My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/21/1986
Clerk
>
Minutes
>
SUCCESOR AGENCY(formerly Community Redevelopment Agency)
>
COMMUNTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (1974-2012)
>
1973-1999
>
1986
>
01/21/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 1:14:58 PM
Creation date
3/3/2005 11:49:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Minutes
Date
1/21/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />~.. <br /> <br />departments, commissions and boards. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In response to a query from the Chairman, the Agency Secretary <br />stated that there were no written communications regarding this <br />matter. <br /> <br />The Chairman then stated that the Agency would like to hear from <br />those people who wished to address the Agency on this issue and <br />asked them to give their names and addresses and limit their <br />comments to five minutes. He also asked them to keep in mind the <br />requirements of Section 1245.235 of the Code of Civil Procedure <br />and asked them to limit their comments to the following four <br />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 properties sought to be acquired are necessary <br />for the project; or <br /> <br />. <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 />The following people spoke in opposition to the C-7 Development <br />Site: <br /> <br />Joe Hamann, 213 Owens Drive <br />Marilyn Hayward, 119 E. Owens Drive <br /> <br />The Chairman then called for comments from the Agency Members. <br /> <br />Agency Members Hart, Young and Luxembourger all stated that, in <br />their opinion, staff should proceed to acquire those properties <br />on the north side of Owens Drive which were being adversely <br />impacted by the C-7 development and that the payment of <br />relocation payments to these people should be treated as a <br />a matter of policy. <br /> <br />After a lengthy discussion, Chairman Griset and all of the Agency <br />Members agreed that they would like staff to present a policy <br />statement on the payment of relocation payments in instances such <br />as the one presented on the north side of Owens Drive. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Chairman Griset then stated that, if there were no further <br />questions, comments or discussion as to whether the public <br />interest and necessity require the proposed project, whether the <br />project is planned and located in a manner that will be most <br />compatible with the greatest public good and least private <br />injury, whether the properties sought to be acquired are <br />necessary for the project, or whether an offer has been made to <br /> <br />-5- <br /> <br />~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.