12/25/1977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

strong Development Company and Heritage Development and authorize Rede- velopment Commission to implement the projects pursuant to Resolution ~ 77-27, with the understanding that final plans will be subject to review .., by the Agency prior to implementation. LETTER FROM HENRY STOTSENBERG'S ATTORNEYS Mr. Yamamoto stated that by addressing one of the four recommendations given us in this letter, we will be taking care of the other three. The condemnation of the Mission will make it unnecessary to answer to considerations 2,3, or 4, because this action will take care of these issues. Executive Director advised that issue I of the letter pertains only to the Rescue Mission. Issue 2 pertains to the Second Street Mall, and that Agency previously authorized working drawings. Public Works in now working on such drawing for this project. Issue 3 regards sidewalks, restored lighting and is also a part of the Second Street Mall project. This also addresses question of alleyways. Public Works is working on these drawings now. In regards to Item 4, we have had no discussion on this before. Mr. Ward recommended authorizing Staff to respond to letter. 4IÞ Mr. Paul Butler of the Rescue Mission addressed the Agency, recommending postponement of discussion on the Rescue Mission until next meeting in view of the fact that his organization did not receive notice of this Agenda item until today. Therefore, he would like time to consult with Mission attorneys. Mr. Brandt advised that no action would be taken today. Time schedules and future Agenda scheduling make the fourth Tues- day in January the next probable date of action to be taken, a public hearing to determine condemnation of necessity. At present, Agency is merely setting forth motions for this action. Ed Cooper, Deputy City Attorney, stated in response to question of time constraints, that twenty days notice to the parties involved is needed before issuing a notice of public hearing for condemnation. Yamamoto advised that he could not support the recommended action until he had the proper answers to Stotsenberg letter. He requested further clarification of oral agreements referred to in said letter. Executive Director explained that Staff is attempting to get authorization to respond to the letter and as part of that response, to address the ~ question of the Mission. At this point, the Agency is not asking for ~ condemnation. It is simply looking for policy direction to be able to initiate the condemnation proceedings. No definitive action is to be taken at this time. The discussion in no way initiates any public hear- ing, just a willingness to hold a public hearing. Mr. Bricken restated policy to read that Agency is willing to entertain that they will be willing to carryon a condemnation action. Mr. Ortiz moved to authorize staff to respond to letter stating that public hearing on necessity of condemnation will be initiated against Rescue Mission. Motion seconded by Mr. Ward, and carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Brandt, Bricken, Ortiz, Ward NOES: Yamamoto ABSENT: Evans, Garthe RESOLUTION 77-28 Tom Hammill, Real Estate Agent of the Redevelopment Agency, identified . property involved. Mr. Brandt opened public hearing for comment by prop- erty owners or others involved. There being no public response, a motion was made by Mr. Bricken, seconded by Mr. Ward, and carried unanimously to adopt Resolution 77-28: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT