Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-11-1990 Minutes City of San Bernardino, California June 11, 1990 This is the time and place set for a joint Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino at an Adjourned Regular Meeting held at 8:10 a.m., Saturday, June 9, 1990, in the Management Information Center (MIC), Sixth Floor, City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. The City Clerk has caused to be posted the order of adjournment of said meeting held on June 9, 1990, and has on file in the office of the City Clerk an affidavit of said posting together with a copy of said order which was posted at 3:30 p.m., June 9, 1990, on the door of the place at which said meeting was held. The joint Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Common Council and Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino was called to order by Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada at 7:05 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California. INVOCATION The invocation was given by John Cole, Administrative Assistant to the Council. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The pledge of allegiance was led by Council Member Reilly. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada announced that the purpose of this meeting is to conduct a joint public hearing to consider and act upon the Redevelopment Plan for the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project and the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken by Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada with the following being present: Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada; Council Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley; Sr. Assistant City Attorney Barlow, Deputy City Clerk Reese. Absent: Mayor Holcomb; Council Members Minor, Pope-Ludlam, Miller; City Administrator Julian. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada pointed out that in the last few weeks there has been much confusion in the community because property owners have been receiving information relative to three projects that are taking place at the same time: (1) the Redevelopment Project Area for Norton; (2) the proposed 1 6/11/90 creation of a City-wide assessment district relative to street lighting and street sweeping to help pay for additional City police; and, (3) the project being discussed tonight regarding the proposed Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada opened the public hearing and read the following statement for the record: "The state law under which we are acting is the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California. That law requires that we follow certain procedures, some of them formal, in the conduct of tonight's joint public hearing. "A transcript will be made of the hearing. Persons making statements and giving testimony will be subject to questions through the Chair. All persons desiring to speak will be given an opportunity to do so. "This is a combined hearing on both the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Plan and the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan, so please make it clear when you are speaking whether your remarks are directed to the Redevelopment Plan, the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report, or both. "The staff presentation tonight will be made by the Executive Director of the Community Development Commission, the project director, the redevelopment consultant with the firm of Urban Futures and the special legal counsel for the Community Development Commission." COUNCIL MEMBER At 7:12 p.m., Council meeting and POPE-LUDLAM ARRIVED Council Member Pope-Ludlam arrived took her place at the council table. at the Mark Huebsch, special counsel, Stradling, Yocca, Carlson and Rauth, indicated that staff, consultants from Urban Futures, and he, will present statements regarding the Redevelopment Plan and reasons for adopting it. He stated that written comments have been received and distributed to the council members prior to this meeting. He stated that Carl Morgan of Urban Futures will describe those letters which will be entered into the record. Mr. Huebsch explained that the Agency would not adopt an ordinance this evening, because although letters of support had been received, there had been receipt of written objections. But the Agency could consider objections a week from today, then adopt the Plan if it so desires. Mr. Huebsch stated that indicated, the purpose of this and testimony for and against as the presiding officer has hearing is to consider evidence the adoption of the Mt. Vernon 2 6/11/90 Corridor Redevelopment Plan and the certification of the Final EIR. Evidence will be introduced for consideration by the Mayor and Common Council and the Community Development Commission in connection with certain findings and determinations which are to be made in the adoption of an ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan. These findings and determinations are contained in Section 33367 of the Health and Safety Code. A copy of that Section is included in the materials which have been distributed to the Common Council. Some of the findings are: 1. The project area meets the legal qualifications set forth by the legislature for a blighted area, such as defective design of properties, faulty interior arrangement of space, subdividing of lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for property usefulness in development, existence of inadequate public improvements and utilities which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment, a prevalence of depreciated values, impaired investments and social and economic maladjustments. Those conditions for an area found to be a redevelopment project area have to exist to such an extent that they cause a reduction of or lack of proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social or economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. The conditions of blight are described at length in the materials council members have. 2. The Redevelopment Plan would redevelop the project area in conformity with the law. 3. The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. 4. The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the community. The Plan does not change the land use, but is a finding of conformity. 5. The use of eminent domain, as provided in the plan, is necessary for the execution of the Redevelopment Plan and adequate provisions have been made for payment of property if it is acquired as provided by law. Mr. Huebsch stated that he assumed that all the members of the audience have received notices that the ability to acquire property, including by eminent domain, is part of this Plan. That does not mean that the Common Council and the Commission have committed to acquire any or all property. It merely enables the Commission to consider that option at some later time on a case by case basis. Mr. Huebsch explained that in order to initiate condemnation proceedings, the public body needs to adopt a resolution of necessity by a 2/3 vote of the entire membership. In addition, 3 6/11/90 before any condemnation takes place, the public entity must obtain a fair market value appraisal and make an offer of the full amount of the appraisal to the property owner. If condemnation proceeds, the property owner can contest the appraised value of the property and can present his own evidence, retain his own appraiser, and present contrary evidence. Ultimately, it would be the court, not the City nor the Agency, who would decide the value of the property. 6. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the project area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Community Development Commission. Mr. Huebsch stated that there are other statements and determinations set forth in the proposed ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan, but the foregoing are the major evidentiary findings. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada explained in Spanish and English the process by which members of the audience can ask to be heard. She stated that Margie Vance, Redevelopment Agency staff, and Council Member Flores also speak Spanish and can assist those Spanish speaking persons in the audience who may have questions. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada answered questions, and stated that requests to be heard would be honored until the conclusion of the hearing. Susan Morales, City of San Bernardino Redevelopment Agency, stated that the purpose of the creation of the project area is to provide a tool to bring about a positive change for the community. She stated that in April of 1989, the Mayor and Council directed staff to begin the preliminary steps necessary for establishing a redevelopment project area for the Mt. Vernon corridor. A Council task force was formed, composed of Council Members Estrada, Flores, and Pope-Ludlam. The task force and staff conducted three community meetings on September 12, 14 and 19, 1989. The purpose of these meetings was to invite the public to participate in the redevelopment process and to inform them of what was being proposed. At that time, preliminary boundaries were discussed. Subsequently, the Planning Commission established the area boundaries on November 7, 1989. Ms. Morales stated that on November 13, 1989, the Mayor and Council established a Citizens Advisory Committee comprised of residents and representatives of community organizations who had expressed an interest in serving in an advisory capacity. The committee met with staff and provided input in conjunction with the Redevelopment Plan. On November 30, 1989, the Mayor and Council approved procedures for the formation of a Project Area 4 6/11/90 Committee also known as a "PAC". In accordance with the procedures, notification was accomplished by means of publication and public announcement. On December 11, 1989, a public meeting was held to explain the formation and functions of the PAC. At that meeting, eligible persons were provided with forms to submit for membership. On January 3, 1990, the Mayor and Council approved a seventeen member committee consisting of representatives from one or more of the following groups: owner- occupants; residential tenants; business owners; and representatives of existing community organizations. The PAC served as an advisory body to the Agency during the plan adoption process. A Preliminary Report, Draft Environmental Impact Report, and Draft Redevelopment Plan were approved by the Mayor and Council on January 29, 1990. On February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution PC 90-1, making a report and recommendation as to the conformity of the Redevelopment Plan with the General Plan. On May 30, 1990, the Project Area Committee unanimously recommended the proposed Redevelopment Plan. In order to give all property owners within the project area an opportunity to fully understand the redevelopment process, three community meetings were held on May 30, 31, and June 6, 1990. Carl Morgan, Urban Futures, consultants to the San Bernardino Redevelopment Agency, stated that staff has prepared a two volume set notebook containing reports, resolutions, statements, memoranda and other information pertaining to the proposed Redevelopment Plan and the project area. Each council member has a copy of this set. Mr. Morgan explained that major portions of the Community Development Commission's Report to the Common Council were submitted to the Common Council in May, 1990, and have been available for public inspection from that date to the present. The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project now appears as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Morgan stated that project area boundaries were established by the Planning Commission by Resolution No. PC 89-2, approved November 7, 1989. The map of the project area included as part of the Redevelopment Plan conformed to the foregoing action by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has also recommended approval of the Redevelopment Plan and has found that it is consistent with the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino. In addition, comments have been received regarding the draft EIR, and discussions have been held with the County and other agencies concerning the project. A summary of those discussions is included in the notebook. Notices of tonight's hearing were provided pursuant to statutes. 5 6/11/90 Mr. Morgan stated that all materials contained in the notebook should be made a part of the record. Mr. Morgan briefly summarized the Report to the Common Council, which is the basic supporting documentation for the Redevelopment Plan and was prepared pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 33352. He also referred to the ordinance which will adopt the Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Morgan explained that the purpose of the report is to review the reasons for the selection of the project area; to describe the physical, social and economic conditions existing in the project area; to describe how specific proposed public improvements/projects will improve or alleviate blighted conditions existing within the project area; to indicate the methods of financing for the Redevelopment Project; to set forth the plan and method of relocation of any property owners or businesses displaced by the project; to analyze the Preliminary Plan; to include the report and recommendations of the City of San Bernardino Planning Commission; to include the Environmental Impact Report on the project; to include the report of the County Fiscal Officer and the report of the Fiscal Review Committee; to describe the impact of the project upon the residents of the project area and the surrounding areas; and to summarize the conclusions by representatives of the Redevelopment Agency with the affected taxing entities and the public. He stated that the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project Area contains the traditional blighting characteristics as set forth in Health & Safety Code Section 33030, 33031 and 33032 such as: deteriorated infrastructure such as streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, water delivery systems, sewer systems and flood control facilities, deteriorated and dilapidated buildings and structures; abandoned and boarded up commercial buildings; a proliferation of graffiti denoting recent gang activity and potential social maladjustment; mixed and incompatible land uses; lots of irregular form, shape and size; vacant under- utilized parcels of land between existing developments; structures which exhibit defective design and physical construction; structures exhibiting faulty exterior facing; inadequate setbacks between structures; high density of population in some residential units resulting in overcrowding living conditions. Mr. Morgan stated that a photographic survey of the blight conditions are included in the Report to Council as Appendix C. Mr. Morgan stated that letters received from the following people have been distributed to members of the Agency and should be entered into the record: April 27, 1990, Lt. R. Curtis, Police Department; June 7, 1990, Mr. Larry Reed, Director, Planning/Building Services; June 7, 1990, Mr. Alex Valenzuela, 6 6/11/90 Code Compliance Officer; June 11, 1990, Esther Mata, President of Inland County Hispanic Round Table; June 11, 1990, Mr. Melvin G. Elliott, Treasurer, Elliott Precision Block Company; June 11, 1990, Mr. and Mrs. Melvin (Elizabeth) Elliott, property owner; June 4, 1990, Mr. John C. Petry, JCP Enterprises, Inc. May 30, 1990, Ms. Maureen Giovanni, United Nottingham; June 8, 1990, Bradley E. Henninger, owner Big 0 Tires; June 8, 1990, Robert Keenan, owner of Bob & AI's Tires; June 8, 1990, Mr. Harry Mays, County Administrative Office, County of San Bernardino; June 11, 1990, Mr. Brooks P. Coleman, California Schools Financial Services on behalf of the San Bernardino County Board of Education and Superintendent of Schools; June 6, 1990, Miss Amanda Guiterrez, resident; Mr. Ruben A. Lopez; June 11, 1990, from Mr. Randy Wyatt, property owner. In addition, a memorandum from Mrs. Susan Morales, Project Manager, Redevelopment Agency, dated June 8, 1990, listing building permit activity within the last year has been distributed. Mr. Morgan stated that the Community Development Commission is the lead agency in the preparation of the EIR. The Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, and the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. (State EIR Guidelines). The EIR analyzed the following environmental impact categories as identified in the initial environmental study as having a potential significant impact: demographic; traffic and circulation; noise; climate and air resources; public health and safety and man made hazards; biological resources; earth resources; water resources; drainage; flood control; and cultural resources. Mr. Morgan stated that although schools were not identified within the initial study as being significant, an impact analysis was included in response to comments received pursuant to the required notice of preparation. He stated that the final EIR concluded that implementation of the recommended mitigation measures as set forth in the final EIR provide adequate and appropriate adoption prerequisites. The proposed project does not require the inclusion of a statement of overriding considerations in the record as a condition of project approval. Findings of fact are scheduled for consideration by both the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino, and the Mayor and Common Council on June 18, 1990. 7 6/11/90 Mr. Morgan pointed out that the preparation of the draft and final EIR was closely coordinated with the City's Planning Department, Redevelopment Agency, and special legal counsel. The final EIR was approved by the City's Environmental Review Committee on May 10, 1990, and the City's Planning Commission recommended certification of the final EIR on May 22, 1990. Mr. Morgan stated that during the 45 day period, the lead agency received twelve environmental reviewing agencies as follows: public review letters from The Office of Planning and Research, acknowledged that the Agency had complied with House review requirements; which essentially the State Clearing The Department of Water Resources, which included recommended water conservation and flood prevention measures. The Agency thanked them for the recommendations and the inclusion of those recommendations are included in the final EIR. The third letter was from the Department of Conservation, Office of the Director, and referred to the fact that the draft EIR and technical background report for the City's General Plan were not mailed to each of the individual reviewing agencies. However, the EIR did state that those documents were available for review at the City's Planning Department. The letter also stated that the seismic and geologic hazards were adequately addressed; that the existing geologic conditions could preclude development in certain areas; and reemphasized the importance of the aggregate sand and gravel resources located in the Lytle Creek Wash, which is in the project area. The fourth letter was from the Department of Transportation, District Eight, which asked why detailed traffic analysis on the state highway system was not included as part of the document. The letter also recommended mitigation measures to reduce the number of trips generated. The Agency responded that it concurred with the Department in that traffic and circulation is a critical and controversial issue in San Bernardino County. However, due to the uncertainty of the scope, design, location and kind of development within the proposed project, it is not possible, without speculation, to address the issues brought forth in this document. The Agency also referred to provisions of Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines. Finally, the Agency stated that plan related projects will be tied to infrastructure and community facility improvements which in and of themselves are not growth inducing. All future 8 6/11/90 growth inducing projects will be analyzed by the lead agency on a project by project basis in accordance with the program EIR in order to assess the need for additional environmental impact analysis. The inclusion of the information provided by the Department of Transportation is hereby included within the final EIR. The fifth letter received from the City of Redlands requesting notice of future redevelopment plans in the City. No response was necessary. The sixth letter from Pacific Bell noted that the project was not within their service area. The seventh letter was from Kaye Schurkens, City of San Bernardino, which recommended inclusion of Foothill and 5th Street as a project. Mr. Morgan stated that Foothill Bernardino's western boundary to the project improvements listed as redevelopment project. and 5th 1-215 is part of Street from San included in the the proposed The eighth letter from the San Bernardino City Unified School District commented that enrollment numbers in the draft EIR were inaccurate or outdated, and a reference was also made to economic and fiscal matters. The Agency responded to the first comment regarding to the enrollment numbers, stating that the numbers in the Draft EIR were provided to Urban Futures, Inc. by the San Bernardino Unified School District and were assumed to be the most accurate figures available at the time. It was recognized that student population is an ever changing statistic, and the Draft EIR cannot be continually amended to reflect those changes. Mr. Morgan referred to the second comment in the letter, stating that the economic and fiscal matters would be more appropriately handled during the fiscal negotiation process, pursuant to Section 15131 of the CEQA Guidelines. The ninth letter was from the County of San Bernardino Transportation Flood Control Department, which stated that the EIR did not adequately address the existing flood control and drainage facilities capacities; that the proposed plan will impact existing facilities; set forth questions regarding the detailed design plans and concept for the Lytle Creek Channel; that drainage sub-area No. 2 was overlooked; and finally, a request for extraneous information that had been incorporated by reference. 9 6/11/90 Mr. Morgan explained that the Agency responded that as a program EIR and the uncertainty of specific developments and projects, it is not within the scope of this EIR to assess the projects' implementation on existing flood control and drainage facilities over the entire forty-one year life of the plan. Nevertheless, implementation of the public improvements, projects and programs identified in the proposed improvements list will substantially improve many of the existing drainage deficiencies that currently exist. Mr. Morgan explained that the Agency responded to the second comment by stating that in the Draft EIR, no long term impacts are anticipated because proposed flood control and drainage improvements are considered mitigation measures in and of themselves. The Agency's response to the third comment was that the exact scope, design and location of specific improvements are not known to the lead agency at this time. Mr. Morgan number four was corrected in the in error and has stated that the Agency's response to comment that the omission of sub-area No. 2 has been text. Also, the storm drainage location map was been corrected. The response to the fifth comment regarding the information that had been incorporated by reference was that the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15150A, states that in order to reduce the amount of paper work, items may be incorporated by reference and not included verbatim in a document. Mr. Morgan further explained contents and responses to the following letters: The tenth letter was a City of San Bernardino inter-office memorandum stating that the Environmental Review Committee would hold a second meeting on the Draft EIR. No response was required. The eleventh letter stated that the proposed project will not impact the City of Rialto. No response was required. The twelfth letter was from the Department of Army, Los Angeles District Army Corps of Engineers, asking that if the Agency is proposing a project within the waters of the United States, that the Army Corps of Engineers be notified at the earliest point in the process. The response was that it is so indicated and included as part of the Final EIR. 10 6/11/90 Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada introduced members of the PAC Committee who were in the audience. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada stated that the final EIR and all comments thereto, and all material included in the notebook have been included as part of the record. Mark Huebsch, Stradling, Yocca, Carlson and Rauth, special agency counsel, explained that there is a financing tool in the Redevelopment Plan called tax increment financing which provides that after the Plan is adopted, if there is an increase in property tax revenues, a greater portion of those taxes would be available to the City than if the Plan were not adopted. It does not mean that the tax rates increase, nor does it mean there would be a lien against specific property. Mr. Huebsch explained that the Redevelopment Plan lists a number of public improvements that could be done over time, depending on priorities of the Community Development Commission and the Common Council. He stated that the Plan also contains provisions relating to the funding and assistance for affordable housing. Mr. Huebsch stated that there are also provisions that relate to the maximum amount of increment that could be available to the Agency and the maximum amount of bonds that could be issued by the Agency. Adopting the Plan does not assure that bonds are issued. Action regarding the bonds would be taken at a later date by the Community Development Commission. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada requested that the record show that the Redevelopment Plan has already been made a part of the record. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada stated that it was the time and place to hear oral testimony from the public in favor of the Plan and the Final EIR. Jack Matlock, 24070 Pine Avenue, San Jacinto, CA, representing the Unified School Districts of San Bernardino, Colton and Rialto stated that all three districts serve various portions of the project area, and spoke very strongly in favor of the proposed project. He thought that the redevelopment process is one that allows local taxes to be used locally, especially the school dis.trict taxes. He felt that the Mt. Vernon Corridor has been in need of rehabilitation, and commended the Council in making a move to revitalize that part of the community. Wade Byars, 269 South K Street, San Bernardino, CA 92410, read his letter of approval, in which he stated that he had served as Vice Chairman of the PAC. As a long-time resident of the Mt. Vernon area, he hoped that the Mayor and Council would support the efforts of the PAC and Redevelopment Agency and 11 6/11/90 approve the Plan for the benefit of all citizens. He felt if the project is successful, it will promote a financial tax base that will enhance the entire City. Graciano Gomez, 1265 E. Shamrock, San Bernardino, a member of the PAC, spoke in favor of the proposed redevelopment project for the Mt. Vernon area. He felt that a fine group of citizens had become involved and had made very good recommendations which would be the beginning of a project that will be beneficial to the entire City. Mel vin G. Elliott, 157 N. Rancho Ave., San Bernardino, a member of the PAC, owner of Elliott Precision Block Company, explained that he became involved with the process so that he could study the situation and would have first hand knowledge of the redevelopment process in the Mt. Vernon area. He explained that he learned that the redevelopment process can make a difference, and wholeheartedly supported the adoption of the program. Mr. Walter Wells, 385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, representing the County of San Bernardino, County Administrative Officer, explained provisions of the letter written by Harry M. Mays, County Administrative Office, dated June 8, 1990, in which he stated that in general, that the findings in the ordinance are not based on substantial evidence. He also set forth twelve specific objections to the Plan. He stated that their principle concern in any redevelopment project is the impact of the project on the ability of the County to deliver services to the people within that project area. This project, in his opinion, does have a detrimental effect on the ability of the County to provide those services, especially with regard to the use of tax increment financing. He stated they had filed a letter with the Clerk and asked that it be considered as part of the record and requested a response as required by law. Additionally, as a member and the Chair of the Fiscal Review Committee, Mr. Wells stated he was representing California School Financial Services, Brooks Coleman, President, San Bernardino County Board of Education. Mr. Wells explained that Mr. Coleman prepared two letters which have been filed with the City. The letters indicate, in general, that the Office of the County Superintendent of Schools is charged with the responsibility of providing school age citizens and school district with a wide range of services. The types of educational programs conducted by the County Superintendent are generally for low incident students, such as blind, and mentally handicapped individuals. These students, by the nature of their numbers, must be gathered from a very large or regional population in order to form a class. Other areas of the County office includes business, financial and educational advisory services. 12 6/11/90 Mr. Wells explained that the major problem faced by the County Superintendent is the need to provide classrooms and other facilities for these programs because the State provides no allowance for most of them, nor can the County Superintendent collect developer fees. The County Superintendent of Schools is also very concerned about the diversion of tax increment financing for the project and because of that diversion, on their ability to provide services. Mr. Wells asked that the letter be placed in the record in its entirety. Mr. Wells also spoke on behalf of the San Bernardino Community College District. He stated that the District is responsible for providing higher educational opportunities for residents in the area. Public education is directly dependent upon state and local revenue sources for the funding of operational programs and facilities. The State's provision for college facilities falls short of actual need, especially considering the age of existing buildings on campuses and the rate of student growth. He stated they have carefully reviewed the material which has been provided regarding the Mt. Vernon Project and they have concluded that there will be an impact on the San Bernardino Community College District. The inevitable new development, homes, jobs and resulting students must be accommodated. He asked that the letter be placed in the record and responded to accordingly. Linda Cavola, 957 Home Avenue, San Bernardino expressed a concern regarding the amount of money that will be involved in the bonds or loans that will be taken out. She referred to the fact that the government is subsidizing home savings and loans institutions, and wanted to know what the burden of these new loans would be to the tax payers. Mark Huebsch answered Ms. Cavola' s question, stating that unlike the situation in the savings and loan industry, the kind of bonds that the Agency issues are secured by tax increment revenues. He explained that if property taxes do increase, and there is increment to the Agency, then money is available to the Agency to payout those bonds. The only revenues that are invol ved in the repayment are property tax increment revenues, an important distinction when these kinds of bonds are sold. They would contain an "official statement" that offers them to the public and makes clear in bold faced type that the bonds would not be debts of the City. They would not typically result in any lien against anyone's property, and no additional taxes would be imposed to payoff such bonds. Donna Parker, 1649 Belleview, San Bernardino, asked that if a citizen's property is considered for eminent domain, how much 13 6/11/90 notice would be given before the action begins. She also asked if there are plans to take any specific property. Mark Huebsch responded that he didn't think the Agency had any plans to initiate eminent domain proceedings. He explained that it seems to be the case of the Agency wanting to have the ability at some future time, if there is some appropriate case to acquire some property. Mr. Huebsch explained the eminent domain procedures. He stated that if the Agency wants to acquire property and the property owner doesn't want to sell it for any price, there would be a hearing on what is called a "Resolution of Necessity" and at that time an evaluation would be made if that property was necessary for a public project, or if the public project could be done using other property. At the hearing on the Resolution of Necessity, the property owner would have an opportunity to speak and could be represented by counsel. I f the Agency were to proceed to acquire the property, it would file an action in superior court. If the Agency sought an order of immediate possession of property that is occupied, the absolute earliest date they could take possession would be ninety days from that point. Commonly, each step along the way takes some time, but the examples given portray the minimum times. Ms. Parker asked how soon the Agency will be going through the Plan and picking specific areas. Mr. Huebsch expressed doubts that selecting specific properties for eminent domain proceedings will ever be done on an area wide basis, but the Agency would have the opportunity to consider this step in individual cases. Eminent domain proceedings in the City have been rarely used. Commencing eminent domain proceedings is a very serious item to a City Council and specific property would have to be considered on a case by case basis. In order to acquire property that the owner didn't want to sell, an appraisal would be needed and a 2/3 vote of the entire membership rather than a simple majority vote. Mr. Huebsch, answered questions, stating that the owner would be notified of the time of such proceedings. An appraiser would contact the property owner to get access to the property and usually interview them to see if there were any unique features of the property that the appraiser might overlook. Donna Parker explained that if there will be eminent domain proceedings, people should be looking around for other places to live. She felt that ninety days was a short period of time in which to find new living quarters. Mr. Huebsch added that if property is acquired through condemnation, the property owner, or occupant, would be entitled 14 6/11/90 to receive relocation advisory and financial assistance in addition to the right to receive payment for the property. Mr. Temple, Acting Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, explained that eminent domain in this Redevelopment Plan is envisioned to be available for only the first twelve years of the Plan. He stated it was important to differentiate residential property from commercial or industrial in discussing condemnation. He stated that they have identified no residential property nor do they have plans at this time to identify any residential property that would be taken. It was his understanding that the absolute last resort would be eminent domain. Mr. Temple explained that it would be their intent if the Agency needed to acquire property, to work that out with the owners and give them an appropriate amount of time, if it were available. He stated that they had researched records and found that in the last ten years in the City no residential property had been taken by eminent domain, even though it has been available in almost every other redevelopment plan. Council Members recalled that in the last twenty or twenty- five years there have been no residential properties taken through the condemnation process, with the exception of the Central City downtown area where there were condemnations and relocation of people because of necessity. There have been approximately twelve redevelopment project areas containing many residential units. There have been a few commercial condemnations. It was pointed out that not only has this Council been very reluctant to use condemnation powers, but previous Councils have also avoided using those powers. It was felt that future Council will probably continue this policy. It was stressed that it was not the intent of the Council to acquire property unless there are very serious reasons to do so. Erlinda Reyes, 950 Spruce, San Bernardino, spoke in opposition to the proposed redevelopment project area because relocation that might be caused by the project would impose a hardship for residents who have lived in the Mt. Vernon area for many years. She questioned whether or not it would be possible to circulate a petition to have this project stopped. She felt that people have no say in the Plan, and that she had not been notified of previous meetings. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada explained that one of the reasons for this public hearing, as provided by law, is to allow input from the residents. She stated that although she understood the fears of the residents, she reaffirmed previous statements regarding the reluctance of city councils to use eminent domain procedures. 15 6/11/90 Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada explained that the law requires public hearings be held as part of the redevelopment process. Notices for this meeting were mailed according to law. The meetings that were held prior to this time are not part of the legal process, but were scheduled to inform people about the action taking place. Various forms of notification, such as weekly and daily newspapers and radio stations, were used to publicize those meetings. Mark Huebsch explained that the Agency met the legal requirement to publish a notice once a week for four successive weeks. The notice also contained reference to three informational meetings, even though they are not required by law. In addition to those three recent meetings, there were other community meetings to get input from the community. Additionally, the PAC was established, which held seven or eight meetings. Part of its purpose was to reflect concerns from area residents and business people. Frederick Bell, 1231 Orange Street, San Bernardino, stated he was representing his mother and father-in-law and that they had never received notification of the proposed redevelopment project. He heard about this evening's hearing from an individual who read the notice in the newspaper. He explained that none of the residents on the ~est side of Orange Street were notified of any of the redevelopment proceedings. He also felt that information regarding the project area should be written in laymen's language. Susan Morales, Redevelopment Agency staff, answered questions and explained that Orange Street is not included in the project area. She indicated the areas included in the project on the map. Mr. Bell stated that people in the area should be aware of what's happening even if they don't have any input. Mr. Temple, Acting Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, explained that Agency staff members are in the back of the auditorium and will assist anyone having questions about whether or not their property is in the project area. Mr. Marshall Linn, Urban Futures, Inc., explained that the list of residents was purchased from the County, and its possible that there may have been errors because there were hundreds of parcels within the project area. But to the best of staff's knowledge, the list was fairly accurate and up-to-date. Mr. Ernest R. Flores, 161 S. Pennsylvania, San Bernardino, spoke against the proposed project, stating he felt that the City would be moving many people out of their homes in order to use the property for a business to receive higher taxes. He 16 6/11/90 stated that although homes have not been taken for twenty to twenty-five years, times have changed and he felt homes would be taken. He stated that homes were taken for the Meadowbrook Project. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada stated that there is no indication that anyone will be moved from their homes for any business purpose. Jessie Vega, 665 North "J" Street, San Bernardino, asked for clarification as to what houses will be taken and when that process will begin. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada again stated that the Agency does not have any areas or houses identified to be taken by eminent domain. Ms. Vega also stated that at a previous meeting a mention was made regarding an off-ramp, and asked for clarification. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada explained that the question had been asked about the area along the 1-215 Freeway, and that the area had been included in this project area because of the possibility of getting a surface off-ramp to go towards the West Side. But it is not certain if or when that could happen. Mr. Temple stated that in the event that happens, Cal Trans will be conducting that project, not the Agency. Mr. Temple explained that before the preliminary boundary and survey areas were adopted, a task force made up of council members initially did everything possible to eliminate all residential areas from the project area that weren't actually necessary. Buddy Long, U and I Auto Wrecking, 1435 W. Rialto Ave., San Bernardino, a property owner and businessman in the Mt. Vernon area, stated that there has been discussion on a "Plan", but he felt there was no plan. He also stated that he understood that the Agency does intend to take people's property by eminent domain if necessary. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada explained that the project area is what is being discussed here. The Plan basically sets out goals and objectives of what is hoped to be accomplished if sufficient monies become available. Many needy projects have been identified that might be addressed given the financial ability to do so. But there are not specific projects at this time. She also stated that there are no plans to take any property by eminent domain. Mr. Long stated that he was not because he was not sure of its intent. for or against the Plan It appeared to him that 17 6/11/90 primarily only commercial or industrial property were included in the project area and that this project was being done to gain more tax dollars. He suggested that there is much residential blight that needs to be addressed, but the residences have been left out of the project area. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada explained that in all project areas there are 20% set aside funds for low and moderate income housing. Through the use of those funds, the City is able to assist residents. Mark Huebsch stated that if the Agency and the Common Council make findings that a provision of low and moderate income housing outside the project area would be of benefit to the project area, then the 20% housing set aside funds can be expanded outside the project area. It is a finding that is very commonly made by cities and redevelopment agencies. It is almost always defensible. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada further explained how the 20% set aside funds could be used to assist a property owner outside of the project area. Mr. Long suggested that if he were given financial assistance, he could improve his property. He also stated he was not in favor of inviting developers from out of town and allowing them to get financial assistance. Virginia Guzman, 960 W. Spruce Street, San Bernardino, property owner and employee at Ybarra's Grocery at 914 Spruce, spoke of her elderly parents and was concerned about possible relocation because of eminent domain. She stated that if they received financial assistance, they could fix up their own property. She questioned who decides who gets the financial assistance. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada explained that the purpose of this plan is to upgrade the area and bring in new business, preferably locally owned, and help them do whatever is necessary to improve the area. Ms. Estrada stated that prioritizing the needs will be made on a case by case basis. The Planning Department has the planning guidelines, and is involved in any decision. Mr. Huebsch explained that according to state law, relocation assistance is available to residents and businesses if displaced because of governmental action. Fair market value of the property would be paid. If the business owner could show that he would be damaged or driven out of business if he weren't effectively able to relocate that business without a substantial loss of patronage, the property owner could also force the governmental agency to pay for loss of good will. 18 6/11/90 Mr. Huebsch explained the provisions of relocation assistance to renters. If a tenant has been residing in a property and were displaced because of a governmental agency's condemnation, that person would be entitled to some level of relocation financial and advisory assistance. Juan Salgado, 931 W. 8th Street, questioned the make-up of the Committee that is involved with the Agency. He suggested that people in the community would have been a better choice and asked how the people were selected. His second point was in regard to the fact that many senior citizens could not attend the meeting because of difficulties in getting transportation. The third issue had to do with a previous meeting at Mt. Vernon Elementary School and a discussion regarding financing. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada answered questions and explained that the task force is comprised of council members that represent the district affected by this project. The PAC has to meet certain state guidelines and select people who represent home owners, renters and business people, and other criteria. Susan Morales, Agency staff, answered questions regarding the selection of members of the PAC. She stated that notification was made by means of public announcement and advertisements in the local newspapers. Representatives were volunteers and represented all the categories. Additionally, there were representatives from community organizations. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada answered questions, stating that the Redevelopment Agency receives the monies and then has the ability to use those monies for the betterment of the community. Mr. Salgado expressed concern about the various programs being conducted by the City to collect additional money, such as the street lighting and street sweeping assessment district, and the business license requirement for rentals units. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada stated that the proposed redevelopment plan will hopefully help in solving those problems. Mr. John Hoeger, Redevelopment Manager, Redevelopment Agency, explained that the Agency's business is more in terms of buildings, roads, curbs and gutters and rehabilitation programs for home owners and businessmen. There are many things that the Agency cannot do because of State law, such as maintenance on City facilities, pay salaries for ordinary City services, nor provide police services. There has to be a direct link to the redevelopment of the area before any of those things can be done. Mr. Hoeger referred to the Meadowbrook project, which was a federal program, and stated that redevelopment programs have improved since then, as local agencies now make decisions regarding these projects. The PAC has brought representation 19 6/11/90 from home owners, businessmen, priorities on how to use the dollars into community centers serve people in the area. and tenants, and they have set redevelopment money by putting and into social agencies that He also explained how the tax increment benefits the area. One of the most obvious things is new construction. Without these benefits provided by the redevelopment project, nothing in the area would change. But a new store, a new business, new homes, would create new tax increment. Those new dollars come to the Agency and can be used to assist in the area. Ralph Hernandez, 190 N. Pico, San Bernardino, spoke regarding the failure to properly notify people in the area. He stated that a redevelopment project can be an excellent asset to the local community if implemented properly. It must be fully supported by local officials. He spoke regarding Meadowbrook and the Northwest Project areas which have not been totally successful, but others such as Tri City, South Valle, and Hospitality Lane are very successful projects. He urged the Council to take a strong stand in assisting the West Side by applying pressure to financial institutions to lend money to residents in the poor areas. He felt that outsiders are coming in and taking over the properties in the Mt. Vernon Area, and are getting support from the federal government. Effie Shank, 117 S. Mt. Vernon Ave., San Bernardino, stated that she conducts a business from her home, and wondered what would happen to her if she had to move from her home because of the redevelopment project. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada assured Ms. Shank that there was no intention of moving her out of her home. Mr. Temple stated that Mrs. was in the back of the room and questions. Nancy Davison, Agency staff, would be glad to answer any Manuel Rodriguez, 22819 Vista Grande, Grand Terrace, President of the Mt. Vernon Associates, owners of property on Mt. Vernon Avenue, had questions regarding the dissolution of a corporation. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada referred Mr. Rodriguez to Sr. Assistant City Attorney Barlow. Bill Katona, 1371 Walnut, stated he also owns property at 1370 Walnut Street. He stated he was neither for or against the proposed project. He felt that the Norton Air Force Base Project area will overlay the entire area, so everyone would be included in a redevelopment project one way or another. He questioned why the residential areas were omitted from the project area. 20 6/11/90 Mr. Katona expressed concern about the increasing number of redevelopment projects in the City. It was also his opinion that tax increment money is going into those projects, rather than the City's General fund, which is suffering as a result of those projects. He asked for clarification on the use of the tax increment. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada answered questions regarding the tax increment. She stated since Proposition 13, the subsidies that cities used to get are not available anymore. Therefore, it is hoped that the redevelopment projects can provide some of the infrastructure improvements. Mark Huebsch answered questions, and explained the benefits that can be derived through the use of tax increment funds, as the Redevelopment Agency is able to retain greater revenues locally. Thus, the Agency can improve infrastructure, such as widen streets, install street lighting and improve sewers. Therefore, the area benefits by receiving services that don't have to be provided out of the General Fund. Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada also pointed out the benefit of increased sales revenues that are generated through the use of those tax increments. John Hoeger, Redevelopment Manager, explained the benefits provided by tax increment dollars. He stated that more projects can be accomplished without using general fund monies and would also attract new businesses which will produce additional sales tax, utility tax and other sources of revenue. Mr. Katona objected to the increase in the number of redevelopment projects in the City. He also objected to the City's proposed assessment district for street lighting and street sweeping, and asked if proceeds from that would go into RDA funds. He also stated, that as a member of the Valley Water District, he was interested in knowing if there was going to be a participation or distribution agreement for a pass through of tax increment on this area. Mr. Linn, Urban Futures, explained that they are presently in negotiations with all of the water districts and hopefully, there will be some kind of contract within the next week or so. Mr. Katona stated that since he did not live in the project area, he could neither be for or against the project, but was in favor of the 20% set aside funds for low and moderate income housing. There being no further requests to be heard, Mayor Pro Tempore Estrada closed the hearing. 21 6/11/90 ADJOURNMENT A 9:30 p.m., Council Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Council Member Flores, that because written objections to the Plan have been received, that staff be directed to prepare responses to those objections for the meeting of June 18, 1990, at 11:00 a.m.; that the matter of the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project be continued to 11:00 a.m., June 18, 1990; and that the meeting be adjourned to Saturday, June 16, 1990, at 8:00 a.m., in the Management Information Center, Sixth Floor, City Hall. The motion carried by the following vote: Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley. Abstain: Council Member Pope-Ludlam. Absent: Minor, Miller. Ayes: Noes: Council Council None. Members SHAUNA CLARK City Clerk BY: lfJ~ud ?t~ Deputy Clty Clerk No. of Items: 1 No. of Hours: 2.5 22 6/11/90