Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />D.W. Sprague, of 5832 Velfield in Huntington Beach, California, spoke as a <br />representative of the Sixty-Eight Scar teen Corporation/union oil Company of <br />California regarding parcel 402-10-1-23. Mr. Sprague stated that he <br />operates a modern facility which he feels would enhance the project rather <br />than interfere with it. Mr. Sprague further stated that the offer for the <br />property which he has received from the Agency is "woefully inadequate" and <br />that he had previously submitted an independently solici ted appraisal to <br />the Agency. <br /> <br />Following Mr. Sprague's comments, and having no additional individuals <br />present wishing to comment, the public hearing was declared closed. <br /> <br />Mr. Luxembourger asked if staff planned to widen the street upon which the <br />subject parcels are located. Rex Swanson, Deputy City Manager/Development, <br />stated that the street under discussion will be an entrance to the Auto <br />Center. Mr. Ream explained that it was an important street by its nature, <br />and that it will be improved and slightly widened. Mr. Luxembourger asked <br />why the subject street would be a major entry in consideration of the <br />egress/ingress rights on Ritchey. Mr. Ream replied that there was no <br />comparison between the two streets in terms of traffic entries. Mr. <br />Luxembourger then asked, in reference to the service station, if <br />compensation would be based upon Agency appraisals or on the station's <br />. appraisals. Mr. Ream replied that Agency appraisals would be used, at <br />which time Edward Cooper, City Attorney, stated that the Agency was not <br />committed to dollar amounts at this time. <br /> <br />Chairman Griset entered the meeting at 7:28 PM, at which time Vice Chairman <br />Johnson deferred to the Chairman. <br /> <br />Mr. Young stated that the meeting was neither the time nor the place to <br />settle value amounts, and that he hoped the Agency would be sensitive to <br />particular situations. <br /> <br />Mr. Hart inquired about Mr. Matkin's entitlement, and Mr. Ream deferred to <br />Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Hoffman assured all that just compensation for the <br />property, as well as for the cost of relocating, would be forthcoming and <br />that compensation may be available for Mr. Matkin's loss of good will. Mr. <br />Hart then asked if "just compensation" was fair market value or replacement <br />value, to which Mr. Hoffman responded that it was fair market. Mr. Hoffman <br />went on to explain that, if Mr. Matkin were to purchase a new building, he <br />would receive more years of use from the new structure than could be <br />expected from the existing structure. <br /> <br />. Mr. Luxembourger inquired regarding the time factor pertaining to the <br />relocation. Mr. Hoffman stated that rough grading is scheduled to begin in <br />late March, but that the dealer improvements on the south portion of the <br />project were more flexible and that a two month extension would be <br />possible. <br /> <br />Mr. Luxembourger asked if an extension of time could be incorporated into <br />the motion. Mr. Swanson suggested, as an alternative, that staff be <br />instructed to be sensitive to needs regarding relocation and be instructed <br />to report back to the Agency. <br /> <br />1 <br />