The URL can be used to link to this page

Resolution 1989-29 City of Gilroy and Community Development Agency '- ~ . RESOLUTION NO. 89.29 "-_u~t A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GILROY ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY OF GILROY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33363 WHEREAS, the Community Development Agency of the City of Gilroy (the "Agency") has prepared and submitted to the City Council of the City of Gilroy (the "City Council"), for the City Council's consideration, the City of Gilroy Community Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan"); and WHEREAS, in connection with consideration of the Redevelopment Plan, the City Council and the Agency conducted and completed a duly noticed public hearing on May 22, 1989 and June 5, 1989 pursuant to the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33355; and WHEREAS, at or prior to the joint public hearing, the City Council and the Agency received certain written objections to the Redevelopment Plan, which written objections are set forth in Part II of that certain document entitled "City of Gilroy Community Redevelopment Plan: Written Findings and Responses Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33363", which document is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference, and hereinafter referred to as the "Findings"; and WHEREAS, Part III of the Findings contains the City Council's and Agency's written findings and responses to the above described written objections, which written findings and responses have been prepared and considered by the City Council and the Agency in connection with consideration of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, all in accordance with the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 33363. BE IT NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED: 1. That the City Council hereby finds and certifies that the Findings have been prepared in compliance with the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 33363; that the Findinqs adequately address the written objections received by RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 29 -1- r thp City counc4lJand the Agency in connec1llJ with the L Redevelopment Plan; and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Findings prior to approving the Redevelopment Plan. 2. That the Findings set forth in the attached Exhibit A are hereby approved and adopted, as and shall constitute, the written findings and responses of the City Council required by Health and Safety Code Section 33363. Passed and adopted this 13th day of June, 1989 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: HALE, KLOECKER, MUSSALLEM, PALMERLEE and VALDEZ. COUNCILMEMBERS: None NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: GAGE and HUGHAN. APPROVED: ~1JM~ V Ma r Protempore ATTEST: tfk~~~~/ 06/08/89 #B029/B49702 RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 29 -2- f, . . EXHIBI':' A CITY OF GILROY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN: WRITTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSES PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33363 City Council of the City of Gilroy June 13, 1989 -1- . . ~ I. PURPOSE The Community Development Agency of the City of Gilroy (the "Agency") has prepared, and the City Council of the City of Gilroy (the "City Council") is considering for adoption, the City of Gilroy Community Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan"). On May 22, 1989 and June 5, 1989, the Agency and the City Council conducted and completed a duly noticed joint public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan in accordance with the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33355. At or prior to the joint public hearing, the Agency and the City Council received certain written objections to the Redevelopment Plan. Those written objections are set forth in Part II of this document. Health and Safety Code Section 33363 states: At the hour set in the notice required by Section 33361 for hearing objections, the legislative body shall proceed to hear all written and oral objections. Before adopting the redevelopment plan the legislative body shall evaluate the report of the agency, the report and recommendation of the project area committee, and all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the plan and shall make written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity. The legislative body shall respond in writing to the written objections received before or at the noticed hearing, including any extensions thereof, and may additionally respond to written objections that are received after the hearing. The written responses shall describe the disposition of the issues raised. The legislative body shall address the written objections in detail, giving reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions. The legislative body shall include a good-faith, reasoned analysis in its response and, for this purpose, conclusionary statements unsupported "by factual information shall not suffice. This document constitutes the written findings and responses of the City Council, as the legislative body of the City of Gilroy, prepared and adopted in accordance with the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33363. Specifically, Part III below contains the City Council's written findings and responses to the various written objections set forth in Part II. Each substantive comment or objection in Part II has been assigned a reference identification number in the margin next to the comment or objection. The City Council's written I-I ~ . . findings and responses to each substantive comment or objection are set forth and organized in Part III according to those reference identification numbers. Finally, Part IV below addresses comments received as part of the Environmental Impact Report process and the Fiscal Review Committee process for the Redevelopment Plan. 1-2 J . WRITTEN OBJECTIONS . I I . Written comments on the Redevelopment Plan were received from the following persons and entities: A. Letter of May 4, 1989 from Sara C. Nelson to Gilroy City Planning Commission transmitting a report dated March 19, 1989 entitled "Government Sponsored Confiscation of Privately Owned Property" (including accompanying Exhibits). B. Letter of May 16, 1989 from Thomas G. White, President of the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce, to the Agency. C. Letter of May 18, 1989 from Aldo J. Viarengo and William L. Lane, Jr., Vice President and Secretary, respectively, of the South Santa Clara Valley War Memorial Committee, to Michael Dorn, Deputy Executive Director of the Agency. D. Letter of May 22, 1989 from Jack Matlock, consultant to the Gilroy Unified School District, to the Agency. E. Letter of May 25, 1989 from James V. Simoni to the City Council. The written objections are set forth in their entirety on the following pages. 11-1 . Cormnent Letter A, Page 1 . L Mey 4, 1989 DEer C~--Js~~~~=r: The decision t~ r~:or~;nd the creation of a Com~unity REdEvelc~-ent Agency (CRA) or Redevelopment Agency (RDA) in the City of Gilrcy is very significant. I haVE personally devcted over 100 hours in studYlng thIS possibility. My research has led me to some very disturbing facts which I would like you to be aI', c re of. 1 have taken the liberty of preparing for you a copy of a re:crt 1 presented to the City of Gilroy, City Council on March 19:~. 1 had presumed, quite incorrectly, that they would hcve rassE~ a copy on to each of you. (Hr; ~ I res~ectfully request that you table any decision recommending the creation of an RDA this evening, and avail your- self of the reading material before. '- Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ SCN:ms Enclosures II-2 . Comment Letter A, Page 2 . FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 1989 * SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE 1ilJA.. p,""O:J E"C T S (. ... \-\01e.\~ .. - II-3 .........,.I.LI.I._......... .1.01_'- ...._.... So"")., .i. a5e J . . COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES ~QY~B~~~~I_~fQ~~QB~~_~Q~E!~~~I!Q~_QE_fBIY~I~~X_Q~~~~_fBQe~BIX PRESENTED TO GILROY CITY COUNCIL !'lARCH 19, 1989 ~ . By Sara C. Helaon Source.: Sherry Passmore, Land Use Consultant Temple City, Cali~ornia Republican Women Federated, FOCUS Report on State Mandated Programs, 1987 City o~ Gilroy, Community Redevelopment Project Plan, Gilroy Community Development Agency ACH Study Group., History and Government .Seminars, J'Sorgan Hill, CA. U.S. Constitution II-4 L,UUilueliL LeL.L.eL t-I., rdgt:' '-I . . COftftUNITY REDEVELOPftENT AGENCIES <CRA.> GOVERNftENT SPONSORED CONFISCATION OF PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY The creation of CRAs have been bankrupt1ng cities, counties, and to date, one state <Ney York> since their birth. Through their .carcely limited povers of -eminent domain- and issuance of Tax Alloca~ion Bond., the pr1vate property rights of citizens and individual bu.ines.es have been plundered in a manner one yould hardly think pOSSible in a nation Yhose constitution protects the property rights of individuals. (See: U.S. Constitution, Art1cle. IV & XIV. > Yet, that is exactly what has been happen1ng across America and throughout the State of California .ince the 1960s. Although Propos1t10n 13 has been falsely blamed for all of the voes of schools, local commun1t1es, and counties, A-I the truth 1S that the divert1ng ot property tax revenues irom these taxing agencies has forced them to .eek funding elsewhere. The property tax base is divided among three taxing agencies: schools, city, and county. When the tax ba.e is -frozen- in a CRA ProJect Area (Gilroy proposes 40% of its total area>, the annual 2% increa.e, and any other increases in property tax funding i. diverted to the CRA over the 40-45 year 11fe t1me of the CiA. Gilroy antic1pates this a.ount to be 9475 .illion. l. I!PACT UPON THE THREE TAXING AGENCIES SCHOOLS: When the first CRA yas e.tablished in California the schools figured out that they vould be 10s1ng slgnlflcant local funding. They then silently lobbled the State Legls!ature and yere guaranteed that the lost funds yould be replaced by state fund.. The impact upon local citizen. 1S that those property oyners reslding outside the ProJ~Ct Area bear an inequ1table burden for supportlng local schools. CITY: Typically, city governm.nt 1. respons1ble for prov1ding po11ce and fire protection, librar1es, and malntenance of C1ty str.ets. roads, and all city-owned public bU11dings. Wh.n rev.nue. are diverted to a CRA, the C1ty must th.n d.vise other source. 0% r.v.nue. Th. Gilroy City Councl1 recently r.quested volunt.ers to for. a co..ittee to co.e up with r.v.nu. g.nerating id.as. The Gilroy City Councl1 al.o had propo..d a -.p.cial ........nt distrlct- for the d.velop..nt of the downtown bU.1n... ar.a. The a......d f.e. have now cr..t.d a controv.rsy. In ~organ Hill the City Councl1 has initlated a -fee schedul.- for all Clty services. Th.se te.s are ln addltion to typical p.r.i t f.es. COUNTY: Typlcally the County provldes for the .upport oi .p.clal districts. flood control. s.nitation. .nd he.lth car. s.rV1C.S. For California Counti.s, the imp.ct bety.en uniund.d St.t. ft.ndat.d Progra.. and CRAs cr.at.d wlthin their nu.erou. citie.. have .everely burd.n.d th.lr ability to provlde the.. service.. Tak. ju.t on. are., health care. What h.~pen. wnen acr. and aer. c.... of AIDS are treat.d.t County Ho.p1tal.? The ~t.te of California, through its counti.., .p.nt 818 .illion on A1DS care in 1988. In Solano County, tn. County Hospital vas clos.d down becau.. o! the drain on County r.v.nues. Th. Countles 1n Ca11!ornla are b.ing .que.zed from both the State and local gov.rn..nt.. A-2 A-3 A-4 AWESO!E AUTHORITY OF CRA Th. CRA Proj.ct Area, onc. approved .nd the State Ag.ncy creat.d by the Gilroy City Councl1. would then rec.1V. ....d soney. fro. t~e Clty. AS a St.te Ag.ncy, the CRA th.n ha. almo.t un~l~lted aut~orlty to ~.c~de what type.o! A-5 d.velop..nt will b. al~ow.d vithln t~. ?~o~.ct Area a. long as It co.plie. vlth the City'. Gen.ral Plan. However, as a ~tate Agency the C~A bas tbe de.potic power of -e.1nent domaln.- The CRA can lega~_y confisC3te prlvately owned property and choo.e to convey It to ~h. Clty or any other puc~.c agency vlthout II-5 . . charge. (Eminent Domain. See: Community Redevelopment Project Area Plan J 5 <CRPAP>, Pg. 9,' and CRPAP, Pg. 15. > Hote, all of the funding that goes into the A- CRA is .puelic fund~ng.. <See attacnments A and a for personal test~monies. > (Cont'd At present. the City of Gilroy does not have the authority to issue a Bond without voter approval. In stark contrast, as Board members of the CRA they can: . Issue and sell bonds, . Borrow and invest money and .iphon off millions of property tax dollars that would otherwise go to pay for local, county, and state government serv~ces. ] A-6 . Completely change the physical character of your commun~ty v~rtually overn~ght. J A-7 . Erode the tax base of your c~ty and county. ~ Remove the local control of your city government. J Effect a lien on all private property within certain1 CRA ProJect Areas. J A-8 A-9 A-10 . . All of these povers are WITHOUT VOTER KNOWLEDGE OR APPROVAL! VIOLATIONS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY ,. A. ment~oned previously, the scarcely lim1ted power of .eminent doma~n-J severely v101ates your pr1vate property r1ghts. So too does the broad defin1t10n of .blight.- ......Bl~ght .ncompasses a broad .pectrum of d.finit10ns, rang1ng from a lack of pub11C i.prov..ents, physical characteristics that ~nhib1t sound development of a particular site, and various other d.tr1mental impacts, a. v.ll a. typical visual blight such as deter10rated and dilapidated .~ruc~ur.s and fac1l1ties.. <S.e: CRPAP, Pg. 4. > Included 1n the propos.d Project Area is the South Point Busin..s Park along Arroyo Circle, .ast of Highway #101. By what poss1ble d.fin1tion could it be cons1dered as blight.d? Certainly the bu.~n.s.e. vho have located there would b. surpr1sed to knov that they had chosen a -blight.d. ar.at Another exa.ple 1S the yet unfinished South County Hospital. However, by including thes. spec1fic areas, many .or. could be c1t.d, oth.r bus1n.ss developers ~ould have the b.nefit of low-cost federal loans shoule th.y choos. to locate th.ir plann.d developments in that ar.a. What happen. to the pr1nciple ot -free .nt.rpr1se. vhen pr.fer.n~ial treat.en~ 1. grant.d to those locat~ng their bus1ne.. v1thin a d.s1gnated CRA ProJec~ Ar.al H1stor1cally, vhen.v.r a CRA is the proper~y valu.. tor all plung.. pr.va111ng .arke~ pr1C. for prop.rty CRA for the follow1ng r.a.ons: A-ll A-12 propos.d and the Proj.ct Ar.. identified, Only a fool vould choos. to pay the that .ay .oon b. und.r the governance of a 1) You .ay or may not b. allow.d to continue the curr.nt use ot the prop.rty. A-13 2> If you ar. a d.v.lop.r or realtor, the prop.rty may soon b. aV.1lable at a gr..tly reduced pr1ce, or be grantee you as a g~tt. Lik.w1se, should an 1nd1vidual bus1n.ss ovn.r d.s1re to enter into a~ long-term 1.... for prope~t1 v1thin the ProJ.ct Are., h. has no guarantee that the landowner v111 surV1'/~ ~he potent~al .e.1nent do.a1n. author1ty ot the CRA. Current local exampl.. V~~~ serve to ~.lustrate the p01nt: The i.pact of the A-14 .red.velopm.nt. in "organ ~ill two ye.r3 ago along a stretch of Ronterey Street vas direct~y causat1ve 1n tne de.1se 0% Scoot.rs Ice Cr... Parlor as v.ll as 11-6 ~omment LeLLerA, Page b . . other small bus~nes.ses. A1S.O note the revealing test~mony oi a small bus~nessj owner ~ncluded here as Attachment -A.. Who knows how many other examples could be c~ted. The iact is that ~i any indiv~dual bus~ness is destroyed by a CRA it is a blatant violat~on oi private property. In the CRPAR, Pg. 6, Section A, 1; it states in paragraph two: -It is the intention oi the Agency that owners of parcels oi real property w~thin the ProJect Area, where consistent w~th the Redevelopment Plan, be ALLOWED to part~cipate in th~s Redevelopment ProJect by: RETAINING ALL OR A PORTION OF THEIR PROPERTIES:..... .(Emphas~s mine.) See Attachment C. A direct violation oi private property exists when any agency oi government presumes to have the authority to ALLOW you to participate by RETAINING ALL OR A PORTION of YOUR PROPERTY: Anytime your property is coniiscated or plundered w~thout your expressed consent, it is a d~rect v~olat~on ot const~tut~onally protected pr~vate property. The Gilroy City Council can choose to adopt and create a CRA without voter approval. ftost cit~%ens, because oi the gross amb~gu~ty of the CRPAR do not fUlly understand the tre.endous impact th~s CRAPAP w111 have upon their property, personal iinances, and city. In iact, the only time cit~%ens can prevent the creation oi a CRA is Y~thin 30-Days oi the City Council's approval. Th~s can ONLY be done by Referendum. A W1se cit~:enry halts the creat~on oi a CRA in the beg~nn~ng. Once the CRA has been created and not had to face a Reierendum, only when they attempt to expand the~r Project Area can the c~ti%ens halt the expans~on, aga~n, by Reierendum. VIOLATIONS OF LOCAL-AUTHORITY (, Citi:ens of Gilroy pre.ume that they have elected. to the City Council per.on. WhO w~ll carry out the normal constitutional function of government at the local level. When a City Council deCides to create a CRA these same Council member4s then beg~n to wear -two hats.. They are no longer merely local offic1als whose interests remain iocussed upon the proper governance oi local &iiairs, they noy become the offiCials of a State Agency. That State Agency <CRA) acts as the executive, l.gislat~ve, and Judicial branches of government over the entire ProJect Area. They also begin to a.sume the role of private developers. bankers, and realtors. The monster created by thiS dual-role const~tut.s, not only a blatant conilict-of-interest, but also destroys our const~tut~onal iorm ot government. CRA oificials can gU1de development dir.ctly: through em1nent doma~n, sUDs~di%ed re10cat~on and land assembly, and subsidi:ed publ~c and private improv.ments of both com.erc1al and private property. There is . s1gnificant -blur- of the separation of powers. Offic1als become involv.d ~n numerous conflicts-of-interest and can ea.ily discourage, prevent. or encourage development. that are compatibl. or inco.patible with their private ~nt.rests. Thi. can b. eas11y accomplished through the gU1se of the -pUbiiC gcod- Yh1Cn 2ay be solely ~a.ed upon th.1r personal intere.ts. In no ~anner do I .ean h.re to .uggest that this ..y be true of any current Council ..mc.rs. hovever, this CRA ha. a life of 4~ y.ars. That is . v.ry long t.me in vhich the ~.pac~ of uneth.cal per.on. could b. d.v.stating. There ~s also a confl1ct of .nter.st 1f any ..mber of the current Cityu Council ovns or operate. a busine.s, ovn. or has an int.r.st 1n, property w~thin the Projec~ Ar.a. Ther. 1s a furth.r conflict-oi-int.r.st 1f the City Planning Departm.nt .xecutive. iall vith.n the above c.tegory. It should b. ObViOUS that _nould any of ~ne per.ons 1nvolvea V1th .aking a r.co..endation and/or the ultimate d.c~sion be ~n such . pO.ition there is a dec~dedly and gro.. con%l.ct-O%-in~er.st. The m.r;~ng 0% iden~~ti... City Council .embers alao constitu~ing thel Executive D1rec~or and/or 30ard oi the Stat. Agency CRA, ha. caused very .u.pect .nd .trange =.c~s~on_. City Counc~l_ .it~ing a. the CRA r~o.mend -.urvey .r.... to ~~.m..lv.. AS ;itt CounCil ~e.ber. to be offic.al17 c._ignated a. .R.developme~~ ?roJec~ Area.. Once ~~e ar.a 1_.0 de.ignatee, the .... City CounCil (now ~.ar1ng ~heir CRA hats) a. a leg~_lativ. body, .dministers the program u.~ng ~oni.S ~~ey nave Duaget.a vb.n they yore th.ir .City CounCil hats.- 11-7 A-14 (Cont'd A-IS A-16 A-17 A-18 . . nost ordinances adopted by a local City Council are subject to normal const~tut~onal checks ano balances through Reierendum. No such checks and balances exist ior the same persons sitt~ng as the Soard oi the State Agency CRA. A-18 (cont'e The iundamental purpose oi government has h~storically and const~tutionallr been to .protect the person and property oi the individual." At the local leve this is most espec~ally true and ielt. Hoyever, br blurring the separation oi povers and plac~ng local oiiicials IS the oiiicia s oi a State Agency, there is no longer any pretense oi protection oi the indiv~dual'8 property r~ghts. LOW-INCO~E/LOW-COST HOUSING I~PACT Although 20h oi mon~es generated in the CRA are mandated to be spent ior loy-cost hous~ng, just vhat does that term mean~ Loy-cost compared to what? Certainly there can be no sucn loy-cost hous~ng ava~lable to persons vho have oyned the~r homes ior years and .ay have mortgages as loy as $250-$400 per month. What noy exists oi loy-cost housing in certain areas oi the proposed Project Area could not be rehabilitated and remain at the same rental or .ortgage iees. The dens~ty oi these units y~ll more than likely be reduced. In norgan Hill th~s is the case. The t1me lag of four-years (CaPAP, Pg. 30, A-19 Section XI), yould severely impact those individual citi:ens. There is currently in Gilroy and its environs. a gross shortage oi loy-cost aifordable hous~ng as attested to by the v.riou. agenc~es Yho seek emergency houB1ng ior fam~l~es all year long. 00 ye r.ally de.~re to create y.t another State Agency that subs~di:es hous1ng? Th. four-y.ar time frame i. totally unacc.ptable and yould .ign~iicantly impact the numb.rs oi homel.ss familie. .lr..dy temporar~ly housed 1n Gilroy. ( A REAL-LIFE EXAftPLE OF CRA PLUNDER OF PUBLIC FUNDS Fully 80X oi the propos.d proj.ct. for the CRA are d..1gnat.d for public or priv.t. us.. Wh11. CRAs are tout.d .. the tool to d.v.lop a secur., progr.ssive, and sound econOm1C b.se for the city, th.y have proven to accomp~i.h quite the oppos~te. Th. Covin. CRA began a proJ.ct c.ll.d "Th. Lak.s of We.t Covina.. Ait.r .ev.n y..rs 1t has y.t to break ground. Th. Cov~na CRA h.. ployed 513.4 million into the 21 acre S1t.. R.cently they .pent another 81.16 .illion and still plan to put up anotber 51.21 m~llion for ".tart-up co.ts." Wh.n completed lt Yill .dd .noth.r S80,000 sq. ft. of office .p.ce ln the San G.brlel V.lley Yh.re offic. lea.ing i. .uppo..dly booming d..pite a 23X v.c.ncy r.te! From a taxing and financlng standpolnt it h.. b.en very attractive .. the aefin~tion of blight h.. been .tretch.d to the breaking point. Too often it has .eant the cl..rlng out of be.lthy, privat.ly own.a bu.1n..... to aak. roo. for prlvat. dev.lop.r. oi l.rge hot.ls. .uto ~.ll., .nd office b~lding. on the loc.t~on they de.1r., b~ighted or not. Hoyev.r, not only b.. the poyer oi ..inent dO..ln enabled CRA. to conii.cat. the "re.l property" of lndivldu.l., it h.. .lso .llowed them to conil.cate, through incr....a t.x.tion (c.u.ed by the plund.r of publ~c funds), .nc thus govern.ent h.. agaln put th.ir hand. into the pocketbOOkS of lts citi:en.. Se. Attach..nt O. A-20 VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF FREEDO! OF ASSOCIATION rhrough the pr.vlou.ly well 1l1u.tr.t.d pOlnts I h.ve .hoyn the airect V10~at10ns of prlv.te property, .nd loc.l authorlty p.rp.tr.ted by the creat10n oi a ~tate Agency CRA. Th.re i. .nother air.ct vlol.tion of fund..ental rights. That 1. the 'llolat~on of .ach 1ndivldual's rlght o~ "fr.e a.soc~.tlon." 1% you live in the ?roJec~ Are. of . CRA you ..y b. cl...ified ... "p.rt1clpant or :.onpartlc~pan~.. Shou~~ you Choo.e to be . ~.rt1c1p.nt ln tb. CRPAP you .u.t A-21 lahere to ~~e "Rules ~or SU.1ne.. Ten.nt Pref.rence .nd Own.r P.rticlpation." :USt what CQes "pr.~.r~nc." includ.? Oddly enougn, the n..ed rule. are not ~ncluded ~n ~h. CRPAf. ;icvever, on P.;e 8 of tn. CRPAP, Sec~on 2, th1rd ~lr3graph It ~tate.: .7~. :1ghts of partlcular prop.rty own.r. .nd bu.ine.. :enants to pa:tlc1pate ~n ~ne redevelop.ent of thelr re.pect1ve properties snall 11-8 . . be SUaJECT TO or LI"!TEO BY or ELI"IHATED BY the ~nclus~on ot the~r property wl~n~~ a maSte~dev&~o~ment plan to be developed by another entlty." (Empnas~s m~ne. ) What th~s reA~ly means lS that should "another ent~ty" w~sn to oevelop Bevera~ parcels 1n you~ neighborhood, you cannot do anyth~ng about it. The~r plan lS what 1S term&c "master development plan.. Tnere lS NO treedom 0: assoclation. part~c~pate 1n the redevelopment plan, alloweo to do so. Even if you should choose to fully there ~s no guarantee that you y~ll be A-21 (cont'd SU""ATIOH ~ 7ne City Cour.c~l and City Plann1ng Department are aSklng us to "buy a p~g in a pOKe!" The CR~A? ~s extremely amolguous and broad 1n ~ts scope. Rooert SteYa~~, EIP. consul~ab~. lS reported to have repl1ec that the agency plan lS not fillec Ylth spec~i~cs because It yould llmlt ideas the agency may develop ~n the future. To "r. SteYa~t. 1 would reply: Toe best government is local and llm~tec. The ambigu~~y ~s not un~ntent1onal, lt is mean~ to confuse and prevent local clt~zens irom preclsely know1ng what 1S ~lanned for thelr communlty. Amb1gu~ty prevents accountabllity, 1S most unethica_, and a d1rect vlolat~on oi the public trust. After all, it is the1r community! "r. Steward turther, misguldedly, suggests that "Twenty to 30 years ago, property owners vere not ia1rly treated by publ1C agenc1es. Now the state has un1iorm relocat1on." I Bubmlt th1S lS part1ally true. Indeed there have o.en blatant abuses of individual property and business owners for relocation, however, a un~iorm law would not take into cons~deration the diverse houslng costs througnout the state, nor would lt Justly conSloer tne lndlvidual worth oi each bus~nes~ .0 displaced. Hlstorlcally, those relocated are provlded wlth movlng costs and 810,000. There lS no possible way that th~s meager flgure could Justly compensate eithe~ an inclvidual home owner or business owner ln tOday's inflated .arket. Conslder the poor ret1red or llm1ted inco.e home owners who have a aortgage of 5250-$400. It would not be posslble to provlde them wlth replacement houslng that would meet their financlal constra1nta. Consider also the tremendous emotional 1mpact of such persons being eVlcted out of the homes they have purchased and enJoyed most of thelr llfe. This lS the kind of devastatlon that is belng perpetrated upon indiv1dual cit1zens by State Agency CRAs through-out Cal1iorn1a and across the nat1on. Although there are numerous equally appalling areas I could address, ! shall ment10n 1n passlng only a few: A CRA must be in debt to reaaln ln existenc., by laW!J Of the nuaerous CRAs currently ln exi.tence in Cal- ifornia, only two have repa1d their indebtedness. CRAs can .ffect a lien on all private prop.rty within certa1n CRA Proj.ct AreaE. CIA. can .v1ct you out of your hom. or busin..s by .a1nent do.a1n and then turn around and sell or give your property to your neighbor or coapet1tor. Uncontrolled CRA State bureaucrac1.. hav. eaerged, functioning like SUb-counti.. and collecting and diS- persing tax.s inde!in1tely WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL. There ar. 10 check. and balances placed upon CRAs once created. Once we alloy our local governm.nt to act as, and create a State Ag.ncy, not only have we lost all r1ghts to our prlvate prop.rty; .. have also g~ven up our righta to be a self-govern1ng people. Th. borrower is the .lav. of th. lender. The powe~ to tax and conf1scat. our private wealth and r.al property 1. the power to destroy and control. The creat10n of a CRA lS an ill-advi.ed plan and ought not to be consldered as an option by publ1C officlals who wish to enJoy the publ1C trust. Although . . A-22 . A-23 '. . A-24 . A-25 A-26 11-9 . . orig~nally in~eno&c to -help the poor in dJstressed blighted areas. the, record haE proven to ~~ c~nervise. The poor are cont~nuing to sutfer the most through highe. fees ano ~~%es, reduction 0: affordable houE~ng, and by reduced city and coun~y serviceE. Tne m~ddle clas; haE alEo suffered by the increased demands upon their income ~n the subsidiZing of larger and aore plunder of State Agenc~es. The false notion that CRAs are financed by Tax Increment Financing and paying for themselves is not born out by the record. There are HO FREE RIDES. Even "r. Stevart, EIR consultant, promotes the misrepresentation that ve should think of it as a .f~nanc~ng tool.. If the local citizens and City Council are not willing to res~st the seemingly -quick f~x., there can be no legitimate further compla~nt regarding the wasteful defic~t spending of state and national government. The creat~on of a CRA will mos~ assuredly incur a gross city, county, and state debt that vill bankrupt our nat~on and .ake true s~aves of UE all. A-26 (Cont'd: See Attachments A, S, C, & D. NOTE: ADDITIONAL CO~~ENTS A-27 THROUGH A~36 CONTINUE ON PAGE 11-21 ( 11-10 . . , f 1818, 44 i 550':, 5h~m' Passmol t OllUcTOk , ... - ,",f.i '"j- .... , ~ ~ SltIUBS By aa.ara Grannis YaJ my ~ )'CU &11cw tCat aJ:8lieyel~t. iI. Wall, tber. La & lot to it tha: )'CIJ oarvxx M&. Wha~ bIppen.s La tba~.. r L. ooy 111 city bill ~i ~ I c:art&iD P'-' oc arM is -bllgbta:i,. ~tever that 18an&. '1'hI city ~"-Cn tbIrl fiDaa tbat tbe apJblic interest. rlQUires the rep' ~'1t of ~t-fNer 11 tt.r. by & &i.ny DIW Clffic:8 b.1Udin;, ~U&, b)tel or 8aIIe oc.her Dice thi.A;. &0 t.b8 CIIDI: << Cb.i.a 8bUgbt. 1a farcea to 88l.l to the city, just &S if it WZ'e . fr-.y --~"9 tbr~, l ~1'8e 98tti.ng the lIbli9bt. OJt 18 ~I~ to be in tbe "p'~li~ inter_t.. a.zt)lal W I kDcai, or J.f ~ den't )'eLl ~ better learn, Cf'liCk., tbat ta. 1UblJ.c iI juae A tIDE'd for ~tever tMII ia 10 QQQt.rol at city m.ll at tbe~. 0ft.eD ~ --t"', tM~ unfAvorable P8q)le .x! Wtituti0D8 lite .i~it.te., z--o_ aL.aa1cu, IDd p-ple tIIbo lete jU8t 10 the ..y get l'W1 cut of t.cIIm. All! tt. tbe c:i.ty t:urDI arC11D4 . .. .s ..1'. th1a 1W to -=- big daYeJ.clper at . ridie-'l"Ully law price aDd ~ ~ tDI ctfice blUtl'"9 or tbe ~..rJ"lll'~iUIL Ya1 c:ao Me ..... tbia 1aw1. te. hrbIp___ "-Y -- big ~ -y have tua eye CD Wbere JIQU live cr: taX. U bL. trial ar:. ill c:1ty b&U, 9'.. *t tba alUbllc iAw..t. 11 1t~~ to tun aat to ba. AIlS I 1I:na, tbI ~icaUCQI are that the ~lic. ex city b&ll iD .. -.y CIIDI all tba J.aDd aDd ~ ant ~. )1IQU ... Dy ~... If ~ _ ~ _ ~ ebclut ..~..p tal' ..s are lock.i.ng !or ~blDi .u. to be af.t&W ot., -,1~ ~V-F."~ _~. II-ll Ci :'lzen Advocates, Inc. t . bn), D'?,:. lemPh':. C" s<: 7,,~ .",:) r.;~ '7550. . 6 I - -- -....- Snerry PassIno. c DII\tCTO~ .. "'lll" '-'0(0, . '.U...I..,.... EXCE:R.P'rS ~ A.. J. ESPOSITO IND!:PDmEH'T SM.L.L BUS IHE:SS OWNER Even as you read this, people fro. all walks of life, all a9~ groups a~ protessions are feelin9 the pain of eainent doIuin proceedings. They Are 10s- ~n9 their living quarters or business. Tne inequitiea created by this very qenerous law are causing bro~en hearts and heart attacks. ~e continued abuse of the eainent doaain law ~ detr i-.ental t.o the econo-:r and future of Aller ica. I have seriou~ concern for hoaeowners who are suffering because of eainent do- ..in, but thu correspondence is being directeC to you on be.bal.! of s..11 busi- ness tbro,-,gt,out t.be country. Tb~ proeeo'-'res ..y differ in various areas, but the end result is oer~inly the r.... I vi II use "est CovinA, ~lifornia &5 All eUlllple of what is happeninS wi th eainent ao..in uDder the guise of -re4eve~t.- l. Once a beoCroc:a --.nity, with. dash of l~, M&Dge and walllut groves, West Covina bas been 9rAdually tranafor~ frac & auburb into an air and nDlae pollut.ed, traffic congested --""'ity. A situation tlllbich will ...orsen &S =-- -.ani ty r.oevelop.ent increases. 1'bis uansforlllltioll baa been brou9ht about by part-ti. ci ty officials Who ~_ it necessary to destroy landMrk&, buildings, et.c. &nd repl&ce the. wi'th bigh rise buildings. ~i. .aUuction of a quiet, peaceful (Yo" ''''ity is beinc; ~ to -..lte prOf:es.. - 8ecleftlo~nt laws clearly apell out the purpose of the act. It is de.i9necl t.o uuafara dutressed ar... into .reas of be.uty and co pro~~.se nealthful living conditions for ~ricans. However, I contend that city, COJ"'ty .nd state officials are abusiftg the lteOeftl- op.ent Act for the purpoae of r. ising revenue. in their t'C-.nity or area. Me one is .gainst prOfre.. for tn,. tlUrposf' of bIlproving coDditions but wben ilrproper proc.oures are used to ..~crea.. Ux revenues notice should be given to tbose 9uilty that they are OUI of oro_c. ~ in ..ny eitl"~ across the country, the cjt~ leaders of West Covin. 9rasp.d the redevelop-.nt law to Change a purportedly depre.sed .rea into a beautiful high rise C'tIIIplex with unsuspectiNi residents of tAe ec-Jnity footuu, the bill. The city father. tell us that this new ooaplex will increase the tAx II-12 ~ac:er pt.I trca ~.. J. bpoa 1 tt lna~ftOeftt. S....~.l ei.fteou Owner P~1f ~ . r~Yenuea aDd &llow t.bea to keep Jtroperty raUti at a J.o.er level. aio one ever diacusaed inc:reA&ed traffic, noiae and air pollution or the in.::reaaed need tor pclice ~ fire protection tbat would ~ created by the new COIIplex. 'l"nese iteas were never addressed until After the plans were ~l~ted and the devel- oper Md be-en lured to the project with taxpayer aupported incentift!.. ~ &l1 ent.repeneur, I -.s notihed ttwat 20 yeara of .ork aDd a&cr ific~ was gOlng c:)o.'n th~ drain bec:au.se of redegelop.ent. aftn tbou9b IIy bu.slDeaS col- leaguei and : were aervic~or iented and t.be townapeople enjoyed .bopplng at our center, thE C.c--tnitr aeoeve~nt Agency (eRA), cUd not want to listen to U6, nor t.o t.ne co..uni t)' aellDeU.. A developer h.ad appeared on the acene I 1 learnee that tax dollars are being dl..rted troe the .chocl ay.tea, police and tire de- part.=-ents to puret\ase these buildi.n98 at re4~ed prices then resold to the de- veloper tor a son<;. I vis~lized everything I bad -.orked for going Qown the dr air. and there ~s no way 1 could ~ell my busineas. Wbo will buy a buai.ness in a building that ~s going to be torn aown? l.. You: ratlonal thinkin~ tells you that the law provides for auch persons as yourself. You are protectea. ~ink 69ain. It is true tnat the law dietates tha: you should be ..de -whole again- and that the City ~ill ~Ye you and set you up again. It is also true that the City vill bire conaultants to assist you in your ~ve. You are told that you will be cOlllpensated if you decioe to 90 out of busines~. The City sends representatives into your business to inventory wnat you o-T.. This is done to insure that you are ~nsated fairly for your K>>ve. As tIlIOrd re.cbeQ the '" '''lity about. this .~erful redevelopRnt project- -r business beo9an ~o drop. I rusbed around tryinl; to find a location to K)Ye to. I diacoftred tbat rental pr ices in the new aboppih9 centers ezeee4ed vbat bad been PAyinc; by 400.\ I It is beq inning to look like 1 t 1IIIOUlc! be viae for _ to 90 out of business rather than faee exorbitAnt overbead cost.5 1n a new loc:a- tion. But wait! A aw passed back in the late sixties flUtes that I ..y fe- ceive up CD $10.000 if I cSec:1dlld to 90 out of eu.irtess under redevelop.ent pro- cH'dift9s. "fair l.w t.ben bAa ~ a )oke now. Cbanges in the eeono.y an not tak~n into considerati~ and $10.000 is a totally unr.alistie ~naation. 1 continued to fi9ht for ~ate ~nsation. ConverMtion and correspond- enee with the au. bec:a8e increu ing 1). heateeS. o.ys ~ -'-ka, weeks beca. ~tbs. I looked arouncSanc5 noted tbat. II)' fr ieftds apir its ...re also be9 inning to break. ~ businesa ownera bave K>>ved to other cities to atart all over 419ain. So.. buaine.. OWfters for-.d Aft of9aln&.U.on to atcellpt to get fair treac.ent - trOll the City. but mat were depr..aed and rel~tant to take part. 'l'be .et of aelf-preHryation be9an to doainat.a. -:bere 1. no aUenqU1 in any of9ani.zati:"n vben unity is not pr...nt. t.ncSlor4a _re ~iala their deal vith t.be City and t.n&Dta were ~vinc; out. As .~h teDAnt l.ft tbe traffic in tbe cent.r ctec:r--...cs. 1wJa1n I noted fewer cus~ra and clroppLng ..lea. ....t do I do next? II)' banda are tied. With tbree y.ar. left 01\ -.y le.... I appr0.ebec5 8'f ~lord to ..ke a deal. Be refe:red _ t.o t.be 01.. I 1.arlMld tbat IIf landlord bacS be.... Mde an offer for his I ix acres of illproVl8'd property. .. bad rejKted tbe offer. &nter ea1Mnt doMino tVen tbou9b I bad taken DO part ill t!au -.D..".r. I ... aD 1Dnooent y1.ctia and I vi 11 auffer ~e ,rief ~~..... of tftla as tuat~on. II-13 '-'VllU.U~UL J...I~L.L.~.L n, ,{-a5~ .L..J ExcerPt~ t rOEll A. .: ..DOSl ec. Inde~noen: S~ll D ~ess Own~: fage 'I'M ~f . 1 wen: ~nto bUSlness wle~ ~e even~uaJ plan of sellln9 the bUSlness to flnance my retlre-.en:.. I was not interested in Social SecUr'lty. we1far~ or any ottle: tyPE' of ass ist.anc~. I all', proud and independent. Now the generous Communlty Reoeve10prnent Agency stepped forware and offered IDe' S7S,OOO for the E'quipmen~ HI add It lor. to ehe S10,000 tney will giv~ ae for 90ing out of busi- ness. SE,OOO is G far cry trorz. the S20e,000 actual .....rket value of my busi- ness! Wna: aoour tn~ leasenold interest? Wnat about 9000will? TnlS IS lilY fHSt expe:lence Wlt.r, recieveloplD!'nt, everything IS nelo' t.o 1bE:. 1 recelVec c summons hon Super lor Court namlng IDf: in th~ emlnent dOILaHl suit "9alnSt my landlord! A carrage of Court oocuments bec;an t.o arriv~. InterrQ9G- locies, complalnts, pre-trIal possession nOtlees; caution spelled out tnrougn all of lnel:.. If I ci 10 not respond I eoulo J.OSt' in default. I was in eoueh ""let~ mr att.orney eaer, day. Atter JUSt a fe-.' weekS I alMsaed $2,SOO in attor- ney lees! What wou1c 1t COIit me wnen I really ent.ered t.he bAttle! l 'mE boD:1.:j .as drop~C:: t.oday. 1 rect:lved 11I1' eviction notict:. 'l'he eRA no", has court author.ity eo relDOve Ine froJt. tnE- premi.ses within the next 60 aays. Wnea ,,'ill 190: What will 1 do: Where 'will 1 find a building to rent for c comparatlle prIce: : .as gett.ln9 b}', barely. 'raking on a rent four times greater tnan Illy present rau will O~6UOY 1IIf:. 'rhere is no hope I can generat~ enou9h bUsiness to pay the rent dea.nded by landlords now that they know I a~ Deinc; forced to GOve and thE- ca)' nas ..d~ no provisions to enable me to stay in tha city, Is 1t worth st.aYlng ln bU51ness for thf: 50le purpor.e of workln; haraer ane longer )uS~ to pay hi9her rent? I reaChed my 6Sth birthaay laSt wee... If tnere a a ChanCE- that I will get .~. talC share fo: .y busi.nesoi, I will now neec to split lt Wlth an attorney or two. ~ou will wonder where I went wrong. tiow did I get involvec 1n a court battle? All I did was rent" ouild1nc; froa a landlord uncier 6 wrltten agree~nt .0 that I could conciuct a Dualness. eminent domain lS . n.s~y word and creates intolerable burdens ln a nu~ Der o! ways', Tne judlcul system has DeCOM a dUlllping ground for liti9atlons by landlords and t.enants. Tne aetendants cein9 forced to appear 1n court are rarely recognized. It lS a knowr, fact that the city agencies freely USf: ta.- p.y~rs dollars to hlrf: attorneys to pursue their suit. against landlords and tenant.s. The entrepeneur 15 always Lbe loser. AI I vri.te this, fifty business ~opl~ wait aaily for the exeeution~: lseventy-one businesses were displacec ~ltoqetner). Sevent~-one bualnesses wnlC~ cont.ribute to.s~tlstics wnic~ St.ate that saall buslnesses ar~ responsible for 43\ ot the gross national prc- d~ct ano 1S\ of ~ne ~.tlonal wor~ forCt:. Tney oread the d.y th~y alght h.ve to 91ve u~ thelr n~ for flnanClal .ecurlty. '- eRAs .k~. tne cre.& tr~ the top of tne property tax bottle tor the pur- pos~ of buYIng u~ pro~rty inexpenSIvely Decause the~ n.ve first conaemned the Slte. Yet, they bOast abOut the all110ns of dollars they vill brin~ to the Cltles ~lth tne1r woneerful pro)ects. Why, Oh Vhy, ~$t we face court t.r)als, eVlctlons and poverty at tAelr ~ncs. One would expect tni6 tyPt' of t.akeover 1n co-.unlst 5OClet1es Where oppre.Slon prevail" but not 1n A8erlC.' II-14 -------vOTll.l..lICU L J...it:: L L C' L .t1., r dbt:' .1."+ Excerpts tr~ A. J. ~Sl~ , lnOe~ncient SaaU a~esE Owne: J>age Four . Please, each ot you, take -::-. co nts to beut and respond t.o Illy appeal. AaerlCc n~s the entrepreneur to survive. If there are 5eventy-one people going out of business 1n West Covlna, Ca 1 i fornia, are you brave enougr, to ....1- t lply this by thousands of otner ci ties invo~in9 the 5.-e process? Ana I have not even ~ntioned the number of businesses that bave been forced to close and decaf!' bankruptcy ~cause of economic pressures. The co.bined torces of e~ lnent doaain and economic pressures aay lead to tbe destruction of Aaerica~ small DuSlness as we know 1~ today. As lnoependent business people, we are not loo~lng tor the aeon. We are looklng for G resolution of our proble&. If e~ inent domeln must continue, let It continu~ as a true reflection of the Amerlcan way of cio!n; buSlness. Pay a Lan "hat his prociuct iE ~rthl J... . J. E.s pos 1 t.Ci l -./ II-l5 II-;]f:l. 4~, 550(1 -r -- -."J' -' ..........~'..1.U:.._'J."'" LJ\;"-~L-~.L n, rC15c ..1..J . . ~-_:':,~ ~..r. -= ." ~ -....:. - - ... '--' '4 "'I..., "'0": ...,....,...,an~ Sherry Pas::.rllor~ OI~:TOf ~~'f3 CI:JKXrr'i ~ - I!MINem IX:W..IN ~ Historically, eminent a:main ~ frca. En;lish law and allcws a 9cwe..-nicg entity to take pcivate property against the wishes c: its cwner for a PUBUC PURPOSE. Orig- inally, the intent of the EII1inent domain law was to facilitate the building of roads, parks, schools or essential PJblic buildings. 'l'aiay, qrClliing abuses in thiail precess can be found in that private property is CXXltinu.al.ly being ae.ized for alternate private uses. ~~les of. this will be detaila1 later in this bllletin. I L lie}' be ~~, -what is a PJBUC PURPOSE as defined in the eminent Q:::main law? '!'be Ci t i lenS Property Rights 0:IIai ttee CDlt.ends that it should be property I'EVFWPBO MID ~NEO wmi PUBUC ~ IXX.IARS and nor. 0IInE!d privately. Sedly, the CXJW'tS have increasingly allowed private pr-operty to be seized by redevelcpent aDd similar ~encies for abqlpinq center., high in~ housing, hotels and ether privat.el.y-c:lll*! ventures. '!'he aqencies capitalize a1 this in or-Qer to deYelq> prcperty to the highe:lt use tDSsible. '!'his adds lIDre tax dollars to the ~ treasury. Thus, the gcwernaent o:x1t.rol and seizure of private property exists for pJre econcmic dewU- cpent.. Frighteningly, this is nothing leas tban 8nC'iali_. Another ariqinal intent of. the .,.; nent cklna.in law was to faciliate the eradication r1 -blight.ed- areas. Sl.Lm& CDlld therefore be cleared aDd lCIt' inCXIIE housing built. Ba.ever, a 0.5. SUpcElle Court decision in 1954 -~ied the _tars of this ~i~ing. In -aenan ft. Parker- the CCI1rt decided that cities have the police power to erldi- c:ate blight but the xuling ccnf~ tbis pa.er with .w..nt &-ai,\. '!be deciaiao Vives cities the right to ilprcwe themselves MSthetically but does not clearly define 1Ibether cinent ~i,\ can allcai seizing of private pt'~ for other private UMS. !be uaJe remaina urv-l..r in the courts to this day. !'be cutcry a;ainst the use r1 .u.n.nt ~in by ~"\ity B.e:SeYelc::pllent AgencieI baa beeD hecaUM d. the pE'actice tlhereby it is used to favor · inside - develcpera OlE pr'~y c:r.ners wbo are not part. of the .ilt~cup. but tlho alao wi8h to dIMalc:lp tlwJ.r pl'cperty. 8I1nent ~." .Y be ua.s for a le;1tJate plblle pupo8e tut it ~ll! DOt be used as a .mati tute in the free aarketplace in cJet-.1"IIli ft 1ng ather CI1e pri- vate develaper sbculd ~ CNer another private develaper. 1IQr' 8ba1ld private prq:cty be taken fraa CDe individwU and 9iv~ to .nother pE'ivata party and tb8D call tbat . plblic plZpQllel II-16 t' l' 00'. ~~~..:' .1em~I': Cit~ CA Sj ',-c. Its;!; ~.:,':' 550( . . ~. mn.."'Icw..:., R!'.PCR!' t 3 P.k '!'he foll.owi.ns are .~~les 0.: bJr.' the 9ove=naent has abu.aej iu p::lIIIIers ct. eminent ~in: In 1954 bJndreds 0.: a=res 0.: 10..' inccm:: residential pr~y in ~ve% Ravine 'EU"e seizEd in orcie.r to b.lild a private.ly-a.ne::: ~~l stadium CDc:xige:- Stadiwr., Lee An;e.les). ]a. low and m:xie.rate inean: residential cxmn:Jnity wa.s o:n:iem.~ in Los Angeles to tuild 714 units of higCl inc::aD: D::u.sing anC ~"'iC&l 8pL.~, kna.In as &unker Hill. Many a::re.s 0: privately-a.ned dairy pastures were ae,ize:j in Cerrlt06 to be CD1verted to privately-o.lned high incx:IIle ht:::mes. In Nat-iooal City, San Die90 Call1ty, a golf ccurae '-lIS tArgeted to be seizeC and redeYelcped into a sbcpping cente:. (. """'~les ot mch al-Qse are no: limited to CaliforniA. In Ycnkers, Ner Ycrk, the DOn-blighted property of a IIIlall businessman named Mr. Mcrris was taken UB:ie: _d "-'8nt dto.mai'1 and given to his Deighbo:, the larger Otis Elevator ~nl' ~ "Bnted to ~'lO its facili ties. SUch t:aki.n9s by the 9l=WernDent ~t be stopped. 'Dle Citizens Prcperty Rights Co-f tt.ee =ntends that the right a! an individuAl to CWl prqm-ty is ODe of the IIDSt cheriahed. rights 9UManteed by a.1I' United States O:nstitutiCX'1. The use at -..inent dalain power DUSt be returned to its intended p.1rpOSe of -the PJoblic ~,. M:7I' the good of the private deYelcper. ~ right of the people to be secure ,in their peraaw, hcules, papers and effects, aqai.nst tmreasooa.ble searc:bes aDd 8eizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but ~ probable cause, .,~ted by Oath or affiaatian, 8nd partiallarly Qe.sc:ribing the place to be searched, and there peraaw oc tbin9s to be &ei ze:i. · tbited States "'-atituti a_:cl IV . ~ CX'1, ......... e -. . . nor shall any peracn be subject for the ... cfferule to be twice PJt in ~y r% life or limb, DOr 8hall be ~le:i in any criminal cue to be a witness ~ainat bi_-'~, nor be de- Fived a! life, Uberty, oc property, without .- pr'OQ8lIS r4 law; nor sb&l.l private prcperty be taken for plblic: WIe, witbcDt jwst o A, -et)A& tian. · DU.tel:S States Cc:natitutiCl1, Art:J.c1a xrv -. · · that they are .ntitlC to life, liberty, Me! pr'cpercy, and tbey have DeYer CIIIk! to any ~ereign pawar tliwatever, . right to 4ispoee cL ei tber wit.hcut their consent.!' ~laTatian of ltighta, Octcber 14, 1774 II-17 r. Ci bo>. :33~ . iempie ::Jt, ::: l.. 5176 (818' ~4i550C . . .. 1\0" "'ola. \ I"~.I." She"! f'C:t:'SIlIO't O"\!.:'O~ ~~.~ o::JNBI'rf ~ - ~ ~ ~ FI~ ~S AIiD rrs AS:JSt Ir. orQe: for a CJ"'ftftl1nity Re:ievelq:ment A9encj' Cath) to ~...i.cx., it ms:. c.bta.i.n funding fo: itae.l.f and its project.i. 1'hiE fw1diD; pro::.a 11 called -:ax lD::rfllBDt ." \ nanci.n;. · ~ ~ 'lU is the 8CW:'oe for tax incrEllent financing. !'nil f1nancing pr-cx::.s begins to wxk W1en the ~ declares a project area. '!'he prcperty tax base of tha~ area is then frozen frat that year CX'l lmtil the project debts are paid off. !bese debts are inalrred Wlen ~ eell N::lN-\OlBR APHOJJ!"D IDa and borreit' acney. l 11ali, the C2Aa, DOt the city, county or ~ districts, can cl a i '" alJIDst all future prq:cty taRS (tax increments) CNer the frozell base level. ~ projects and their property tax bues (X)llld be frozen alllr\.llt indefinitely by extending the life of a project. ex' ~ in8t.i alting project. area aergers. '1'he tax in~lt financing precess results in RElXl""Il'rI 'aX 8P.SES for cities, ccucties, AOhool.c., police and fire depanments, etc., WUc:h lUSt 8t.ill prc:wide lerVice to t:be 'project and lUSt ulti-.te1y raise t:&x8s or fMS .in order to -.ke up for the lass of reverue to. the~. 'nJJS, the 'JUPAYIRS are the crIeS 1100 reLUy pi)' for a la.rge percentaqe of a raievelqlll:::llt project wen _y tM!In be lo:ated ClJtaide their awn city. BtI)Ce CXJIIeS the cry -r&ation without IIpresentaticn. - Since CUt.8ide vcter IIppCQIV'al is DOt ~ec5 for IUCh projects, the ...,~yen baYe DO .Y .in tDei.r f~Licm. Voter epprCNal 18 not ~ for loc::al projcta a1 t.ber. '.me State'. :z-....t practice of bailiDg ~t default.i.ng ca ~ aDd debtl alcDg vitb bail cuts of the ac:hcola ~'lrl eventually be reaponsible for a la.rge p:rt.iao << em State'. fiDancial criaia. At the local level aae ... c:i.tieI _U.iog cut aDY av.'. ~l8e d. Crler~""."\~ << tbair dlbt. Me IUat r~~p .. the c.. tureaucr.:y gr~, the ~ will CQDt.inually be facw1 vith I8i taxes, higher fees or r.i~ aervices to -.. up for tbe ~ tAx grab pE'OQIU calle -.ru lnar~t ,~.- C2A afficiaa conHnnally tall UI that their projecta \laiD; tbI tax iDcr lt f1Dancing pr~. will enntLaally pay for tJ'-&elYM. azt _ .., IItIIIC tIl11 li". that long.-' So far that ,..1.'11I CIIn 'be prcwen not. to be tzue. . . .cut ol ewer C50 projecta atatewide cnly a f_, ainoe 1952, have ever ~ retw:'Ded to tba p:'q.rty tax ral.l.a 8Q tbat tbe 8CboQla, c1ti.., pollce W fire 4i.8tricta, etc., CXlUld ~it.. II-I8 r .....' DO), .:.~.:.; · lemple Cn, c..L. 9) iu: 18]8, 4~7 5S0C . . Shem Passmol(, oll'\!do~, ., "",,,. '''011' ~ flfDr_... ,,, n01'I~ ~ t, Page ~ l ~~ ams~ C1! the tal: increme.n: h.nan::in; SYStsn my be found thrCJJg'hoJt the State do California, as the ~ take aavant.a;1e 0:. lcx:pboles in the redevelopment law ~er p:lSsible. ~, the redevelopne.nt process has t:1lrned into nothing acre t.ha.n a tax~ab sc!leme. P<<::ause by la.. a ~ DUSt. stay in 6ebt in orcie= to ccllect pro- :)ec': area :-ropert.y taxes (tax increments) I there are tremen::iouB incentives fo: an 119en::."Y to ~'ep a prC\jec: ino:JZplete as long as (X)Ssible:, CXX'1t.inuing to 9enerate the increment that should have l.ong ago been ret1.1.rne: t:C the property t'Ari ~ ent.iti.. CXle aearing ~~le at this a.tlWiE: oocu.rre:i in SoJth Pa.~~, 1Ibere the cu.., instead d. return~ a CXIIplete:i and paid for project back to the tax rolls, added Deli land tc. the .project 80 they CX)Uld CXIltinue to ~ate ale milliCJ'1 c:b1.lars of prcperty tax ' increment frat the taxpa~'crs. Also, the cities 0: San Bernardino, RichaDnd, Pitt.sbur9~ CNJla Vi!!~, San Jcse, Santa ~e Sprin;s, 'Sa::r-.ento and Los Angel_ hive all aerg j ~ projec-+'..s to extend the f1nan~ing life d. tbe.ir ~s. -n. aeizing o! land cnly fo: its tax incrElDent (pr:operty taxes) bas b&~~ 1I~ (" ~.'(-nplL."'e. In the City d. Industry, the ~ plaoe:j virtually the entirE:! city limi.ta &mder a redeYelc:pDent project. Much o! this land '-U vacant at the ~taet, 80 .. natural develqDent o:alrred, all re.' property taxes resllting frCIL the valuatiorl increase went to the 00 instead of the taxing entities Wlich provided services to the city. 'l'his has resulted in an. astr~'~-al increase to the taxpayers affe::t81 in that city ana CQUnty. In the city d. ~tiwi I'j Park, the ~ tried to include noo-bli9hted land 111 a redeYelq:aent project area web had already been targeted for deYelcpent by the private -=tor. ). lawsuit ensued wc:h .u won by the atA. 'crtlmately, the ~l,ate court cwerturDed the deciaian, in favar of the citiama, atatiDq tbat the a:Jency had ~ reasan to inclUl:ie this area in a reieYel."...-t (Z'oje::t ail!ply heoIUIe the land .. not be.i.ng pit to ita q:>>t';..1III use by private dIwaJ,'l r1t ~ va. Baldwin Park). In the city << Cer'ri tos, two redevelapDent projecu tere f~ to C8pture the tu8I ~a~ by the caweraicn of dairy pastures to high ina:.e ~.. In 1c8- ~, . proje::t '8S fcm18:1 to capture the taxes generate:! by the dIwelcplent ~ a bthem California ~i~ facilit},. In National City, a golf Cl:m'8e .. t&rgeta:i to be t'8deYelaped into a 8hcppinq center, cmly for the taxes Waich ooJl~ be MiIe:1. !be aituation hu ~:)"'ftIo:o 80 ab.J.aive that it 1& "l~t tecbni""l1y pouible for . oa, under mating redlwel. \ oI.~t Jaw, to 90 through the filM of . city blilcling depart_ ~t and pill out all bulld.in; pem1ta granted ell ~cb Cl:1nItmctiaa bu not begun Me! pit t:bI mbjct pr'~y into . nd.va1-( nt projer:t __ Sa order to grID the tax 1ncr..t (prcpc'q' tueI). !hi t:mdeD a'l city W CCUDty taxin9 ~titi.. is tr-l1daua "- to tbe 1au of ~. LaI An9tiM, for ~le, bu ....y -thetica1.1y pl..~ ~t projecu bzt carmot f1Danae atnet-c:1.Mning eervJ.oi.a and hu beeD far'aId to pat ballot --JreI before the votarI to rUM u.a far fire Me! pt"Hce 8al'Vicea. II-19 l Citizen Advocatt::), Inc, r. o. 00>.1.3.32 .1emPle. c.A 9Ji80 r an fs \14-4 i. 550C Ccmment Letter A~ Page 19 . 5ncm Passrnort 011'.:.':;0' ~ lJ\un."'olu i..6If"""ID'. !IU:A'rIc.w.. ~r .~ Page Tnree It is high time that Cltle5 and c::cunties st.and up for ~v. and for the tax- payers ~ are ignorant o! wbere their taJC dollars actually 90- '1'he at::I.1ae pt'CCIIU ~ tax increaent financing IWSt be st~, '1'ne fiscal aolveocy 0: the .tate d. California aJUld depend upon it. II-20 Comment Letter A, Page 20 RErORT TO THE ~OY CITY COUNCIL MAY 1, 1989 . Respectfully submitted: Sara C. Nelson 7487 Rogers Lane #2 Gilroy, CA 95020 COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ANALYSIS: RULES FOR BUSINESS PREFERENCE AND OWNER PARTICIPATION IN THE CITY OF GILROy............. EXHIBIT A I POLICY OF THE AGENCY Although it is the stated policy of the Agency to "... extend reasonable preferences to persons who are engaged in business in the City of Gilroy Community Redevelopment Project Area.......to re-enter in business within the Project Area IF THEY OTHERWISE MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF GILROY COMMUNITY REDEVELOP- MENT PLAN"; the question comes to mind: By what just cause should a City Councilor State Agency official be allowed to im- A-27 pose "new and restrictive regulations upon property and business owners" who have invested their incomes, labor, and lives to build up their business and/or invested in homes and raised their families under lawful and less restrictive zoning and use laws? Surely when the businesses within the Project Area originally received their business license the current wisdom of the planning depart- ment did not consider them to be "nonconforming." Does not the City Council have a moral duty to honor the commitments previously made by their past city officials? Or,is it the perogative of each city council to dishonor past commitments and agreements? How can the City Council purport to "protect" private property rights on the one hand, and trample them on the other? Where is the justice to individual citizens when the rules can be changed with regard to conformance or nonconformance with the exception of true and demonstrated public health or safety? The ".....requirements and goals and objectives of the Plan." are nebulous at best. Although it is ".....anticipated that the Plan to be adopted......will provide for LIMITED ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY within the Project Area.." this is of little comfort if your personal property, home or business, happens to fall within that category. Further, it would appear that there are already specific properties that the Plan seeks to acquire which are not enumerated. A-28 11-21 ANALYSIS: RUL~OR BUSINESS PREFERENCE ~OWNER PARTICIPATrION IN ~ CITY OF GILROY..........~ Page -2- II RULES TO IMPLEMENT PREFERENCES TO DISLOCATED BUSINESSES Although there is much in this section to demonstrate that the Agency will make noble efforts to show preference to dis- located businesses who wish to move back into the now redevel- oped Project Area, there are significant "strings" attached to that assistance. I o After once dislocating or destroying individual small businesses which, although marginal, are "alive," the help offered is merely administrative. A-29 o If a business has been determined to be "nonconforming" there is nothing available in the way of help. o Since there is no financial help available, it is extremely doubtful that a business could endure the Significantly increased overhead required to again locate within the "new and improved" Project Area. III RULES TO IMPLEMENT OWNER PARTICIPATION Under Section A, 1. "The Agency may determine, in its reasonable discretion, by resolution, that it is in the best interest of the Project Area that several parcels be assembled and developed by a single developer (a 'master developer') as a unified development." It is strongly suggested that each member of the City Council consider how he/she might feel if it were his/her "home or business" that was being discussed as one of the several parcels to be assembled. I dare say that what is considered as "reasonable discretion" as it relates to your own personal home or business is very subjective. Currently the present members of the City Council are in a . position to "protect" their personal property, however, the life of this State Agency is 40-45 years and that will not A-30 always be the case. In the report presented to the City Council on March 19th, several examples of abuse were cited. The very real opportunity and probable abuse of those who hold a philo- sophy of "social engineering for the public good" is well documented throughout the 40 year history of RDAs. Rather, the unique and American Constitutional principle of the "rights of private property of the individual" is firmer ground upon which to base such weighty decisions. Such platitudes as: "everybody is doing it" simply do not excuse violations of the principle of private property rights. Suppose the majority of men in Morgan Hill daily beat and abuse their wives--would that justify the men of Gilroy to do the same? If each Council member is not Willing to submit his/her personal property to the same restricts and rules, how can they in good conscience subject their fellow citizens to such rules? 11-22 AN~LYSIS: Page -3- RU~ FOR BUSINESS PREFERENC~ . OWNER PARTICIPATION 1 IN~ CITY OF GILROy.......... . Rather than the Agency be involved in parcel assembly, why not allow the free-market to function. The possibility for an individual property owner to negotiate for himself with private developers who wish to assemble parcels for currently conforming property use, without the need for an RDA, would allow for the property owners to retain their private property rights and determine for themselves what is in their best interest. The function of city government is to encourage private de- velopment, not to create and dictate such development. The council currently has several property owners who desire to develop and/or sell their property for development within the current conformance guidelines. Yet, at the Council meeting of May 1st, I witnessed such restrictions upon sewer allocations that those property owners were left with little home for a just opportunity to develop their property. The restrictions now placed upon sewer allocations appear to be too severe. The trustees of the Wheeler Hospital property and Gennero Filice should be granted every opportunity and consideration to develop their property in conformance with the General Plan. There should not be special concessions granted to individuals or public entities (Gilroy School District) that are not equitable. The impression is left with many citizens that, perhaps, the Council was hoping for "cooperation" with the School District in negotiations for the creation of an RDA. However, from what I witnessed at the School Board meeting where Mike Dorn, City Planner made his presentation; this is a naive notion. Under Section B, it is strongly suggested that if the Agency does not determine that a particular parcel will be assembled with others for development by a "master developer," then "...that parcel MAY BE DEVELOPED BY ITS EXISTING OWNER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES SET FORTH BELOW." By what right should any city or state official be allowed to decide that a person MAY develop his/her property, and then proceed to dictate the RULES. Except for a public purpose, cities do NOT have the authority to determine how a private property owner shall develop his property (zoning and safety laws notwithstanding). It is in this entire section that the true colors of "eminent domain" appear. Determination of nonconformance can be made upon private property (individual parcels) by the Agency OR ANY property owner within the Project Area. Suppose I were a person of unethical character who coveted my neighbors property. Under this Rule I could request that the Agency make such a deter- mination of my neighbors property. My neighbor would then be "forced" to enter into an "...owner participation agree- ment with the Agency pursuant to requirements...." Could not this scenaario be utilized to "assemble parcels?" 11-23 A-31 A-32 A-33 A-34 ANALYSIS: RUIS FOR BUSINESS PREFERENCE AND OWNER PARTICIPATION IN E CITY OF GILROY........~. I Page -4- If the neighbor, alluded to above, chooses not to enter into an "owner participation agreement" he MAY continue owner- ship subject to certain limitations: a) the Agency makes a subsequent determination that the parcel DOES NOT conform to the Plan, b) the owner intends to construct any additional improvements or substantially alter or modify existing structures on the parcel, or c) the owner intends to acquire additional real property within the Project Area, then the Agency MAY require such owner to enter into an owner participation agreement with the Agency. Whatever my neighbor should choose to do, I would certainly have created for him/her a great deal of "heat." Perhaps the Agency was not intending to focus their attention in "our" neighborhood just yet. Perhaps I have friends and influence with those who govern the Agency. Although it would be near "heavenly" if all citizens were of noble character, the fact is this is not the case. The 40 years of historical evidence well demonstrate that these types of abuses of RDA regulations have and do take place. ( Should a property owner within the Project Area choose to be a particip~tihg owner heL~h~.MUST meet'certain.,requirements: a) Ageement to permit to be recorded on their property a declaration of restrictions.... b) Within 60 days of notification (requirement that parcel is in nonconformance and owner MUST enter into a participation agreement), meet with Agency staff to discuss REQUIREMENTS necessary to bring property into conformance, c) Within 90 days submit a preliminary improve- ment plans and general financing plans for review by Agency, d) Extentions, WHEN in the best interest of the Project Area, of time frame, e) Upon accep~ance by the Agency of the owners plans, the owner SHALL enter into participation agreement. Note, all of these efforts on the part of the property owner do not and have not SECURED his acceptance as an owner partici- pant. The acceptance or nonacceptance of an ow~er as a partici- pant appears arbitrary--much like the inclusion or exclusion of certain pieces of property in the proposed Project Area. 11-24 A-3~ (Cant'e A-35 ANALYSIS: . . RULES FOR BUSINESS PREFERENCE AND OWNER PARTICIPATION IN THE CITY OF GILROy........... Page -5- On Page 9, Number 5, the punitive measures begin for those l property owners who may NOT choose to be owner participants, but have sufferred a determination by the Agency that their property is in nonconformance. Should an owner "...WHO IS REQUIRED TO ENTER INTO AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT.." fail or refuse to do so, or if he fails to perform any of the owner's obligations, at ft...THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE AGENCY FORFEIT HIS/HER RIGHTS...." Further, the infraction of his decision not to participate as "...REQUIRED BY THE PLAN AND THESE RULES MAY CAUSE THE AGENCY TO SEEK ANY AND ALL REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO ACHIEVE SUCH PARTICIPATION AND MAY SUBJECT THE PROPERTY TO ACQUISITION BY THE AGENCY.......THAT THE AGENCY MAY EXERCISE ITS POWERS OF EMINENT DOMAIN..." A-36 \ From the standpoint of the Agency, the best has been pre- served until last. However, from the standpoint of those who value their private property rights and adherence to the protections and principles of the Constitution, it removes all limits of police power requisite to the unlawful seizure of private property! You may rightfully ask: "If the CRL is fraught with unconstitutional seizure of private property, why has the law not been challenged or changed?" I would submit that I have pondered this one myself. Of the innumer- able cases I have perviewed, I have yet to see one brought upon strictly constitutional grounds. The probability that there could be such a case within the system does, however~ exist. A Supreme Court case decided within the past few years affirmed that cities MUST truly pay "fair market value" when they confiscate the private property of citizens. Although there have not, as yet, been significant test cases fully processed through the judicial system; many have begun the process. ~ Would it not be more prudent for the Gilroy City Council to seek the "higher ground?" The choice is now before you to take the "path of least resistance" by following the tainted and deceptive path of voluminous debt creation for future generations. Truly, our state and federal government provide no leadership worthy of emulation as bureaucracy expands and deficits grow exponentially. The morally sound and ethical choices have ever been the most challenging. Yet, if those in "power" are willing to casually confiscate the private property of their fellow citizens and neighbors for a "public good", do any of us enjoy true ownership of that which we have labored to obtain? If another can take my property without my consent, it is no longer my property. 11-25 ...: ~, . t . Exhibit A . RULES FOR BUSINESS TENANT PREFERENCE .' AND OWNER PARTICIPATION IN THE CITY OF GILROY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ~A ( COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF GILROY . ' " '.:' II-26 . ,'. ", .... .", .. ' ~'~1~~:'~.' -- , .. . ~V~l~I Uk THE AGENCY . . The California Community Redevelopment Law requires that the Community Development Agency of the City of Gilroy "(the "Agency") extend reasonable preferences to persons who are ,. engaged in business in the City of Gilroy Community _ Redevelopment Project Are~.,(the "Project Area") to re-enter in business within the Project Area if they otherwise meet the requirements of the City of Gilroy Community Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan"). The Community Redevelopment Law further provides that the owners of property within the Project Area boundaries be given the reasonable opportunity to participate -- the requirements and goals and objectives of the Plan. in the Project provided such participation is consistent with '- It is the policy of the Agency to encourage the participation of property owners and businesses within the ,.'., Project Area, as such participation is necessary if the redevelopment process is to be successful in reVitaliZing the proposed Project Area. It is anticipated that the Plan to be adopted by the City Council of the City of Gilroy will provide for limited acquisition of certain real property within the Project Area pursuant to those quidelines, conditions and requirements set forth in the Plan. It 1s the policy of the Agency to minimize acquisition if at all Possible, and therefore the Agency's .' .~.: . II-27 .' . ----.,...u'::/ ~a.\".4cJ.patlpn of property owners and businesses ~in the Project Area sha~e vigorously pursued. To that end, the Aqency has established basic rules to implement business pr~ferences and owner participation within the Project Area. II. RULES TO IMPLEMENT PREFERENCES TO DISLOCATED BUSINESSES A. Names and addresses of all businesses which are displaced by Agency activities within the Project Area will be -- maintained by the Agency to assist redevelopers in tenant selection for space within the Project Area. (.r B. All land disposition documents related to the Project Area shall contain a provision indicating the Agency's preference for dislocated businesses and require the redeveloper to extend reasonable preferences to dislocated businesses which desire to remain or return to the Project Area, provided that the relocated business conforms to the requirements of the Plan. C. At such time as third party redevelopers are in a position to seek business tenants for new developments within the Project Area, the Aqency shall cause notice of such space to all businesses relocated from the Project Area and shall II-28 .~. .. ~~ -- -__A <'" ......\"oe "'.... DUl;;n Duslnesses ~s may be ne~sary to help secure the 1IIfred relocation. I III. RULES TO IMPLEMENT OWNER PARTICIPATION A. Develo ment of Multi Ie Parcels b Master Develo er r 1. The Agency may determine, in its reasonable discretion, by resolution, that it is in the best interest of the Project Area that several parcels be assembled and developed by a single developer (a "master developer") as a unified development. Such determination may be made at the Agency's own direction or in response to an applIcation by a -- property owner to become a master developer. Any individual or other entity may apply in writing to the Agency to become a ( master developer. The Agency shall give the record owners of all affected parcels ten (10) days written notice and the opportunity to be heard by the Agency prior to the proposed adoption of a resolution determining ~at s.veral parcels are to be assembled and developed by a master developer. 2. Upon determination that several parcels will be assembled and developed as a unified development, the Agency shall notify the owners of all affected parcels of such determination and ~hall invite the owners to submit proposals to become the master developer. In its discretion, the Agency II-29 '. :.;~'~ ~ -- -- -J~ ~~D~Dm~~ proposals to become the litter developer. . establish criteria for master developer selection which, in the Agency's reasona~le determination, are appropriate to the 3. In sOliciting- proposals, the Ag-ency shall. size, SCope, character and quality of the envisioned development. These selection criteria may include without limitation, as appropriate: the nature and quality of the proposed development; the financial capability of the prospective master developer; the technical and professional -- quality of the prospective master developer development team, including- architects, engineers, contractors, marketing consultants and others; and the record of' experience of the prospective master developer in completing other projects of comparable size, scope and complexity. ( according to the selection criteria established pursuant to subparagraph III A 3 above based on the proposals submitted by prospective master developers. In reViewing proposals that meet the minimum standards established by the Agency for 4. The Agency shall select a master developer selection, the Agency shall qive such preference as it deems appropriate under the circumstances to eXisting owners of one or more of the parcels that will be part of the unified development. If, in the Aqency's reasonable determination, no proposal meets the minimum standards for selection, the Agency II-30 . . '; ; ~- ~ ~ 5 .~ .', ;.~.... J' may reject al4lbroposals and take such a~ons as it deems appropriate to solicit additional proposals, modify its concept for unified development of the affected parcels, or otherwise fulfill the objectives of the Plan and these ~ules for such parcels. s. Following selection of a master developer, the Agency and the master developer shall negotiate and execute, if possible, a master development agreement setting forth the rights and obligations of the Agency and the master developer with respect to the unified development of the affected parcels in accordance with the Plan. If a master deveTopment agreement cannot be executed within the time established by the Agency, the Agency may terminate negotiations and take such actions as it deems appropriate to negotiate with another qualified developer, solicit additional proposals, modify its concept for unified development of the affected parcels, or otherwise fulfill the objectives. of the Plan and these Rules for such parcels. 6. Once the Agency has determined that several parcels are to be assembled and developed by a master developer, it may acquire such parcels if the Agency determines such acquisition is in the interest of the Project Area. The owners of property acquired by the AQency prior to selection of a master developer shall be .nti~led to submit a 11-31 ~ proposal fo~evelopment of the severa~arcels that will be assembled. B. Development of Individual Parcels bv Existinq ~wner Provided that the Agency does not determine, 'in- its reasonable discretion, by resolution, that it is in the best ' . interest of the Project Area that a particular parcel be assembled with other parcels and developed by a master developer as part of a unified development, then that parcel may be developed by its existing owner in aecordance with the rules set forth below. -- ~ 1. Eaeh pareel in the Project Area shall be eonsidered to eonform to the Plan unless and until the Ageney has determined by resolution that such pareel does not conform to the Plan. A determination of non-conformanee may be made by the Agency at its own direetion or in response to a request for a determination regarding eonformanee by a property owner in the Projeet Area. '-. 2. If the Agency determines a parcel does not conform to the Plan, the owner of such parcel ahall be required to enter into an owner participation agreement with the Ageney pursuant to the requirements of subseetion III B 4 below. ....... II-32 .~. o. Le~Ler comment A, Page jL ~. ~ the Agency has made no d~ermination of non- , conformance with respect to a parcel, the owner of such parcel may continue ownership without an owner participation agreeme~t. ~ubject to the limitations set forth in the fOllowing sentence. In the event (a) the Agency makes a subsequent determination that the parcel does not co~form to the Plan, (b) the owner intends to construct any additional improvements or sUbstantiaily alter or modify existing structures on the parcel, or (c) the owner intends to acquire additional real property within the Project Area, then the Agency may require such owner to enter into an owner participation agreement with the Agency pursuant to t~ requirements of subsection III B. 4 below. 4. If a property owner is required to enter into an ( owner participation agreement with the Agency pursuant to the provisions of subsections III B 2 or III B 3 above, the Agency shall notify the property owner in writing of such a requirement. The property owner may then become an owner participant by meeting the fOllowing requirements: (a> All participants must agree to record or permit to be recorded on their property, a declaration of restrictions which is designed to protect the future use of the land as being consistent with the Plan. 11-33 ~ .. e) Within sixty (60), days. the notification described above, the owner shall meet with Agency staff to into conformity with the Plan. discuss necessary requirements to bring the owner's property (c) Wit~in ninety (90) days thereafter,_the owner shall submit preliminary improvement plans and a general statement of plans for financing such improvements for review by the Agency. (d) The Agency may reasonably extend these time periods when it is in the best interest of the Project-Area to do so. (e) Upon acceptance of the plans described in ~} the owner shall enter into an owner participation agreement with the Agency to assure the Orgerly development of the subdivision (c) above, as revised or corrected if necessary, required improvement'to the property. S. If an owner who is required to enter into an owner participation agreement fails or refuses to enter into such aqreement pursuant to subsection III B 4 above, or if sUch owner fails to perform any of the owner's obligations under an executed agreement, the owner shall, at the sole discretion of the Agency forfeit his/her rights to participation under the Plan and these Rules. In addition, II_34 . .. failure by an owner to participate as required by the Plan and these Rules may cause the Agency to seek any and all. remedies available to achieve such participation and may subject the property to acquisiti~n by the Agency if the Agen~y determines that it is in the interest of the Project Area ~o undertake such acquisition; pr~vided, however, that the Agency-may exercise its powers of eminent domain only in the circumstances and manner otherwise authorized by the Plan, OPRULES/B49702 -- . :....:~~~.; :: . '.. ~:. .' . .:'.. ~..~..: ;c". . . , -',. , ..' . . ! II-35 .w '.. .. . "'\"~'r." " ,;,.,. :"'(:'.l'. \~:Di.~~~ .~ . 1. ~ .,",. ,'.k '., / k\ --- ,,,.,,.,..,.,. ..:---~~ ~~J-:??JU~~JT7 ...-",,! if...J....,..,c??.~~. ..~?"r. Y\.rtW,.; I .:p~""'- .-~ --:::::.....,~.__.~.,.. _......-4-...-_,...~_ ~ ~, '~."T,I''''-~~_,______.oI.'''--~___''-_..4_ :::~~~ -=-S~:;:.::-~ .~-E.::.~r=:_----,.._.- ::i~-S.i;5i~_ .:;-;E~~~;~s7=.~ ~,~~~?i0~;I~~~}i,~ .-'""'7"'"- _ _ ~_.~....:.-_-._;. .",~------'~r.-""'--- :~~~~::.:~..:-:~2-:=-::~.:~::;~-~:=.___.",.., ~..:.-.::'::=__..A-_"~___ ___"P';.._...c-..__.._....~..-- --...~ :~~~:.;~~_-:.7 ...~=:!:~:~~-=..~6-$?:~: ~~E;f~~~~:~~:;~ .~~~z.~~...;;~-==-=,7.::~::.-:::-=:~S;:- ::;.::.. :~::.::=::z:.:..::z-_..-......~_..~-.-;:._..._-,.~:-, ._~ .c._____.r_-'-__ ..-~..__r_/'--~""'- . ~ ~~_.......--~.- --:?'.-"---""~-_._-~-""'--"'-- . =-~-.~...:~ ---;;:;-~.=-":==~:':="-=1::.-=:--;:!::.:-~ _...._""..&.-.~..a--~'" -.... ~~ .?~~.::z ~~Z:::~ .. ......,.~ ..__=,,~:::,=-':=":::;:::&::~4,. ~~~Eti~~~~~;~;f~~~ ~~~~t~i~f;=~~~~:-~' .. '~/.1f; ~/2/?;.d~Z;-.J,r"rn6TK/.___m "_'''/.~;Y'''/n r'....~.~~Z..r/, .--:-.,....." ~-"<<~..~ /t6 ./"."mz/ ~...., JT.:a- A(.. cAp r;/ ....v...y:- ". - ~a''f' Au-~~r.~.tY~~~~.. ..!\1t4.'~' I J ....w:... .i4__~ -... _-_...c..-., t_~ -..'- ...- ""-'-,;JJL.-.,. "'_A--/"",, -~.....-~.:::::-:.. -=-...:.:-:;-..:::..:--::.;~_.. -,-- r-'" -~ ~-~ _...c.---._ .........-,..._...~ ~--'--- ~,.-...&..-"'-'~-".. ~- ~.;:::-..:: _~::::-__z__.(...--..~ _~,--____._:.-'" ___...__ '?' -;'?C;-:::::E::?"-~:~~::Z'f::~-F2.;.:':- ~.""'-_--.:=:- ~-,.".-=:~y\~--r---=~-.c-~..~~~~ ~~..~.:-)l~.~z::.:.:....:::..~-:....M-__-:~-::;:';:=:~=- ~ #_~---~:J..:._.z~-""'-"~~."'" .~-;_.,.4~.L-.... :::~-'::=-.04~~~.'..t...- .-.,._~ ,J-___#_..~ ~--- ~~0i~:i~~~~~~;;c;J~~~~~ 'L;~""~';::':-;.:::::-~.- ~ -'- ~- .,~ --;c - ~--_.- ~ -- itE~~~~~~f;;~~::~~ ~~~;--J!E~:?;2;-:f~":;;~~-';~.~#- "".....~ -"",.~........-.--_.......".",--~.. ~,-...,_..~...-....,...-..,..-- .;~,7~;=::;=;!:'::~? .p..-,v...,4 -...- _,. - -- ~-~-~"'-"'l- ? 1---.----L::::--fl-... ~~_"*i:___I~~L ~~~~;:'~-;;~;:_..:..-;..-- .:~c~.~___..._._,_.............-..-.......*".-~-......---- ,.......-_...~...""""~--- . '~I" ~:.....:i::::..',"~~--~~-=;':;==-~~-=-~.z;-~-:.-" ~..'::;.:'.:...~ j~~~==. ....:_::::.7"~:==;:;i'.;-==-~'J..-,.._____ :..~_-:.. --;~-=;.:::;~ ~_..c:. -:~=-_::..~-==-_:.._ ...........,........ ~ -- ......-,..,..-... --.,.-~._.......--"--,-,-,,..-......- ---~:'-:'::-;':'"7":;~...~ ~~__....._-.....____.~ .____ =:Z:---.:-~ ::':::'-_7~.,-==:- I-_-~~---~.&..-- A...t... .,._____".""-'-'____1'::::. ----..--~~._~ ~~;:::.==-...~~~.;;~~~~=:.-.,- .~;;r;.-""'O-"~-4~,.. -~ ..-----~--.... ~_~~~==-~,-c;----,---.--.....-.~- ....~H". IV ~, ~-~__r_~-...............__....a_"..~-- /:;Z: ;V.:;::;::~~..::=;~-;. ~.~=.:..~:._:_::=6............ .. _ -.. --.,......--#JII-."....-'.~,- ~..L.___..._A-...A-..._;___~~,,_.......__~___.'"'-, ~..=_:=:.t.::~~~.;.._i~-.-:==-:=7.....~:s:-__..-_~. ..--w~.....-__or~._....._~4 ,--- =~~-"--~----~~l~1f!Zf~;;2:~i ~__-~~.-;_~:..~..~_.~,F_~.f~_~,~_~_.~:i-::.~-,~_~.s._~_~_~-~~.~--~;-~.t.-~.~.._:;.._:..~ ,. _'\it\.l;tc I' ~ _ ~.. r _-= ~ -,- ,,-- , :-- _ - .r ,..~=,..,.:~ ::.:=::...:-:;.::..--r -:-=....--::::::..:.::=:=-;.:..::=-...:.: :i. "'-'_"'~_'_'"-.__ "=:_-_------.-,-...--~ ...c_._..,.~..__ :~- -.,.~;:::: "-7:~"'-/':~-:::.~;.t.:"::":"4'''''-~~'': ~ A.-~--..._,;r__......._._"""--~.-..--...,...-~--. ==-~-,:.;z";' !"':~i:..:-_..-.::...~:.. __.......,......4.0-.-.__-~__~,. t -'J~~ -...----.-.....,....... .~ .';;\\'''_ II _...:...'~~=.~.t:::.z--..-r---..&-..~.,-....- .....,...- -- ,..._.. '-' ,,-::::r. ~\. ~ ._ #.%;-_~-_.-_.::::z==-~..!'-----~--,..--..-...._._-,........... _ ..~;.~-~;-~_. ~.--+-._.r-~-_.._-r-4__ ~ ..---- s"--".._-..~:::.:i...;.,-_.~_.- ......co.--..,.__...._______.......- , ,z ,.~;::r-~4_;:.........~-=-~~_4X:~--.-~- =.~.......,~~ ~.....~--~~.,.-.-.-~7..c"-'" .:..2;:. .,~____~-~~.....~...:;.,.."""__.-_...._""'-,r.-~- -ra_...::::r_.....~_.._,.._..~_..___.-_ .. ..,,- =-~_-;:'_.a-_.+--~_......".....,-_...-.. --'--,............,-. ~~........;t;;::::-Z:':.:4r..::::.1"-._""~ ,.;,_~.~. ,~~~~..._.___...._.......___._....,. ,"'~ 1 ~~~_....:.-_._~,...,-"'--_...c--.....,,??-;i.....----'-4......._,..., ,,---"-ll.';\" \11 .....,.~............___-~...:::=z::.4----_....... ~ ..t.: ....... .\AI.""" __~:_..~.~~~&....~::.".""!.~=,-=-_~--~;-..~ _.....,.~.:....~,...-r-a066_~.".~..--...--.-----_. _ -,.....~_.. ~-.J..___~--'_ g~ '7Ukr:~?'~. 6e--~'''='-rl ~,. -~-.f~Ao-_~-"~~~'''''';''N_A _~_I.,.--~.#-.........::..~~ ;: ~-J~r-~'-~--~~~_"".:"'r-" ~':~-;Z4~~",,~2~ ~~""-f'~~,---""..7~'~~ n.'U\\i~';;...-..;.,..- ~~.hA::.w~hr-""'r ~~ .. <-'_..e....;. ..k?...>2..- -m~~_w= ~~ .~.)' U- /r'47c:r .r_~{;e-r:r- "~rit: l...+'---f~~'''' ~... ~ 4'" K",,., ~ A.;; If".t-'.u.;..... ) .....4-1. ~:eI, (f" ~:n~ t-~ 1.1.;",.4'-..---'.- ~ .A-_a.4.,....I~~, ..,~ [ J-~-"- -"'-M [Z:-7;;;:::'" N1~ ,h-4~ ....d...l- (~/~~"..-. 5l:~:', . r ~ -.. . ..n..L~.#4 t IL~ ~~ ..d-L ~~,/';../r ~-) <~ ~ - e::>..t'~ V---./'o ~ 'P>VO- efJ;.r/~~4f'/.1 . .,,;-:~ M'_ -"'-- ~ I/-,-L~ ~ AV/~~~..hl~ tJ'~~"\AC'~ . . ~ i ~ ~ i . ~. ~~ fIii1'i' ~& l(sC'Os~. We Tbe PeoPle Means Me I signed-on the Constitution California "Sign-On" Campaign September 1987 .. December 1987 omia Bicentennial Foundation for the u.s. Constitution onh Brand, Suilt' ~'IO. GlmdaIc. CA 91203. (818) 'IOO-17fr '"'i-t M,. SW*u... II-36 \.JVUUIII;:.l.lt.. J...."c;.t..l.c;.J.. U, .LUOO...... .L . . I THE CHAMBER GILROY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. 80 WEST FIFTH STRE=T . 3iL8CY CALIFORNIA 95020 . '408) 842-6437 OFFICERS ""ESIDENT OF THE BOARD Tom WIll1a :j.a C.~ Ree".,. VICE PRESIDENTS ,Mfl MII"ln Melt>-U.5fltI Of Gilroy Or. ErIc ,...,..,. o.tID5t KaIIly Devtl W..v. FetfJO Bw>K Irl9me NlcIlolle Sout1l V81I~ "~I s.ruc PAST BOARD PRESIDENT JoIm YOUnv Gilroy Ft:Joas. 1m: DIRECTORS 11I1 AYI' M<<Ic", PUS.A FI/TII!y AtMlflture AM Dan..' J, C Penrrt Co.. Inc. ...... Emick ~,s--J~t F_ FlIbInv "'-'5 ~ FlOnst JoIWlK_ Pecdtc 08i< ~ Inc. IUcIlIolKkle "'-MfOr Daft 1IIIIIlnoII. Jr. Gitvy Molllf Company 0... ....... Dr. ...... ........ GMwt CDMeg. ..., ....... GWIly 0/II0t E~ ......... s.cco. R.N. "- R, S-. M.O.. /ttc;. .... T-,. ~ E-.- YIvWl Young '"-~ EXoOl"I'ICIO DlMCTOfIIS .., .... CIty at GWoy Dr. JoIWl ......... GMwt COI/et,Je Dr. IC8n ...... Gitvy Ikr1I<<1 SdIooi 0iMncr IIwft "'*'- ~ ~ at CoIIlrNn:e LorNIne Y8IencIa CIIlb at CD, s.-v.or. 0Is1 1 DavtcI R, __ ~V,.,.~, May 16, 1989 Community Development Agency of the City of Gilrov A ttn: Board of Drrectors 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Dear DirectorS: At the May 16, 1989 meeting of the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, it was the decision of this organization to suppon the formation of the Gilroy Community Redevelopment Project. The following factors were used in the process of evaluating the proposal and in our voting to endorse the project: 1. The Community Redevelopment Project will provide for a comprehensive, coordinated. long-range program of public and private property improvements that will in time improve economic and physical conditions in the project area and community, 2. The project will be responsible for building public improvements that the community needs and that are essential to private reinvestment, 3. The project will be able to utilize a portion of its resources to help private development and rehabilitation projects which otherwise would not be feasible, and 4. In general, the financial and administrative tools created by the formation of the Redevelopment Project will give the city, through the Community Develop- ment Agency, the ability to help the private sector rehabilitate and upgrade exist- ing development, promote additional low and moderate income housing, and undertake needed public improvements. The Gilroy Chamber of Commerce agrees that the redevelopment project wiH create positive benefits for the businesses and residents within the project area as well as the entire community. By bringing about industrial and commercial growth, affordable housing and public improvements, the project will serve to increase the rate of employment, provide a more stable economy, and generally improve the community's appearance. And just as imponant, sales taxes and other non-propeny tax revenues associated with development will likely increase. Nine other cities in Santa Clara County currently benefit from redevelopment programs, and we think Gilroy should, too. , - S~cerely.-)") j _ . ~ ~' ~-~ . '7z/ c..... I ,~.,.,~., ~ ~.. -~ - omas G. White President II-37 .Providing Leadership for Responsible Growth and Developme'7t" vVUUII~llL. J...t~L.L~.L lv, rObt:: ..1. . . SOUTH SANTA CLARA VALLEY WAR MEMORIAL COMMITTEE 74 W. Sixth Street GILROY, CALIFORNIA 95020 .~ ., .. "OJ'''' May 18, 1989 Mr. Michael Dorn Deputy Executive Director Community Development Agency Ci ty or Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, California 95020 ~:;r~:: .'~ , ~~.'. ~~_l ~"~:..;. ._ .- Dear Mr. Dorn: At our regular monthly meeting May 17, 1989 the Directors of the South Santa Clara Valley Memorial District approved the following Resolution: This District was originally formed by the votors within the District to honor those who have served their country in the military and to build, support and maintain said Memorial Building to specified limit s . Since the passage of the Gann Limit our annual financial support has not kept pace with the inflated necessities. We therefore vote unanimously on our behalf not to support the City of Gilroy Redevelopment Plan and that all funds allocated to the South Santa Clara Valley Memorial District go to the District. If necessary we will seek exemption from the Community Development Agency of the City of Gilroy through the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors. Resolution Passed - 4 Ayes - 1 Absent. II-38 Comment Letter D, Page 1 .[!"Cock 7lN'D JlSSO.O~S CD....iIy JZUnIlDt-at CDUUlJ..U 'For SJ,ool f)istrids (714) 854-2491 May 22, 1989 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Honorable Members of the Agency My name is Jack Matlock and I am here tonight on behalf of the Gilroy Unified School District. The district wishes to go on record in favor of the proposed redevelopment project. We have carefully considered the project and have determined that the long term benefits to both the community and to the district outweigh the short term impacts. Redevelopment is a means of retaining the existing property tax within the community to accomplish rehabilitation and expansion for the public good. Why is the district in favor? For one reason there are no new taxes with redevelopment. And because there are blighted areas allover the state and redevelopment is being used to correct that blight. This community and others throughout the state are growing older - maturing if you will - and without rejuvenation and revitalization, this community will become stagnant only to see more progressive communities pass you by. There are opponents to RDAs to be sure. There are those who object to new growth - and yet they want the modern shopping centers, jobs, parks and opportunities that a growing community can offer. There are those who would fault the city government for using the financial tools provided by the state to revitalize the community. Too much. power in the hands of ~he City Council they say. There are over 315 cities and 19 counties in California involved in redevelopment. They are not all perfect and sometimes the projects are not as successful as others might like. But if there is a problem we should all work as a community to correct it - not grumble because someone is trying to make improvements. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater !! There are those who worry about imminent domain. Yes we should worry about imminent domain - but we should evaluate the need and the benefits too and not assume that everyone will suddenly be displaced by a redevelopment project. Actually some people like condemnation because the law requires that the highest appraisal be paid for their property - not the lowest. RDAs usually try to buy properties rather than use imminent domain. Why? Because it's less expensive and less time consuming. II-39 24070 Pine Avenue . San Jacinto; CaL 92383 . Comment Letter D, Page 2 . f There are those who say they object to public funds being used to assist private development. Let's not be naive. Private enterprise is not the only one to receive government assistance. There are private individuals as well - from Washington to Sacramento to County and City. Many assistance programs exist to help this country grow. Chrysler, Lockheed, government housing, tax exemptions on your home, small business loans, student loans, social programs and agricultural loans and subsidies. Why this use of public funds to assist private enterprise and private individuals? Because it keeps this nation working, provides new jobs, generates new taxes and protects the future wealth of the country! ! I would ask the community to consider: Why export jobs to surrounding communities when the RDA can encourage industry to locate here? Jobs need to be created so that young people can enjoy decent employment at home rather than be forced to travel out of the area. WHY NOT USE LOCAL TAXES TO CREATE JOBS? Why export housing to surrounding communities when the RDA can prepare for the coming growth by securing water and sewer facilities now? People need to have affordable housing whether they are a young family just starting out or whether they are senior citizens who want to retire with dignity and security. WHY NOT USE LOCAL TAXES TO CREATE MORE HOUSING FOR YOUNG AND OLD? Why export sales tax to surrounding communities? Why not keep those funds here so that the city can expand services such as parks, police and fire protection? WHY NOT USE LOCAL TAXES TO CREATE PARKS AND PROVIDE POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION? And finally - WHY NOT USE LOCAL TAXES TO REHABILITATE AND MODERNIZE THE SCHOOLS OF THE COMMUNITY? WHY NOT USE LOCAL TAXES TO BUILD NEW SCHOOLS? Many of the district schools are over 30 years old. They are very much in need of redevelopment!! No community can long endure if it neglects the education of the next generation. We need to work together to prepare for the next 30 years and beyond. The district is a strong supporter of the Gilroy Redevelopment Agency. We look forward to additional projects in the future. We also look forward to working with the Council and staff to ensure that this community has schools avail~ble to house an expanding student population. We appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight and share these thoughts with you. Sind' ::o/~ c2 Matlock II-40 vUlllllI~1I L Lell~r L, rd!S~ .I. ~uff=' . Jo~on & Sirrwni . -Alto".." and Co_lor al claw 20 'mal'tu. S"ul P 0. Box 2086 r;~, eat/ornia 9502/-2086 -Ar" Co~ 408 -:J.!.plw.... 842-3/44 S~" S. Jolvuo,. /9 f / - f 979 JIUII6~ V SimoN May 25, 1989 City Council City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Gilroy, CA 95020 ~,. Alan Lillie c/o Chamber of Commerce 80 5th Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Dear Council Members: I urge you to adopt the following restrictions on the power of eminent domain to facilitate the passage of the ~edevelopment District Ordinance. First, that no residences be the subject of condemnation. Second, that the public body will not condemn any pro- perties for resale. In short, the property condemned would always be a public improvement and remain under city owner- ship. I suggest that this would adequately protect against the acquiring of properties for sale to developers and would keep the purchases along the lines of public structures. such as bridges, roads, parking garages, etc. 7 / JVS/pt II -41 v. 1-1 . z . 1:1. WRITTEN FI~INGS AND RESPONSES OF CIT~OUNCIL A. Letter and Report of Sara C. Nelson The May 4, 1989 letter from Sara C. Nelson to the City Planning Commission transmits (1) a report to the Gilroy City Council, dated March 19, 1989, entitled "Government Sponsored Confiscation of Privately Owned Property," and (2) a report to the Gilroy City Council, dated May I, 1989, entitled "Analysis: Rules for Business Preference and Owner Participation in the City of Gilroy." The March 19, 1989 report, in turn contains seven pages of original analysis regarding the Redevelopment Plan prepared by Ms. Nelson, and several attachments containing general commentary about the redevelopment process without reference or objection to the Redevelopment Plan. The following findings address the comments raised in the seven pages of original analysis provided in the March 19, 1989 report and those raised in the May I, 1989 report. A.l. The introductory comments in the initial three paragraphs on page 2 raise two issues which are addressed in detail throughout the March 19 report: (a) the fiscal impacts of the redevelopment process that "have been bankruptcy cities, counties, and to date, one state (New York) since their birth;" and (b) the plundering of private property rights in a manner inconsistent with constitutional safeguards. With respect to the concern that redevelopment is bankrupting cities and counties, it is noted that, according to the most recent "Annual Report of Financial Transactions Concerning Community Redevelopment Agencies of California (Fiscal Year F96-87)," prepared by the State Controller (hereinafter referred to as the "State Controller's Report"), there are a total of 549 currently active redevelopment projects in 333 California cities and counties. The City Council's investigation, including discussions with the California League of Cities and the California Community Redevelopment Agencies Association, indicates no record of any "bankruptcy" or similar proceeding among any of these cities or counties directly or indirectly related to the redevelopment process. Instead, as documented in Part 3 of the "Report on the Gilroy Community Redevelopment Project' prepared by the Agency in May 1989 to accompany the Redevelopment Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Report"), the redevelopment system of tax increment financing permits all affected taxing agencies, including the City, to continue to collect property tax revenues generated from the base year assessed valuation in the Project Area, as increased by the Constitutionally-permitted 2% annual growth factor. Further, the redevelopment process will induce growth in sales tax and other revenues that would likely not occur without the implementation of the Plan--thus augmenting, rather than 111-1 de~leting the f4llncial resources of the C~. Report is incorporated by references to provide factual support for this Response A.I. Part 3 of the r further Based on the foregoing analysis and information, it is found that the objection that redevelopment bankrupts cities and counties in general, or that implementation of the Redevelopment Plan would have that effect with respect to the City, is without merit and is hereby overruled. The issue about the plundering of private property without constitutional safeguards is discussed more fully in Response A.5 below and the findings set forth in that response are incorporated by reference here. A.2. Comment A.2 raises concerns about the impact of redevelopment financing on school finances. Part 3 of the Report describes in detail the impact of redevelopment financing on educational districts (see page 111-5), and is incorporated by reference to provide factual support for this Response A.2. It is true that the state system of financing could cause a modest increase in state budget requirements as a result of Redevelopment Plan adoption, with a resulting infinitesimal increase in the State tax burden on citizens residing outside the Project Area. On the other hand, the citizens within the Project Area help to bear the similar infinitesimal burden imposed by the other 549 active redevelopment projects in the State, thus causing a rough balancing or parity of burdens. Further, the Agency and the Gilroy Unified School District are about to enter into a fiscal agreement (the "School Agreement") which will generate approximately $80 million of revenue for needed school improvements in the Project Area and elsewhere in the community. The School Agreement and Part 12.C of the Report, which describes the School Agreement, and which is also incorporated by reference to provide factual support for this Response A.2. Based on the foregoing analysis and information, the minor burden noted in Comment A.2 is acknowledged. It is found, however, that such minute burden on citizens outside the Project Area is mitigated by the benefits related to improvement of local school facilities throughout the community resulting from implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and the School Agreement. Consequently, to the extent Comment A.2 constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, the objection has been effectively mitigated, and is hereby overruled. A.3. Comment A.3 implies that the City will be financially harmed and will have to increase various fees as a result of adoption of the Plan. To the contrary, as 111-2 d6cumented in ~t 3 of the Report (which ~incorporated by T reference to provide factual information for this Response A.3), implementation of the Redevelopment Plan is intended to increase the short-and long-term property tax, sales tax and other revenues available collectively to the City and the Agency to address the need for community services and capital facilities. Further, the very reason that the City has turned to redevelopment as a resource for implementing a revitalization program in the community is the strongly expressed resistance to other forms of property assessments and fees and the limitations on the ability of many Project Areas residents and businesses to bear such special assessments and fees. Thus, rather than causing such additional property-related fees, redevelopment provides a financing mechanism to avoid their imposition where such imposition would be economically infeasible and/or inequitable. (Again, see Part 3 of the Report for supporting information) . Based on the foregoing analysis and information, it is found and determined that the proposed redevelopment program will enhance the City' long-term financial resources without undue resort to special development fees, and consequently, the objection set forth in Comment A.3 is overruled. A.4. Comment A.4 postulates the potential dire impacts of Redevelopment Plan implementation on the County of Santa Clara. Since the time the Comment was prepared, the Agency and the County, recognizing the potential fiscal burden of the Redevelopment Plan, have entered into a fiscal agreement that will hold the County and the Library District harmless from the effects of tax increment financing for all but the first five years of the Redevelopment Plan. The County fiscal agreement is incorporated by reference to provide further factual information for this Response A.4. As stated in Section 7 of the fiscal agreement, the "County acknowledges and agrees that the obligations to be undertaken by Agency pursuant to this [A]greement will effectively eliminate any financial burden or detriment to County that would otherwise be caused by the adoption and implementation of the [Redevelopment] Plan." Based on the foregoing information and analysis, to the extent Comment A.4 constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, the objection has been effectively mitigated and is hereby overruled. A.5. Comment A.5 states two concerns: (a) that the Agency will be a "state" agency with almost "unlimited authority;" and (b) that the Agency will have the "despotic power" of eminent domain. With respect to the first concern, while redevelopment is a matter of state-wide concern as expressed by the Legislature (see for instance, Health and Safety Code Section 33035), the Agency itself is exclusively governed and controlled 111-3 16cally, by thJltlected members of the Cit~ouncil sitting in their capacity as Agency Boardmembers. No State official or body controls the decision to adopt or amend the Redevelopment Plan or to implement the redevelopment program (other than the Legislature through promulgation of the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq., hereafter the "CRL"), which establishes the statutory framework within which all redevelopment agencies must operate). In addition to the tremendous limitation on authority inherent in the electoral process by which the actions of City Councilmembers are monitored and controlled, the Agency is also carefully constrained in its authority by the CRL and the Redevelopment Plan itself. These documents limit the ability of the Agency to assemble property, cause relocation of persons and businesses, or revise land uses and land use controls. For instance, in partial response to concerns raised by Ms. Nelson and some other citizens, the Redevelopment Plan specifically prohibits Agency condemnation of various properties, including prohibition against condemnation of any property containing a residential structure in a residentially-designated portion of the Project Area. Further, the Redevelopment Plan prohibits the Agency from imposing or seeking to impose land uses or land use standards inconsistent with the community's adopted General Plan. These and many other limitations, restrictions, and controls in the Redevelopment Plan provide careful checks on the authority of the Agency. Thus, the redevelopment process will be locally controlled with local electoral accountability, and will be operated within the extensive constraints of the Redevelopment Plan and the CRL. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, it is found that the objection related to the almost "unlimited authority" of the "State" Agency is without merit or has been mitigated by modifications to the Redevelopment Plan, and is hereby overruled. With respect to the "despotic power" of eminent domain available to the Agency, it is first noted that the City already possesses the power to acquire property for public use, so that making that power available to the Agency as well (whose governing body consists of the City Council) does not effectively add to existing local governmental authority. Such power is not considered under the law to be "confiscation" (as characterized in the Comment), but a legitimate exercise of governmental authority. Regarding the Agency's authority to acquire property for potential disposition to private persons, three factors make inaccurate the characterization of this authority as a "despotic power." First, the Redevelopment Plan itself carefully constrains the power of eminent domain so that it is available in only limited circumstances. Pages 10 and 11 of 111-4 the Redevelopme~ Plan carefully articulatJlthese limitations.' including the above-described prohibitions against its use with respect to residentially-used properties in residentially-designated portions of the Project Area (a prohibition added to the Redevelopment Plan partly in response to the concerns voiced by Ms. Nelson and some other citizens). Second, in the limited circumstances where such eminent domain authority may be exercised, the safeguards contained throughout State law carefully establish procedures for use of eminent domain by the Agency and ensure that any affected property owner will be justly compensated, thus avoiding any potential for despotic use of the authority. Among the safeguards are those set forth in the State Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines (25 California Code of Regulations, Section 6000 et seg.), which have also been adopted by the Agency pursuant to Resolution No. 89-5, dated April 17, 1989. These guidelines are incorporated by this reference to provide further factual support for this Response A.5. Third, the use by redevelopment agencies of the eminent domain authority for disposition of property to either public or private entities consistent with an adopted redevelopment plan has been found by both the United States Supreme Court (with respect to the United Stated Constitution) and the California Supreme Court and appellate Courts (with respect to the California Constitution) to be a valid exercise of governmental authority meeting the standards of constitutional protection of private property rights. See, for instance, Berman v. Parker (U.S. Supreme Court), 348 U.S. 26 (1954); Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco v. Hayes (California First Appellate District), 122 Cal.App.2g 777) (1954); and In Re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill (California Supreme Court), 61 Cal.2d 21 (1964). These cases are incorporated by reference to provide additional factual support for this Response A.5. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, it is found that the characterization of the Agency's property acquisition authority under the Redevelopment Plan as a "despotic power" to "confiscate" property is inaccurate and without merit and that mitigation measures have been incorporated in the Redevelopment Plan and the Agency's adopted relocation and property acquisitions guidelines to ensure proper use of the Agency's acquisition authority. Consequently, to the extent Comment A.5 constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is hereby overruled. A.6. Comment A.6 suggests that the Agency will "siphon off" millions of property tax dollars that would otherwise go to various affected taxing agencies. In fact, much of the property tax revenue generated within the Project Area will be III-5 i~duced by re~lopment programs design~o overcome blighting con~ions. Thus, in large me~~e the Agency will actually create a long-term property tax revenue source. Far from "siphoning-off revenue that would have occurred anyway, the Agency will help to create a revenue stream that ultimately will benefit the affected taxing agencies. analysis is extensively documented in Parts 2 and 3 of Report, which are incorporated by reference to provide factual support for this Response A.5. This the further To the extent implementation of the Redevelopment Plan may cause the City to forego future property tax revenues, the City Council, in adopting the Redevelopment Plan, will be making the policy determination, as the community's elected representatives, that the benefits of redevelopment outweigh that impact. Among the benefits forming the basis for that policy determination are the following: (a) The Redevelopment Plan will provide a mechanism to provide essential infrastructure improvements to the Project Area, including, but not limited to, street and intersection improvements, transportation system improvements, frontage improvements, drainage improvements, sewer plant improvements, undergrounding of utilities, lighting, off-street public parking, landscaping, and off-site improvements for industrial park development. (b) The Redevelopment Plan will provide a mechanism to strengthen the existing Project Area residential areas by assisting in rehabilitation of the housing stock, promoting new infill housing construction, assisting in school parks and grounds improvements, providing neighborhood open space, improving drainage facilities, and constructing street and frontage improvements. (c) Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will improve and upgrade deteriorated housing stock in the Project Area and will assist in the construction of new affordable housing, thereby improving and expanding the supply of housing affordable to low and moderate income households. (d) The Redevelopment Plan will enable the Agency to facilitate the redevelopment of parcels designated for commercial and industrial development in the General Plan, and to provide economic development assistance, in order to revitalize the stagnant economy of the Project Area, improve the jobs/housing balance consistent with General Plan policies, and provide job 111-6 o~rtunities and enhanced in~es for economically disadvantaged Project Area residents. (e) The Redevelopment Plan enables the City and the Agency to eliminate the blighting influences present in the Project Area so that the Area may be of physical, social and economic benefit to the residents of the Project Area and to the community as a whole. (f) The Redevelopment Plan will enhance the tax revenue generating capacity of the Project Area to the ultimate benefit of the City and all affected taxing agencies. With respect to the effect on other taxing agencies, as noted in Responses A.2 and A.4, the Agency has entered into or is in the process of entering into fiscal agreements with various affected taxing agencies to ensure that the system of tax increment financing will not have the adverse impact described in Comment A.G. Part 12.C of the Report contains further detailed information regarding the City Council's determination that the adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment to any affected taxing agency. Responses A.2 and A.4 and Part 12.C of the Report are incorporated by reference to provide additional factual support for this Response A.G. With respect to the impact of redevelopment financing on the state budget, reference is made to the October 1984 report prepared by the California Debt Advisory Committee entitled "The Use of Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing by Cities and Counties" (the "CDAC Report"). The CDAC Report was prepared at the direction of the State Legislature and represents the most comprehensive study ever prepared about the financial impacts of redevelopment in California. The CDAC Report is incorporated by reference to provide further factual support for this Response A.G. Among the conclusions of the CDAC Report supported by voluminous research is the following: "redevelopment does not represent a significant cost to the State..." (page two of CDAC Report transmittal letter) . Based on the foregoing, it is found that the objection implied in Comment A.G is without merit, and is hereby overruled. A.7. Comment A.7 states that the Agency could "completely change the physical character of your community virtually overnight." This is a completely inaccurate interpretation of the purpose and controls of the Redevelopment Plan, which states in relevant part on page 20 that: III-7 . . "The permitted land uses, land use standards and other evaluation guidelines of this [Redevelopment] Plan shall be those set forth in the General Plan. It is further intended that all provisions of the Zoning Ordinance be applicable to developments in the Project Area, and that all development in the Project Area comply with all applicable state and local laws, codes and ordinances in effect from time to time in the City, in addition to any requirements of the Agency imposed pursuant to this [Redevelopment] Plan. Finally, the applicable City zoning and planning processes shall continue to have full effect and shall continue to serve as the primary determinant for land use decisions in the Project Area." Far from dramatically changing the physical character of the community, the Redevelopment Plan is explicitly an implementation technique to ensure that the physical character of the community, as embodied in the General Plan, will be preserved and enhanced. In fact, the Redevelopment Plan does not envision dramatic changes in uses and physical character, except in the sense of eliminating those physical, social and economic blighting conditions documented in Part 2 of the Report that detract from the positive attributes of that physical character. As noted on page 5, a general goal of the Redevelopment Plan is "to enhance the physical environment of the Project Area and to emphasize its favorable environmental characteristics." Based on the foregoing analysis, the implied objection set forth in Comment A.7 is found to be without merit, and is hereby overruled. A.8. Comment A.8, regarding erosion of the local tax base, has been fully responded to in Responses A.2, A.4, and A.6, which responses are incorporated in this Response A.8 by reference. On the basis of the factual information and analysis contained in those responses, to the extent Comment A.8 constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is found to be without merit, and it is further found that mitigation measures have been included in the Redevelopment Plan and through a series of fiscal impacts to overcome such objection. Consequently, the objection is hereby overruled. A.9. Comment A.9 reiterates the implied objection contained in Comment A.5 that the Agency Boardmembers can "remove the local control of your city government." As emphasized in Responses A.5 (which response is incorporated in this Response A.9), the City Council constitutes the Agency and is not subject to control by State officials or bodies. Far from removing local control, implementation of the Redevelopment Plan by the Agency constitutes a locally controlled means to improve the community. Based on the 111-8 foregoing inf~ation and analysis, to th!l!xtent that Comment A.9 constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is found to be without merit, and is hereby overruled. A.I0. Comment A.I0 states that a redevelopment agency can "effect a lien on all private property within certain ... Project Areas." There is no authority within this Redevelopment Plan for this particular Agency to effect such blanket property liens in this particular Project Area. While property in the Project Area will be subject to the land use provisions of the Redevelopment Plan, those provisions have been expressly designed to conform to the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance requirements (See Response A.8). In effect, the Redevelopment Plan does not add to these land use controls that already apply in the Project Area. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, to the extent Comment A.I0 constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is found to be without merit and is hereby overruled. A.II. Comment A.II (the first sentence of the paragraph) again suggests that the "scarcely limited power of 'eminent domain' severely limits your private property rights." The inaccuracy of that objection is fully discussed in Response A.5, which is incorporated by reference in this Response A.II. Based on the information and analysis contained in that response, to the extent Comment A.II constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is found to be without merit and it is further found that mitigation measures have been incorporated in the Redevelopment Plan and the Agency's adopted property acquisition guidelines to alleviate any adverse effects set forth in the objection. Consequently the objection is hereby overruled. A.12. Comment A.12 (the balance of the middle paragraph on page 3 of Ms. Nelson's report) questions the finding that the Project Area is characterized by blighting conditions as defined in the CRL. In fact, Part 2 of the Report contains an extensive analysis of the blighting conditions predominate and injuriously affect the entire Project Area, and that Part 2 is incorporated by reference to provide factual support for this Response A.12. As detailed in Part 2 of the Report, the business park described in Comment A.12 is characterized by economic dislocation and impaired investment. Due to high vacancy rights, some assessment districts for such business parks have gone into bankruptcy, further detracting from their desirability as locations for new business. The Redevelopment Plan would enable the provision of financial assistance to attract business and overcome these instances of economic dislocation and deterioration -- a form of blight recognized by the CRL (See Health and Safety Code Section 33032(d)). The hospital site noted in Comment A.12 is adjacent to or nearby numerous other parcels exhibiting blighting conditions 111-9 a~ identified ~part 2 of the Report. I~der to effectively prepare for economic revitalization of that portion of the Project Area, it is necessary to include physically-rela~ed parcels to enable proper redevelopment planning and implementation (e.g. effective design and construction of circulation and utility improvements to serve the related parcels). Thus, that particular site is included in the Project Area because it is necessary for effective redevelopment of the overall Project Area, as authorized by Health and Safety Code Section 33321. As emphasized in that Health and Safety Code Section 33321, not all the buildings or lands in the Project Area must be detrimental or inimical to public health, safety, or welfare, Rather, statutorily-recognized blighting conditions must predominate in the area. Part 2 of the Report and expert testimony received at the joint public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan confirm that such blighting conditions do predominate in the Project Area. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, to the extent Comment A.12 constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is found to be without merit and is hereby overruled. A.13. Comment A.13 broadly asserts that property values have historically plunged when Project areas are established, and suggests reasons for such alleged plunge in values. The overwhelming weight of historical evidence about the redevelopment experience in California directly contradicts this assertion. For instance, the State Controller's Report (which is incorporated by reference to provide further factual support for this Response A.13) indicates that redevelopment projects statewide have generated $60,189,916,400 of increased property valuation. It does not appear from analysis of the State Controller's Report that any significant number of California's 549 project areas (if any) have experienced a reduction in property values. That report further states new construction or rehabilitation within redevelopment project areas of over 35 million square feet of commercial buildings, 22 million square feet of industrial buildings, 1.5 million square feet of public buildings, and 11 million square feet of other buildings in the most recent two years alone. See also the portion of the CDAC Report captioned "Redevelopment Has Resulted in Significant Accomplishments In a Relatively Short Period of Time," beginning on p.68 of that report, for further supporting information about the redevelopment's positive impact on property values, and construction/rehabilitation. The CDAC Report findings are summarized in Response A.20 below, which response is 111-10 i~corporated .rovide further factual s~rt for this Comment A. 13. Specific to Gilroy, the redevelopment program outlined in the Redevelopment Plan and the Report presents a reasonable, realistic and financially feasible method for stimulating new development and rehabilitation of structures, without the adverse property value impacts suggested in Comment A.13. Part 3 of the Report (which is incorporated by reference to provide further factual support for this Response A.13) documents the likely positive impact of the proposed redevelopment program on property development and property values in the Project Area. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, to the extent Comment A.13 constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is found to be without merit and is hereby overruled. A.14. Comment A.14 recites examples of redevelopment activities putting businesses out of operation, and concludes that "if any individual business is destroyed by a [redevelopment agency] it is a blatant violation of private property [rights]." Response A.5 detailed the safeguards and legal basis for a redevelopment agency's property acquisition authority, which could in some instances lead to a business going out of operation. Response A.5 is incorporated by reference to support the conclusion of this Response A.14 that such result is not a blatant violation of private property rights. The Redevelopment Plan is expressly designed to minimize occurrences of business dislocation. Among the Redevelopment Plan's goals are the following (see page 5): "To maximized opportunities wherever possible for the retention of existing property interests, for local investors as well as for the continuation, revitalization and expansion of existing commercial enterprises within the area... To accompany these goals with a m1n1mum displacement of and property owner, resident or business person who may wish to remain within the Project Area." Further, by Resolution No. 89-7, dated April 17, 1989, the Agency adopted Rules for Business Tenant Preference and Owner Participation (the "Participation Rules") which provide special assistance to any business that may be dislocated as a result of redevelopment activities. Also, by Resolution No. 89-5, dated April 17, 1989, the Agency adopted relocation guidelines (the "Relocation Guidelines") to provide other forms of relocation benefits and assistance to any displaced business. The Participation Rules and the Relocation III-II Guidelines ar*corporated by reference ~rovide further fhctual suppo or the conclusion of thi'-esponse A .14 the any limited business dislocation as a result of that redevelopment program will be mitigated to the maximum extent possible. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, to the extent Comment A.14 constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is found that the potential adverse impacts described in the objection have been adequately mitigated by provisions of the Redevelopment Plan, the Participation Rules, and the Relocation Guidelines, and the objection is hereby overruled. A-IS. Comment A.IS expresses concern that the Redevelopment Plan "allows" eXisting property owners to participate in the redevelopment program, and again states that anytime private property is "confiscated or plundered without your expressed consent, it is a direct violation of constitutionally protected private property." Response A.S discusses in great detail the safeguards and legal basis for the Agency's property acquisition authority under the Redevelopment Plan and is incorporated by reference in this Response A.IS. It is further noted that Health and Safety Code Section 33339 requires that the Redevelopment Plan provide for owner participation. Thus, the provisions objected to in Comment A.IS are responsive to a statutory mandate. The California Supreme Court, in In Re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill, 61 Cal.2d 21 (1964), opined that there is no absolute right of owner participation in each separately owned parcel of land in a project area. However, the Agency's Participation Rules (which are incorporated by reference in this Response A.lS), seek to encourage and maximized participation by as many property owners as possible. Responses A.21 and A.27 through A.36 (which are incorporated by reference in this Response A.IS) provide detailed analysis of the operation of the Participation Rules. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, it is concluded that the Redevelopment Plan and Participation Rules constitute a reasonable and valid means for encouraging and safeguarding owner participation opportunities consistent with achieving the Redevelopment Plan's goals and objectives; and that, to the extent Comment A.IS constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is found to be without merit and is hereby overruled. A.16. Comment A.16 objects to the creation of a "State Agency" (a) which "acts as the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government over the entire Project Area", 111-12 blurring the .ration of powers; (b) Wh. creates cbnflicts-of-! rest by Agency members t "can easily discourage, prevent, or encourage developments that are compatible or incompatible with their private interests"; and (c) that "destroys the constitutional form of government". Each of these assertions is erroneous. Some case law has indicated that redevelopment agencies are state agencies because they serve purposes of state-wide concern -- the alleviation of blighting conditions, and the provision of employment and housing opportunities. This case law characterization in no way changes the fundamental character of redevelopment agencies such as the Agency. The Agency is governed by the locally-elected City Council, not by any State body or official. Responses A.S and A.9 contain further analysis about the local-control of the Agency and are incorporated by reference. The Agency does not act as all branches of the government in the Project Area. The Agency Board is one of several bodies with legislative (rule making) authority in the Project Area. Others include the City Council, the County Board of Supervisors, the boards of various special districts, the State Legislature, and Congress. Pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency Board must comply with the land use decisions of the City Council. Pursuant to the CRL and other statutes, the Agency Board must comply with the legislative requirements and limitations imposed by the State Legislature (and Congress). In no event does the Agency exercise judicial authority (authority to review the constitutionality or statutory-basis of its own legislative acts). California case law is replete with cases involving independent court review of redevelopment agency actions. In short, the system of checks and balances among branches of government and within the federal system of local, state and federal governments remains in full force with respect to the Agency and the Project. In addition to these effective checks and balances as a protection against abuses of power, the Agency embodies the very essence of the American constitutional system-- representative democracy. Because the Agency is comprised of locally-elected representatives, the citizens have the ability to control the direction of Agency policies through the ballot box. Thus, far from destroying the constitutional form of government, the Agency embodies that form. With respect to potential conflicts of interest, the Agency is subject to the provisions of the Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 81000 et. seq.). Further, by Resolution No. 88-6, dated September 19, 1988, the Agency adopted a Conflict of Interest Code clearly delineating the responsibilities of Agency Boardmembers and other 111-13 of~icials and.Ployees,to a~oid.particiP.on in ~ecisions,i~ WhlCh they ma ave a flnanclal lnterest t WOUld result ln a conflict of interest (The Agency Conflict of Interest Code is incorporated by reference to provide further factual support for this Response A.16). Together with the City's adopted Conflict of Interest Code, the Agency code and State law provide an effective safeguard against the conflict situations postulated in Comment A.16. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, to the extent Comment A.16 constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is found to be without merit and is hereby overruled. A.17. Comment A.17 raises the issue of conflicts of interests in specific situations. As described in Response A.16 (which is incorporated in this response by reference), both the City and the Agency have adopted Conflict of Interest Codes consistent with the Political Reform Act to avoid the problems suggested in Comment A.17. The effectiveness of these Codes can already be seen in the deliberations regarding adoption of the Redevelopment Plan itself. Following careful scrutiny of their financial disclosure statements by the involved officials, the City Attorney, and special redevelopment counsel, a Planning Commission member and two City Councilmembers have abstained from participating in the consideration of the Redevelopment Plan because of the potential impact of its adoption on their financial interests. There is every reason to expect that this system will continue to work effectively in the Redevelopment Plan implementation process. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, to the extent Comment A.17 constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is found to be without merit, and is hereby overruled. A.IS. Comment A.IS expresses a nebulous concern that "suspect" and "strange" decisions may result because the same locally-elected officials may make some decisions in their legal capacity as City Councilmembers and other related decisions in their legal capacity as Agency Boardmembers. To the contrary, there is nothing strange, sinister or suspect about the openly arrived at decisions of locally elected officials just because the State Legislature has chosen to implement redevelopment at the local level through separate legal entities known as redevelopment agencies. Indeed, the State Legislature has overruled any such objection by clearly and directly authorizing city councils to serve as the agency board in implementing the CRL (Health and Safety Code Section 33200). Indeed, a strong case can be made that where the city council also serves as the agency, the agency is more 111-14 responsive to~munity concerns and less.one to the suspect and strange d'IPsions complained of in Co nt A.IS than if the agency is a separate, less accountable, appointed group of individuals. Comment A.IS also again raises the issues of State-control of redevelopment and the lack of separation of powers. These concerns have been carefully responded to in Responses A.S, A.9, and A.16, which responses are incorporated in this Response A.IS by reference. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, to the extent Comment A.lS constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is found to be without merit, and is hereby overruled. A.19. Comment A.19 questions the efficiency of Agency-assisted low- and moderate-income housing programs. It suggests that existing Project Area housing could not be rehabilitated at affordable cost. To the contrary, the Agency expects to implement programs of low-interest deferred rehabilitation loans and direct grants designed to enable rehabilitation while retaining affordability. Such programs have worked successfully for many other redevelopment agencies. Indeed, by law, the Agency must ensure that any housing units rehabilitated with Agency assistance will remain affordable for extensive statutorily-mandated periods (see Health and Safety Code 33334.1(e)). Further, contrary to the claim in Comment A.19, there is no intention to reduce densities in the residential portions of the Project Area, and the Agency lacks eminent domain authority in those areas under the Redevelopment Plan to effect such a policy even if it desired to do so. As emphasized in the Redevelopment Plan (page S), a key goal of redevelopment in the Project Area is "to improve and increase the community's supply of affordable housing in a manner consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and the policies of the Redevelopment Law." As emphasized by numerous speakers at the joint public hearing, with declining federal and state resources for affordable housing, redevelopment is the last feasible hope available to the community to maintain and improve its affordable housing stock. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, to the extent Comment A.19 constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is found to be without merit, and is hereby overruled. A.20. Comment A.20 sets forth a purported example of misuse of redevelopment funds and the redevelopment process in a particular Southern California community. This City Council III-IS h~s no knowled~of the facts of that par~lar situation, and does not view it as representative of redevelopment programs in general, or of the redevelopment program proposed for Gilroy. Certainly, instances of misuse or poor decisionmaking may exist among the 333 redevelopment agencies and S49 project areas in the State. However, the positive aspects of redevelopment are for more prevalent. The CDAC Report (pages 6S-74) documents the "significant accomplishments" of California redevelopment in a relatively short period of time. These accomplishments (through mid-19S4) include a net gain of approximately 14S,OOO housing units, rehabilitation or construction of almost 190,000,000 square feet of commercial and industrial space, the creation of over 370,000 jobs, and the annual generation of at least $90,000,000 of net new State personal income tax and sales tax revenue. The CDAC Report is incorporated by reference to provide further factual support for this Response A.20. Statistics from the State Controller's Report cited in Response A.13 provide further support for this analysis. The City Council is satisfied that the Redevelopment Plan establishes a program and set of procedures designed to avoid misuse of the redevelopment process and to encourage the positive results that have been achieved in other communities. The City Council and the Agency are committed to achieving such positive results. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, to the extent Comment A.20 constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is found to be without merit and is hereby overruled. A.2l. Comment A.21 claims that the Participation Rules violate an owner's rights of freedom of association, because they may result in some owners being participants and some owners being non-participants. The procedures and safeguards of the Participation Rules are described in greater detail in Responses A.27 through A.36 below, and those responses are incorporated in this Response A.21 by reference. The constitutional right to freedom of association has never been interpreted to prevent a local governmental body from establishing rational land use policies -- policies that may prevent owners of some types of uses from being adjacent to or nearby owners of other types of use. The essence of zoning, the constitutionality of which is well established, is to segregate categories of use so that some uses may not be permitted to exist adjacent to some other uses. Similarly, the Participation Rules set rational standards and procedures by which, in selected areas of the Project Area, owners III-16 w~lling to usJllteir property in a manner~st serving the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan will have the opportunity to do so instead of those owners who are not so inclined. The adoption and implementation of owner participation rules like the Participation Rules is mandated by Health and Safety Code Section 33339, and have been resoundingly upheld by the California Supreme Court in the landmark redevelopment case of In Re Redevelopment Plan for Bunker Hill, 61 Cal 2d 21(1964). In that case the Supreme Court held that: (a) there is no absolute right of owner participation in the redevelopment of each separately owned parcel of land within a redevelopment project areaj (b) a redevelopment plan and its owner participation rules may require the assembly of parcels into larger plots, and the selection of developers for such larger plots possessing sufficient financial resources, even if such requirements render it impossible for each property owner to separately participate; (c) imposition of reasonable development requirements on property owners as a condition of owner participation is not only within a redevelopment agency's power, but is its duty. Comment A.21 also asks what does "business preference" include. The answer is clearly spelled out in Part I of the Participation Rules, which are analyzed in detail in Response A.29. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, to the extent Comment A.2l constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is without merit and is hereby overruled. A.22. Comment A.22 notes that redevelopment agencies must establish debt to operate and that only two have fully repaid their debts to-date. In fact, the CDAC Report (page 3S) stated nearly five years ago that 17 redevelopment projects have already been completed, with all debts paid. The voters, in adopting California Constitution Article XVI, Section 16 authorizing tax increment financing, required agencies to establish indebtedness as the basis for receiving tax increment funds. The City Council finds nothing unusual in the requirement that an agency enter into contractual financial relationships (i.e. indebtedness) in order to conduct its programs. Such practice is the norm in the private and public sectors. 111-17 ~ ~ Nor is it surprising that a small portion of all projects have been completed given that the vast majority of such projects have been established within the last IS years (see State Controller's Report, page XVIII). Redevelopment is admittedly a long-term process designed to alleviate conditions of blight that have been building for as long or longer periods (see generally Part 2 of the Report). Based on the analysis of project financial feasibility set forth in Part 3 of the Report (which is incorporated by reference to provide further factual support for this Response A.22) and the financing program set forth in Part VII of the Redevelopment Plan, the City Council is satisfied that it has established a feasible and prudent program for the establishment, management, and repayment of long-term indebtedness to accomplish the intended redevelopment program. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, to the extent Comment A.22 constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is found to be without merit, and is hereby overruled. A.23. Comment A.23 is the same as Comment A.I0, and Response A.lO is incorporated by reference as the basis for finding that any objection contained in Comment A.23 is without merit. Such Comment is hereby overruled. A.24. Comment A.24 objects to the use of eminent domain for ultimate redisposition to others. Response A.S contains a complete analysis of that objection and is incorporated in this Response A.24 by reference. Based on the information and analysis contained in Response A.S, to the extent Comment A.24 constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is found to be without merit, and is hereby overruled. A.2S. Comment A.2S reiterates the concern that redevelopment agencies are state "bureaucracies" operating without any checks and balances. Responses A.S, A.9 and A.16 address these concerns in detail and are incorporated by reference to provide the factual analysis and information for this Response A.2S. Based on those responses, it is found that, to the extent Comment A.2S constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is without merit, and is hereby overruled. A.26. Comment A.26 is simply a summation of all previous comments accompanied by the author's conclusion that the Redevelopment Plan is "ill-advised" and "will bankrupt our nation and make true slaves of us all." Response A.1 through A.2S address the author's summary comments in detail and are incorporated in this final response by reference. III-IS ~ ~ The City Council appreciates the time and effort Ms. Nelson has devoted to considering and expressing her objections to the Redevelopment Plan. The City Council believes that Ms. Nelson's objections include various inaccuracies of fact and certain flawed logic, as noted in the foregoing Responses. Because of the numerous safeguards contained in the Redevelopment Plan and applicable laws and regulations, as described in various responses above, the City Council does not believe that adoption and implementation of Redevelopment Plan will cause the abuses suggested by Ms. Nelson. Further, it is the City Council's judgment that adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will produce important benefits to Project Area residents and businesses and to the entire Gilroy community of the type outlined in Response A.6. For these reasons, the City Council disagrees that the Redevelopment Plan is ill-advised or that it will bankrupt our community or nation, or that it will enslave us all. Consequently, to the extent Comment A.26 constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is hereby overruled. A.27. Comments A.27 through A.36 are from Ms. Nelson's specific analysis of the Agency's Rules for Business Tenant Performance and Owner Participation (the "Participation Rules"), beginning on page II-21. Comment A.27 objects to the Redevelopment Plan's imposition of "new and restrictive regulations upon property and business owners who have invested their incomes, labor and lives to build up their businesses and/or invested in homes and raised their families under less restrictive zoning and use laws." The primary purpose of the Redevelopment Plan is the elimination of blighting influences in the Project Area so that the area may be of physical, social, and economic benefit to the residents of the Project Area and the community as a whole. To be effective in eliminating blight, the Agency must apply the regulations and land use controls of the Redevelopment Plan to present Project Area property owners. The Community Redevelopment Law requires the Agency to adopt the Participation Rules. The purpose of these Participation Rules is to provide rights and protections to business-owners in the Redevelopment Project Area to minimize the impact of the newly-adopted Redevelopment Plan on such owners by granting them preference in participation in the Agency's Redevelopment Plan implementation activities, and the rights to notice and a hearing prior to any Agency decision to designate property as a master development site. It is important to note that the Redevelopment Plan does not impose more restrictive zoning or general land use requirements in the Project Area; rather, it incorporates the 111-19 ~ ~ requirements of the City of Gilroy Zoning Ordinance and the City of Gilroy General Plan as its own. Under its police power, the City Council has the authority to amend both the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan, thereby "changing the rules" on Project Area property owners regardless of the presence or absence of a Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan authorizes the Agency to impose additional controls on the development, redevelopment, and use of Property within the Project Area, in addition to the control of the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. For example, the Agency may impose architectural and design controls on Project Area development, and the Agency may pursue limited property acquisition in furtherance of Redevelopment Plan goals. These powers are necessary to permit the Agency to actively eliminate Project Area blight and prevent further physical and economic deterioration of the Project Area. The use of these redevelopment powers is justified by the special circumstances found to exist in the Project Area; that is, the presence of blighting conditions that the private market and the City in the ordinary exercise of its police power, have been unable to arrest. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, it is found that the objection to the imposition of new regulations to the Project Area pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan is without merit, and comment A.27 is hereby overruled. A.2S. Comment A.2S states that the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan are "nebulous at best," that even limited property acquisition will affect some property owners, and that "there are already specific properties that the Plan seeks to acquire which are not enumerated." The goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan are clearly set forth in Part IV of the Plan. The goals have a level of specificity which is appropriate to a land use document of general applicability in a 3,199 acre Project Area. "Property acquisition" includes both voluntary sale of Property to the Agency and acquisition through exercise of the power of eminent domain. The Redevelopment Plan permits the use of eminent domain only to acquire property in commercial and industrially-designated portions of the Project Area. Pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan and to relevant state law, the power of eminent domain may only be exercised by the Agency following notice to affected owners, public hearing, the payment of just compensation, and the provision of relocation assistance. In addition, persons and businesses displaced from the Project Area are granted a preference in returning to the Project Area following redevelopment. It is acknowledged that limited land acquisition by the Agency could affect some property owners; however, due to the protections included in the Redevelopment Plan, the Participation Rules, 1II-20 t~e Relocation4llidelines and state law, t~impact has been minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Finally, no specific properties to be acquired are described in the Redevelopment Plan because it is unknown at this time what property, if any, will be acquired by the Agency. There is no "hidden agenda" of properties to be acquired. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, it is found that the objection contained in comment A.28 is without merit and that comment is hereby overruled. A.29. Comment A.29 objects to Part II of the Participation Rules, stating that "strings" are attached to Agency assistance to dislocated businesses and that the forms of assistance available are inconsequential. Part II of the Participation Rules is entitled "Rules to Implement Preferences to Dislocated Businesses." The Community Redevelopment Law requires that businesses displaced from the Project Area by Agency activities be granted a preference in returning to the Project Area following redevelopment. Part II of the Rules is intended to implement this requirement by providing that: (i) the Agency will maintain lists of displaced businesses; (ii) all land disposition documents related to the Project Area will require developers to extend a preference to displaced businesses in selecting tenants; and (iii) that all displaced businesses be notified of available redeveloped space and be given non-financial assistance in relocating back into the Project Area. The sole "string" attached to such relocation is a requirement that the businesses conform to the requirements of the Redevelopment Plan, a reasonable restriction in light of the Agency's mandate to enforce and implement the Redevelopment Plan. Businesses displaced by Agency activity, whether conforming or non-conforming, are also entitled to receive financial relocation compensation pursuant to Agency's Relocation Guidelines and state relocation law and guidelines. The Agency is authorized pursuant to Part V.E.1 of the Redevelopment Plan to make additional relocation payments as it deems necessary to prevent hardship. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, it is found that the objection to Part II of the Participation Rules is without merit, and Comment A.29 is hereby overruled. A.30. Comment A.30 objects to Part III of the Participation Rules on the grounds that "those who hold a philosophy of social engineering for the public good" (the Agency) will abuse their discretion in determining that 111-21 s~veral parce14lle assembled and developeJlty a single developer as a unified development. Part III A of the Participation Rules allows the Agency to designate several parcels as a unified development site if the Agency, in its reasonable discretion, determines that it is in the best interests of the Project Area. Thus, an "unreasonable" determination by the Agency would be subject to challenge both under the Participation Rules, and, if such a determination were arbitrary and capricious or discriminatory, under state and federal civil rights statutes. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, it is found that the objection in Comment A.3D is without merit and Comment A.3D is hereby overruled. A.31. Comment A.31 states that the free market should determine parcel assembly rather than the Agency. The blighting conditions found in the Project Area indicate that the free market alone cannot prevent continued Project Area deterioration and decline. Part II of the Report is incorporated by reference to provide factual background for this statement. As discussed above in the Response to Comment A.27, Project Area conditions justify the use of redevelopment powers to assist in the elimination of blight in the area. Designation of several parcels as a master development site is a necessary redevelopment tool that will allow the Agency to take the active role required to foster new economic activity in the Project Area. This tool has been explicitly recognized and upheld by the California Supreme Court, as more fully set forth in Response A.2l, which is incorporated in this response by reference. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, it is found that the objection in Comment A.31 is without merit and Comment A.31 is hereby overruled. A.32. Comment A.32 concerns the effect of restricted sewer allocations on private development activity. It is acknowledged that restricted sewer allocations deter private development activity. However, sewer allocation restrictions have been imposed because of a severe sewage treatment incapacity which has existed for several years and is unrelated to Redevelopment Plan adoption. It is anticipated that Redevelopment Plan adoption and implementation will help to alleviate this incapacity by providing funds to assist in expansion of the sewage treatment plant. Allegations that special sewer allocation concessions have been granted to the Gilroy School District in exchange 111-22 fpr cooperati~egarding Redevelopment P~ adoption have no' basis in fact,~he Agency, recognizing t~potential fiscal burden the Redevelopment Plan may impose on the Gilroy School District, has entered into a fiscal agreement with the District. Sewer allocations were not a part of this negotiation. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, it is found that the objection contained in Comment A.32 is without merit and Comment A.32 is hereby overruled. A.33. Comment A.33 objects to the Agency setting rules for the development of private property without a "public purpose." Implementation of a redevelopment plan is a "public purpose" under both state and federal law. See the Response to Comment A.S above, in particular the state and federal cases cited in that response. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, it is found that the objection contained in Comment A.33 is without merit and Comment A.33 is hereby overruled. A.34. Comment A.34 states that the Participation Rules permit any property owner to make a determination of non-conformance of any property in the Project Area, permitting harassment between neighbors. Part III.B.l of the Participation Rules states that the Agency may make a determination of non-conformance at its own discretion or in response to a request for a determination regarding conformance by a property owner in the Project Area. Thus, only the Agency, not a property owner, makes such a determination. If the Agency's determination is arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory, a property owner may proceed against the Agency under state or federal civil rights laws, similar to the owner's recourse against the City if building code or health code regulations were applied against the owner in an arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory manner. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, the objection contained in Comment A.34 is found to be without merit and Comment A.34 is hereby overruled. A.3S. Comment A.3S states that the Agency's acceptance of an owner as a participant "appears arbitrary." The Agency's acceptance of an owner as a participant is not arbitrary as set forth in the Participation Rules. Pursuant to Part III.B of the Participation Rules, the Agency will enter into an owner participation agreement with an owner if the owner meets the requirements set forth in Part III.B, except in the situation where the Agency has III-23 de~ermined tha~he property should be com~ed with other ' parcels into a unified development site. As discussed in the response to Comment A.3D above, such a determination by the Agency must be a reasonable determination that the unification of the Parcels will be in the best interests of the Project Area. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, the objection contained in Comment A.3S is found to be without merit, and is hereby overruled. A.36. Comment A.36 objects to the Agency's use of the power of eminent domain as a punitive and unconstitutional measure. The use of power of eminent domain is not intended to be a punitive measure to punish owners of non-conforming properties; rather, it is the Agency's tool of last resort to be utilized in limited circumstances to implement the Redevelopment Plan and thereby work to eliminate blight from the Project Area. As stated above in the response to Comment A.S, the use by redevelopment agencies of power of eminent domain is a valid exercise of governmental authority meeting the standards of constitutional protection of private property rights. See cases cited in response to Comment A.S. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, the objection contained in Comment A.36 is found to be without merit and is hereby overruled. B. Chamber of Commerce Letter The letter from the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce indicates that the Chamber Board of Directors concurs with the findings of the Agency, that implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan will directly benefit the Project Area and indirectly improve the overall community. The Chamber Board states that other communities in the County have benefited from redevelopment projects and expresses support for the Gilroy project. In response, the City Council agrees with the conclusions stated in the letter from the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. No objection to the Redevelopment Plan is raised in the letter, and no further action or disposition by the City Council is required. C. South Santa Clara Valley War Memorial Committee Letter The letter of the South Santa Clara Valley War Memorial Committee states that the Directors of the War Memorial Committee voted not to support the Redevelopment 111-24 ~ ~ . s Plan, due to the War Memorial Committee's financial circumstances. In response, throughout the Redevelopment Plan preparation process the Agency has considered the fiscal impact of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan on every other agency, including the War Memorial Committee, that receives a portion of the property taxes from the Project Area. The Agency forecast the tax increment revenues that would be generated in the Project Area and analyzed the resulting effects of this financing system on each taxing agency, including the War Memorial Committee, as set forth in Part 3 of the Report. In addition to this analysis conducted by the Agency and discussed by Agency Staff with War Memorial Committee representatives, the War Memorial Committee also participated in the Fiscal Review Committee convened in response to the Redevelopment Plan. In neither the Agency's analysis and discussions nor in the Fiscal Review Committee's analysis and discussions did the War Memorial Committee present any financial information contradicting the Agency's findings that implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan would not result in any significant financial burden or detriment to the War Memorial Committee. The War Memorial Committee will continue to receive property tax revenue from within the Project Area attributable to the base year assessed valuation, and if elected pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33676, to the 2% annual inflationary factor. Staff has repeatedly urged the War Memorial Committee to make the 2% election and the City Council reconfirms that recommendation. The War Memorial Committee will also continue to receive its share of property tax revenue from the portion of its taxing jurisdiction outside the Project Area. Thus, the War Memorial Committee will continue to draw upon an expanding property tax base, both within and outside the Project Area, during the period of Redevelopment Plan implementation. Based on these factors and the analyses set forth in Part 3 and Part 12 of the-Report (which parts are incorporated by reference to provide additional factual information for this Response C), the City Council finds that adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment to the War Memorial Committee. Should future conditions prove otherwise, the Redevelopment Plan authorizes the Agency to take steps (including execution of a fiscal agreement pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33401) to alleviate any burden or detriment that may arise (see page 28 of the Redevelopment Plan). III-2S ~ Based on ~ foregoing information an~nalYSiS' it is found that the objection set forth in Comment Letter C is without merit, and is hereby overruled. , f D. Matlock and Associates Letter The letter of Mr. Jack Matlock, of Matlock and Associates, was submitted on behalf of the Gilroy Unified School District, to whom Mr. Matlock was a consultant during the Redevelopment Plan process. Mr. Matlock discusses several aspects of the redevelopment process, including the use of tax increment financing for local benefit, acquisition of property through eminent domain, and private sector economic development assistance, and concludes that the School District is a strong supporter of the Gilroy Community Development Agency. In response, the City Council agrees with the general conclusion stated in Mr. Matlock's letter. No objections to the Redevelopment Plan were raised in the letter, and no further action or disposition is required by the City Council. E. Letter of Mr. James V. Simoni The letter of Mr. James V. Simoni, of Johnson & Simoni, Attorneys, addresses the policy issue of eminent domain, urging that no residences be acquired by the Agency through condemnation, and that no property be acquired by the Agency through condemnation and then resold (presumably meaning resold to private interests). In response, the City Council and Agency have weighed the issue of eminent domain since the earliest meetings on the Preliminary Redevelopment Plan, in which the authority to utilize eminent domain was first mentioned, and have heard considerable testimony on the matter since that time. After considerable debate and deliberation, the City Council established stringent restrictions on the use of eminent domain - among them that it shall not be employed for the acquisition of any property which is used for residential purposes and which is designated for residential use in the City's General Plan. Properties within the Project Area which do not fall into this category would be subject to acquisition by the Agency through eminent domain; however, any such acquisition is expected to be limited and would be subject to the requirements and safeguards contained in the Redevelopment Plan, the Relocation Guidelines, the Participation Rules, and state law. (See generally Response A.S, which is incorporated by reference to provide additional factual support for this Response E.) The Agency has no current plan to undertake a program of property acquisition, through eminent domain or otherwise, with respect to any particular property. 111-26 ~ , The Agenc.ould use this authority, eing the maximum ~ twelve year period in which it can be used, under the proposed Redevelopment Plan, where a property owner in the commercial or industrial areas of the Project Area refused or was unable to maintain or improve a property determined to be a blighting influence, negatively affecting the improvement of the other properties in the area. Specifically, the Agency would have the authority to protect the improvements made or to be made by surrounding property owners and the Agency, by maintaining the authority to compel that improvements be made by the refusing owner, or to acquire that property for subsequent improvement by the Agency or the private sector. _t The Agency could also use eminent domain power in the industrial or commercial portions of the Project Area to assemble parcels for master development in accordance with the Participation Rules, where appropriate to overcome blighting conditions and accomplish Redevelopment Plan goals and objectives in a manner not possible through uncoordinated action (or inaction) of individual property owners. Response A.27 (which is incorporated by reference in this Response E) provides further analysis and reasons for the need to retain the Agency's eminent domain authority in the limited types of circumstances described above to ensure faithful implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, it is found that the Agency should retain the authority to acquire limited classes of property in the Project Area, as provided in the Redevelopment Plan, as a last resort, for either public or private projects that will alleviate blighting conditions and achieve the purposes of the Redevelopment Plan. Consequently, to the extent Comment Letter E constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is hereby overruled. 111-27 ~ f ~ . 4 . IV. EIR AND FISCAL REVIEW COMMENTS In addition to considering the five comment letters addressed specifically to the City Council's consideration of the Redevelopment Plan, the City and Agency participated in two related statutory processes: (a) the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.), and (b) the conduct of a Fiscal Review Committee ("FRC") review pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 333S3 et. seq. Comments were elicited and responded to in accordance with the statutory procedures established for those processes, as described below. A. EIR Process Six written comments were received on the Draft EIR. Seven additional oral comments were received at two public hearings on the Draft EIR. Those comments, and the City's responses to such comments, are set forth in the Final EIR, dated May 19S9. The City Council has considered the comments and responses in certifying the EIR by resolution of even date herewith. That EIR certification resolution and the Final EIR comments and responses (including the disposition of such comments) are incorporated by reference herein. Based on the incorporated resolution and Final EIR sections, it is found that, to the extent the comments received in the EIR process constitute objections to the Redevelopment Plan, such objections have been properly mitigated as provided in the EIR or are without merit. Consequently, any such objections are hereby overruled. B. Fiscal Review Process The report of the FRC, including attached comments from various taxing agencies, is included as Part 10 of the Report. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 333S2(m), Part 12.C of the Report contains the Agency's detailed response to the FRC report, addressing the comments and concerns of the various taxing agencies. Parts 10 and 12.C of the Report are incorporated by reference herein. Based on the incorporated material, it is found that adequate mitigation measures have been or are being taken within the Redevelopment Plan or pursuant to fiscal agreements to overcome any objections raised in the FRC Report and, as result, adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment to any affected taxing agency. Consequently, to the extent the FRC report contains objections to the Redevelopment Plan, such objections are hereby overruled. IV-1 ~ It . . . I, SUSANNE E. STEINMETZ, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 89-29 is an original resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 13th day of June , 19~~, at which meeting a quorum was present. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Gilroy this 16th day of June 19 89. (Seal)