HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Resolution 01-039RESOLUTION NO. 01-039
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SARATOGA
APPROVING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the matter of City of Saratoga v. Lester F. Hinz, Jr., as Executor of the
Estate of Ethel Josephine Hinz, deceased (Santa Clara County Superior Court No.
784560) is an action in eminent domain wherein the City of Saratoga is seeking to
condemn an interest in certain real property owned by Mr. Hinz.
WHEREAS, the City and Mr. Hinz have agreed to settle certain of the issues arising in
the litigation in order to expedite judicial resolution of the remaining issues in the
litigation.
WHEREAS, the attached Stipulation and Order for Judgment in Condemnation and Final
Order of Condemnation including all exhibits thereto ("Stipulation") has been
approved by Mr. Hinz contingent upon approval by the City Council of the City of
Saratoga.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby approves the attached
stipulation and authorizes the City Attorney and the City's special counsel to
execute the stipulation and cause it to be filed with the court; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution and all attachments
hereto shall be served on counsel for Mr. Hinz within ten days of approval of this
resolution and before the stipulation is filed with the court.
Resolution No. 01-039
Page 1 of 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the city Council of the City of
Saratoga, State of California, this 20th day of June 2001, by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmember Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Nick Streit,
Mayor John Mehaffey
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian
ABSTAIN: None
Attachments
A~ac~ent A: Stipulation and Order for Judgment in Condemnation and Final
Order of Condemnation (including Exhibits A t~ough D).
Resolution No. 01-039
Page 2 of 2
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MICHAEL R. NAVE, SBN: 37226
FAITH I. MITCHELL, SBN: 114274
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON
A Professional Law Corporation
777 Davis Street, Suite 300
San Leandro, CA 94577
Telephone: (510) 351-4300
Fax No.: (510) 351-4481
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CITY OF SARATOGA
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal NO. 784560
corporation,
Plaintiff,
VS.
LESTER F. HINZ, JR., AS EXECUTOR OF
THE ESTATE OF ETHEL JOSEPHINE
HINZ, AKA ETHEL J. HINZ, AKA E.J.
HINZ, Deceased; MIRANDA VESSING;
and DOES I through XVI, inclusive,
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION AND
FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION
APN 397-05-028
Defendants.
Plaintiff CITY OF SARATOGA (referred to variously herein as "Plaintiff CITY" and
"CITY") and Defendant LESTER F. HINZ, JR., AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF
ETHEL JOSEPHINE HINZ, AKA ETHEL J. HINZ, AKA E.J. HINZ, Deceased (referred to
variously herein as "Defendant HINZ"and "HINZ") hereby agree to settle the above-
referenced action as follows:
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR JUDGEMENT IN CONDEMNATION -- ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RECITALS
The parties acknowledge:
WHEREAS, this is an Eminent Domain action whereby Plaintiff CITY seeks to
condemn a permanent public easement in, over, across, under, through and upon the
real property owned by HINZ for the construction and maintenance of public road
improvements to Vessing Road, City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clam, State of
California (said easement referred to herein as the "Property"). A copy of the legal
description of the real property to which said easement applies is attached hereto as
Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, the CITY filed its Complaint in Eminent Domain on September 14,
1999; and
WHEREAS, all named Defendants having an interest in the subject Property have
been served with the Summons and Complaint. On or about October 19, 1999,
Defendant HINZ answered. Defendant MIRANDA VESSING has been dismissed; and
WHEREAS, Defendant HINZ, represents that, at the time of and immediately
preceding the filing of the Complaint, he was and is now the owner of the subject
Property; and
WHEREAS, on March 14, 2000, after a trial on the merits of Defendant's
challenge to the CITY'S right to take the Property, the trial court entered an ("Order")
Denying Challenge to the Right to Take and Lifting Stay of the Order of Possession, a
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B"; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the Order being served, and pursuant thereto, the City
took possession of the Property and constructed improvements thereon.
WHEREAS, the appropriate exchange of lists of expert witnesses and
Statements of Valuation have been made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sections
1250.240, 1250.250, and 1250.260, and depositions of the expert witnesses and other
pertinent witnesses have occurred; and
///
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR JUDGEMENT IN CONDEMNATION -- ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, as a result of the information derived from the discovery conducted in
this matter, the parties agree that the value of the Property being taken is no longer in
dispute and agree that, in lieu of a trial on the issue of just compensation, the parties
stipulate herein to the fair market value of the property interest being condemned for the
permanent public easement; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding said stipulation, Defendant HINZ desires to preserve
his right to appeal the Court's Order regarding Plaintiff's CITY'S right to take; and
WHEREAS, proper authority exists for the parties' position and is found in the
case of Buildin.q Industry Assn. v. City of Camarillo (1986) 41 Cal.3d 810, in which,
the Supreme Court stated, "...there is an exception to the rule that a party may not
appeal a consent judgment. If consent was merely given to facilitate an appeal following
adverse determination of a critical issue, the party will not lose his right to be heard on
appeal." Id. at 817. The exception is justified because, in the words of the court, it is
"'wasteful of trial court time' to require the plaintiff to undergo a probably unsuccessful
court trial merely to obtain an appealable judgment." Id. The exception has been
reiterated in subsequent Court of Appeal decisions as well. Tudor Ranches v. State
Compensation Insurance Fund (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1422; Connolly v. County of
Orange (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1105, 1111. [Other cites omitted.]
NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Based upon the appraisal for the CITY, prepared by Todd Johnson,
Defendant HINZ will accept as just compensation for the Property, the sum
of $1,000 plus interest from April 17, 2000;
2. Defendant HINZ intends to appeal the Court's Order Denying the Challenge
to the Right to Take and Lifting the Stay of the Order of Possession;
3. Each party will bear its own attorneys' and expert witness fees for the
valuation phase of this lawsuit;
IIIII
IIIII
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR JUDGEMENT IN CONDEMNATION -- ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
IIIII
Plaintiff shall pay Defendant's statutory costs associated with the Right to
Take as well as valuation phases_~f this lawsuit in the amount
An agreed form of Judgment in Condemnation shall be entered pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure §§1235.130. A Final Order of Condemnation
pursuant to §§ 1268.030 will not be recorded until all appeals are
exhausted in this matter. True and correct copies of the Agreed form of
Judgment in Condemnation and Final Order of Condemnation are attached
hereto as Exhibits "C" and "D," respectively.
During the pendency of the HINZ appeal, the parties further agree:
(a) The CITY has deposited $1,000, the amount of probable
compensation, with the State Treasurer's Condemnation
Fund;
(b) The CITY shall be entitled to continue receiving interest
payments on said sum until it is paid to HINZ in settlement of
this action after appeal;
c) The improvements which have been constructed on the
subject Property shall remain on a permanent basis unless
otherwise ordered by this Court or any other court of
competent jurisdiction and such decision is final.
d) CITY acknowledges that the CITY controls the Property within the
meaning of Government Code §830(c) for the purposes of
ascertaining CITY'S liability for claims for damages arising in
connection with the Property.
4
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR JUDGEMENT IN CONDEMNATION -- ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN
1
2
3
4
$
6
7
$
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
19
2O
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. In the
8. In the
event that HINZ prevails on appeal, the parties agree:
a) HINZ shall have the right to seek litigation expenses, if any,
in connection with the challenge to the right to take phase of
this action. Said expenses will be determined by a court of
competent jurisdiction.
b) HINZ shall have the right to seek any and all appropriate and
available remedies and/or damages in connection with the CITY's
taking possession of the Property and construction of the
improvements thereon. This agreement is not intended to limit or
preclude either Party's pursuit of any remedy and/or damages that
the Party deems appropriate.
c) Payment of just compensation to HINZ shall not be required.
event that HINZ loses on appeal, the parties agree:
a) The CITY shall have a reasonable amount of time (No
Later Than 60 days after the appeal is final) to make
available, and pay to HINZ, the stipulated just compensation
of $1,000 plus any interest which has accrued since the date
of possession (April 17, 2000).
b) The CITY'S payment of the stipulated just compensation
shall be in settlement of any and all claims which HINZ may
have (including, but not limited to his claim for just
compensation) arising out of this condemnation action. The
parties agree that this Paragraph (8.b) shall not apply in any
way to any future claims concerning the use, scope, and/or
extent of the Property in this Action.
c) Upon said payment and, at no time earlier, the CITY shall
record the Final Order of Condemnation and ownership of the
Property shall vest in the CITY.
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR JUDGEMENT IN CONDEMNATION -- ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated:
o
10.
The signature of the City Attorney hereon is based on the express
authorization of the Saratoga City Council. This stipulation, as approved by
Defendant Hinz, was considered by the Saratoga City Council in a duly
noticed meeting of the City Council held on June 20, 2001 and was
approved pursuant to Resolution No. 01- which included a copy
of this Stipulation and all exhibits hereto. A certified copy of Resolution No.
01- shall be served on counsel for defendant Hinz prior to the
filing of this Stipulation with the court. In accordance with Government
Code Section 54957.1 (a) (3) (A), this Stipulation was approved in a closed
session on June 20, 2001 and reported to the public in open session
immediately thereafter.
The parties agree that the languag_e~,_L .use~_~...~ ,~ t--~'in th.~u, dgment in
Condemnation at page 2, lines2~,,~a~d~n th~'~nal Order of
Condemnation at page 2, lines 4=~,, shali noqt~ construed so as to limit in
any way HINZ' arguments on appeal of the taking issue.
,2001 ~ ~
PAUL A. PELOSI '
Attorney for Defendant
Lester F. Hinz, Jr. Executor
Dated: O ~' ~.O ,2001
6
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR JUDGEMENT IN CONDEMNATION --ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: ,2001
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON
By:.
FAITH I. MITCHELL
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CITY OF SARATOGA, a Municipal Corporation
Dated: ~/~- ~ ,2001
By: '--==---
RICHARD S. TAYLOR, City Attorney
CITY OF SARATOGA
ORDER
ITIS SO ORDERED:
Dated: ,2001
JUDGE OFTHESUPERIORCOURT
7
STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR JUDGEMENT IN CONDEMNATION -- ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(Hinz)
The southerly 17 feet of the real property in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa
. Clara, State of California, described as follows:
Beginning at an iron pipe standing at the Southeasterly corner of that certain 15 acre
tract of land conveyed by P.S. Langford, et ux, to John Ball, by Deed dated July 18,-
1887, and recorded September 3, 1887 in Book 96 of Deeds, page 296, Records
Santa Clara County, California; thence running along the Easterly line of said tract of
land so conveyed to John Ball, North 0° 40' East 5.492 chains to the Southwesterly
corner of the certain 15 acre tract of land conveyed by H. Clarence Langford,
unmarried, to John Raab, by Deed dated January '13, 1917 and recorded January 16,
1917 in Book 451 of Deeds, page 585, Records of said County of Santa Clara; thence
running along the Southerly line of said 15 acre tract of land so conveyed to John
Raab, South 89° 40' East 11.15 chains to stake marked M-l-B-1, standing on the
Westerly bank of the San T0mas Aquino Creek; thence South 5 ° 35' East 0.45 chains
to a point in said Creek at a corner of said 15 acre tract; thence along the center of
said creek with the following courses and distances; South 5 o 30' East 2.00 chains,
South 26° 35' West 1.00 chains, South 17° 30' East 1.00 chains, South 32° 30' East
0.90 chains, South 89° 30' East 0.54 chains, South 46° East 0.78 chains, South 64°
30' East 1.86 chains, South 27° East 0.77 chains, South 6° East 0.67 chains, South
51 ° 30' west 0.83 chains, South 19° 30' West 0.71 chains, South 15" East 0.68
chains, South 50° 30' West 0.73 chains, South 67 o 30' West 0.58 chains, South 47°
45' West 0.83 chains and South 46° 15' West 0.57 chains; thence leaving said center
line and runniug, South 89° 35' West 1.03 chains to a point from which is set an
iron pin, North 20 feet; thence North 89° 35' West 5.801 chains t.o thc Southeast
corner of that certain 5.00 acre tract of land conveyed by H. Clarem-e Langford,
unlnarried, to George Rog, g, by Deed dated May 21, 1913, and recorded May 2 I,
1913 in Book 403 of Deeds, page 399, Records of said County of Santa Clara; thence
framing along the Easterly line of said 5.(/0 acre tract of land, North 2" 55' West
5.993 chains to the Northeasterly corner thereof; thence along the Northerly line of
said 5.00 acre tract of land, North 89° 35' West 1.227 chains to thc place of
beginning, and being a portion of the Quito Rancho, and a part of Scciion 8 in
Township 8, South Range l West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.
$,aving ;iud cxccl)!ing from the above describt:d I 1.68 acre tract of lamt, thai pot!ion
Ihereof conveyed by William T. lqol)son and Agnes C. Iblobson, his wife, it) Emma V.
Page 1 of 2 Pages
Raisch, by Deed;~lated October 18, 1923 and recorded October 25, 1923 in Book 55
of Deeds, page 37, described as follows, to wit:
Beginning at a point distant, South 89° 35' East 5.801 chains from the Southeast
corner of that 5 acre tract of land deeded to George Rogg by Deed dated May 21,
1913 and recorded in Book 403 of Deeds, page 399, Records of Santa Clara County,
California, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, from which point of
beginning is set an iron pin in the center of the roadway known as the Quito Road,
North 20 feet, which point of beginning is also in the South boundary line of the_ _
Quito Rancho, and is the South line of the premises of William T. Hobson and Agnes
C. Hobson, his wife, and from said point of beginning, running North 89° 35' East
1.03 chains; thence North 46° 15' East 57 links; thence North 47° 45' East 83 links;
thence North 67° 30' East 58 links; thence North 50° 30' East 73 links; thence
North 15° West 68 links; thence North 89° 35' West to a point in the center of said
Quito Road; thence Southwesterly along the middle of said road to said iron pin
which is set North 20 feet from the point of beginning, and thence South 20 feet to
the point of beginning. Containing about .45 of an acre of land, and being in the
Southeast coxner of the tract of land described in the Deed~rom H. Clarence
Langford, also known as Clarence H: Langford to William T. Hobson and Agnes C.
Hobson, his wife, dated January l 3, 1917 and recorded in Book 451 of Deeds, page
587, et seq., Santa Clara County Records.
APN 397-05-028
Page 2 of 2 Pages
EXHIBIT "B"
1
2
3
4
5
6
'7
8
9
I0
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2o
27
MICHAEL R.-RAVE, ESQ., SBN: 37226
KATHY E. MOUNT, ESQ., SBN: 104736
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON
A Profes~Onal Law Corporation
~'77 Davis Sti'eet, Suite 300
San Leandro, CA 94577
Telephone: (510) 351-4300
Fax No.: (510) 351-4481
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CITY OF SARATOGA
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE cOUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal
corporation,
Plaintiff,
VS.
LESTER F. HINZ, JR., AS EXECUTOR OF
THE ESTATE OF ETHEL JOSEPHINE
HINZ, AKA ETHEL J. HINZ, AKA E.J.
HINZ, Deceased; MIRANDA VESSING;
and DOES I through XVI, inclusive,
Defendants.
NO. 784560
ORDER DENYING CHALLENGE TO
RIGHT TO TAKE AND LIFTING STAY OF
ORDER OF POSSESSION
APN 397-05-028
Beginning on February 14, 2000, the Honorable Robert A. Baines presiding, a
bifurcated trial was held on the sole issue of the objections of Defendant LESTER HINZ to
the right of the CITY OF SARATOGA to exercise its power of erninent domain to acquire
the real estate interests described in the complaini on file in this matter. Trial was
concluded on February 16, 2000.
The CITY OF SARATOGA appeared through its counsel, Kathy E Mount of Meyers,
Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, and Defendant LESTER HINZ appeared through his
attorneys Patrick Tillman and Paul Pelosi. Mr. HINZ was present throughout the trial
proceedings
ORDER DENYING CHALLENGE TO RIGHT TO TAKE AND LIFTING STAY OF ORDER OF POSSESSION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
2.5
20
27
28
The cotTrt, having considered all evidence presented at the trial, having heard
arguments_of counsel, and being fully advised in the matter, finds as follows:
De~endant HINZ has failed to sustain his burden of proving that the CITY OF
SARATOGA acted with a gross abuse of discretion in enacting Resolution 99-50.
The CITY OF SARATOGA is entitled to a conclusive presumption that
Resolution 99-50 establishes that:
a) The public interest and necessity require the project;
b) 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) The property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED THAT:
With respect to the real property interest described in the complaint on file in this
matter:
a)
b)
The public interest and necessity require the project;
The project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible
with the greatest public good and least private injury;
c) The property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:
All objections to the right of the CITY OF SARATQGA to take the real property
interests described in the complaint which have been made defendant HINZ in his answer
to the complaint, whether by answer or affirmative defense, are hereby overruled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:
The order filed October 4, 1999 staying the Order of Prejudgment Possession is
hereby lifted. Service of the Order of Prejudgment Possession is subject to service per
CCP § 1255.450 and can be perfected on Defendant HINZ by mail or fax through
ORDER DENYING CHALLENGE TO RIGHT TO TAKE AND LIFTING STAY OF ORDER OF POSSESSION
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
Paul A. Pelosi,-Attorney for Defendant HINZ, at 111 North Market Street, Suite 900, San
Jose, California, 95113-1102; Facsimile: (408) 295-5008.
Dated: ,2000
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
patak K. Tillman
Hon Robert A. Baines
Judge, Superior Court
City of Saratoga v. Hinz, et al.
Santa Clara County Superior Court No. 784560
J:\Wp D~M N R S~A273\077~Triat\O rde r Denying Challenge to RighLwpd
ORDER DENYING CHALLENGE TO RIGHT TO TAKE AND LIFTING STAY OF ORDER OF POSSESSION
EXHIBIT "C"
!
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
VIICHAEL R. NAVE, SBN: 37226
FAITH I. MITCHELL, SBN: 114274
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON
A Professional Law Corporation
777 Davis Street, Suite 300
San Leandro, CA 94577
Telephone: (510) 351-4300
Fax No.: (510) 351-4481
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CITY OF SARATOGA
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal
corporation,
Plaintiff,
VS.
NO. 784560
Judgment In Condemnation
APN 397-05-028
LESTER F. HINZ, JR., AS EXECUTOR OF
THE ESTATE OF ETHEL JOSEPHINE
HINZ, AKA ETHEL J. HINZ, AKA E.J.
HINZ, Deceased; MIRANDA VESSlNG;
and DOES I through XVI, inclusive,
Defendants.
/
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, pursuant to the terms
of the Stipulation and Order for Judgment in Condemnation and Final Order of
Condemnation between Plaintiff CITY OF SARATOGA and Defendant LESTER F. HINZ,
JR., as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ETHEL JOSEPHINE HINZ, AKA ETHEL J.
HINZ, AKA E.J. HINZ, Deceased, that just compensation for the acquisition of the
property interests ("Proper[y") described in the Stipulation and Order for Judgment in
Condemnation and Final Order of Condemnation is the sum of ONE THOUSAND
DOLLARS ($1,000), plus statutory interest from April 17, 2000.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that upon payment of
said sum for the benefit of Defendant LESTER F. HINZ, JR., AS EXECUTOR OF THE
ESTATE OF ETHEL JOSEPHINE HINZ, AKA ETHEL J. HINZ, AKA E.J. HINZ,
,JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION -- ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Deceased, pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation and Order for Judgment in
Condemnation and the Final Order of Condemnation, the Final Order of Condemnation
shall be recorded and the ownership of the Property shall vest in the City.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the payment of
said sum shall be in full payment for the real property or interests in real property
hereinabove described and for all damages of every kind and nature under the California
Eminent Domain Law accruing by reason of the acquisition of said Property for the public
purpose as proposed by Plaintiff.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the public use and
necessity require the project for which said Property is acquired, that the said project is
planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public
good and the least private injury, that the said Property is necessary for said project, and
that the purpose for which said Property is acquired is a public use authorized by law.
Defendant LESTER F. HINZ shall recover his statutory costs of suit incurred
herein, if any, in the amount ot~, ~_~..~
./
DATED:
Judge of the Superior Court
2
JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION -- ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN
EXHIBIT "D"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MICHAEL R. NAVE, ESQ., SBN: 37226
FAITH I. MITCHELL, ESQ., SBN: 114274
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON
A Professional Law Corporation
777 Davis Street, Suite 300
San Leandro, CA 94577
Telephone: (510) 351-4300
Fax No.: (510) 351-4481
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CITY OF SARATOGA
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal
corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LESTER F. HINZ, JR., AS EXECUTOR
OF THE ESTATE OF ETHEL
JOSEPHINE HINZ, AKA ETHEL J. HINZ,
AKA E.J. HINZ, Deceased; MIRANDA
VESSING; and DOES I through X~/I,
inclusive,
Defendants.
/
NO. 784560
FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION -
ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN
APN 397-05-028 .'
Complaint filed: September 14, 1999
IT APPEARING, and the Court finds, that the award set forth in the Judgment in
Condemnation for the taking of a permanent public easement in, over, across, under
through and upon the real property owned by HINZ (and described in Exhibit "A," attached
hereto) for the construction and maintenance of public road improvements to Vessing
Road, City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California (said easement referred
to herein as the "Property"), to wit: ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000), exclusive of
statutory interest and costs, is full and just compensation for the taking of said Property,
FINAL'ORDER IN CONDEMNATION --ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN
1
2
3
4'
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and the Court being fully informed and good cause appearing therefor,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that upon
recordation of this Final Order of Condemnation, the ownership of the Property shall vest in
Plaintiff.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the public interest
and necessity require the acquisition of the Property.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Property is
situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that payment in the
amount of ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000), plus statutory interest and costs, shall
be made in accordance with the terms set forth in the Stipulation and Order for Judgement
in Condemnation and Final Order of Condemnation executed by the parties.
DATED:
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
J:\wpd~Mnrsw~73\077~PLEAD\final order 051001.wpd
2
FINAL ORDER IN CONDEMNATION --ACTION IN EMINENT DOMAIN
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
(Hinz)
The southerly l 7 feet of the real property in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa
Clara, State of California, described as follows:
Beginning at an iron pipe standing at the Southeasterly corner of that certain 15 acre
tract of land conveyed by P.S. Langford, et ux, to John Ball, by'Deed dated July 18,
1887, and recorded September 3, 1887 in Book 96 of Deeds, page 296, Records ~-~ ~
Santa Clara County, California; thence running along the Easterly line of said tract of
land so conveyed to John Ball, North 0° 40' East 5.492 chains to the Southwesterly
corner of the certain 15 acre tract of land cgnveyed by H. Clarence Langford,
umnarried, to John Raab, by Deed dated January '13, 1917 and recorded January 16,
l 917 in Book 451 of Deeds, page 585, Records of said County of Santa Clara; thence
running along the Southerly line of said 15 acre tract of land so conveyed to John
Raab, South 89° 40' East I 1.15 chains to stake marked M-l-B-l, standing on the
Westerly batik of the San Tomas Aquino Creek; thence South 5 ° 35' East 0.45 chains
to a point in said Creek at a corner of said 15 acre tract; thence along the center of
said creek with the following courses and distances; South 5 ° 30' East 2.00 chains,
South 26° 35' West 1.00 chains, South 17° 30' East 1.00 chains, South 32° 30' East
0.90 chains, South 89° 30' East 0.54 chains, South 46° East 0.78 chains, South 64°
30' East ! .86 chains, South 27° East 0.77 chains, South 6° East 0.67 chains, South
51° 30' West 0.83 chains, South 19" 30' West 0.71 chains, South 15° East 0.68
chains, South 50" 30' West. 0.73 chains, South 67° 30' West 0.58 chains, South 47°
45' West 0.83 chains and South 46° 15' West 0.57 chains; thence leaving said center
linc and running, South 89° 35' VVest 1.03 chains to a point from which is set an
into pin, North 20 feet; thence North 89° 35' West 5.801 chains to thc Southeast
comer of that certain 5.00 acre tract of land conveyed by H. Clarence Langford,
mmmrried, ~() Gct)rge Rogg, by Deed da(cd May 21, 1913, and recorded May 21,
191'3 in Book 403 of Deeds, page 399, Records of said County of Sama Clara; thence
framing along tire Easterly linc of said 5.00 acre tract o{' land, Norlh 2" 55' West
5 99B chains to the Northeasterly corner thereof; thence along thc Nordmrly line of
said 5.00 acre tract (ff land, North 89" 35' West 1.227 chains to thc place of
beginningt and being a portion of thc Quit() Rancho, and a [)art ot' 5, cclion 8 in
'l'ovwtship 8, South Range 1 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridkm.
Saving and cxcc[~ting I'roln thc alto)vt (tcsc~ibcd I 1.68 acre tract of l:md. thai port
thercol c(mvcvcd by William T. Ilobson ;tilt[ Agnes (}. l-lobs(m, his xvih', to }~ltllnl( V.
P~lgc I of 2 I'ages
Raisch, by Deed~lated October 18, 1923 and recorded October 25, 1923 in Book 55
of Deeds, page 37, described as follows, to wit:
Beginning at a point distant, South 89° 35' East 5.801 chains from the Southeast
corner of that 5 acre tract of land deeded to George Rogg by Deed dated May 21,
1913 and recorded in Book 403 of Deeds, page 399, Records of Santa Clara County,
California, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, from which point of
beginning is set an iron pin in the center of the roadway known as the Quito Road,
North 20 feet, which point of beginning is also in the South boundary line of the__ ~
Quito Rancho, and is the South line of the premises o£ William T. Flobson and A~nes
C. Hobson, his wife, and from said point of beginning, running North 89° 35' East
1.03 chains; thence North 46° 15' East 57 links; thence North 47° 45' East 83 links;
thence North 67° 30' East 58 links; thence North 50° 30' East 73 links; thence
North 15 ° West 68 links; thence North 89° 35' West to a point in the center of said
Quito Road; thence Southwesterly along the middle of said road to said iron. pin
which is set North 20 feet from the point of beginning, and thence South 20 feet to
the point of beginning. Containing about .45 of an acre of l~,,~d, and being in the
Southeast c6mer of the tract of land described in the Deed leiom H. Clarence
Langford, also known as Clarence H. Langford to William T. Hobson and Agnes C.
Hobson, his wife, dated January 13, 1917 and recorded in Book 451 of Deeds,' page
587, et seq., Santa Clara County Records.
APN 397-05-028