04/16/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. community including over 1600 planned in the past several neighborhoods surrounding the benefit of a convenient, quality to quality and competitive particularly important to the population, such as the elderly. units of housing built or years. These units and the downtown do not have the shopping center. proximity shopping opportunities is less mobile segments of our The subject project is situated in the center of the development site on First Street, the major artery serving the site. The subject property is necessary to the development to provide adequate visual exposure, line of site exposure which is of critical importance to the major anchors, necessary parking space, and land area sufficient for development of the ancillary businesses required to make the shopping center a viable project. The project is planned and located pursuant to hearings previously held by the Redevelopment Commission, the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council. . An offer of just compensation has been presented to the property owners pursuant to Section 7267.2 of the Government Code. This project will benefit the general public, and need not create any private injury or hardship. It is in fact our guiding principle that any project for the public benefit, be it a street widening, a new fire station, or a redevelopment project such as this proposed shopping center, need not be implemented at the expense of any private individual or business. Federal and State acquisition and relocation laws have evolved to the point that a property owner or businessman can be fully compensated for any economic loss possibly incurred as a result of being displaced. California, with its provisions compensating a business for any loss of goodwill, is in the forefront in this regard. It is for these reasons that we believe that this beneficial project can proceed while the financial and business interests of the property owner can be fully protected." Chairman Griset staff report. then called upon the City Attorney for a . The City Attorney pointed out that Mr. Pulido had filed two law suits against the Agency and that the City Attorney's office had been in negotiations with the plaintiff. He added that he had offered fair market value to Mr. Pulido for his property and indicated that the Agency would deposit the money in court and permit Mr. Pulido to immediately withdraw the funds. In exchange for withdrawing the law suits, the City Attorney indicated that Mr. Pulido had been offered another site worth approximately $250,000, plus -8-