delay in responding to his concerns. City Attorney Schricker stated that eminent domain proceedings are daunting to private individuals, but the right to the exercise of eminent domain came from the courts in order to serve a higher good over an individual right. Eminent domain is a complicated process to protect private interests in a comprehensive way, and it is highly regulated to provide as much economic solace to the private owner that the government can bear. Mr. Holbrook referred to the City's changing its mind after they had retained an attorney to prohibit access to their property: The City determined it was a better course of action to include remediation activities and cost during construction and therefore decided not to pursue forcing access to the property through the courts. There are rare instances when attorney's fees are paid, but they do not apply in this case at this point. The chronology read by Mr. Holbrook shows the many legal requirements for notification and contact the City observed in the advancement of the attempt to acquire the property for the grade separation project. Mr. Holbrook's refusal to allow drilling on his property left the City no recourse but to go to court. The timelines of the grade separation project began to encroach on the amount of time Mr. Holbrook stated he needed to complete his machine shop business. City Attorney Schricker advised that the City is fully aware that the Council wants to always negotiate a price and only go to court as a last resort, and the negotiations will be MINUTE BOOK NO. 53 Regular Meeting Minutes Page No. 102 March 13, 1995 Page 11