My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
RDA Min 1997-02-10
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
Redevelopment
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
RDA Min 1997-02-10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/5/2005 2:41:55 PM
Creation date
3/29/2004 11:15:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Agency Type
Redevelopment
Date
2/10/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> .... . . - <br /> <br /> I) A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF REDWOOD <br /> CITY AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AND THE EXPENDING OF <br /> FUNDS THEREFOR, AND THE INSTITUTION OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS <br />- - ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 053-233-030 & 053-233-150 (OWNERS: EDWARD S. <br /> TUITE AND ENARD K. JOHNSON); <br /> Chairman Hartnett announced that the above Item 3.A.I) would be continued for two <br /> . weeks to allow for further discussions between the Agency and the owners of the property. <br /> It will be rescheduled for the Redevelopment Agency meeting of February 24,1997. <br /> MINUTE ORDER NO. 06-97RD <br /> 3.A.2) Initiating eminent domain proceedings for the properties needed to assemble the Mezes <br /> Plaza Project site pursuant to the Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for <br /> Redevelopment Project No.2; <br /> REPORT: Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Church, February 10, 1997 <br /> Redevelopment Agency Director Church introduced the Agency's eminent domain <br /> attorney for this property, Herman H. Fitzgerald. <br /> Mr. Fitzgerald advised that the Agency Directors were being asked to approve a <br /> condenmation resolution to file an eminent domain action on property owned by Mr. <br /> Boicelli. He added that this hearing was for the limited purpose of whether or not the <br />- Agency had considered the following four items: <br /> I. Whether the public interest and necessity require the Project; <br /> 2. Whether the Project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible <br /> with the most public good and least private injury; <br /> 3. Whether the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the Project; and <br /> 4. Whether the offer to purchase the property required by G.C. Section 7267.2 has been <br /> given to the owner. <br /> Mr. Fitzgerald said all those questions could be answered in the affIrmative in this case. <br /> He described the notification process and advised that Mr. Boicelli's daughter contacted <br /> him a week ago requesting further information. He advised that the matter before the <br /> Agency Directors was only the "public use and necessity.... not a hearing in which <br /> negotiations can be conducted." <br /> Mr. Fitzgerald said he had assured the Boicelli family that although time constraints <br /> dictated moving forward with this matter, he would be happy to continue negotiating with <br /> them. <br /> Chairman Hartnett called upon representatives of the Boicelli family. <br />- <br /> REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 1997 <br /> MINUTES MINUTE BOOK NO.1 PAGE 2 <br /> Page No. 391 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.