Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR01-RDA Minutes o o MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO M I NUT E S JOINT ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING June 11, 1990 - 7:05 p.m. The Joint meetin9 of the Mayor and Common Council and the Community Development Commission/Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:05 p.m., on Monday, June 11, 1990, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California, by Vice-Chairwoman Esther Estrada. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken with the following being present: Commission Members Esther Estrada, Jack Reilly, Jess Flores, Michael Maudsley. ABSENT: Chairman W. R. Holcomb; Commission Members Tom Minor; Valerie Pope-Ludlam and Norine Miller. STAFF PRESENT Robert J. Temple, Acting Executive Director, RDA; John Hoeger, Development Division Manager, RDA; Susan M. Morales, Project Manager, RDA; Nancy Davison, Project Manager, RDA; Dennis A. Barlow, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Marshall Julian, City Administrator; Doris Reese, Deputy City Clerk; Margie Vance, Recording Secretary. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda. There were none. The invocation was given by John Cole Administrative Assistant to the Council. The pledge of allegiance was led by Council Member Reilly. Vice-Chairwoman Estrada said that the purpose of the Joint Public Hearing was 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. She 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: (a) the proposed Norton Redevelopment Project Area; (b) the proposed creation of a City wide Assessment District for the purpose of providing more City lighting and st~eet sweeping to help pay for additional police; (c) and the project being discussed tonight regarding the proposed Mt Vernon Corridor. Redevelopment Project Area. She encouraged the community to contact the City to have their specific questions answered. 1 June 11, 1990 5166R o o Vice-Chairwoman Estrada opened the Public Hearing and asked Agency Counsel if it was necessary to read the proceedings of the meeting. . Dennis A. Barlow, Senior Assistant City Attorney, said that it was necessary to have a precise and concise record of today's proceedings. Vice-Chairwoman Estrada said that the State law under which they are acting is the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California. It requires that the City 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. Vice-Chairwoman Estrada said that 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, therefore, please make it clear when speaking whether your remarks are directed to the Redevelopment Plan, or 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 Manager, the Redevelopment Consultant with the firm of Urban Futures and the Special Legal Counsel for the Community Development Commission. Mr. Mark Huebsch, Special Legal Counsel, Stradling, Vocca and Rauth, said that as far as the order of today's proceedings, staff and consultants will present certain statements regarding the Redevelopment Plan and the reasons for adopting it. .There are certain written comments which have been received and have been distributed to the Council Members before this meeting. Mr. Carl Morgan, Urban Futures will describe what those are .and those will be entered in the record. Although the Agency has received nine letters of support, there has been a written Objection received. The Agency will not be proceeding to adopt an ordinance this evening, but could consider objections a week from today, and then proceed to adopt the Plan if so desire. Mr. Huebsch further explained that as the presiding officer indicated, the purpose of this Hearing is to consider. evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Mt. Vernon Corridor and the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Evidence will be introduced for consideration by the Mayor and Common Council and the Community Development Commission in connection with certain findings and determinations 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 has been distributed to the members of the Common Council. Mr. Huebsch presented some of the findings as follows: The proposed "Project Area" meets the legal qualifications set forth by the legislature for a blighted area. This consist of such items as: o o a. Defective Design of properties; b. Faulty interior arrangement of space; c. Subdividing of lots of irregular form and shape; d. Inadequate size for properties usefulness and development; e. existence of inadequate public improvements; and f. Utilities which can not be remedy by private or governmental action without Redevelopment g. Prevalence of depreciated values h. Impaired investments i. Social and Economic maladjustments Mr. Huebsch further explained that those conditions to be found in a Redevelopment Project Area have to exist to such an extent that they cause a reduction of. or a lack of. proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical. social or economical burden on the Community. Which can not reasonably expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. The conditions of blight are described in the materials that the Council Members have. Mr. Huebsch said that one of the findings will be that the Redevelopment Plan would redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the law. There is also a finding that the adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. There is a finding proposing that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the Community. it does not say the plan changes land uses. because it does not. but it is a finding of conformity. Mr. Huebsch said that there will further be a finding of the use of Eminent Domain if provided in the plan as necessary for the execution of the RedevelopmeQt Plan. Adequate provisions have been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. He stated that he assumed that all those present have received notices that the ability to acquire property including by eminent domain is part of this plan. That does not mean that the Mayor and Common Council and the Community Development Commission have committed to acquired all of the property or any property. The power of eminent domain merely enables the Commission to consider the use of it on a case by case basis. For some of you who may be familiar with the. process. in order to initiate condemnation proceedings. a public body needs to adopt a resolution of necessity by a two thirds vote of the entire memberShip. In addition. 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 proceedings are necessary. which involves retaining Counsel. hiring an appraiser and final action with the Court. the property owner can contest or argue the value of the pr9perty. He can present his own evidence. he can retain his own appraiser. present contrary evidence. and ultimately it will be the Court and not the City. nor the Agency who will decide the value of the property. o o Mr.. Huebsch further explained that 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. That is only a partial description; there are other statements and determinations set forth in the proposed ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan. but the foregoing are most of the major evidentiary findings. Vice-Chairwoman Estrada pointed out that for those that do not understand English. Margie Vance. who is bilingual. will be able to translate the proceedings. She indicated that both she and Councilman Flores are bilingual and will also be available to answer any questions. She clarified that regarding the question that came up relative to the need to fill out a request form to speak prior to the public hearing. her colleagues agreed to accept any request forms after the opening of the public hearing.. Ms. Susan M. Morales. Project Manager said that the purpose of the creation of the Project Area is to provide a tool to bring about a positive change for the Community. . In April. 1989. the Mayor and Common Council directed staff to begin the preliminary steps necessary for establishing a Redevelopment Project for the Mt. Vernon Corridor. A Council Task Force Committee was formed. composed of Council persons Estrada. Flores and Pope-Ludlam. whose wards were affected by the proposed Project. The Task Force and staff conducted three Community Meetings on September 12. 14. and 16. 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 Survey Area Boundaries on November 7. 1989. On November 13. 1990. the Mayor and Common Council established a Citizen Advisory Committee. comprised of residents and representatives of existing Community Organizations. who expressed an interest in serving in an advisory capacity. The Committee met with staff and provided input. advice and suggestions of expertise in conjunction with the Redevelopment Plan. On November 30. 1990 the Mayor and Common Council approved procedures for the formation of a Project Area Committee (PAC) and called upon the residents and Community Organizations within the Project Area to form a PAC for the Project. In accordance with the procedure. 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 this meeting. eligible persons were provided with forms to submit for membership on the PAC. On January 3. 1990. the Mayor and Council approved the 17 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 were appointed. The PAC served as an advisory body to the Agency during the Plan Adoption process. o o The Preliminary Report, Draft Redevelopment Plan and Draft EIR were approved by the Mayor and Common Council on January 29, 1990. On February 20, 1990, the Plannin9 Commission adopted Resolution PC 90-1, makin9 its report and recommendation as to the conformity of the Redevelopment Plan with the General Plan. On May 30, 1990 the PAC recommended unanimously in favor of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. In order to give all property owners in the Project Area an opportunity to fully understand the Redevelopment process, three Community Workshops were held .on May 3O,and 31, 1990 an~ June 06, 1990. This has been a summary of events leading up to this meeting. Vice-Chairwoman Estrada turned the meeting. over to the consultant who explained the Report to the Mayor and Common Council. Mr. Carl Morgan, Urban Futures Consultant said that Staff has prepared and each of the Common Council members has before them a two volume set notebook containing reports, resolutions, statements, memoranda and other information pertaining to the proposed Redevelopment Plan and the Project Area. Most of the items contained in the notebook have been previously reviewed by the members; the materials are now in one place for convenience. Mr. Morgan said that he will be referring to the Report for the Common Council. Major portions of that Report were previously submitted by the Community Development Commission to the Common Council in May, and have been available for public inspection. The portions of the Community Development Commission's Report to Council, as transmitted pursuant to Resolution NO~ 5252 approved and adopted on May 7, 1990, appear in the notebook after the Agenda at tab 4-A. The draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Project now appears as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report. Project Area Boundaries were established by the Planning Commission by Resolution No. PC 89-2, approved November 7, 1989. Maps of the Project Area, included as part of the Redevelopment Plan, conform to the foregoing action by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Redevelopment Plan, and has found that the Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino. In addition, comments have been received to the draft EIR. Also, continuing discussions have been held with the County and other Agencies concerning the Project, a summary of which discussions are included in the notebook. Notice of tonight's hearing was provided pursuant to statute. All materials contained in the notebook should be made a part of the record. He made reference to and briefly summarized pertinent parts of the Report to the Common Council, which is the basic supporting documentation for the Redevelopment Plan and the ordinance which will adopt the Redevelopment Plan. Since major portions of the Report have been previously submitted by the Community Development Commission to the Council, and have been available for public inspection, he covered certain pertinent parts of the Report in detail. o o The Report to the Mayor and Common Council on the Redevelopment Plan for the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project has been prepared by the . Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33352. 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 consultations by representatives of the Redevelopment AGency with the affected taxing entities and the public. . The Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project Area contains the traditional blighting characteristics as set forth in Section 33030, 33031 and 33032 of the Health and Safety Code. A summary of the conditions of blight found within the Project Area are as follows: 1. Deteriorated Infrastructure such as streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, water delivery systems, sewer systems, and flood control facl11t i es. 2. Deteriorated and dilapidated buildings and structures, used or intended to be used for living, commercial, industrial, or other purposes which are unfit or unsafe to occupy. 3. Abandoned and boarded up commercial buildings exemplifying impaired economic investment in the area and economic dislocation. 4. A proliferation of graffiti denoting recent gang activity and potential social maladjustment. 5. Mixed and incompatible land uses such as residential units located adjacent to industrial manufacturing uses and; 6. Lots (ParcelS) of irregular form, shape and size for proper usefulness under current building code standards. - 7. Vacant underutilized parcels _of land between existing developments. 8. Buildings and structures which exhibit defective design and character of physical construction. u o o 9. Buildings and structures exhibiting faulty interior arrangement and. exterior spacing such as inadequate set backs between structures. 10. High density of populations in residential units. resulting in overcrowded living conditions. A photographic survey of the aforesaid conditions of blight are included as Appendix C of the report to Mayor and Common Council. It should be noted that the Project Area fulfills the 80/20 predominately urbanized land use test. meaning that. the urbanized land uses in the Project Area (excluding all publicly owned land. right-of-way and vacant land) constitutes 81.29% of the total land area. Much of the remaining 18.71% could be considered to be an integral part of the urbanized area; the inclusion of which is necessary for effective redevelopment planning. At this time. he mentioned that staff has received copies of the following letters which have been distributed to the members of the Agency and should be entered into the record. April 27. 1990 June 07. 1990 June 07. 1990 June 11. 1990 June 11. 1990 June 11. 1990 June 04. 1990 May 20. 1990 June 08. 1990 June 08. 1990 June 08. 1990 June 11. 1990 June 11. 1990 June 06. 1990 June 11. 1990 June 11. 1990 Julie 08. 1990 Lt. R. Curtis. Police Department Mr. Larry Reed. Director of Planning & Building Mr. Alex Valenzuela. Code Compliance Officer Ms. Esther Mata. President of Inland County Hispanic Roundtab lee Mr. Melvin G. Elliott. Treasurer of Elliott Precision Block Company Mr. and Mr. Elizabeth Elliott. Property Owner Mr. John C. Petry. J.C.P. Enterprises Inc. Mr. Maureen Giovanni. United Nottingham Mr. Bradley Henninges. Big 0 Tires Mr. Robert Keenan. Big 0 Tires Mr. Harry Mays. County Administrative Office Mr. Brooks P. Coleman. California School Financial Services on behalf of the San Bernardino County Board of Education and Superintendent of Schools Mr. Brooks P. Coleman. California School Financial Services on 'behalf of the San Bernardino Community College District Board of Trustees Ms. Amanda Gutierrez. Resident Mr.. Ruben A. Lopez. Resident Mr. Randy Wyatt. Property Owner Ms. Susan M. Morales. Redevelopment Agency Project Manager. submitted a memorandum listing building permit activity within the last year for the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. o o He made reference to and briefly summarized the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan. The Community Development Commission is the "lead Agency" in the preparation of the EIR. The final program EIR for the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project has been prepared in accordance with'the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, and t~e 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 the potential for significant impacts: 1. Demographics 2. Traffic and Circulation 3. Noise 4. Climate and Air Resources 5. Public Health and Safety/Man-Made Hazards 6. Biological Resources 7. Earth Resources 8. Water Resources g. Drainage/Flood Control 10. Cultural Resources 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. The FEIR concluded that implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, as set forth in the FEIR, provide adequate and appropriate adoption prerequisites. The proposed Project does not require the inclusion of a Statement of Overriding Consideration, in the record as a condition of Project approval. Findings of fact are scheduled for consideration, by both the Community Development Commission and the Mayor and Common Council on June 18, 1990. It should be pointed out that the preparation of the draft and Final EIR was closely coordinated with the City's Planning Division, Redevelopment Agency and Special Legal Counsel. The FEIR was approved by the City's Environmental Review Committee on May 10, 1990. The City's Planning Commission recommended certification of the FEIR on May 22, 1990. During the 45 day public review period, the lead Agency received and responded to 12 comment letters from Environmental Reviewing Agencies as follows: 1. Office of Planning and Research: The letter acknowledged that the Agency had complied with State Clearing House review requirements. Response: The lead Agency acknowledged compliance. o o 2. Department of' Water Resources: The letter included recommended water conservation and flood prevention measures. Response: The Agency thanked them for the additional water conservation and fl~od damage prevention recommendations and the inclusion of those recommendations are included in the FEIR. 3. Department of Conservation - Office of the Director: First comment in the letter referred to the fact that the Draft EIR and Technical Background Report for the City's General Plan was not mailed to each of the individual reviewing agencies. Response: However, the EIR did state that those documents were available for review at the City's Planning Department. Second comment in the letter stated that the seismic and geologic hazards were adequately addressed. Response: The Agency so noted. Third comment in the letter pointed that the existing geologic conditions could preclude development in certain areas. Response: The Agency acknowledged that fact and is set forth in the FEIR. ' Fourth comment in the letter expanded upon or reemphasized the important of the aggregate (sand and gravel resources located in the Lytle Creek wash).,. . Response: The Agency acknowledged the fact and the information is set forth in the FEIR. 4. Department of Transportation - District B - The letter asked why a detailed traffic analysis on the State Highway System was not included as part of the document. Response: The Agency concurs 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 time of development of specific projects within the proposed Project Area, it is not possible, without speculation, to address the issues brought forth in this document. Section 15145 of the CEQA Guidelines states that: If, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency finds that a particuJar impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impact. o o Furthermore, the Draft Environmental Impact Review (DEIR) has noted that the potential for negative impacts does exist within the proposed project area should development occur, without implementation of recommended traffic/circulation improvement projects as outlined within the proposed projects list, it will however, assist in alleviating those impacts. Finally, Plan related projects will be tied to infrastructure and community facilities improvements which in and of themselves are not growth inducing. All future growth inducing projects will be analyzed by the Lead Agency on a project-by-project basis in accordance with the Program Environmental Impact Report in order to assess the need for additional environmental impact analysis Comment two of the same letter recommended mitigation measures to reduce the number of trips generated. Response: The inclusion of the information provided by the Department of Transportation is hereby included within the FEIR. 5. City of Redlands: The letter requested to receive notices of future redevelopment plans by the City. Response: There was no response necessary. 6. Pacific Bell: The letter noted that the Project was not within their services area. Response: The Agency so noted. 7. Kaye Schurkins, City of San Bernardino: The memorandum recommended the inclusion of Foothill and Fifth Street as a Project. Response:'The upgrading of Foothill/Fifth Street from San Bernardino's western boundary to ,the 1-215 is included in the Project Improvements List as part of the proposed Redevelopment Project. 8. San Bernardino City Unified School District: Comment one of that letter stated that School enrollment numbers were inaccurate or outdated as illustrated in the Draft EIR. Response: The numbers contained within the DEIR were provided by Urban Futures, Inc., by the San Bernardino Unified School District and therefore, were assumed to be the most accurate numbers available during the time of document preparation. - o o It is recognized that school district student population statistics are a dynamic and ever changing statistic caused by constant influx and outflux of population into and out of school district boundaries and, therefore, school student population constantly changes. The numbers contained within the DEIR cannot be continually changed to reflect ever changing student populations figures. Comment two of the School District's letter was the economic or fiscal matter. . Response: Those matters are more appropriately handled during the fiscal negotiation process, pursuant to Section 15131 of the CEQA guidelines. 9. County of San Bernardino - Transportation/Flood Control Department. The Comment stated that the EIR did not address adequately the existing flood control and drainage facilities. Response: As a Program EIR, and because of the uncertainty of scope, design and location of specific developments/projects, it is not within the scope of this EIR to assess the projects implementation on existing flood control/drainage facilities, over the 41 year life of the Plan. Nevertheless, the implementation of the public improvements and programs identified in the proposed "Project Improvements List" will substantially improve many of the existing drainage deficiencies that currently exi st. The second comment stated that the proposed plan will impact existing facilities. Response: As stated in the DEIR, no long-term impacts are anticipated because the proposed flood control and drainage improvements are considered mitigation measures in and of themselves. The third comment asked for detailed design plans for the Lytle Creek channel and questioned the estimated cost. Response: As previously stated above, the exact scope, design and location of specific improvements are not known to the Agency at this time. The best cost estimate was received from the City's Engineer. The fourth comment pointed out that drainage on Sub Area #2 was overlooked. Response: The inclusion of drainage sub-area 2 has been added to the text. o o The fifth comment pointed out an error in the storm drain sub-area map. Response: The Storm Drain Location Map has been revised to reflect the correct storm drain sub-area boundaries. The sixth comment requested extraneous information that was incorporated by reference. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(a) state that as part of an Environmental Report, in order to reduce the amount of paper work, necessary items may be incorporated by reference and not included verbatim within the document. 10. City of San Bernardino - Interoffice Memorandum. Response: Stated that the Environmental Review Committee was going to hold a second meeting on the DEIR. Response: So noted. No response necessary. 11. City of Rialto. Stated that the proposed project will not impact the City of Rialto. Response: So noted. No response necessary. 12. Department of the Army - Los angeles District Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corp of Engineers has requested to be kept informed, if the Agency or the City is proposing a project within the waters of the United States at the earliest point of the process. , Response: It is so indicated and included as part of the FEIR. Mr. Carl Morgan concluded his remarks. Vice-Chairwoman Estrada asked Mr. Robert J. Temple, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, to make his remarks. Mr. Temple stated that in the interest of time his remarks were that if there were no objections from the Council/Commission Members, the Final Environmental Impact Report should be made part of the record. Vice-Chairwoman Estrada introduced some of the Project Area Committee (PAC) Members and asked they stand as she called their name: Mr. Manuel Morales, Mr. Trinidad Padilla, Mr. Graciano Gomez; Mr. Wade Byars, Mr. Elliott Malcom and Mr. Randy Wyatt. o o Vice-Chairwoman Estrada asked if the Council/Commission Members had any questions regarding the FEIR. There were no questions. She stated that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and all comments to it are included in the notebook and already have been included as part of the record. She said that Special Counsel. will refer to and briefly summarize the Redevelopment Plan for the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project. Mr. Huebsch stated that the Redevelopment Plan is approximately a 40 page document and said that he will make brief reference of the document as follows: 1. Land Use. Zoning and General Plan which there is some mention of those concepts. but the plan itself does not change Zoning and does not change the General Plan. The Redevelopment Plan would provide that the Zoning and General Plan continue to be controlled by the Common Council as they now are. 2. Financing Tool in the Redevelopment Plan called Tax Increment Financing: Tax Increment Financing means that after the plan is adopted. if property tax revenues go uP. a greater portion of the property taxes will'be available to the community of San Bernardino, then will be the case if the Redevelopment Plan were not adopted. It does not mean that the tax rates go up. It is not the case and it also does not mean that there will be lien against your specific property. It affects how the taxes are distributed between City. County. ~chool Districts and the like. 3. The Redevelopment Plan lists a number of public improvements along with other programs that potentially cOIJld be done over time. As far as what would be done depends on what the priorities of the Governing Board of the Community Development Commission would be. and those are the same individuals that are elected as members of ,the Common Council. 4. The Redevelopment Plan also contains provisions relating to the funding and assistance for affordable housing. The form that it will take in the form of assistance is. again. up to the members of the Community Development Commission. 5. The Redevelopment Plan has provisions that relate to the maximum amount of Tax Increment that would 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. That again. requires later actions. Mr. Huebsch said that once again. for bonds to be issued. that would require later specific action by members of the Community Development Commission and that action is not before them tonight. He concluded his remarks. Ii _ o o Vice-Chairwoman Estrada asked if there were any questions by members of the Councilor the Community Development Commission on the Redevelopment Plan. She asked that the record show that the Redevelopment Plan has already been made a part of the record and that all written comments have already been heard. She said that the Council/Commission will now hear the testimony or statements of those in favor of the Redevelopment Plan or Final Environmental Impact Report. She informed the public that they have an opportunity, if so desired, to question staff through the Chair. She said that many of the requests to speak do not indicate whether they are in favor or against and asked that those in favor speak first. She asked that they identify themselves and give their address. 1. Mr. Jack Matlock, 24070 Pine Avenue, San Jacinto, CA. Mr. Jack Matlock, representing the San Bernardino Unified School District, the Colton Unified School District and the Rialto Unified School District, said that all three school districts serve in various portions of the project. He said that he will speak in favor of the project. He said that the schools of San Bernardino, Colton and. Rialto are participating in other redevelopment projects hopefully to rehabilitate those schools the same as the City is hopeful to rehabilitate the community. He further said that redevelopment process is one that allows local taxes to be used locally, and especially the school district taxes, and thus, the aforesaid school districts are very much in favor of the project. The Mt. Vernon Corridor has been in need of some sort of rehabilitation and commended the Council for making an effort to revitalize the Community. He expressed his support to the Council for the direction. given to its consultants and staff to allow participation agreement s. Dennis A. Barlow, Senior Assistant City Attorney, reminded Vice-Chairwoman Estrada to state for the record that the Public Hearing is offi ci ally open. . Vice-Chairwoman Estrada stated that the Public Hearing was open. 2. Mr. Wade Byars, 269 South uK" St., San Bernardino, Ca. Mr. Wade Byars said that he was the Vice-Chairwoman of the Mt. Vernon Corridor Project Area Committee (PAC). He read his letter of support as follows: I have the privilege an honor of being a member of the PAC Committee and to work on the Mt. Vernon Corridor Project, with the Redevelopment Agency for the City of San Bernardino. I have lived in the 3rd Ward and near the vicinity of Mt. Vernon for 43 years. It is my hope that this is the proper time and opportunity for the citizens and City to once again bring real meaning to the Mt. Vernon Corridor. IJ ~ - o o I would hope that our Mayor and Council will fully support the efforts of the PAC Committee and the Redevelopment Agency for the benefit of all citizens and property owners, as well as the businesses in this area. I believe that if we are successful it will promote a financial tax base that will enhance our entire City. It will also create a new look that will attract many people to our City. I want to compliment Mr. Robert J. Temple, Acting Executive Director, and his staff who have been outstanding in their support of this PAC Committee. 3. Graciano Gomez, 1265 E. Shamrock, San Bernardino, CA. He addressed the Council/Commission and stated that he was in favor of the project. He said that he has been part of the PAC committee for the past 6 months and that he was in favor of the Mt. Vernon Project Area. He said that the PAC have.been aware for some time of the need to develop the area and the tremendous .need to get citizen input. He said that the PAC consisted of a good group of citizens who got involved and made good comments and recommendations. He said that he hoped this step will be the beginning of a project that will be of pride, not only to the City of San Bernardino, but also to the people on the Westside. He commended the council for initiating this project and said that eventually this will become one of the best sections on the westside. 4. Melvin G. Elliott, 157 N. Rancho Avenue, San Bernardino, CA. He said that as a member of the PAC Committee he joined the Community as representative of his business Elliott Precision Block Co., on Rancho Ave. He explained that as self preservation measure he wanted to be a member of the group that studied the proposed project. He further explained that he got involved in the process as a result of other companies in his business, in another community who were forced to liquidate their business due to redevelopment activity. He first acknowledged and became aware of what was going on in the Mt. Vernon Area via the newspaper advertisement. He said that as the process went on he learned that the redevelopment process can really make a difference in the area. He expressed his support of the adoption of the project. He said that there are empty lots available for potential development in his neighborhood, but the lack of infrastructure, the improper layout of the land and the lack of roads in certain parts of the area are the main cause for the lack of interest in bringing new businesses. He explained that those are things where economic improvements are beyond the financial ability of the average businessman. He said that the adoption of the redevelopment plan will enable these properties to be developed. It will also provide local jobs, thus granting the City the opportunity to reap the benefits from the increased tax base. - 1 - - - o o 5. Mr. Walter Wells, 385 N. Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, Ca. Representing the County of San Bernardino and the County Administrative Officer, he read a letter as follows: Our principal concern in any redevelopment project, but specifically with this one, because this is the hearing for this one, is the impact of the project on the abil ity of the County to del iver services to the people within that project area. The project in our opinion does have. a detrimental effect on the abilities of the County to provide those services, especially with regard to the use of tax increment financing. We have filed a letter with the City Clerk and we ask that you consider it as part of the record in full, and we understand that you will respond to that as you are required to under the provisions of the law. For that purpose is all I am indicating on behalf of the County. In addition, as a member and Chair of the Fiscal Review Committee, representing Mr. Brooks Coleman, President of California School Financial Services, who is representing the San Bernardino County Board of Education, he read Mr. Coleman's two letters which have been filed with the City Clerk as follows: The office of the County Superintendent of Schools is charged with the responsibility ofiproviding school age citizens and school districts with a wide range of services. The types of educational programs conducted by the county superintendent are generally for low-incidence students, such as blind or mentally handicapped individuals. These students by the very nature of their numbers, must be gathered from a very large, regional population base in order to form a class. Other areas of the county office responsibilities include business, financial and educational advisory services. The major problem faced by the county superintendent is the need to provide classrooms and other facilities for this programs, because the state provides no allowance for most of them. As you are aware the County Superintendent does not have the ability to collect developer fees, as do school districts. For that reason the County Superintendent of Schools is also very concerned about the use of tax increment, the accumulation or the diversion of tax increment financing for the project and the affect on that diversion on their ability to provide services. That letter I would also ask that you consider to be placed in the record in its entirety. On behalf of the San Bernardino Community College District, the College is responsible for providing higher education opportunities for residents in the area. Public Education at all levels is directly dependent upon state and local revenue sources for the funding of operational programs and facilities to house these programs. The State provision for college facilities falls short of actual need, especially considering the age of existing buildings on campus and the rate of. student growth currently being experienced. As you know the portion of the tax base of the redevelopment project attributable to the College Distri.ct is only 5.0%. 16 June 11, 1990 5166R - 1 ~ - o o The plans for the redevelopment agency to capture the District share of tax base increase during the next 40 years should be accomplished with the complete involvement and cooperation of the district. The material which you have been provided today regarding the Mt. Vernon Project has been carefully reviewed. and we 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 acconmodated. This letter to be placed in the record and responded to accordingly. Vice-Chairwoman Estrada stated that testimony in opposition will now be heard. 6. Linda Cavala. 957 Home Ave.. San Bernardino. CA. She expressed her concern regarding the amount of money that is going to be involved in the bonds or in the loans that people will have to borrow. since the government is subsidizing Homes Savings and Loans. Vice-Chairwoman Estrada asked Mr. Mark Huebsch. Special Counsel to answer the question. Mr. Huebsch explained that unlike the situation of Savings and Loan industry. the kind of bonds that the Agency issues. are secured by tax increment revenues. He explained by saying that if there is an increase in property taxes available to the Agency. and if one can project those monies to be available to the Agency. one can then sell a bond and the bond holders will be repaid only out of those revenues. In other words. if property taxes do increase and there is increment to the Agency. there is money available to the Agency to pay off those bonds. Those bonds are not typically a debt to the Agency where other Agency revenues are exposed. it is only the property taxes. They are not a debt of the City. Therefore. the only revenues that are involved in the repayment are property tax increment revenues and that its a very important distinction. When these kinds of bonds are sold. the Agency proceeds offered them with what is called an Official Statement to the Public. Again. the bonds will not be a debt of the City and they would not typically result in any lien against anyone's property either. and no additional taxes would be imposed to pay such bonds off. 7. Donna L. Parker. 1649 Belleview. San Bernardino. Ca. She asked what if certain property is considered for eminent domain. how much money would the Agency offer the owner? Is there a list of properties targeted for eminent domain? Mr. Mark Huebsch. Special Counsel. explained that there is no specific list of particular properties. dwellings or houses to be considered for acquisition. 17 June 11. 1990 5166R - - - o o He said that in this particular case, the Agency simply wants to have the ability to use eminent domain if the need arises. The Executive Director'of the Agency might want to comment further if any such thing has been discussed. Regarding what procedures would be involved pertaining to the minimum notice required by law, to be given to a property owner. He explained that if you have a residence that is occupied, for example, if you are living in your house and a governmental agency wants to acquire it, after there is an appraisal of your property, there will be an offer made to you and you will be given a reasonable time to consider that offer. The Agency usually allows people about 30 days to consider the offer. If the Agency decides that it. wants to acquire the property and you do not want to sell it for that price, or maybe if you don't want to sell it for any price, the Agency will proceed to have a Public Hearing similar to this one, to adopt a resolution called a "Resolution of Necessity". The Mayor and Common Council will evaluate it and will determine if your property is necessary for a public project. The property owner will have an opportunity to speak at that proceeding and could be represented by their attorney if they wanted. If the Agency or any public Agency were to proceed and acquire property, it would require an action by the Superior Court. If the Agency sought an "Order Of Immediate Possession" of the property, that is occupied, the. absolute earliest day the Agency could get full possession of the property would be 90 days from ~hat point. Each step along the way will take normally more than 90 days. Ms. Parker asked how soon would the Agency be selecting an eminent domain area? Mr. Huebsch said that he doubted that eminent domain would be done in any area. He explained that it was based more on' an individual case. The Agency would have the opportunity to carefully consider the use of eminent domain. Mr. Huebesch further stated that perhaps staff could address the history of the use of eminent domain in the city. It has not been commonly used according to his understanding. For an action to be commenced regarding eminent domain, it is a very serious item to any City Council. They would have to examine the property on a case by case basis. For a specific property they will need an appraisal on the property, and they will need to have a 2/3 vote of the entire Council membership, rather than a simple majority vote, to commence action to acquire a property in the event the owner does not want to sell. Ms. Parker asked if the owner would be notified when such a vote was t~~? 18 June 11, 1990 5166R - o o Mr. Huebsch said that the owner will be notified of such a meeting and will have an opportunity to speak at the proceedings. Also, the time of appraisal will be undertaken by an appraiser who will contact the owner to have access to his property. The appraiser will usually interview the owner to see if there is anything that the appraiser might overlook. Ms. Parker asked that since there is a possibility of using eminent domain, perhaps people should start thinking about looking around for a place to live. She expressed concern regarding the short 90 day notice, stating that it was not sufficient time to relocate. Mr. Huebsch concurred and said that maybe Mr. Temple, the Executive Director of the Agency, could better comment on that. He further said that as part of his prior explanation, if a property is acquired, assuming it is through eminent domain, the property owner and/or the occupant will be entitled to receive relocation assistance, advisory assistance and financial assistance. This is in addition to the right to received payment for the property as an additional benefit. Mr. Robert J. Temple, Acting Executive Director, said that eminent domain in this particular Redevelopment Plan is envisioned to be available for the first 12 years of the plan. He further explained that staff has not identified any particular property, nor are there any plans at this pOint to identify any residential properties. He further said that it was his understanding that eminent domain will be the absolute last resort, and it will be the Agency's intent, if in fact the Agency needs to acquire property, to work it out with the owners and give them the appropriate amount of time. He said that in the last 10 years there have not been residential properties taken through eminent domain, although, it has been available in almost every redevelopment plan. It is not a stated purpose in this plan to take residential property. Commission/Council Member Reilly recalled that in the last twenty or twentyfive 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 Councils 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. -.,- ; 19 June 11, 1990 5166R - o o 8. Ms. Er1ina Reyes, 950 Spruce St., San Bernardino, CA She 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 ~r 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. Vice-Chairwoman 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. She further 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 station, 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. 9. Frederick E. Bell, 1231 Orange Street, San Bernardino, CA. He stated that 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 west 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 layman's language. Ms. Susan M. Morales, Project Manager, pointed out in the map that Orange Street was not included in the Project Area. She said that only the commercially zoned properties fronting Mt. Vernon and the southside of Baseline were included in the project area. She informed those in attendance that Ms. Nancy Davison, Project Manager, was in the back of the room with a map to help anyone locate their property. 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. 20 June 11, 1990 5166R - o o 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. 10. Ernest R. Flores, 161 South Pennsylvania Ave., San Bernardino, Ca. He 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 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. Vice-Chairwoman Estrada stated that there is no indication that anyone will be moved from their homes for any business purpose. 11. Jessie Vega, 665 North "J" Street, San Bernardino, CA She asked for clarification as to what houses will be taken and when that process will begin. Vice-Chairwoman 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. Vice-Chairwoman 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, CalTrans will be conducting that project, not the Agency. He also 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. 12. Carol Long, 34000 Newport, Mentone, CA I can't see how this will benefit the people of San Bernardino, just the City's financial end. 13. Buddy N. Long, 1435 W. Rialto Avenue, San Bernardino, CA He stated that he was not for or against the Plan because he was not sure of its intent. It appeared to him that 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. 21 June 11, 1990 5166R o o Vice-Chairwoman 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. Mr. Huebsch stated that with respect to low and moderate housing, if the Agency and the Common Council will make a finding that the provision of low-and-moderate housing outside the project area would be of benefit to the project area, then the Agency can spend the 20% set aside funds outside the project area. This is a finding that its very commonly made by cities and redevelopment agencies and its almost always defendable. 13. Virginia Guzman, 960 Spruce, San Bernardino, CA Said that she was a property owner and employee at Ybarra's Grocery at 914 Spruce. She 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. Vice-Chairwoman Estrada explained that the purpose of this plan is to upgrade the area and bring in new business, preferably locally owned, and help them 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. He further explained the provisions of relocation assistance to renters. If a tenant has been residing on a property and was displaced because of a governmental agency's condemnation, that person would be entitled to some level of relocation financial and advisory assistance. 15. Juan R. Salgado, 931 West 89th Street, San Bernardino, CA He 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. 22 June 11, 1990 5166R ~ o o Vice-Chairwoman 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. Ms. Susan M. Morales, Project Manager, 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 of the categories. Additionally, there were representatives from community organizations. Vice-Chairwoman 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. Vice-Chairwoman Estrada stated that the proposed redevelopment plan will hopefully help in solving those problems. Mr. John Hoeger, Development Division Manager, 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 from home owners, businessmen, and tenants, and they have set priorities on how to use the redevelopment money by putting dollars into community centers and into social agencies that serve people in the area. 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. 16. Ralph Hernandez, 190 North Pico Ave., San Bernardino, Ca He 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. 23 June 11, 1990 5166R o o 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. 17. Effie L. Shank, 117 South Mt. Vernon, San Bernardino, CA. She 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. She stated that she has lived there for 38 years, and that she was 76 years old. She explained that she has spent over $100,000 upgrading and repairing her home and business. Vice-Chairwoman Estrada assured Ms. Shank that there was no intention of moving her out of her home. 18. Mr. Manuel O. Rodriguez, 22819 Vista Grande Way, Grand Terrace, CA He had questions regarding the dissolution of a corporation. Vice-Chairwoman Estrada suggested that Mr. Dennis Barlow, Agency Counsel assist him. 19. Trinidad Padilla, did not wish to speak. 20. Bill Katona, 1370 Walnut Street, San Bernardino, CA He stated that 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. He 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. Vice-Chairwoman 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. Mr. 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. Although, 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. 24 June 11, 1990 5166R . o o Vice-Chairwoman 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. Adjournment Commission Member Reilly made a motion, seconded by Commission Flores that because written objections to the Plan have been received, that staff be directed to prepare responses to the written objections received for the meeting of June 18,1990, and that the meeting be adjourned to June 16, 1990 at 8:00 a.m., in the Management Information Center, Sixth Floor, City Hall. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commission Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley and Pope-Ludlam. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Commission Members Minor and Miller. .~~ 25 June 11, 1990 5166R --- "- o o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO M I NUT E S REGULAR MEETING July 2, 1990 11 :05 a.m. The Community Development Commission/Redevelopment Agency meeting was called to order at 11:05 a.m., on Monday, July 2, 1990, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California, by Chairman W. R. Holcomb. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken with the following being present: Commission Members Jack Reilly, Jess Flores, Michael Mauds1ey, Tom Minor, Valerie Pope-Ludlam. . ABSENT: Commission Members Esther Estrada and Norine Miller. STAFF PRESENT Robert J. Temple, Acting Executive Director, Redevelopment Agency; John Hoeger, Development Division Manager, Redevelopment Agency; Shauna Edwins, City Administrator; Dennis A. Barlow, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Diane Copeland, Deputy City Clerk; Margie Vance, Recording Secretary. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda. There were none. 1. Community Development Commission Minutes. Commission Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Commission Member Flores, to approve the minutes of June 18, 1990 and June 25, 1990 of the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino, as submitted in typewritten form. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commission Members Reilly, Flores, Mauds1ey, Minor and Pope-Ludlam. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Commission Members Estrada and Miller. 2. Redevelopment Committee Minutes. Commission Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Commission Member Flores, to receive and file the minutes of June 7, 1990 of the meetin9 of the Redevelopment Committee/Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino, as submitted in typewritten form. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commission Members Reilly, Flores, Mauds1ey, Minor and Pope-Ludlam. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Commission Members Estrada and Miller. 1 July 2, 1990 5174R o o 3. Mt. Vernon Task Force Committee Minutes. Commission Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Commission Member Flores, to receive and file the minutes of June 6, 1990 of the meeting of the Mt. Vernon Task Force Committee of the City of San Bernardino, as submitted in typewritten form. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commission Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor and Pope-Ludlam. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Commission Members Estrada and Miller. 4. National Development Council. Commission Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Commission Member Flores, to authorize execution of a contract for services with National Development Council, Inc. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commission Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor and Pope-Ludlam. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Commission Members Estrada and Miller. 5. Approval of Salary Adjustments for Redevelopment Agency Employees for Fiscal Year 1990/91. Commission Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Commission Member Flores, to approve the Salary Schedule for General Employees and authorize the Agency to increase the Budget effective July 01, 1990. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commission Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor and Pope-Ludlam. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Commission Members Estrada and Miller. 6. Amendments to the Agreements with Wood-Husing and Associates for Financial Services. Commission Member Pope-Ludlam made a motion, seconded by Commission Member Flores, to authorize an increase to the Agency's 1989-90 Budget, Line Item #6600, Financial Planning Consultants, by $30,000 and to authorize an Amendment to the First Agreement with Wood-Husing and Associates in the amount of $4,000 and to authorize an Amendment to the Second Agreement with Wood-Husing and Associates in the amount of $8,000. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commission Members Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor and Pope-Ludlam. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Commission Members Estrada and Miller. COMMISSION MEMBER ESTRADA ARRIVED AT THE MEETING 2 July 2, 1990 5174R - o o 7. Miles House Renovation. Commission Member Maudsley made a motion, seconded by Commission Member Reilly, that the Executive Director be authorized to executed a First Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement extending the completion date from July 1, 1990 to September 1, 1990. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commission Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor and Pope-Ludlam. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Commission Member Miller. 8. Authorizing an unrestricted Line of Credit with Wells Fargo Bank. Commission Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Commission Member Flores, to direct the Agency's Executive Director to accept and execute the Loan Proposal Letter and subsequent Loan Documents with Wells Fargo Bank. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commission Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor and Pope-Ludlam. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Commission Member Miller. 9. Closed Session The Commission/Council recessed to closed session at 11:05 a.m., to give instruction to the Commission's negotiator on the purChase of property pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. The real property which the negotiations concern is generally located at Boulder and Highland Streets and the person whom they may negotiate is Mr. Buster. RECESSED MEETING At 11:05 a.m., the Community Development Commission/Redevelopment Agency and the Mayor and Common Council recessed to closed session. MEETING RECONVENED At 11:25 a.m., the Community Development Commission/Redevelopment Agency and the Mayor and Common Council meeting was called to order by Chairman W. R. Holcomb. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken with the following being present: Commission Members Esther Estrada, Jack Reilly, Jess Flores, Michael Maudsley, Tom Minor, Valerie Pope-Ludlam. ABSENT: Commission Member Norine Miller. STAFF PRESENT Robert J. Temple, Acting Executive Director, Redevelopment Agency; John Hoeger, Development Division Manager, Redevelopment Agency; Shauna Edwins, City Administrator; Dennis A. Barlow, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Diane Copeland, Deputy City Clerk; Margie Vance, Recording Secretary. -- : 3 July 2, 1990 5174R - o o 10. Adjournment Commission Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Commission Member Pope-Ludlam to adjourned to Monday, July 16, 1990, at 11:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commission Members Estrada, Reilly, Flores, Maudsley, Minor and Pope-Ludlam. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Commission Member Miller. 4 July 2, 1990 5174R - - - - o o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO M I NUT E S REGULAR MEETING August 6, 1990 11 :45 a.m. The Community Development Commission/Redevelopment Agency meeting was called to order at 11:45 a.m., on Monday. August 6, 1990, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 300 North "0" Street, San Bernardino, California, by Chairman W. R. Holcomb. ROLL CALL Roll call was taken with the following being present: Commission Members Jack Reilly, Jess Flores, Michael Mauds1ey, Tom Minor, Valerie Pope-Ludlam, Esther Estrada and Norine Miller. STAFF PRESENT Robert J. Temple, Acting Executive Director, Redevelopment Agency; John Hoeger, Development Division Manager, Redevelopment Agency; Shauna Edwins, City Administrator; Dennis A. Barlow, Senior Assistant City Attorney; Diane Copeland, Deputy City Clerk; Kimberly King. Recording Secretary. Public Comments on Items not on the Agenda. There were none. 1. Community Development Commission Minutes. Commission Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Commission Member Reilly, to approve the minutes of July 16, 1990 of the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino, as submitted in typewritten form. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commission Members Reilly, Maudsley, Minor and Pope-Ludlam, Estrada, Miller. Noes: None. Abstain: Commission Member Flores. Absent: None. 2. Mt. Vernon Task Force Committee Minutes. Commission Member Minor made a motion, seconded by Commission Member Reilly, to approve the minutes of July 16, 1990 of the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino, as submitted in typewritten form. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Commission Members Reilly, Mauds1ey, Minor and Pope-Ludlam, Estrada, Miller. Noes: None. Abstain: Commission Member Flores. Absent: None. 1. 3137H April 6, 1990 ~ - .l- - ..- o o 3. Water Department Property - 2nd and -0- Streets. Commission Member Estrada made a motion, seconded by Commission Member Reilly, to approve the proposal dated July 27, 1990 received from Coussoulis Development Company for the development of the property located at the Southeast corner of 2nd and "0" Street be accepted and that the Executive Director be authorized to execute an Exclusive Ri9ht to Negotiate agreement. 4. Closed Session The Commission/Council recessed to closed session at 11:46 a.m., to give instruction to the Commission's negotiator on the purchase of property pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8. The real property which the negotiations concern is generally located on "E" Street between 4th and 6th Streets and the person whom they may negotiate is the Owners of record. 5. Adjournment Adjourned from Closed Session at 12:45 p.m. 2. -~.,- 3137H August 6, 1990