Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />address and to limit their comments to five minutes. He added <br />that they should keep in mind the requirements of Section <br />1245.124 of the Code of Civil Procedure that comments should only <br />address the following four issues: <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />Whether the public interest and necessity require the <br />project; <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />Whether the project is planned or located in the manner that <br />will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the <br />least private injury; <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />Whether the property sought to be acquired is necessary for <br />the project; or <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />Whether an offer, as required by Section 7267.2 of the <br />Government Code, has been made to the record owner. <br /> <br />No one wished to speak in favor of the condemnation <br /> <br />Mr. Ronald Berg, 15000 Ventura Blvd, Encino, CA., attorney for <br />Metropolitan Outdoor Advertising Company, spoke against the <br />proposed condemnation of the outdoor advertising bulletin located <br />adjacent to the Newport Freeway 500' + east of the Edinger <br />Off-Ramp for development purposes in the Auto Center Site. <br /> <br />When Chairman Griset called for questions from the Agency <br />Members, Mr. Hart asked Mr. Berg the terms of his lease and <br />the income from the billboard to which Mr. Berg replied <br />that their lease was month-to-month but that he had documentation <br />showing that these month-to-month leases are longterm and not <br />cancelled and that the net income from the billboard was $184,000 <br />per year. In response to further questions from Mr. Hart <br />regarding the income from the billboard, Mr. Berg affirmed that <br />the billboard's value was the yearly net income capitalized at <br />10% . <br /> <br />In response to questions from Mr. Young, the City Attorney stated <br />that, since the negotiated purchase of the land from the Santa Fe <br />Land Company, Metropolitan was now the Agency's tenant but that <br />the Agency still had to use eminent domain to remove the <br />billboard and that the $50,000 offered was the fair market value <br />of the billboard's hardware. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Acosta, the City Attorney <br />stated that after staff became aware of the billboard ownership, <br />there was an attempt made to amend the eminent domain action <br />against Santa Fe to include the billboard but that the court <br />ruled that staff was inaccurate because they had not noticed this <br />tenant. <br /> <br />In response to further questions from Mr. Acosta, the Real <br />Estate Manager stated that Santa Fe sold the air rights easement <br /> <br />-6- <br />