Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />g <br /> <br />The property is necessary <br />following reasons: <br /> <br />for the project because of the <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />It was previously determined by the City Council <br />on September 2, 1980 and the Agency on September <br />15, 1980, after considering the plan for removal <br />of parking along North Main Street and evidence <br />submitted by the Staff, that the location <br />proposed is the optimum location for a parking <br />lot cons is ten t with the demand for addi tional <br />off-street parking. <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />The efficient economical use of adjacent <br />properties requires the acquisition of the <br />subject parcel. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />The construction of the parking lot and <br />subsequent use will maintain the present <br />patronage and employment levels of the <br />businesses within the effected area. <br /> <br />Chairman Luxembourger requested to hear from the public in <br />agreement and disagreement with the condemnation of this <br />property. <br /> <br />The following person appeared before the Agency to speak <br />against the adoption of Resolution 80-125: <br /> <br />Z ika Djokov ich <br /> <br />10901 Coronel Road <br />Santa Ana, CA 92705 <br /> <br />After further discussion, Mr. Thomas E. Hammill stated that <br />he had a letter from Mr. Nikolic's attorneý, and that he had <br />requese ted tha tit be read in to the record. Cha irman <br />Luxembourger then reques ted tha t sa id Ie t ter be read in to <br />the record. <br /> <br />"Re: <br /> <br />Adoption of Resolution 80-125 <br /> <br />"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: <br /> <br />"Please be advised <br />VIas timir Nikol id, <br />captioned matter. <br /> <br />that this office <br />with respect to <br /> <br />represen ts <br />the above <br /> <br />"On December 8, 1980, I was advised by your office <br />that the Agency would provide my office with a copy <br />of the Staff report, which purports to indicate the <br />necessity for taking the subject property, and that <br />said report would be sent within the next week. <br /> <br />"However, the repor t in ques tion was never sen t, <br />putting this office at an extreme disadvantage in <br />analyzing whether the publ ic in teres t would be <br />served by taking my client's property. <br /> <br />"We bel ieve the Agency breached its promise to <br />provide the report in question, and has made it <br />impossible for my client to point out why the public <br />interest would not be served. In particular, it is <br />our belief that the public interest would not be <br />served because of the size of the lot in question. <br />The subject lot will provide only a single row of <br />parking, whereas the adjacent lot, for example, <br />which is slightly larger would yield twice the <br />parking fo~, at most, one and one-half times the <br />price of my client's lot. <br /> <br />-3- <br />