The resolution of necessity must contain a general statement of the public use for which the property is to be taken. Code of Civil Procedure § 1245.230(a) requires only a general description. For example, a general description of a project might read:
(Name of public entity) intends to construct (proposed project), a public use, and in connection therewith acquire interests in certain real property. Said public use is a governmental function of (name of public entity).
The Legislature’s Law Revision Comment to Section 1245.230 indicates that public use statements such as ‘elementary school and grounds’ or ‘right of way for a freeway’ or ‘open space to be maintained in its natural condition’ satisfy this requirement.
The statement of public use contained must not be so vague, uncertain and sweeping in scope that it fails to adequately identify the public use for which the property is being acquired. In City of Stockton v. Marina Towers LLC (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 93, the resolution described the public use as “the acquisition of additional land in conjunction with potential development” on property owned by the city for purposes of eliminating “irregularly shaped and undersized lots” which will permit “development of a larger and economically feasible use” to “complement other revitalization and redevelopment activities” in the downtown area. This amounted to nothing more than an announcement that “the project is the condemnation itself.” Accordingly, the court held this description to be insufficient to provide notice as to the intended use of the property and dismissed the eminent domain case.