01/22/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. The project is planned and located pursuant to meetings and hearings held by the City's Redevelopment Commission, the Planning Commission, The Redevelopment Agency and the City Council. As previously mentioned, 95% of the site is presently utilized for agricultural purposes, minimizing the number of businesses which must be relocated. All of the businesses to be displaced are eligible for and will receive full relocation assistance benefits according to Federal And State laws. All of the subject property is necessary for the project in order to provide adequately sized parcels for dealerships, ,and in order to ensure adequate access to and visibility of the development. Offers of just compensation have been made to all record property owners, pursuan t to Section 7267.2 of the Government Code. In fact, negotiations continue for all of the subject property, however, project schedules require that the Agency adopt the subject resolutions at this time in order to guarantee our timely possession of the site, and in order to keep our commitments to the auto dealer developers. Vice Chairman Johnson requested to hear from those persons in favor and those persons opposed to the issue. . Mike Lucey, of 1201 South Beach Blvd. in La Habra, California, spoke as a property specialist of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Mr. Lucey expressed opposition to the redevelopment program using all of the property. He stated that the Chevron service station currently located on parcel 25 was built in 1971 and is estimated by Chevron to be a potentially viable business for another 25 years. Mr. Lucey stated that the service station owner had received an offer to purchase which was only for the property rather than one which included the existing facilities. Mr. Lucey further stated that a building permi t had been granted by the Ci ty for work which was completed in July, 1984. According to Mr. Lucey, an appraisal is being done by Chevron, inclusive of both the land and the facility. Upon completion of such an appraisal, Mr. Lucey indicated that he would submi t the resul ts to the Agency. Charles McClung, Jr., an attorney representing Otis Matkin, spoke on behalf of his client regarding parcels 402-101-21 and 22. Mr. McClung objected to the necessity of those parcels for this development, pointing out that these parcels would be part of a 5 acre parcel which is larger than the other proposed parcels. 'Otis Matkin, of 18041 Blue Ridge Drive in Santa Ana, spoke as the owner of Soil and plant Laboratory, Inc. which currently occupies parcels 21 and 22. Mr. Matkin stated that his building was constructed in 1946 and was specifically designed for his business. Mr. Matkin stated that this was not a case of redevelopment, but simply a development matter. He further expressed an opinion that this was not an issue of public good, but, rather, one of City convenience. Mr, Matkin stated that any attempts to inflict the least private injury had not been fulfilled because he had worked to find another location and his present location cannot be replaced. In addition, Mr. Matkin contended that a suitable relocation would cost more than double what he had been offered for his property by the Agency. 1