Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Allen Matkins 2010 Main Street, 8' Floor | Irvine, CA 92614-7214 Telephone: 949.553.1313 | Facsimile: 949.553.8354
www.allcnmatkins.com
K. Erik Friess
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 949.851.5478 File Number: 397028.00001/4897-7284-2416.1 Via Email/U.S. Mail
May 29, 2026
Marissa Asistin
City Clerk
City of Laguna Niguel
30111 Crown Valley Parkway
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Email: [email protected]
Re: City of Laguna Niguel City Council Meeting on June 16, 2026 H&S Energy, LLC (APN 636-034-08): Request to be heard at City's June 16, 2026, hearing on its proposed resolution of necessity Dear Ms. Asistin:
This firm represents H&S Energy, LLC, the owner of property that is the subject of the City of Laguna Niguel's notice of hearing regarding the City's intent to adopt a resolution of necessity authorizing condemnation for portions of property located at 25991 Crown Valley Parkway in Laguna Niguel (Assessor's Parcel Number 636-034-08) for the City's Crown Valley Parkway Westbound Widening Project.
This letter constitutes H&S Energy's request to appear and be heard on the intended resolution of necessity. This letter also provides notice that H&S Energy intends to, and hereby does, object to the City's adoption of the proposed resolution of necessity. and at the une 1n gy reserves the right to submit aditional comments and objections in advance of Very truly yours,
12.5872
K. Erik Friess
CC: Guillermo A. Frias (guillermo. [email protected])
Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco | New York Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Allen Matkins 2010 Main Street, 8" Floor | Irvine, CA 92614-7214 Telephone: 949.553.1313 | Facsimile: 949.553.8354
www.allenmatkins.com
K. Erik Friess
E-mail: [email protected]
Direct Dial: 949.851.5478 File Number: 397028.00001/4937-4412-7669.1 Via Email/U.S. Mail
June 15, 2026
Marissa Asistin
City Clerk
City of Laguna Niguel
30111 Crown Valley Parkway
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Email: [email protected]
Re: City of Laguna Niguel's June 16, 2026, hearing on a proposed resolution of necessity for partial condemnation of property located at 25991 Crown Valley Parkway (APN 636-034-08) in connection with the Crown Valley Parkway Westbound Widening Project and H&S Energy's objections to the adoption of such a resolution of necessity.
Public Hearing Item No. 1
Dear Ms. Asistin:
This firm represents H&S Energy, LLC, the owner of property that is the subject of the City of Laguna Niguel's notice of hearing regarding the City's intent to adopt a resolution of necessity authorizing condemnation for portions of property located at 25991 Crown Valley Parkway in Laguna Niguel (Assessor's Parcel Number 636-034-08) for the City's Crown Valley Parkway Westbound Widening Project.
On May 29, 2026, we sent you H&S's request to appear and be heard on the matters referred to in the City's notice of hearing. We submit this letter to document and preserve H&S's objections to the City's proposed resolution of necessity. H&S requests that this objection letter be included in the record for Public Hearing Item No. 1 for the hearing for the City Council to consider adoption of a resolution of necessity.
We request that copies of this objection letter be distributed to the members of the City Council prior to their considering the adoption of any resolution of necessity. H&S reserves the right to make further or different objections in person at the hearing.
Los Angeles | Orange County | San Diego | Century City | San Francisco | New York Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Marissa Asistin
June 15, 2026
OBJECTIONS
1. The parties reached an agreement in principle on compensation, but the City's inability to provide reasonable assurances and cooperation surrounding the long-term viability of the Puserty and H&5'3 business operatins leaves HI& S unacceptably exposed to closure of its principle on the amount of compensation, contingent on the City agreeing to issue approvals and/or variances that would recognize H&S's property as legally conforming in the after condition of the City's taking and allow H&S the right to seek compensation for business losses if project construction stretches beyond the 18-month timeline that the City currently anticipates. The City refused to cooperate on both issues.
2. The City's project will result in a litany of unintended consequences - and massive severance damages - if not properly addressed by the City in advance of construction.
The City seeks to acquire permanent and temporary interests over nearly 22% of H&S's property. As pictured below, the City's fee acquisition will cut into the existing property line along the perimeter of the property by approximately 12 feet. This in turn will cause the property to be out of compliance with, among other things, its setback, parking, landscaping, access, and lot coverage requirements. The City's acquisition will also necessitate the removal of the property's monument sign, statutorily mandated gas-pricing sign, statutorily mandated compressed air/water station, and a number of lighting fixtures.
APPROXIMATE
AQUISITION
LINE
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Marissa Asistin
June 15, 2026
APPROXIMATE
AQUISITION
LINE
The impacts of the City's project threaten to force the closure of H&S's business operations if the City remains unwilling to grant H&S variances that are required to keep the property operational. This in turn will create a massive business goodwill problem that could result in the City being liable for millions of dollars in damages.
In negotiations with the City, H&S asked for three simple assurances from the City to make sure that its property and business are functional in the after condition. In essence, H&S is asking the City to ensure that its own mitigation plan will result in a legally conforming property. The City refused to offer such assurances.
First, H&S sought assurances from the City that its property would be in compliance with all applicable City zoning ordinances, or, alternatively, that the City would grant a variance for any part of the property that becomes nonconforming as a result of the City's project. The City's proposed acquisition significantly reduces the property's setbacks from the street, removes the few parking spaces the property currently has, constrains access to the property and its car wash facility, and skews the current lot-coverage ratio by removing nearly a quarter of the overall land. These are permanent, incurable impacts that can only be rectified by a variance.
Second, aside from these incurable impacts, H&S must also undertake extensive modifications to its car-wash facility (including a cut and reface of its existing building), replace its gas signage, relocate its compressed air/water station, and alter a number of other physical improvements pursuant to the City's own proposed mitigation plan. Again, the City would not agree to recognize its own suggested modifications as legally conforming.
For example, the City's mitigation plan, shown below, calls for the relocation of the electronic gas-pricing sign to the corner of Forbes Road and Crown Valley Parkway, with only one Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Marissa Asistin
June 15, 2026
side of the sign facing the intersection. Typically, these signs are positioned perpendicular to corners so that each side of the sign contains a price display that can be seen from the street.
Crucially, Business and Professions Code section 13531, subdivision (a)(2), requires that such signage "be clearly visible from each street of the intersection" in order for a gas station to be code- compliant. Without compliant signage, the gas station cannot legally operate.
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
CAR WASH
REMOVE WROUGHT IRON FENCE/WALL COMBO (BY PROJECT):
REFACE WROUGHT iRON FENCE/WALL COMBO A PROPOSED R/N
FORBES RD.
RELOCATE EXISTING PROPERTY SIGN
GAS PUMPS
CAR WASH QUEUE RELOCATE SITE LIGHT
GAS PUMPS RELOCATE WATER ASSEMBLY
RELOCATE TRENC- DRAIN (BY PROUECT)
RELOCATE MALACX
RELOCATE COMFRESSED AIR/WATER STATION
RECCATE ELECTRONIC GAS PRICING DISPLAY
REMOVE EXISTING LOW WALL FOCTING (BY PROJECT!
REMOVE EXISTING DECORATIVE WALL (SY PROJECT)
CROWN VALLEY PKWY.
REVOVE ARTIFICIAL ROCK STRUCTURE AND STEEL RAILING
ENCLOSURE (BY PROJECT:
PROPOSED CONDITION RELOCATE SOGRE TRANSFORMER
Third, the City refused to leave open any form of recourse for potential lost business profits if the City's project runs longer than the 18-month timeline that is currently anticipated, or if the City's project construction blocks both of the property's driveways at the same time. This leaves H&S exposed to massive potential losses. H&S will not be strong-armed by the City into relinquishing its right to compensation in the event the City does not keep its word about its project's construction.
H&S remains open to finalizing its agreement-in-principle with the City, provided that the City is able to offer the three straightforward assurances listed above.
3. The City has not satisfied the State-mandated prerequisites for adopting a resolution of necessity: the City did not provide H&S with an opportunity to be present for the City's offer appraisal as required by Government Code section 7267.1, subdivision (b).
Among the statutory prerequisites that the City is required to fulfill before adopting a resolution of necessity is providing a notice of intent to appraise to the record owner of any property that it is considering for condemnation. This notice is required by Government Code section 7267.1, subdivision (b), and provides an owner with an opportunity to accompany the appraiser on their inspection of the property. (See also 25 Cal. Code Reg., § 6184.) This requirement is crucial in that it represents a property owner's only opportunity to provide information to the appraiser.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Marissa Asistin
June 15, 2026
The City's May 1, 2026, offer to purchase property interests from H&S is premised on an April 20, 2026, appraisal that was conducted without first providing the required statutory notice to H&S. The City deprived H&S of the ability to share critical valuation information with the City's appraiser. Unsurprisingly, the City's appraisal fails to address the concerns detailed in this letter.
By failing to notify H&S of this appraisal, the City robbed H&S of the opportunity to explain to the City's appraiser the various impacts to the property that will result in massive severance damages if not properly addressed. These issues include the property's potential nonconformance with various setback, parking, landscaping, signage, and zoning requirements in the after condition of the City's project, as well as the potential loss of business goodwill. And the City's appraiser did not think about (or just ignored) these severance damages.
The City is required to pay H&S the fair market value for the property that the City intends to take, including compensation for all damages caused by the City's taking. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 19; Code Civ. Proc., § 1263.310.) This necessarily requires the City to accurately appraise H&S's property and to consider all relevant factors affecting fair market value. But the City's failure to provide H&S with an opportunity to accompany the appraiser on their inspection of H&S's property resulted in an appraisal that completely misses the mark.
This procedural misstep is fatal to the City's attempt to adopt a resolution of necessity. The City must have its appraiser meet with H&S after providing proper notice and reappraise the property in light of the information H&S provides to the appraiser. And because the evidence presented in these objections establishes that the City's appraisal is fundamentally flawed, the City must commission a new appraisal that analyzes the project's impact to H&S's property. (See 25 Cal. Code Reg., § 6182(i)(2).) Ignoring this strict statutory requirement would amount to a gross abuse of discretion by the City Council, leading to a vigorous challenge of the City's right to condemn H&S's property if this were to end up in eminent-domain litigation.
4. The City failed to make an offer of just compensation based on an accurate appraisal of H&S's property. Thus, the City cannot adopt a resolution of necessity.
Under California's Eminent Domain Law, a condemning agency must comply with several procedural prerequisites before adopting a resolution of necessity and instituting a condemnation action. Among other requirements, the condemning agency: (1) must appraise the fair market value of the property to be condemned; (2) must make an offer of just compensation reflective of that value; (3) must provide a written statement explaining the basis of the agency's determination of fair market value; and (4) must engage in good faith negotiations before initiating a condemnation offer. (Gov. Code, §§ 7267.1, 7267.2; Code Civ. Proc., § 1245.230.) The City has not completed the above-listed prerequisites for adopting a resolution of necessity to condemn H&S's property. Specifically, the City is required to pay H&S the fair market value of the property that the City intends to take. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 19; Code Civ. Proc., § Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
Attorneys at Law
Marissa Asistin
June 15, 2026
1263.310.) Accordingly, the City's appraisal must accurately reflect the fair market value of H&S's property and take into account all relevant considerations.
But the City's appraisal is seriously defective in that it values H&S's clearly improved property as vacant land. By ignoring the improved condition of H&S's property, the appraisal misses the significant severance damages that will be caused by the City's project.
The City's appraisal also ignored the income-producing nature of H&S's property. Since the City's appraiser treated H&S's property as vacant land, the City's appraiser used only the sales- comparison approach to value H&S's property when it should have also used the income- capitalization approach. This is a crucial miss by the City's appraiser.
Because of these significant defects and omissions in the appraisal, the City has not made a statutorily compliant offer to H&S and cannot make a finding that it has. Thus, the City cannot properly adopt a resolution of necessity.
5. Conclusion.
For the foregoing reasons, H&S objects to the City's adoption of a resolution of necessity.
The City's resolution will not survive judicial scrutiny. The City needs to provide H&S with proper notice of a new appraisal and allow H&S to meet with the City's appraiser. The City must then ensure that it appraises H&s's actual, improved property - not a hypothetical piece of vacant land.
H&S welcomes a new, proper offer from the City that corrects the appraisal deficiencies identified in this letter.
And to reiterate, H&S remains willing to proceed with its agreement-in-principle with the City if the City provides assurance that it will recognize H&S's property as legally conforming in the after condition and allow H&S to seek business goodwill damages in the event that the City's construction runs longer than scheduled or concurrently blocks both driveways of H&S's property.
H&S reserves the right to submit additional comments and objections in advance of and at the June 16t hearing.
Very truly yours,
K. Erik Friess
CC: Guillermo A. Frias (guillermo. [email protected])
Carpenter Right of Way
Contract APN: 636-034-06
26022 Cape Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
Steven W. Carpenter
Mailing Address: P. O. Box 2546, Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 June 05, 2026
Re: June 2, 2026, email/letter:
City's Response to Counteroffer
Crown Valley Parkway Westbound Widening Project
Assessor Parcel No. 636-034-06
Property Address: 26022 Cape Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Dear Mr. Powell,
Thank you for your prompt reply. Regrettably, our position remains similarly unchanged in light of the city's continued lack of interest in our specific concerns, which have been often repeated but only negligibly addressed. The city has clearly signaled their withdrawal from the discussion, in favor of initiating eminent domain proceedings, which has been calendared for consideration at the city council meeting on June 16, 2026.
Should the city wish to alter its unqualified rejection of our standing positions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience, preferably no later than June 12, 2026.
Kind regards,
Steven Carpenter
Crown Cape Center, LLC
Cc: Marissa Asistin, City Clerk, City of Laguna Niguel, "Notice of Hearing to Property Owners", June 16, 2026, City Council Hearing Agenda
BBK resp 060526
Outlook
RE: 26022 Cape Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 - Offer to Purchase From Steven Carpenter <[email protected]>
Date Fri 6/12/2026 3:39 PM
To Marissa Asistin <[email protected]>
Cc Brian Okazaki <[email protected]>; Steven Carpenter <[email protected]> Good afternoon, Marissa Asistin,
Per the email and attached "NOTICE OF HEARING TO PROPERTY OWNERS" received from Mr. Casey Powell, BBK, LLC on May 27, 2026, we are writing to request to attend and spear during the June 16, 2026 City Council Meeting, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 1. Resolutions of Necessity of the City Council of the City of Laguna Niguel to Acquire, by Eminent Domain, (1) a Partial Fee Right of Way Interest and a Twelve-Month Temporary Construction Easement Affecting the Real Property located at 25991 Crown Valley Parkway, Laguna Niguel, Orange County, California 92677 and More Particularly Described as Assessor Parcel No. 636 034-08, and (2) A Partial Fee Right of Way Interest and a Six-Month Temporary Construction Easement Affecting the Real Property located at 26022 Cape Drive, Laguna Niguel, Orange County, California 92677 and More Particularly Described as Assessor parcel No. 636-034-06, for the Crown Valley Parkway Westbound Widening Project, in the City of Laguna Niguel, Orange County, California.
Thank you,
Steven Carpenter,
Operations Manager,
Crown Cape Center, LLC
[email protected]
======================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information transmitted by this email is solely intended for the person or entity addressed. This email may contain proprietary, business, confidential, and privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, be aware that any use, review, retransmission, distribution, reproduction, or action taken in reliance upon this message is strictly prohibited. Please get in touch with the sender and delete the material from all computers if you received this in error.
From: Marissa Asistin <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2026 11:47 AM
To: Steven Carpenter <[email protected]>; Casey Powell < [email protected]> Cc: City Clerk Distribution List <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 26022 Cape Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 - Offer to Purchase Good morning,
This confirms the City's receipt of your email and attached correspondence.
Regards,
Marissa