G LENN L. BLOCK
GLB @CALEDLAW .COM
DIRECT DIAL – 818-957-6577
June 17, 2024
VIA Email ([email protected])
City of Goleta
Attn: City Clerk
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
Re: June 18, 2024 – City of Goleta
Public Hearing considering adoption of Resolution of Necessity Hollister Bridge and Ekwill-Fowler Projects
5580 & 5590 Hollister Avenue, Goleta, CA
Assessor’s Parcel Nos.: 071-090-089 and 071-090-063
Owner: Santa Barbara Nissan, LLC
To The Honorable Clerk and City Council:
We represent Santa Barbara Nissan, LLC (“SB Nissan ”) with respect to the City of Goleta’s (“City”) proposed acquisition of a further 2-year extension of the Temporary Construction Easements (“TCEs”) across th e front of SB Nissan’s above- referenced property (“Subject Property”) for the Ho llister Bridge Project (“Project”).
SB Nissan owns the Subject Property on which it ope rates an auto sales dealership business.
The City is seeking a further 2-year extension of the TCEs after previously obtaining an earlier 2-year extension. If the TCEs are extended, the TCEs will total 7 years!
SB Nissan objects to the City’s consideration of t he above-referenced Resolution of Necessity at a public hearing on June 18, 2024. SB Nissan requests the opportunity to be heard and that this letter be pro vided to the City Council and is included in the public record for this matter.
SB Nissan respectfully requests that the City remo ve this matter from consideration at the June 18, 2024 meeting because it is premature. The City has improperly expedited the time for consideration of the Resolution without affording a reasonable time after the City’s May 28, 2024 offer of compensation for the parties to negotiate. Instead, the City delivered its Notic e of Hearing on May 31, 2024.
City of Goleta
Attn: City Clerk
June 17, 2024
Typically, condemnors provide at least 30 days —and often 90 days or more—after making an offer before consideration of eminent domain legal proceedings. Here, the City didn’t even wait a week – delivering its Notic e of Hearing only 3 days after delivering its offer.
On June 11, 2024, Santa Barbara Nissan responded to the City’s offer and sent a formal settlement proposal. The City has not yet provided a response, apparently because the City Council has not yet considered the proposal. Thus, at a minimum, the City should delay consideration of the Resolution of Necessity at least until after it responds to SB Nissan’s settlement proposal and the parties have an opportunity to attempt to negotiate a settlement.
1. IT IS IMPROPER FOR THE CITY TO PROCEED WITH A HEARING
ON A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY UNTIL THE CITY COMPLIE S
WITH GOVERNMENT CODE §7267.1 AND “MAKE[S] EVERY
REASONABLE EFFORT” TO ACQUIRE SB NISSAN’S PROPERTY
BY NEGOTIATION.
California Government Code §7267.1
1 requires the City to “make every
reasonable effort to acquire expeditiously real pro perty by negotiation.” Here, the City clearly failed to comply with this requirement because it rushed scheduling of the hearing – a mere 3 days after making the initial offer .
The City’s threat to quickly adopt a Resolution of Necessity and file an eminent domain lawsuit violates Federal and State p rohibitions against coercive actions by a public agency. “The Agency shall not a dvance the time of condemnation … or take any other coercive action in order to ind uce an agreement on the price to be paid for the property.” [Title 24 Code of Federa l Regulations §24.102(h); see also similar California provision in Title 25 California Code of Regulations §6182(j)(1).]
Here, because of the extraordinarily short period of time between the City’s offer and its Notice to adopt a Resolution of Neces sity, the City’s actions constitute coercive efforts to compel SB Nissan to agree to se ll its property before the City files a lawsuit to take the property by force.
1 In addition to the California Government Code, the City is also subject to State and Federal acquisition regulations which impose similar requirements to make every reasonable effort to acquire property by negotiation. See Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations §24.102(a) and Title 25 California Code of Regulations §6182(a).
City of Goleta
Attn: City Clerk
June 17, 2024
These same principles of justice and fairness have long been recognized by the California Supreme Court which stated, “The condemnor acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and should be encouraged to exercise his tremendous power fairly, equitably and with a deep understanding of the theory and practice of just compensation.” City of Los Angeles v. Decker (1977) 18 Cal. 3d. 861. The City’s actions here clearly fail to meet this established standard of fairness and equity. Yet, instead of simply making a reasonable effort to negotiate with SB Nissan—let alone making “every reasonable effort” to negotiate, as mandated by law—the City has threatened filing a lawsuit before negotiations are initiated. Unless and until the parties have the opportunity to freely and reasonably engage in good-faith negotiations, consideration of a Resolution of Necessity to initiate an eminent domain lawsuit and litigate this matter is premature and improper. 2. CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, among others, SB Nissan respectfully submits that the City should not consider adoption of the proposed Resolution of Necessity on June 18, 2024. Instead, the City should first provide a reasonable opportunity for the parties to engage in good faith negotiations. In the event that the public hearing proceeds on June 18, 2024, SB Nissan requests the opportunity to appear before the City Council and be heard with respect to its objections to the proposed Resolution of Necessity. Please also ensure that this letter is presented to the City Council for consideration and included in the public record for this matter. Very truly yours, Glenn L. Block California Eminent Domain Law Group, a Professional Corporation cc: Mr. Doug Connor, Santa Barbara Nissan, LLC (via email)