City of Goleta vs Goleta Storage Owner LLC et al

Case Number

23CV03436

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 12/08/2023 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Order Prejudgment Possession

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth herein:

Plaintiff City of Goleta’s motion for order for prejudgment possession is granted. The court will sign the proposed order submitted by City of Goleta.

Background:

Plaintiff City of Goleta (“City”) filed its complaint in eminent domain on August 8, 2023, against defendants Goleta Storage Owner, LLC, Goleta Self Storage Partners, LLC, Union Pacific Railroad Company, AT&T Corporation, AT&T Communications – East, Inc., Goleta Sanitary District, Thorofare Asset Based Lending Reit Fund V, LLC, and State of California Department of Transportation (“CalTrans”).

As alleged in the complaint:

“City seeks to acquire, by eminent domain, a Permanent Easement for public recreational trail purposes and an associated Temporary Construction Easement over portions of certain real property adjacent to the San Jose Creek in Goleta, California, in the County of Santa Barbara, California, more particularly described as Assessor Parcel Number 071-090-082, for construction of the City of Goleta’s San Jose Creek Multipurpose Path (‘Project’).” (Complaint, ¶ 2.) “Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.235, City provided notice of a public hearing to all persons whose names appear on the last equalized Santa Barbara County Assessment Roll for properties affected by the Project, held said public hearing on June 20, 2023, at City Hall, 130 Cremona Drive #B, Goleta, California 93117, and gave each person a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard on the matters referenced in Code of Civil Procedure § 1240.030.” (Complaint, ¶ 3.)

“The purpose of the Project is to close the multipurpose path gap in the regional active transportation network. When complete, the Project will provide a direct and continuous route for bicyclists and pedestrians from north of Calle Real to commercial and residential areas within Goleta Old Town and to the existing Class I Atascadero Creek Bikeway, providing access to Goleta Beach Park, the University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) and to the City of Santa Barbara. The 2,923 square foot Permanent Easement and the 3,285 square foot Temporary Construction Easement interest over the Property are necessary to commence the Project.” (Complaint, ¶ 5.)

The named defendants are either owners of the property, prior owners of the property, potential easement holders, or beneficiaries to deed of trust. (Complaint, ¶ 10.)

On August 10, 2023, City filed the present motion for order for prejudgment possession.

Based on filed proofs of service, it appears that all parties were served with summons, the complaint, and the present motion in either August or September 2023.

CalTrans filed its answer to the complaint on November 14, 2023, denying each allegation of the complaint and setting forth eleven affirmative defenses. No other defendant has answered the complaint.

No defendant has filed opposition to the present motion for prejudgment possession.

Analysis:

Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.410 provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) At the time of filing the complaint or at any time after filing the complaint and prior to entry of judgment, the plaintiff may move the court for an order for possession under this article, demonstrating that the plaintiff is entitled to take the property by eminent domain and has deposited pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 1255.010) an amount that satisfies the requirements of that article.

The motion shall describe the property of which the plaintiff is seeking to take possession, which description may be by reference to the complaint, and shall state the date after which the plaintiff is seeking to take possession of the property. The motion shall include a statement substantially in the following form: “ ‘You have the right to oppose this motion for an order of possession of your property. If you oppose this motion you must serve the plaintiff and file with the court a written opposition to the motion within 30 days from the date you were served with this motion.’ ” If the written opposition asserts a hardship, it shall be supported by a declaration signed under penalty of perjury stating facts supporting the hardship.

“(b) The plaintiff shall serve a copy of the motion on the record owner of the property and on the occupants, if any. The plaintiff shall set the court hearing on the motion not less than 60 days after service of the notice of motion on the record owner of unoccupied property. If the property is lawfully occupied by a person dwelling thereon or by a farm or business operation, service of the notice of motion shall be made not less than 90 days prior to the hearing on the motion.

“(c) Not later than 30 days after service of the plaintiff’s motion seeking to take possession of the property, any defendant or occupant of the property may oppose the motion in writing by serving the plaintiff and filing with the court the opposition. If the written opposition asserts a hardship, it shall be supported by a declaration signed under penalty of perjury stating facts supporting the hardship. The plaintiff shall serve and file any reply to the opposition not less than 15 days before the hearing.

“(d)(1) If the motion is not opposed within 30 days of service on each defendant and occupant of the property, the court shall make an order for possession of the property if the court finds each of the following:

“(A) The plaintiff is entitled to take the property by eminent domain.

“(B) The plaintiff has deposited pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 1255.010) an amount that satisfies the requirements of that article.”     

In support of the motion, City submitted the declaration of Teresa Lopes, the Senior Project Manager for the City. As relevant to the present motion, Lopes declares the following:

“The City’s population is currently underserved by park and open spaces. The Project will construct a public recreational trail along San Jose Creek to connect residential areas, businesses, education, shopping, and services north of highway 101 to residential areas, and commercial areas south of the freeway in Old Town Goleta, as well as UC Santa Barbara. Once complete, the Project will benefit City by providing citizens with a safe path that connects to parks, open spaces, businesses, services, and schools. It will also enable the residents of Goleta a safe place to exercise and come together.” (Lopes Dec., ¶ 3.) “Acquisition of the Property interests mentioned above is needed for the construction of the Project and will benefit the community by providing enhanced traffic flow safety for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The immediate need for the Project is to acquire the Property so that the Project may proceed to construction. The City has retained Hamner, Jewell & Associates, an acquisition and relocation firm, to send Right of Way acquisition offers to the Property owners seeking the requested easements.” (Lopes Dec., ¶ 4.)

“The City conducted a thorough analysis and determined that the Property uniquely satisfies any engineering, public health and environmental issues and is the most compatible with the public good (and with the least private injury).” (Lopes Dec., ¶ 5.)

“Prior to the public hearing held on June 20, 2023, a notice of hearing was sent by

first class mail to the Property owners and interested parties, stating the City Council’s intent to consider the adoption of a resolution of necessity, the right of each person to appear and be heard on these issues, and that failure to file a written request to appear would result in a waiver of the right to appear and be heard. The City’s staff mailed the required notices to the property owners in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.235. On June 20, 2023, the City Council held a hearing at which all persons who filed a written request within 15 days of the date the notice was mailed could appear and be heard. The Property owners did not appear at the hearing despite being given notice of their opportunity to do so.” (Lopes Dec., ¶ 8.)

“The City has an immediate and overriding need for possession of the Property prior to judgment. The City’s acquisition of the Permanent Easement and Temporary Construction Easement interests in the Property related to the Project is necessary to meet federal funding requirements and to provide for an unencumbered public multipurpose path within the City of Goleta, as well as to avoid interruption of the construction of the Project. The Project will benefit the City and its residents by providing job creation, workforce development, and the creation of enhanced traffic flow and vehicular and pedestrian safety. The viability of the Project depends on development costs, which rely on materials, timing and market conditions. These conditions dictate whether the City can finance this particular project. Presently, the market conditions are ideal for the City to pursue the Project. The City requires prejudgment possession of the Property before market conditions change. Without prejudgment possession of the Property, the City will lose precious months of predevelopment work relating to environmental testing, zoning and entitlements, architecture, and engineering. As the City’s development schedule begins to slide, construction costs will increase beyond that which can be anticipated in the proposed Project scope, which could ultimately undermine the entire Project. Such delay could result in a loss of significant resources, therefore creating a substantial hardship to the City in terms of both time and money.” (Lopes Dec., ¶ 10.)

The property was apprised by John J. Gobbell, Jr. of Gobbell Company of Carpinteria. Gobbell gives a fair market value for probable just compensation for the Permanent Easement and Temporary Construction Easement interests in the amount of $98,600.00. (Gobbell Dec., ¶ 2 & Exh. B.) On August 10, 2023, City filed a notice of deposit in that amount.

City has satisfied all of the statutory requirements for prejudgment possession of the property and the motion, as noted, is unopposed. As such, the motion will be granted. The court has reviewed the proposed order submitted by City and will sign the same.