Loading...
Minutes 1989/05/22 Special Meeting May 22, 1989 Gilroy, California The Mayor led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Posting Agenda The City Clerk reported that the Agenda had been posted on May 18, 1989 at 12:05 p.m. Roll Call Present: Counci1members: Donald F. Gage, Leonard A. Hale, Paul V. Kloecker, Larry Mussallem, Daniel D. Palmerlee, Pete Valdez, Jr. and Roberta H. Hughan; Present: Agencymembers: Leonard A. Hale, Paul V. K10ecker, Larry Mussallem, Daniel D. Palmerlee, and Pete Valdez, Jr.; Absent: Agencymembers: Donald F. Gage and Roberta H. Hughan. The Mayor/Chairperson noted she would not take part in the discussion nor action on any business regarding the Redevelopment Agency due to a conflict of interest on same but would Chair the meeting. Agencymember Gage noted a conflict of interest also. Pub.Hear. The Mayor/Chairperson stated that it was the time and place scheduled for a Joint Public Hearing of the Gilroy City Council and Board of Directors of the Community Development Agency on the Redevelopment Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Gilroy Community Development Project. She further noted that there would be no action taken at this meeting tonight and requested that for the purpose of the hearing, those who wished to speak should fill out a slip stating their name, address and organization, if any, in order to be called upon to speak. ~7Ll9 - I I... The City Clerk/Secretary administered the oath to all those wishing to speak and subsequently administered the oath to those speakers arriving later. Mr. Mark Curran gave a portion of the Staff presentation, noting the process that had been taken over the past year in terms of establishing the project and at this hearing to accept testimony about the entire process. He explained the redevelop- ment process and tax increment financing for same. He further noted that the revenue source is a reallocation or redistribution of existing property taxes throughout the County and State; no new taxes, no additional taxes and no assessments. He further noted the cooperative agreement with other agencies to provide some of the revenues for the redevelopment project. He noted the funds received will be used for substantial capital improvements throughout the community. He noted that the amount of money the project is proposed to generate begins small, but over time, growth will increase and the agency will realize more revenues. Mr. Robert Stewart, Piedmont Associates, Planning Consult- ant retained by the City for the proposed Redevelopment Project, addressed the Council noting the process the City has gone through and reviewed the suggested list of potential expenditures of the Agency and described boundaries of the Project Area and purpose of the Plan. He summarized the Plan, report on the Plan and EIR. He noted that the initial focus of this project came from the desire for improvement to the downtown area and noted some of the specific long-term improvements and expenditures proposed subject to annual budgets for same. Mr. Jack Nagle, Goldfarb and Lipman, Agency special coun- sel, addressed the Council and presented his report indicating that the preceding presentation is a brief outline of the Plan and Report on the Plan and EIR and that these documents were presented to the City Council on April 17, 1989 and since that time have been available to the public. He requested that information presented including supplements and information presented throughout the hearing be formally entered into the record. He explained the method of notification of property owners and taxing agencies for the hearing, i.e., publication once a week for four successive weeks in the Gilroy Dispatch and notification by certified mail to each property owner and taxing agency within the Project Area boundaries. He submitted an affidavit of publication and declaration of mailing to the City Clerk to be made part of the record. He noted that the Council has the option after hearing all testimony to either close the hearing or if there are any revisions to the plan same can be referred back to the appropriate bodies and continue the hearing to gather additional information; once the hearing is closed at the next subsequent meeting, formal action can be taken on the EIR and finding required under State law and introduce an ordi- nance in early July to take advantage of the 1988-89 tax base year for tax increment purposes. He explained that in order to take advantage of this base year the plan would have to be adopted by July 19 or 20, 1989 so that the ordinance would be effective by August 19 or 20 when the next base year gets es tablished. Discussion was had by Council/Agency Directors on the matter. The City Clerk noted correspondence received from the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, dated May 16, 1989, supporting formation of the Gilroy Community Redevelopment Project and from the South Santa Clara Valley War Memorial Committee, dated May 18, 1989, opposing the City of Gilroy Redevelopment Plan. The Chairperson called upon the public wishing to speak on the Plan and Report on the Plan including the EIR, requesting each speaker state their name and address and confirm that they had previously taken oath when administered by the City Clerk at ~ 7 c-n v ...) '_' the beginning of the Public Hearing, noting that if they were not present during the administering of the oath it would be given individually. The following persons in the audience addressed the Council: Frank Lockfeld, Santa Clara County, in support of the Project and Plan; Wayne Young, President of the School Board of Trustees, in support of the Project; Marijane Paulsen, Gavilan College; Herb Peckham, Gavilan College, in accord with the Plan noting formal action is proposed to be taken by the Board regarding the Agreement at their next meeting and anticipates approval of same; Jack Matlock, Consultant for the Gilroy Unified School District, noting that the District is a strong supporter of the Gilroy Redevelopment Agency, Plan and Project; Josephine M. Lujan, 7561 Alexander Street, opposed to the Redevelopment Agency; Edna Talamantez, 256 Second Street, concerned about her mother losing her home to the Project. It was noted by Mr. Curran that remodeling of homes is optional and will not be mandatory. She was also advised by Staff to contact the City's HCD Grant Coordinator, to inquire about low-income financing loan that may be presently available to her mother; James V. Simoni, 20 Martin Street, in favor of the proposed project and plan; J. B. McCormack, M.D., 7621 Filice Drive, noting his skepticism about the proposed project requesting that the City complete the wastewater treatment facilities before approving a redevelopment project and plan; Darryel Nacua, 7498 Forest Street, California Rural Legal Assistance, encouraged development and guarantees under the redevelopment plan for housing for low and modern incomes, Sara Nelson, 7487 Rogers Lane #2, opposed to the project, particularly opposed to the eminent domain powers for residential properties; Marie Juncker, Executive Director of South County Housing, in favor of the proposed project and plan; Phyllis Gunderson, 930 Perrelli Street, supporting the Redevelopment Agency and proposed project and plan; Denise Cozzola, 8030 Church Street, objecting to the eminent domain powers and noted that some of her neighbors did not receive notification of the hearing; Joe Brent, 7960 Crews Road; David Peoples, 1176 Hacienda Drive, noting the Gilroy Downtown Development Corporation in favor of the proposed project and read a statement signed by Elaine Long on behalf of the Corporation; Jack B. Kazanjian, 831-3rd Street, opposed to the Project and Plan noting same to be in violation of the Constitution; Gondi Holson, 7401 Miller Avenue, objecting to the eminent domain powers; Plan Revision r7CA.. ~ ~r ~.. ~t Dennis Lalor, 7427 Rosanna Street, supporting the Project, noting improvements and funding needed; Ronald Gurries, 3540 Hecker Pass Highway, opposed to the Redevelopment Agency and proposes that the matter be placed on the November 7, 1989 Municipal General Election Ballot for the voters to decide on this matter; Sharon A. Albert, in favor of the Redevelopment plan and project; Greg Faulk, 7178 Saratoga Place, representing the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce, Chairman of the Economic Development Committee, in support of the project and plan; Charles M. Burnson, 363 Walnut Lane, requesting true pros and cons of a redevelopment project and plan; Elvira R. Burnson, 363 Walnut Lane, noting that she does not trust promises from any government group and concerned with the Hispanic people unable to understand this redevelopment agency procedure; Mary Ellen Rocha, 7950 Church Street, Operation Sentinel, supporting the Redevelopment Project and Plan noting benefits to be realized; Stan Nelson, 7487 Rogers Lane #2, opposed to the proposed project; Allen Hayes, 7810 Driftwood Terrace, South County Housing, supporting the project and plan; Glenn Suyeyasu, 756 Gettysburg, representing himself, in favor of the redevelopment project and plan; Larry Morgan, 1700 E. Middle Avenue, San Martin, Secretary of the South County Housing, in favor of the redevelopment project and plan; Chris Block, 7950 Church Street, representing the Senior Citizens and Poor of Gilroy in support of the project and plan, Pastor Edward Gomez, representing the Spanish ministerial area of the City, noting his support to the project and plan. At 11:18 p.m. the Mayor/Chairperson declared a Recess and Reconvened the meeting and public hearing at 11:26 p.m. Heard from Doris Kallas, requesting that the citizens of Gilroy be considered if and when the redevelopment project is approved. She noted that the matter should be voted upon by the voters of the City. Discussion was had by Council regarding exempting residential properties from the eminent domain powers of the agency. Motion was made by Councilman Palmerlee seconded by Coun- cilman Hale and carried that the Council supports the modifica- tion of the text of the Redevelopment Plan to eliminate the Agency's power of eminent domain with respect to residential structures on residentially-designated properties in the Project Area and hereby refers this proposed modification of the text of the Redevelopment Plan to the Planning Commission for its further report and recommendation pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33363.5; and respectfully requests that the Planning Commission consider this matter at its regularly scheduled meeting of June 1, 1989, and submit its report and recommendation for further action by the City Council at its June 5, 1989 regular meeting. Agree-Sch. Dist. Councilman Valdez noted the need to further inform the Hispanic community of the redevelopment procedures and requested meetings be scheduled where he will assist in this effort. Pastor Edward Gomez, Spanish Assembly, noted that he would cooperate in this educational effort for the Hispanic community and will publish scheduled meetings in this bulletin. Mary Ellen Rocha, Operation Sentinel, noted that a message could be broadcasted on the local radio stations. Mr. Robert Stewart and Mr. Mark Curran, addressed the Council/Agencymembers giving additional Staff Report of facts and statistics qualifying the project area for redevelopment purposes. The Mayor/Chairperson continued the Public Hearing to June 5, 1989 at 8:00 p.m. A Tax Increment Agreement with the Gilroy Unified School District was presented for discussion and possible action. Council tabled action on same to the June 5, 1989 regular meeting. At 12:17 a.m., May 23, 1989, the Mayor/Chairperson adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, 4~~a~j/~.