Corona council adopts amended resolution to expand eminent‑domain claims for McKinley grade‑separation project

Corona City Council on the evening of the meeting approved an amended resolution of necessity asking a court to allow the city to amend its eminent‑domain complaint for the McKinley Street grade‑separation project, expanding temporary construction easements and other property interests on parcels that include the Los Arcos and McKinley Executive Plaza properties.

The resolution prompts the city to seek leave of the court to file a first amended complaint in an existing condemnation case (City of Corona v. Circa Trova Restaurant Group Holdings Inc.), a procedural step the city said is required because construction needs and uses of the parcels changed during the project.

City outside eminent‑domain counsel David Skinner told the council the city originally adopted a resolution of necessity in June 2020 and later filed a complaint on July 24, 2020. During construction, project staff determined the temporary construction easement (TCE) needed to be extended beyond the dates originally estimated, parts of the TCE were used exclusively and fenced off rather than nonexclusive as assumed, construction crews intermittently used about eight parking spaces, and an irrigation line was severed and later replaced. "If we acquire property and realize we need more, we're acquiring more or using more property than we thought, then it's upon us to go back and . . . amend our complaint," Skinner said.

Project manager Josh Cosper of Mark Thomas provided details to the council, saying the work revealed a need to extend the TCE term, to document intermittent parking used by workers, and to account for irrigation repairs after demolition work on the Outback parcel. Cosper said those additional interests were incorporated in the draft resolution attached to the staff report.

Michael Kehoe, attorney for the landowner CPI Properties Inc., said from Zoom that the property rights actually taken were greater than those described in the current resolution and that the takings had already occurred. "The taking has already occurred, and it's been ongoing," Kehoe said. He said an amended city offer was insufficient because it did not cover the full scope of rights the property owner says were taken and used for an extended period.

Public comment included an extended statement from a resident who said the project damaged tenant businesses and reduced property value. The speaker criticized city project management and said the council should be "fired up" about the effects on property owners.

Council members moved, seconded and voted to adopt the amended resolution of necessity so staff can seek court permission to file the amended eminent‑domain complaint. The amended resolution references the addresses 151–195 North McKinley Street and 2275 Sampson Avenue and APNs as listed in the staff report.

The council also acknowledged scheduling constraints: the trial date in the underlying eminent‑domain case is set for Oct. 31, and the city said it will not oppose a continuance requested by the property owner. The amended resolution is a procedural step the city says is required to ensure property owners can make compensation claims for the additional uses and time periods now identified.

Votes at a glance: the council adopted the amended resolution of necessity to seek leave to file a first amended complaint in the condemnation case (resolution ID: Reso 2025‑094, amending Reso 2020‑043). The staff report and legal presentation cite the need to secure compensation for extended and exclusive use, intermittent parking, and landscape/irrigation impacts.