Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves resolution of necessity to acquire property for Avenue 428 bridge replacement
Summary
Tulare County voted 5-0 to adopt a resolution of necessity to acquire portions of two parcels for the Avenue 428 bridge over Sand Creek, authorizing eminent domain proceedings and a deposit of probable compensation after negotiated deeds were not executed.
Get email alerts on the Public Works topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Tulare County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Oct. 7 to adopt a resolution of necessity and authorize eminent domain proceedings to acquire portions of two parcels needed for the Avenue 428 bridge replacement over Sand Creek.
Reid Schenke of the County Resource Management Agency told the board the project replaces a narrow, scour‑critical bridge built in 1939 about a quarter mile east of State Route 63, north of the community of Rosie. Schenke said the county began construction after right‑of‑way agreements allowed entry, but the final deeds for two parcels — APNs 025-190-006 and 025-190-001 — were not executed by the owners. “The actual final deeds...were never fully executed and the property wasn't, formally transferred over to the county,” Schenke said.
RMA described the acquisition as about a quarter acre of permanent take — a roughly 20‑foot swath along the north side of the roadway — and said the appraised probable compensation for the property was $14,800. The staff report cited the board's prior environmental determination (a categorical exemption adopted June 28, 2022) and requested the board find the project consistent with that exemption and the requirements of Government Code section 72667.2.
Supervisor Eddie Valero moved approval of the resolution of necessity; Supervisor Dennis Townsend seconded. The board directed county counsel to pursue any necessary legal actions and authorized deposit of the appraised amount as probable compensation. The motion passed 5‑0.
No property owner appeared for the hearing and no members of the public spoke on the item. The public hearing was then closed.

