The URL can be used to link to this page

CDA and City Resolution 89-29 --' __ RESOLUTION NO. 89.29 JIl---_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 connec1tlJ with the 1 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 VALDE Z . COUNCILMEMBERS: None NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: GAGE and HUGHAN. APPROVED: ~ ' Ma r Protempore ATTEST: ~~~~4 06/08/89 #B029/B49702 RESOLUTION NO. 89 - 29 -2- t - . 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 _ II. WRITTEN OBJECTIONS . 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 - . L Mey 4, 1989 DEer C~~-J~~~~~;r: The decision t~ r;:or~;nd the creation of a Corn~unity REdEvelc;~ent Agen:y (CRA) or Redevelopment Agency (RDA) in the City of Gilrcy is very significant. I havE personally dev~tec over 100 hours in studying thIS POSSibility. My resEarch has led ~e to some very disturbing facts which I would like you to be al'.arE of. 1 hcve taken the liberty of preparing for you a copy of a rE:~rt 1 ~resented to the City of Gilroy, City Council on March 19:r. I had presumed, quite incorrectly, that they would hcv~ reSSE~ a copy on to each of you. I,. ! I re~~E:tfully request that you table any decision recommending t~E creation of an RDA this evening, and avail your- self of the reading material before. ... Respectfully submitted, ~~~~ SCN:ms Enclosures II-2 " . FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 1989 * SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE ... 'M01"e.\~ II-3 - . COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES ~QYiB~~i~I_~fQ~~QBiQ_~QHEl~~~IlQ~_QE_fBlY~II~X_Q~~iQ_fBQfiBII PRESENTED TO GILROY CITY COUNCIL "ARCH 19, 1989 Iy Sara c. ael.on Source.: Sherry Pa..more, Land U.e Con.ultant Temple City, C.li~orni. Republican Wo.en Federated, FOCUS Report on State Mandated Program., 1987 City o~ Gilroy, Community Redevelopm.nt Project Plan, Gilroy Community Development Agency ACH StUdy Group., Hi.tory and Governm.nt ,Seminara, ftorgan Hill, CA. u.S. Constitution 11-4 - . COftftUNITY REDEVELOPftENT AGENCIES (CRA.) GOVERNMENT SPONSORED CONFISCATION OF PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY The cre.tion of CRAs h.ve been b.nkrupt1ng citie., countie., .nd to date, one state (New York) .ince their birth. Through their .carcely liaited powers of -..inent doa.in- .nd i..uance of T.x Alloc.tion Sond., the prlv.te property rights of citizen. .nd individu.l bu.in..ses h.ve b.en plundered in a manner one would hardly think pOSSible in a nation whose constitution protects the property rights of individuals. (See: U.S. Constitution, Artlcles IV & XIV. ) Yet, that is exactly wbat bas been happen1ng across America and throughout the State of California .ince the 1960.. Although Proposlt1on 13 has been fal.ely blamed for all of the woe. of scbools, local co..unities, and counties, A-l the truth 1S that the divertlng 0% property tax revenue. from the.e taxing .g.ncies has forced them to .eeK funding el.eYhere. The property t.x b..e i. divided ..ong three t.xing .genci..: .chool., city, .nd county. When the tax b..e i. -frozen- in . CRA Project Area (Gilroy propo... 40% of ita total .re." the .nnual 2% incr...., .nd .ny other increases in property t.x funding is div.rted to the CRA ov.r the 40-4~ ye.r 11fe t1.e of the CiA. Gilroy .nticlpate. this ..ount to b. .47~ sill1on. ... IBPACT UPON THE THREE TAXING AGENCIES SCHOOLS: When the fir.t CRA w.. ..t.blished in C.lifornia the school. figur.d out that th.y would b. 10.lng .1gnlflcant local funding. They then .il.ntly lobbled the State Legls1.ture .nd were gu.r.nteed th.t the lost funds would b. r.pl.ced by .t.te fund.. Th. isp.ct upon loc.l citizen. 1. that tho.. prop.rty owner. re.lding outside the ProJ~ct Ar.. b..r .n in.qultable burden for .upportlng loc.l .chool.. CITY: Typic.lly, city gov.rn..nt 1. re.pon.lbl. for provlding pollce and fire protection, libr.ri... and ..1nt.n.nce of city .tr..t.. ro.d., .nd .11 city-oW~.d publiC bUl1ding.. Wh.n r.v.nu.. .re divert.d to . CRA, the C1ty au.t th.n d.vi.. other .ourc.. of r.v.nue. Th. Gilroy City Councll r.cently reque.t.d volunteer. to for. a co..itt.. to co.. up with r.v.nue gen.r.ting 1d.... Th. Gilroy City Councl1 .lso b.d propo.ed . -.peCi.l .......ent di.trlct- for the d.velop..nt of the downtown bU.ln... .r... Tb. .......d f... b.v. AOW cre.t.d . controv.r.y. In sor,.n Hill the City Councl1 h.. initl.ted . -f.e .cbedul.- for .11 Clty ..rvice.. h..e f.e. .r. ln .ddltion to typic.l perai t :f.... COURTT: TYP1C.lly tb. County provlde. :for the .upport of .~cl.1 di.trict., :flood control, ..nit.tion, .nd h..ltb car. ..rV1C... For C.liforni. Counti.., tb. i.p.ct b.tw..n unfund.d St.t. ".nd.t.d Progr... and CRA. cr..ted wlthin th.ir nu..rou. citi.., h.ve ..v.r.ly burd.ned tb.lr ability to provld. tb... ..rvices. T.k. ju.t on. .r.., h..ltb car.. Wh.t ha~pena wft.n acre and aer. c.... of AIDS are tr.ated.t County HO.plt.l.? The ~tate o:f Californi.. tbrough ita counti... .p.nt 818 .illion on A1DS c.re in 1988. In Solano County, the County Ho.pital v.. closed down bec.u.e o:f tbe dr.in on County r.v.nu... Tb. Count1.. in C.lifornla ar. being .qu..zed fro. both the St.te .nd local gov.rn.ents. A-2 A-3 A-4 AWESOftE AUTHORITY OF CRA Th. CRA Project Ar.., onc. .pprov.d .nd the St.t. Agency cre.ted by the Gilroy City Counc11, would then reeelV. ....d 8On.y. :fro. t~. Clty. A.. Stat. Ag.ncy, the CaA tb.n b.. alaoat un.l~lt.d aut~orlty to c.c~de what typ.so:f A-5 d.v.lop..nt will ~. .~~owed vith1n t~. Pro~.ct Ar.. a. long .. It co.pli.. wlth the Citl'a G.n.r.l Plan. How.ver, .. . 5tat. Ag.ncy the CRA baa tb. d..potic pow.r ol -..in.nt do.aln.- Th. CRA can lega~.y coa1iacat. pr1v.t.ly owned property and choo.e to convey lt to ~h. C1ty or any otAer PU~~lC ag.ncy wlthout II-5 " . charg~. (Emin~nt Domain. See: Com.unity R~dev~lcpment Project Area Plan J (CRPAP). Pg. 9.' and CRPAP. Pg. 1~.) Hote. all 0% the tunding that go~s into the A-5 CRA is .puclic %und~ng.. (See attacn.~nts A and a %or p~rsonal test~monies.) (Cont'( At present. the City of Gilroy does not have the authority to issue a Bond without yoter approval. In stark contrast. as Board members of the CRA they can: . Issue and sell bonds. . Borrow and invest money and siphon off .illions of prop~rty tax dollars that would otherwi.~ go to pay for local, county, .nd stat~ goY~rn.~nt servJ..ces. ] A-6 . Completely ch.ng~ the physical character of your communJ..ty YJ..rtually overnJ..ght. ] A-7 . Erode the tax b.se of your cJ..ty and county. ~ . R~.ov. th~ local control of your city governm~nt. J . Eff~ct. lien on .11 priv.t~ prop~rty within c~rtain1 CRA ProJ~c~ Are... J A-8 A-9 A-10 All of th~se powers are WITHOUT VOTER KNOWLEDGE OR APPROVALI VIOLATIONS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY r, ..,.- A. m.nt10ned previously, th~ sc.rcely li81t.d pow.r of .eminent do.a1n-] .ev.rely Y10lates your prJ..v.te prop.rty r1ghts. So too does the bro.d definltlon of .blight.. ......Blight .nco.p..... . bro.d .pectrum of d.finitlons, r.nglng from . l.ck of ~ubllC i.prov..ents. physic.l ch.r.cteriatlcs th.t lnhib1t aound d.v.lop.ent of a p.rticul.r aite, .nd v.rious other d.trJ....nt.l imp.ct., .. v.ll .. typic.l vi.u.l blight .uch .. deteriorat.d .nd dil.pid.t.d .tructur.s .nd f.Cl1lti.... (5..: CRPAP, Pg. 4.) Inc~uded in the propo..d Proj.ct Ar.. i. the South Point Bu.in... P.rk .long Arroyo Circl., ...t of Highw.y _101. By wh.t pO..1bl. d.fin1tion could it be con.J..dered .. blighted! Cert.inly the oU.1n...es who h.ve locat.d th.r. would be .urpr1sed to know th.t they had cho..n a .blighteC. .r..t Anoth.r .x..pl. i. the y.t unfini.h.d South County Ho.pit.l. Ho.ev.r, by including th..e .p~cJ..!ic .re.., aany more could b. clt.d. other busine.. d.v.loper. ~ould h.v. the b.n.!it of low-coat feder.l lo.n. .houle th.y choo.. to locate th.ir pl.nned develop..nt. in th.t are.. Wh.t h.pp.n. to the prlncipl. o~ -free .nterpri... wb.n pr.f.renti.l tre.t..nt i. gr.nted to tho.. loc.t~ng th.ir bus1n... v1thin . d..lgn.ted CRA ProJect Are.l HistorlCall!, wh.nev.r . CRA i. tb. property v. u.. ~or all plunge. pr.val1ing aarket pr1C. for property CRA for the followlng r.asons: A-ll A-12 propo..d .na the Project Are. identifi.d, Only a fool would choo.. to pay the tbat .ay .oon b. und.r the governance of a 1) You ..y or ..y not be allowed to =ontinu. the curr.nt u.. o~ the property. A-13 2) If you .re a d.velop.r or r.altor. the prop.rty m.y soon be aV.l1.ble at . gr..tly r.duced prlce, or b. grantee you .. a g1~t. Likew1se. should an 1ndividual busin..s own.r d..lre to enter into a1 long-term 1.... for proper~1 wlthin the ProJ.ct Ar.., h. ba. no gu.r.nte~ th.t the landowner .111 .urV1'/e tl'le potent:.a.l. .e.lnen':. dO..1ft- .uthor1ty 01 the CRA. A-14 Current local ex.mpl.s v:.~~ ..rv. to :..~u.tr.t. the pOlnt: Th. i.p.ct of the .redev.lopment. in ftorg.n ~i.l..l. tvo y..rs .go .long . .tr.tch of lont.rey Str.et w.. direc~~y c.u.atlve 1n tne de81.. 0% Scooters Ice Cr... Parlor a. v.ll .. II-6 VIOLATIOHS OF LOCAL-AUTHORITY Cit1:.n. a! Gilroy pr..u.. that th.y have .l.ct.d. to the City Council p.r.on. VhO w11l carry out the nor.al con.titutional function ot govern..nt at the local l.v.l. Wh.n a City Council d.C1d.. to cr.at. a CRA th... .a.e Council ...ber4. th.n b.g1n to vear .two hats.. Th.y are no longer ..rely local oi!ic1als who.e int.r..ts re.ain iocu..ed upon the proper governance o! local a!!a1r., they now b.co.e the oitic1al. oi. State Ag.ncy. That State Agency <CRA) acts a. the executive, l.gislat1ve, and Judicial branch.. at government over the .ntire ProJect Ar... They al.o b.g1n to a..u.. the rele ot private d.velop.rs, bankers, and r.altors. The aonster cr.at.d b1 th1S dual-role con.t1tut.S, not only a blatant contlict-oi-inter.st, but a so destroys our const1tut10nal form 0% govern.ent. eRA officials can gU1d. development dir.ctly: through e.1n.nt do.a1n, .uo.1dized relocat10n .nd land a..e.bly, .nd .ub.idi:ed pub11c and pr1vat. i.prov.ments of both co...rc1al and ~rivate property. There is a .1gn1ficant -blur- ot the .ep.ration ot pov.rs. 0!!ic1al. beco.. involved 1n nua.reu. contliCts-o!-int.r..t and can ea.ily di.cour.ge, pr.v.nt, or .ncourag. d.velop..nt. that ar. co.patibl. or inco.patible with their private 1nter..ts. Thi. can b. .a.11y .cco.plished through the gU1S. of the -pUbi1C geode wh1Cn 2ay be .ol.ly ~..ed upon th.1r per.onal int.r..ts. In no ~anner do I ..an h.r. to .u;ge~ that this ..y be true of any curr.nt CounCil ...a.ra, hov.v.r, this CRA h.. . lif. of 4~ year.. That i. a v.ry long t..e in whiCh the 1.pac~ of un.thiC.l per.on. could b. deva.tating. Th.r. 1S al.o a confl1ct ot ~t.r..t 1t .ny "ab.r of the current Cityu ~g:n~~;j::~. ~~e~~er'~:~e a1:U:1;~~h.~w::n~ri~~0~i~;:~::tiinth~r~r~~t~l:~~~i: o.partaent .X.CUtiV.. tall vith.n tb. &bove c.tegory. It .bould b. ObV10U. tbat .hould any ot ~h. per.on. invOlvea Vith .aking a reco...ndat10n .nd/or the ult1aat. d.c1sion b. 1n sucb a pO.1tion th.re i. a dec1d.dly and gro.. conilict-of-1ntere.t. Th. ..r;1ng of id.n~1ti.., City Council ...b.r. .lso con.t1tuting thel Ex.cut1ve ~1rec~or and/or 30ard 0% the Stat. Ag.ncy CRA, h.. caused v.ry .u.p.ct .nd .t~ange =.C1Sion.. City Counc11. .1ttiAg a. tbe CRA recoa..nd ..urv.y .r.... to ~~....lv.. a. ;itt Counc~l ..ab.r. to b. offiCiall, designated a. A-18 .R.d.v.lop.e~~ ?~QJ.ct A:.... Onc. ~~e .rea 1..0 d..1gnated. the ...e City Counc11 (now v.ar1ng ~~.1: eRA h.~s) a. . leg1s1ativ. boay, .dain1at.rs the program u&1ng ~on1.S tn.y nave Duag.tea vh.n th.y vor. their .City CounCil hats.- - . other small bU81nes.ses. A1S.O note the revealing test1mony oi a small bUS1ne8B~ owner 1ncluded here as Attachmen~ .A.. Who knows how many other exampl~s could be c1ted. The fact is that ~t any indiv1dual bus1ness i. d.stroyed by a CRA it 1s a blatant violat10n of private property. In the CRPAR, Pg. 6, Section A, 1; it states in paragraph two: .It is the intention oi the Agency that owners ot parcels oi real property w1thin the ProJect Area, vhere consistent Y1th the Redevelopment Plan. be ALLOWED to part1cipate in th1S Redevelopment Project by: RETAIHING ALL OR A PORTION OF THEIR PROPERTIES:......(E.pha.1s aine.) See Attachment C. A direct violation ot private property exists when any ag.ncy of govern.ent presu.es to have the authority to ALLOW you to participate by RETAINIHG ALL OR A PORTIOH of YOUR PROPERTY! Anytime your property is confi.cated or plundered w1tnout your expre.sed consent. it is a d1rect v101at10n of constltut10nally protected pr1vate property. The Gilroy City Council can choo.e to adopt and cre.te a CRA without voter approval. ftost citizen., becau.e ot the gross a.b1gu~ty of the CRPAR do not fu~ly understand the trem.ndou. impact th1. CRAPAP v111 have upon their property, p.rsonal finance., and city. In tact, the only t1.e cit~zens can prevent the creation of a CRA 1. with1n 30-0ays ot the City Council'. approval. Th1. can ONLY be done by Referendua. A V1se cit1:enry halts the creat10n of a CRA in the beg1nn1ng. Once the CRA has been created and not. had to tace a Referendum, only when they att.mpt to expand the~r ProJ.ct Area can the c1tizens halt the expans10n, aga1n, by Reierendum. r' I~7 A-14 (Cont'd A-IS A-16 A-17 - . nost ordinances adopted by a local City Council are subject to normal const~tut~onal cheCKS ana balances through Reierendum. No such checks and balances exist ior the same persons sitt~ng as the Board oi the State Agency CRA. A-18 (cont' 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 especially true and ielt. Hoyever, br blurring the separation oi poyers and plac~ng local oiiicials as the oiiicia S oi a State Agency, there is no longer any pretense oi protection o! the indiv~dual's property rights. LOW-IHCOftE/LOW-COST HOUSING IftPACT Although 20~ oi mon~es generated in the CRA are .andat~d to be spent for loy-cost hous~ng, just what does that term mean~ Loy-cost compared to Yhat? Certainly there can be no sucn loy-cost hous~ng ava~lable to persons who have oyned the~r homes for years and aay have .crt gages as loy a. 5250-5400 per month. What noy exists oi lov-cost housing in certain areas o! the proposed Project Area could not be rehabilitated and remain at the same rental or mortgage iees. The dens~ty o! these units Y111 more than likely be reduced. In norgan Hill this is the case. The t1.e lag of four-years tCiPAP, Pg. 30, Section XI), yould severely i.pact those individual citizens. There is currently in Gilroy and its environs. a gross shortage oi loy-cost affordable hous1ng a. atte.ted to by the various agenc~e. Yho seek e.ergency hou.~ng ior ia.~l~es all year long. Do ye really de.1re to create yet another State Agency that SUbs1dizes hous1ng? The four-year ti.e !ra.e is totally unacceptable and would sign1iicantly impact the nu.bers oi homeless i..ilie. already temporarily housed 1n Gilroy. A-19 / A REAL-LIFE EXAftPLE OF CRA PLUNDER OF PUBLIC FUNDS Fully 80X oi the proposed project. for the CRA are de.ignated for publiC or private use. Wh11e CRA. are touted as the tool to develop a .ecure, progressive, and .ound econO.1C base :or the city, they have proven to accomp!ish quite the oppos~te. The Covina CRA began a proJect called -The Lake. of We8t Covina.- Aiter .even years lt has yet to break ground. The Covlna CRA has ployed 513.4 million into the 21 acre s1te. Recently they 8~ent another 81.16 aill10n and still plan to put up anotber 81.21 .11110n for .tart-up co.ts.- Wben co.pleted 1t yill A-20 add another ~80,000 sq. it. of 011ice .pace 1n the San Gabrlel Valley Yhere of!ice leasing i. supposedly booaing de.pite a 23X vacancy rate! Froa a taxing and financ1ng standp01nt it ha. been very attractive a. the de1in1tion 01 blight ha. been stretched to the breaking point. Too 01ten it haa ..ant the clear1ng out 01 bealthy, private!y ownea bu.1n..... to aake rooa 10r prlvate developer. oi large hotel.. auto ~all., and 0111c. b~lding. OD tbe locat~on they d..1re, bl~ghted or not. Hoyever, not only ba. ~. poyer oi e.1nent do.a1n enabled CRAs to confi.cate the .real ~roperty- of 1ndiv1duals, it ha. also allowed the. to COn%1Scate, througb incr..sed taxation (caused by the plunder of publ~c funds), anc thus gov.rnmen~ ha. aga1n put their hand. into the pocketbOOkS 01 1tS c1t1:ens. See Attachment O. VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOft OF ASSOCIATION ibrough the prev10usly .ell 111u8tra~.d p01n~s I have shown the dir.ct v101at10ns 0% pr~vate prop.rty, and local author1ty perpetrated by the cr.at10n oi a Stat. Agency CRA. There 1S another direct Y101ation of ~unda.ental rights. That 1S the ~101at~on 0% each 1ndiv1dual'. r1gbt ot -tree a..oc~at10n.- 11 you live in the ?roJect Ar.a a% a CIA you .ay be cla..if1ed as a .particlpant or :.onpart1c~pan~.. Shou~~ you cnoo.e to be a ~art1c1paftt 1n ~e CRPAP you .u.t A-21 3chere to :~e -Rul.. ~or BU.1ne.s T.nant Preterence and Ovn.r Part1c1pa~ion.. :USt what CQe. .pre%er,nce- 1nclude? Oddly enougn, the na..d rules are not ~nc~ud.d ~n ~he CRPAr. ~cveyer, Oft Page a of the CRPAP, Sec~on 2, tb1rd ~ara;raph 1t ~tate.: .7he :1ghts 0% part1cular prop.rty owner. and bu.ine.s :enants to ~a~t~c1pat. ~~ ~ne redevelop..nt 0% the1r re.pect1ve properti.s shall 11-8 - . be SU9JECT TO or Llft:TEO BY or ELlftIHATEO BY ~he ~nclUE~on 0: the~r property .l~n~~ . ..Ete~ deve.o~ment plan to be developed by another entlty. W (Emphas~s m~ne. J What th~s re.~ly means ~E that should Wanother ent~tyW w~sn to aevelop severa~ parcels ~n you~ ne~ghborhood, you cannot do .nyth~ng about it. The~r plan ~E what ~s termec wmas~er development plan.. Tnere ~s NO ~reedom of a.soc~ation. part~c~pate ~n the redevelopment plan, allowec to do so. Even if you should choose to fully there ~s no guarantee that you Y~ll De A-21 (cont'l SUftftATIOH ~ ~ !ne City Counc~l and C~ty Plann~ng Departmen~ are aSk~ng us to Wbuy a p~g in a pOKelw The CR~A? ~s extremely amD~guous and Droad 1n ~ts scope. nODer~ SteYa~t, ElF. consultant. 18 reported to have repl~ec that the agency plan 15 not !illec w~th .pec~:lcs because ~t yould l~m~t ideas the agency may develop ~n the !uture. To "r. SteYa~t. I would reply: TDe best government ~s local and l~m~tec. The .mb~gu~~y ~s not un~ntent~onal. It ~s meant to con!use and prevent local c~t~zens trom prec~sely know~ng what lS ~lanned for the~r co.mun~ty. Aab~gu~ty prevents accoun~.D~lity, lS most unethica_, and a dlrect v~olat~on of the publ~c trust. Atter all, it is thelr community! ftr. Steward further, .isgu~dedly, .uggests that -Twenty to 30 years ago, property owners were not tairly treated Dy publ~c agencies. No. the state has unl!orm relocat~on.. I aub~t thlS lS partlally true. Indeed there have o.en blatant abuses of individual property and busine.s owners for relocation, however, a unliorm la. would not take into cons~deration the diverse houslng co.ts througnout the .tate, nor would ~~ Justly cons~aer tne ~nd~Yidual worth of .aCh buslness .0 di.placed. Hlstor~cally, tho.e relocated are provlded Wlth aovlng costs and 510,000. There lS no possible way that thl. aeager flgure could Justly compensate either an ind~vidual hoae owner or busine.s owner ln today's inflated .arket. Conslder the poor ret1r.d or llalted 1ncoee hoae owners who have a .ortgage of 5250-'400. It would not be pOBslDle to prov1de them w~th replacement houslng that would .eet their f1nanc1al con.tra1nts. Consider also the trem.ndous emotional 1.pact of .uch per.onE be1ng eV1cted ou~ of the hoaes they have purcha.ed and enJoyed .ost o! thelr 11!e. This 1. the kind of devastatloD that is belng perpetrated upon indivldual Citlzen. by State Agency CRA. through-out Calltornla and acro.. the natlon. Although there are nu.erous equally appalling arels I could address, ! ahall .entlon 1n pas.lng only a few: A CRA aust be in debt to r..aln In exi.tence, by laVI] Of the nueerou. CRA. curr.ntly 1n .xi.t.nce in Cal- i10rnia, only two have repa1d their indebt.dn.... CRAs can e!1ect a li.D on all private property within c.rtaln CRA Proj.ct Ar..s. ClAs can ..ict you out o! your ho.e or business by ea1n.nt do.a1n and then turn around and .ell or give your property to your n.ighbor or coepeti~or. Uncontrolled CRA State bure.ucrac1.. have ...rged, functioning like sub-counti.s and coll.cting and d1a- per.ing tax.. indefinitely WITHOUT YOTER "'IOVAL. There are.O check. and balance. placed upon CRA. once cr.ated. Once we allow our local govern..nt to act a., and cr.at. a State Agency, not only hav. w. lost all r1ghts to our pr1vate property; we hay. also glven up our rights to b. a .e11-governlng peopl.. The borrower i. the slave of the lender. Th. pow.r to tax and coft!lscate our private wealth and r.ll property 1. A-26 the power to de.troy and control. The creatlon of a CRA lS an ill-advis.d plan and ought not to be cons~der.d a. an option by publlC 011ic1al. who wish to enJoy the pub11C trust. Although . . A-22 . A-23 " . , A-24 . A-25 11-9 . . ori;~nally in~eno~c to .help the poor in d1,stre.sed blighted areas. the, record has proven to ~~ :~nervise. The poor are cont1nuing to suffer the most through highe~ fees ano ~~%es, reduction 0: affordable hous1ng, and by reduced city and coun~y service~. Tne m1ddle cla5~ has also suffered by the increased demands upon their incom~ 1n the subSidiZing of larger and more plunder of State Agenc1e.. The false notion that CRA. are financed by Tax Incre.ent Financing and paying for themselve. is not born out by the record. There are NO FREE RIDES. Even ftr. Stewart, EIR consultant, promotes the misrepresentation that we should think of it as a .f1nanc1ng tool.. If the local citiZens and City Council are not willing to res18t the .eemingly .guick f1X., there can be no legitimate further compla1nt regarding the wasteful deficlt spending of state and national government. The creat10n 01 a CRA vill .Q.~ assuredly incur 8 gross city, county, and state debt that vill bankrupt our nat10n and .ake true E~aVes of us all. A-26 (Cont'd See Attach.ents A, S, C, & D. NOTE: ADDITIONAL COMHENTS A-27 THROUGH A-36 CONTINUE ON PAGE 11-21 11-10 . . r=:::>g(iiJ ~rF . . . -i ~ iii ---..- , "I _ "",.. '"1_ .-. . 5hcm' Passmol ~ OliVeTO" S'H: ~ S1tIUBS By Baerd Grannis Yal .Y ~ )'aU Jmcw *t aRQeyel~t. ia. 1lIaU, tber. La & 10e to it tM: )ICL1 ca~ Me. ..~ ~ 1.1 tba~ AI r'\~y in c:1ty ball ~i~ I c:art&i.D . P'-' or arM 11 -bllgbta:i,. 1IDat..ewer tb&t 18an&. IfbI d.tf ~--cn ~ fiDda tbat tbI apmlic interest- reqW.res the repl~~t of. ~~..... 1.1 tAKe by & alWay ... office kuUding, axd,..i ~\&, hotel or -=- oc.b8r Ai.oe tb1D;. 10 tJ:aI CIIDC d. Cbi.I ~1Jgbt. 11 faraeQ to ..u to tbe city, just.. if it ___ . f~-..-r __i~ tbrcugn, heoal~" 98tting the IlbUgbt. aJt 18 1. ---... to be in tbe 8p'~ i~ JntarMt.. >>.It)ICU - .s I maw, or J.f )Q.1 dan It )'aLl ~ better learn. Cf1'ek., tbat tal plbllc iI jYlt A tIDn1 for .taw tMII 15 111 caDuol at city ball at tM~. Ofte ~1., fit ~'''f tMt UDfavarable P8q)le Mad iutitut.i.cu 1.ike .''U"it!el, r--oM aLQil7", .s rcple * tee ju.t in tbe IIaY 9& l'Wl Olt 01 tcIIID. AId tbIa tbe c:i.ty tumI arCIDS . '" .s M11I tbUlIDd to .. bi9 ~ at . r'''ionl,.Ullllaw p:1oe IDd '" 10M tbI office blUd,~ at' tGe ~"'~~'fti.. laJ caD .. tIDare tbia lMdI to. hriaIpI.... - ... big cIlwelcper -y baV8 bLa eye CD ..... JQU live ar taX. U bi. fri8ada .. iD c:lty bill, 9'.. Qt the "pIbUc iAterMtl 11 lt~~ to tun CIlt to be. AlII I --, tbI ~llcaUcDa are that tbI tapabUc. Ql' clty bill iD .. _ caDI aU tba JMd MIS JQU an '*-r. )IIQU an Dr~. If JaU IE ~ _ 1l~ et:IICIat ~.... ~ ..s an ~.1n; !or AI -bing.u. to bI af~&W 01., ~,f'W ~AIF_" ~ "'t . II-ll , pn" l~:,: · iemPh':. C" c::.: ;,,~ '1:,'0 ..47 ~5'j. . ......., r .11 "U" "0'1, . ......._..- 5ncm' PaSS/llOI C DIIU:C'iO~ EXCERPTS f"JtOM A. J. ESPOSITO IHD!:PDmINT SJIV..U. BUS INESS OWHER Even as you r.ad thia, people froe all walks of life, all a9~ groups and protesaions are feelin9 the pain of eainent cSo.ain proceedings. They are 105- long their living quarten or busi.ness. Tne inequities created by tilis very generous law are causing broken hearts and heart attacks. ~e continued abuse of the eainent 40uin law iz 4etri_nul to the econo8y and future of Allerica. I have seriou~ concern for hoaeowners who are suffering because of eainent 00- ..in, but thu corre.pondence is beinc; direc~ t.o you on behalf of s.l1 busi- ness thro~9t~ut the country. Tb~ procedure. ..y differ in various are.., but the end result is cer~inly t.he ..-. I will .,.e liIest Covin.., ~lifornia as All eUllple o! what is bappenins wi th eainent ~in WIder the gui.e of .reclevelcp....rrt.. .... Once a bedroca cr-'nity, with. 4aab of l.-aft, =&Dge &nod walnut groves, ....t Covina bas Deen tractually u.....for-.d froa a IlWurb uto &Z'l air and nolae pollut.ed, traffic conte.ted e- .'I\ity. A .ituatiora _1cft will wrsen as co.- aani t)' reOevelo~nt increases. 2'bis transfonlatioD .... been brought about by part-ti_ city officiala Who C>>_ it Mc....ry to de.troy landaarks, buildings, et~. and replace the. wi'tb high rise building.. ~i.s _atz~tion of a quiet., peaceful e-:- '~i~y is being cleM to .lI&ke progre.... Ie4eftlopRnt laws clearly apell out the pw-poae of the act. It i. de.itned to "....tara distre.sed ar... into .re.. of be.u~y and to pro\'~de healthful living conditions for ~ricans. ao.-e"'ec, I contend that city, COJl\t)' and state officiala are abusiAg the lte4evel- ~nt Act for tne P'lrpoae of r. i.ing r..,.nues in their --,nity or area. Me one i. a9ains~ prOlJre.. for th.. .,aurpos. of illproving conditions but Wilen illpcoper proc.c:Sure. are used to ..~ct'as. ux revenu.. not.i.ce abould be viven to tbose tullty t.bat they are au, of oro.,. Aa in ..ny citl.$ acro&s the country, ~ cjty lea4.r. of We.t Covin. 9rasped the redevelop..nt law to Chaftge a purportedly depr...ed area into & beaut.iful high riae C'CIIIplex wiUl unsu.pect.i~ re.idenu of t.be t'C--.;Jnit)' fOOU.n9 the bill. ~ city fathe'. tell D. tbat ~i. new ~lex will incr.... Lb. tAx II-12 lna~~:. Sar..l..l eu.u Owner l . Palilf "bIQ . reverUAe,a aDd allow tbea to keep ~roperty rates at a ~r leftl. -.0 one ever diacusaee increased traffic, not.. and ai.r pollution or the in=reaaed need for pcliee ~ tin prot.ection ~t ~ld be created by CAe heY COIIplex.. 'fhese iteas were neve: .d4reased Wltil after the plans wre CI:lIIIIpletecS &nc! the devel- oper Md been lured to tile pro;ect Yit.h tA~yer aupported i.ncentift!.. ~ &t1 en trepefteur, I lIaS noti tied tAa t 20 ,eara of tIOrt ADd a&cr 1 fic~ was goinq Qo.~ the: crain because of reaegelop.ent. a..n tbauC}h -.y buall".S col- leagues and : were aervic~oriented &nd t.be townapeople enjoyed .bopping at our cent.e:, thE ("<:-tnit)' aeoe~lD.-ent Ageney (CRA), diel J'Ot want to listen to U&, nor t.o Ule co.aunity _lIDer~. A developer MId appeared on t.be acenel 1 learned t.n.t tas: dollars are beift9 dl..rted troa t.be .c:bool .yate., police anel fire de- part._nts to purena.e these tluilc:h.ng. at re4uced prices tben reaold to the de- veloper for a sonc;. I visu.&lized everything I bad -.orked for 90ing cioYn the crair. and then WAS no way I could .ell 8y busine.a. Wbo wi.ll buy a buainess in a building ~t WAS going to be torn down? ....... lour ratlonal thinkin~ tells you that the law provides for such peraons as yourself. You are protect.ed. ~ink _gain. It is true tbat tbe law dietates that yo&.: should be MOe -whole again- and that the City ,.,ill lOW you and set you up again. It is also true that the City vill bire can.~ltant5 to assist you in your 8Ove. lou are told thAt you wi II be cOlllpenaated if you decide to 90 out of business. The City senes ,epresent.atives into your business to inven~ry wn.t you owr.. "'is is done to insure that you are ~ftS&t.-d tairly tor your IDYe. As ..ord re_cbed tAe {"lo ulity about. this -..onderful redevelos-ent project- ~ busine.. be9an to drop. I rusbed around trying to find a location to lOW to. I discovered ~t rental pr i.ces in the new Mopping centers ea::eedec1 vbAt bad been payinc; by 400.\1 It is be9iDning to look like it tllDUld be wiae for .. ~ 90 out of buainess rather tbAn faee eaorb1tant oftrbead cosU 1n a My loca- tion. But waitl A law paaaed back i.n the late sizti.s Iltates that I _y re- ceive up cD $10,000 it I decided to '0 out of begi....s under redevelopMnt pro- ceKi",s. A tair 1.w c.ben bas ~ a )olt. now. Chan,e. in tM eoonGIIy are not tak~n into couiaration and S10,000 is . totally uftre.listie ~naation. 1 continued to fi9ht for ~ate ~nAt1on. Con".rSAtion.nd corre.pond- ence with tbe CRA bec&8e increas ing 1). heated. OIly. ~.... welts. weets beCAM ~t.hs. I ~ec1 arouftdand no~ that. ." frienets .piries -.ere also be9inning = breat. So. busine.. owner. be... .,ved to other cities to .tart all O..r .,ain. SOM ~i.ne.s OWDers foc-.d an CH,alnut.lOn to ateellpt to ,et fair Ueac.nt - frOll the City. but mat were clepre.aec1 and ,e1&ICtant to tAke part. '!be act of self-preaer"acion be9an to ckainate. tt'here is no .t.reftCJUl in Aft)' Or9ani&ati.~n when unity i. not pre..nt. LancU.or4. ..,e ak1at their ..1 with tbe City aftc1 t......u -.ere mviDg out. As e~h teAant left tM Uaffic in tbe ceneer cher_Me!. ....in I noted f....r cuu..ra MilS clI'opp1ng ..les. -.at do I do Dext? II)' banda are tied. IUth thr.. Y..'. left OIl -.y lea8e, I approecbecS ~ ~l.ord to ..ke a _.1. Be r.f.:red _ to the 01.. 1 leac....s tbat IIf J..aftdl.ord bad be. ..de an off.r for hi.a I ix ac:res of i.aprowd property. .. bad rejected tM otf.,. Rnter e.1Mnt ctoMin. Ivan t.houp I b..s tAhft 1M) pact Ua taaia ~..r, I ... ... iDnooent Ylctia anc1 I vi 11 .utfer ~e ,,1.t 1M -:~v.. of tAl. .. CY&~Aon. II-13 !;xcertlt~ rrolll ". oJ ,.POI 1 t.e. (' . 1nc:iepenaen: SlroGll II ness OwnE:: faqe Tn! t-E . I wen~ ~nto bUIlness vltr. tne eventuaJ plan of sellln9 the bUSlness to f lnance lEIy ret.lreaaent, I was not intereSted in Social Sec:ur1ty, "'elfarE: 0: any ott.e: type of ass lstance. I air. proud and inciependent. Now the qenerous Communlt~ ~eeevelopment Agency stepped forwarc and offered ~ $7~,OOO for the .quipmen~ Jr. acic a lor. t.o the $10,000 tney will 9iv~ ae for going ou: of busi- ness. SE:. ,000 is .. far cry fro" t.ne S20e ,000 act.ual -.rket value of lEI)' busi- ness! Wna:. aCOut tn~ leasenolO interest? Wnat about goodwill? Tn 1S 15 ID~ f us:. expe: lence v1 tr, redevelopJDent, everytninc; 15 ne"" t.o IDE:. 1 receJVec i SUlIInlOns frolt Super lor Court namlng .. in the ellllnent Oo.un Suit a9alns: my landlord! 10. Darraqe of court ooculDents be;an t.o an iVE:. lnterr09~- Lorie~, complaln~s, pre-trIal possession nOt1ces: caution spelled out tnrougr. all of tne!:.. I f I (he not respond I coule .LOSt- in default. I was in touch wlt~ my attorney eacn day. After JuSt a fe~ weekS I a..saed $2,SOO in attor- ney lees! What woulc 1t COlit IDe vnen I really entered Ule ~ttle! '- TnE bO~ ..as dropp.c t.oc:iay. 1 rec~lve<! 11I1 eviction notic~. "me eRA no,"' has court author.it~, to re.cve Me frort. tn~ precises within the next '" Gays. Wn~rt ,,'i 1) 1 90: Wna t wi II 1 do'? Where 'vi 11 1 find a bui !din; t.O rent tor G comparable prlce':" : -as gett1n9 D)', barely. 'raking on a rent four tilnl!s greater tnan my present rate will d~5troy~. 'mere i. no hope I can generat~ .noU9~ Dusiness t.o pay the rent de&anaed b~ landlords now that they kno_ I a~ oeinc; forced to K>ve and t.h~ ca)' nas "OE- no provisions to enaDle lie to stay in thlS city. Is lt vortn s~Ylng ln buslness for the aole purpose of worklns haraer anc lonqer JUSt to pay nigher rent? I reached ~ 6~t~ birtnday laSt vee~. It tnere lS a cnance that 1 will qet a). falr share for ~ busineso, ! vill now need to split lt Wlth an attorney or two. ~ou vill wonder vhere I went vron;. tiov did I get involv.~ ln a court battl.? All I did was rent a Dui ld1nc; froa a landloro unOer a wr ltt.er. agree_nt ao tnat I could conQUCt a DUSlness. tainen: oo..in 11 . nasty word and cr.atel in~lerable burciens 1n a nUR- Der o! ways~ Tne jud1clal syste. has Deeo.e a du~ing ground fOt litigatlons by landloros and tenants. ~e oefendants ceing forced to appear ln court are rarely recognized. It 1S . knowr, fact ~at the city agencies freely uae ta.- pay~rs dollars to hlre attorneys t.o pursue their suit. againat landlords and te~nta. Tne entrepen.ur 11 always the loser. AI I vr1.te this, fifty business people ~ait gaily tor the .xeeutionr: csev.nty-one busin..... vere displ.cec ~lt0getneI). Sevent~-one bul~nel.es wnlC~ COntribute to,a~tl.tics whic~ state t~at s..11 Duslnesses Ate r.spon.ible for 43' of the gross n.tional prc- O~~t .nc 7~, of ~ne ~.tlonal wor~ forc~. They oread the day tn.y .19ht n.v. to glve ~~ thelr n~ for flnanclal securlty. '--" CRAa all. tne cr..& fro. the top of ene property tax botele tor the pur- pose of ouY1ng uf property inexpensIvely Decauae the~ have firat conaemned the SIte. Yet, they coaSt abOut tn* .11110n. of dollArs they vill brinq to th! eltles wlth theIr wonderful proJects. Why, on why, ~st tile face court tr).ls, eVlct.\Oftl and poyer ey at tMU n.nos. One would .a~ct tJ\b typto of tal~ver 1ft co-.unlst aocietles ~.re oppre.Slon prevailJ, but not In ~rlCaJ II-14 wA~~'~~~ ~I~ ^. W. ~S~~ , lnOe~nOent Sull a~esE Owne: PAge rour . PleasE', each of you, take ~. co ,ou to beut and respond to ~' appeal. A8erlCb needs the entrepreneur to survive. If there are seventy-one people going out of business 1n West Covlna, Ca 1 i fornia, are you brave enougt, to DJl- uply this b)' thousands of otner chies invokin9 the ... process? And I have: not even -.ent.ioned the nuaber of businesses that bave been forced to close And oeclare banlcruptcy ~cause of economic pressure!>. 'ftae c::o.bined force.. of e~ lnent ao-.in and economic pres&ures aay lead to t~ destruct~ of Aaerica~ slUll DuS1ness as WE' kno.- 1: tocia)'. As lnoepenaent buaineas people, we are not loo~ln9 tor tb. ~n. We ar. looklng tor a resolution of our proble&, If e~ inent domaln must continue, let 1t continu~ as a true reflection of tht Amerlcan way of cOln; buSlness. Pay a &an what his proOuct il worth I A. J. Espos 1t.Ci '. ..../ II-IS - . r~lrili; '. "..1. "'0'1: ......iIOI.I~~ Shem' Pas~l1lor~ DIJIt::rOf ~~'fj CIJIDm"i ~ - !MINEm IXHUt\ Historically, tminent cbDain st.sIas frca. En;lish law and aUaws a 9cwe.--ni.og enti~y to take private prcperty 8qainst the wishes c: its ClIne:' for a PUm.IC PURPOSE. Ori9- 1naJ..ly, tbe intent of. the eminent domain 14., was to facilitate the building of. reads, parks, a::hools or essential ~lic buUdings. 'ra1ay I growing abuses in this precess can be found in that private property is continually being 8eized for alternate private U5ea. ~~les 0:. this will be detailed later in this bulletin.. I L my be a..~~, -what is I POBLIC PURPOSE as ciefinea in the eminent ~in law? '!be Citizens Property ltights Q:amittee exmtenQs that i~ 8hould be property r:EVW:JIBO AID KUN'rAIN!O wr'!B RJBUC D.X mr.r~ and nor. CW\ed privately. Sedly, the CXlUX't8 baYe increasingly a.11<Had private pr~'"'ty to be seized by redevelq:aent and similar ~encies for ahq1ping center&, high inCClDe: housing, botels and ether privately-clllWd venblres. 1'he ~encies capitalize a1 this in order to deYelap prcperty to tbe bighe=lt use possible. '!'hi s adds lDre tax Collars to the ~ treuury. Thus, the gcvernaent CDttrol and seizure of private property exists for plre a:cnaaic cWIel- cpent.. Frighteningly, this is nothing leas than ~'ali_. Anotber original intent do tbe ...-i ner1t ~i n law was to faciliate the eradicllltian IS -blighted- ar.... SJJa. cculd therefCX'e be cleared aDd 1cIt' inc:a. hcuaing blUt. Ba.ever, . 0.5. SUpc- Ccurt decision in 19S4 -vV1ied the _tars of this tbi~i~. 10 "Beman 95. Parker- the Ca!rt decided that cities have tbe P"lioe poIe1' to eradi- cate bligbt but tbe ruling aanfWiC tbis p:.er vi tb .m.n.nt lIr-. i '1. I!be deciaiOD Vives cities the rigbt to ilprc:we thMIIelves MStbetically but does DOt clearly define v.tber .u.nent ~f'l can allcw aeizing of private pt~ for ether private UMS. !be u.ue ~ ~l..r ill the ccurt8 to this clay. !ba autcry against the 11M << -.n.nt ~;n by ~-u.ty .-'eYel~t AgencieI bu beeD ~".. << the practice v.ereby it is used to favor -in.ide- devel~ CIIl.'er pr~y a.ners Wao are DOt part. 01 the -in-9'CUP- tilt Wac alao wi8h to ~ taiz prcperty. ~rwat ~t" ay be UM:S for . leg1tate pabUc pupaM but it ~ld DOt be ua.s as . mbltitute in the free arketplace in detoaNlh)1ng ather cme pr'1- vate dlwelcper ahould ~ tNer anotber private devel~. 1IQr' Iba.1ld pclvate prClpC"ty be tak8D fre. CDe in4iv~ W 9iv~ to anatber private party ..s tt.D call tat . pJblic pIl'paMl II-16 . . =:sr;kl --:1~ :1.!. -i~ ... , JaX')....~ca:. REP:ET t 3 p.~ '!'he foll..cwinr; are --~les ~ bJr.' the cpJe:"nDent his ~ 1;.& pgr.eri c:t emi.nent ~in: Irl 1954 b.mdreds ~ &:res ~ 10.' incxm: resiaent.i&l prqJerty in Chavez Ravine were seizEd in or6e.r to b.lild a privately-o.ne:: ba~l stadium CDc::dge= Stadiwr., Lee Angeles). A low ano Dc:ierate inccm: reside.1tial ccmn:Jnity was cxn:iem..~ in Los Angeles to wild 714 units of higtl inocme b:::wling and ~"'ical 8pL.-', knc:xl as Bunker Hill. MBny a:res of privat.ely-cwned dairy pastures ware Miz.: in CerritoS to be a:x1varted to priv.t.e1y~ bi;h i.noaae haDe&. In National City, San Diego CaJnty, . qolf ccurae '-lIS t&rgeted ~ be ae.izs::i and redevelcped into a abcppi.ng cante:. - ........~les of ~ al-w18e are not limited to California. In Ycnkera, Mer Ycrk, the DOn-blighted property of a aaall businessman named Mr. Mcr:ris t&S taken under -; Wlt ~i'1 aDd given to his naighbc: I the larqer Otis Elevator ~nl' WIO ~ted to ~~ iu facili ties. 8.Icb taki.nris by the gcwernaent DUSt be stopped, '1'be Citizens Ptq)er1:y Rights ~f tta CXX\tends that the right of an individual to CW'1 prcperty is one of the ID8t eheriahej rights guaranteed by all' United States Constituticn. !'he use at ~t dalain power lUSt be returned to its intended p1rp08e of 8the pmlic ~,. ID1' the 9QOd of the private deYelcper. -zne right t% tbe pecple to be secure ,in their peracna, hc1:ttes, papers Md effeets, 8I!Jainst amreasanable aearcbes eDd Mizw:es, Ihall not be violated, and no Warrants 8ball i.we, but ~ prctHable cause, ~ted by Oath or affiratian, Md particularly desc:ribing the place to be searched, .nd there peracna or tbin9s to be aeizsi.. . tmtC State& Ca:a8tituticn, Art.1cle IV .. · · DQr ~l atJy per8Cn be &Lb ject for the ... dfenae to be twice pit in jfq:wdy d life or lillb, DQr IIball be ~18d in any criai.nal caae to be . vitneu 19ainat hf_-'~, nor be __ Five of life, liberty, or ~operty, witbcut _ prOCM' d law; nor JIhA'l private pr'~ be taken for pmlic uae, witbaat j..t 0' -l~ticn. 8 Dlited Sr.tas CcDatitu~CIl, ArtJcl. zrv .. · · tbat they ... .ntJ. t~ to life, liberty, and pr'~, WId tbey have D8VW ~ to any acwereitn pawar -twer, . right to 4i 8p08e << eitber vitbaut their consent. ~ ft.t-laraUcn of IUgbta, Octcber 14, 1774 II-17 . . . .. ""'.101 "'0'" \ '''~.I.'' Shc:m f."~SIlIO'l o11\l6o~ ~~.4 aJIOtr'1"i ~ - mE ~ IlOU!MF.H'!' P'IlitJCDC ~ AIm rrs AS:JSE In arQe: for a O"'--,nit}' Rs:ieYelcpl8nt Agen=:r' (~) to ~...iQC~, it ms-:. cbta.in fundinq fo: it.ael.f and its proje:ts. !his fwxlln; ~ 11 calle -:ax lncr-.ot , tnanc1.nl;. · ~ ~ 'JU is the source for tax incr8lltnt financing. Ifbil finaDcing pt'oaess ber;ins to ~k ~ the au.. cieclares a project arM. '!'he prcperty tax base of that area is then fro~ frat that l'8U CI'l lmtil the project debta are paid off. !m&e debt.! are incm'red Wlen ~ aell 1IJN-\OlBR APPROJE'D B:&:6 W barrClt' acney. b, the atAa, DOt the city, a:unty or' 8Cbxal districts, c:ari eol a ~ '" ~t all future prcperty tuBs (tax increllleQts) OIer the frozen base latel. OIA projel:te and tbeir prcperty tAX baBes OOIJ1O be frozen a1llnJlt indefinitely by extendi.ng the life of a project. << by Wtimting proje:t. arM ller9C'S. - 'l'ta tax in~t finanC".1ng process results in R!IX~ ax 8P.SES for cities, ccamt.i.es, ~ls., police and fire ~t.s, etc., tm.ch lUSt atill prcwide llerVioe to tbe 'pr'oje:t 8nd lUSt ulU.tely rai.. taxes or f.. in arder to -.ke up for the leu of reverue to" the atAs. 'ltIm, the 1UPAmRS are the cnes * rMlly pi)' for . large percstage of a raSevelapMnt project. -mcb ay eren be locate cutaide their CIIIn city. B.mce --. tbe t:ry -ruation withaut IIpreIentaticn. - Since Cl.ltaiae 9DIt8r ~cwal is DOt ~ed for ax:h pE'ojcta, the .....,.,... baYe DO .Y in tbair ~LiCll1. Voter lIPPI:'anl 18 not ~ for local projcta altbar. !be State'. :z-....t pr.ctice ol ta11iDg a1t defaulting aa ~ Md dlbta a.loDg with . bail C1Uta of the 8ChaQ1.a '"0' 113 -.ntually be zupanaible W . large porticm << cur State'. fiDancial cri.aia. At the 1acal level eN .... c:itiM .f U"g Glt "1 aa '. ~ of cw....,....,OQ r:I. ta.ir dlbt. . . Me .. 1'W~.....~ at thI a.A tlUreauc:r1lCY gr~, the tupaywI 111111 ocotJJually ba f~ with .., taxes, higher f.. or hd~ aervlC11 to .. ap for tbe aa t.u grab pI'OQeU ~11.s -:ax lDar~t Pinancing.. av. afficiaa CQftfoh\l'al1y tall_ that their projcta uaiag tt. tax iDe: lt f~ IK~. _11 -.ntually pay for tl--.l"... lilt _ .., ~..11 li". that long.- I So far that ,.,.,. can 'be prcwen DOt" to be tz'Ue. . . .cut t:l crIW C50 projecta atatewide cn1.y a filii, a1nce 1952, have ever ~ ~ to tala pr'ClpM'ty tax rca1.la ., tbat the ~~1., mUM, ~Hce M4 fire dLatr1ata, lite., c:aa.1d "'~1~. II-18 . . ;~ ~..: -:: ~..t -- ) Shem PaSSI1l01(, DII\tC":O~, ., ....u' ,",0'" '" ......... ," none&.L ~ t, P~.~ t~ ~Ies 0: the tax incremen: f..nan:i.n; systsn DaY be fan1 tbrcuqhout the State of. California, as the CU\s take aCvan~e t%. l~. in the redeYelcpaent law ~er possible. '!'nus, the r~el~t process has turned into nothinq acre tb&n a tax""'9t'ab scheme. Pe:ause by la.. a ~ DUSt. stay in 6ebt in arcie: U) CXlllect pro- jec't area ~cperty taxes (tax increaent.s), the.re are trtllBnCious incentives fo: an 119en:y to ~'ep a prC\~ incaIplete as 10D9 as possiblt:, c::antiwin; to 9enerate the increment that IIbculd have long ago been returns: u> the prcpert:y by; "9 enti ti_. ODe aearing ...,."le of this a.tWJe cxxurr~ in ScI1th PL~~, br'e the au.., inatead ct. return~ a CXIIpleted and paid for project back to the tax rolls, eQied DIIi land tc the .proja:t 80 they O')Uld CCI1tinue to generate ale Ilillic:rJ cbllars of pr~ty tax . incrment frat the taXpe~.~s. Also, the cities of s.n ~, Ridasid, Pittaburg, O1Jla Vi~t;.a, San Jese, Santa ~e Spring!, 'Sa=r-.ento W LeI Angel_ have . all I8rg J ~ pt't'j..........s to extend the f1nan~ing life d. tbair ~a. '!'be Mizi.ftg o! land aUy fa: its tax increment (propeny taxes) bas ~ ~ {.. -_....qU.&.."'t. In tbe City d. Industry, the CM placed virtually the entir~ city l.iIIitl ~ a redeYelos-nt projct.. Much o! tbia lanQ '-U vacant .t the altaet, 10 U Datural develqment cccurred, all ~. prcperty taxes resllting frar. the valuatiCl'l increase ~t to the ....,. CV\ wteld of the taxing entities ~ich pro.'ided services to the city. '!'his has Z'elUlte:i in m &StrN'Oftl'~-Il iAcreue to the taxpayers affected in that city and c:lQUnty. In the c1ty d. Rt.l&.ri ~ Park, the CM trie:! to include ftCft-obli9hted land iI\ a ~~t project area web bad alreldy been tArgeted for develc:p8nt by tbe priv.te -=tor. A lawsuit ensued web ... won by tbe alA. '<<tuDately, the lppel4ate CDlrt cwert:urDed the deciaian, in favor cl the citiuna, atatiDg tbat the arJ8Dcy had DO reasan to incl. this area in a ravel.{ lt 1K'Oi-=t ailply ~\JIe tbe laDd ... DOt beiDg' pit to ita ~t-; _111I uae by private ~. \ It (I.- ft. IIldwin Park). 1D tbe city t% Cerri ta5, bID z.sevelQpDent pr'o;.::t. ___ fOL'aald to capture tbe taM ....te:! by tbe a:mveraico of dairy pastures to bigb ~ ~. In 101-1 ~, . projct tU fotl8S to C8ptm'e the tul8I generateS by the dal'el~t << . bthem CaliforniA PAitcrl facility. In llat.icnal City, . golf c:cune .. tugete:S to be ~~ into a ahcpping c:.nter, ally for the ~ WUch oo11~ be 8eiae:l. !be aituation hu ~ 80 -.wive tbat it is .1~t tecbni.....11y po-4lble for . oa, 1Dier exiating r~1..\.i.~t Jaw, to 90 thrcugb the filM << . city b.Jilding dIpart_ ~t and plll cut all bQU4i.ng pamita granted ell .ucb ~ ... DlX beg&an Me! pat the mb;.=t prcperty into . ndwa1. ( Ilt pl'ojct .. Sa order to Fib tbI t.IZ iDc:r..t (pr'ClpCty tall). IftII bQrdeD ~ city Md COImty t&x1n; enuti. iI U~J1daua .. to tbe 1au ol ~. LeI An;tiM, for ~l., ... ~y -thKically pt....f.q; ~t projcu tat cannot f1Danoe atRat-c:1.-.ning 8el'VloM Md baa ... ~* to pat ballot ~-~ before the vatara to raiae ~ far fire _ p'lfo. ..-vioea. 11-19 r u. 1)0). l~~J elemple ~ CA 91 iBO r :tSl8t'44i.550C ~ . Sncm' PaSS11l0rt Dll'.:.cio~ ~ l'\uft,"oIu iJW.......,. !DXA'rl~ ~r t< Pa;e Tnree It is high time that cities and ccunties stand up for ~v. and for the tax- paye:s ~ are iqnorant o! where their tax dollars ~tually go. 'fne atuIe prac.u o! tax increment financing DUSt be st~. '1'ne fiSC&.l aolveocy ~ tbe .tate of California exuld depend ~ it. - II-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 nnn.l..l~;:)J.;:): J !'<.UL.'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. .., o After once dislocating or destroying individual small businesses which, although marginal, are "alive," the help offered is merely administrative. /\-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 PREFERENCE. 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 ROA, 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 Aqency OR ANY property owner within the Project Area. Suppose I were a person of unethical character who coveted my neiqhbors property. Under this Rule I could request that the Aqency make such a deter- mination of my neiqhbors property. My neiqhbor would then be "forced" to enter into an ....owner participation aqree- ment with the Aqency pursuant to requirements..... Could not this scenaario be utilized to .assemble parcels?" 11-23 A-31 A-32 A-33 A-34 I Page -4- - - - ----- - - ...-. _...._..__ T'''''-'' IN~E CITY OF GILROy.......... """..1".....'\ .n.,,'\..~'-......:n.&.J.U1.\l I 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 participating owner heLshe, 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. II-24 A-34 (Cont', 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 1 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 "...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. II-25 ", - 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 . ,,~, .., .... ."... . . ~'.t. , . -- " - . 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 ,".. enqaqed 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 ~e reasonable opportunity to participate in the Project provided such participation 1. consistent with the requirements and 90a1s and objectives of the Plan. -- I.... 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 revitalizinq 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 is the policy of the Agency to minimize acquisition if at all POssible, and therefore ~. Agency's .... , ,'0' ',-., II-27 ~ ~UD~ne55es ~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. ,.. B. All land disposition documents related to the Project Area shall contain a provision indicating the Aqency'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 requirement. of the Plan. C. At such time a. third party redevelopers are in a position to seek busine.s tenants for new developments within the Project Area, the Agency shall cause notice of such space to all businesses relocated from the Project Area and shall 1I-28 .~. '. .- - ---__8...1 I.V ne~p secure the "red relocation. 1 III. RULES TO IMPLEMENT OWNER PARTICIPATION A. Development of Multiple Parcels bv Master Developer ~ 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 appllcation 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 aeveral parcels are to be .ssembled and developed by a master developer. 2. Upon determination that aeveral p.rcels will be ....mbled and developed as . unified development, the Agency Bhall notify the owners of .11 affected parcels of such determination and ~hall invite the owners to aubmit proposals to become the master developer. In its discretion, the Agency II-29 " :.;~': : ,.-'t' "4It-_6 UCVe40per. . 3. In solicitin9 proposals, the Agency shall. establish criteria for master developer selection which, in the Agency's reasona~le determination, are appropriate to the 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 J above based on the proposals submitted by prospectiVe master developers. In revieWing proposals that meet the minimum standards established by ~e Agency for aelection, the Agency ahall q1ve such preference as it deems 4. The Agency shall select a master developer 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 Agency's reasonable determination, no proposal meets the minimum standards for aelection, the Agency II-30 ;' ~ , 5 ~~ ..~.. J' may reject altlbroposals and take such a~Qns as it ~~ems I 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 A;ency prior to selection of a master developer shall be entitled to submit a 11-31 ~ proposal !o~evelopment o! the severa~arcels that will be assembled. B. DeveloDment of Individual Parcels by Existinq ~wner Provided that the Agency does not determine, 'in- its reasonable discretion, by resolution, that it is in the best I. 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 accordance with the rules set forth below. -- ..( ~ 1. Each parcel in the Project Area shall be considered to conform to the Plan unless and until the Agency has determined by resolution that such parcel does not conform . . to the Plan. A determination of non-conformance may be made by the Agency at its own direction or in response to a request for a determination regarding conformance by a property owner in the Project 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 Agency pursuant to the requirements of subsection III B 4 .. below. ....... 1I-32 "'. -. . . ~. ~ 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 agreement subject 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 ~ 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 ~n 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. II-33 . . .' ~) Within sixty (60), days4lt the notification described above, the owner shall meet with Agency staff to discuss necessary requirements to bring the owner's property into conformity with the Plan. (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 Projec~-Area to do so. (e> Upon acceptance of the plans described in subdivision (c) above, as revised or corrected if necessary, C~ ~e owner shall enter into an owner participation agreement ~ with the Aqency to assure the or~erly development of the required improvement .to the property. 5. If an owner who is required to enter into an owner participation agreement fails or refuses to enter into such agreement 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, 11-34 :....;~~~ '. : . -.. ~:..' . . .:.... ~..~..: .' ,~ . ...; ,... 'l.:t.:i.' ~~~~~~~~ '., . :' ,....:."li"' " .' 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 Aqen~y determines that it is in the interest of the Project Area to undertake such acquisition; pr~vided, however, that the Aqency-may exercise its powers of eminent domain only in the ' . circumstances and manner otherwise authorized by the Plan. , OPRULES/B49702 -- II-35 1 .. . . '-:w 7~~' ~,.....-~~..~...-!~ ~:";>~:':;'~~=:;y"';-~,~';:-':;'p-;;;~~;~~L,;'~'-' __..... d"_~,t??,~., ..._r...~A..-~~/,'~ P...6.?~~~,_ ~I ~,. -;:~ ~.~ -:..-""""-~.__.~"" _.....J-__,...__ ~ ---.. ,,\"'C\lJ;.\.~ II ~~~i~~i~~2f~:~~~:: ~t~~~g;~~~~:~~?.:0: ::;L.-::~..~~~-:-=:"~=':"--=~~~;-=~-~ ~-~~~::~~-~~-~!::'~;::G-..~A:.~.:r_ ____ 40---- ....~_......_.____,,__.~, --- .......-._~.- _42=,...,,,,,,-_~ ~-"'~_""''''''.#I- .c........~.....- ... ~-.:.~:- ~_ ~_~~~:.~...::::-~ ~~~ -"""-r- "- ~'''''-_--'::~7,....-=:~'''::::::::::=~r.::_~-=-~i.:..~ C...... .,_._ _... .- --r--'-'-- J_.....~ "':""~4:-. ~~.............~__.a.-___.-..r.._""~ ........ __ "'...' ~~--,~- -..-. --'~''':''-''--'''''_..-..-...,....---_. ~';-~L""'''''~''''--'''~~. ~",...A---L- - _--=--"..-.._ ~_...._..~............_....._ ...._...___._...__..,...._ .~';;':=::~~,.~..~:"~_~~;~~2-~~~p'__: ...._ 4~_""'_"_' ___,""__,...._,.,.,.."".t-.--.,."..-_ -,-.....- ~-J'_"..."'-!'......__..c..- '. 7:' -,~~..::::~~~~-==-==--...c:=::::"'J -~=--j~". ~":!!".z.-..--,,~~.---~-.~~,~-....---....,--....- ::~~;~s=~~=:::::.-:-:.:::::~---- ~4:..-=E:.:'"~~~;~;:::.:~--:-~~-:~~~::.~~. J.____ _"".....#-'__. a..-.______,._._,.c.--.~._..___.____, _.1t;4...-:--~.c..-.4--_.~~r~- ,...~~-~~. -__ !~~i~~~~ ~lf6i~~~~iI;f ~-- -'- -- ...0&-,.... .'-:r-"-I"~--.-"--_. ~~;;~.;~..r=~~~'='=;;:;:~~=::;~='7.-::~_ ....:.:: ~_~::..::-..!:.~--:~,::.:.::.;::"~ :rl-~===:---~"'= ~- "'.....'1F:'::::. .-<6.0..~ ~...-___ ...."......._ _ ..,..,,,.......__~..~ ~....,...... ~4:..:.....~=i.:.~f::=:r--.._.,._-."...-...--...._- -.-..-. .~,7~,,;:-e=~-,,~. ~,...,.~_...__~.. -- ~. ..~_,.c..-_____.._....__..&_....._...__,...c...-., 600.-....~~_......__.1.- > ~___.____...~,......__..r-... __~ ..._-___...._~._ ._,.............~-..,-.,--~--- ~ ~ ~...::-~..tIIIl__~ -:....",____<<-_.:_.&..._tt___ ~..L:: -.......--rY.- --:""..-. - -"...,...,.-- ---~ ----.,..-- ~ ..z-:-.~-:-~_--:'- ..::;.:-:::zz...~7 - :-'.r;.._~;:=..-:;_ - 1II...~.~__.__"..--'-..__~__._~_4..........,-_....... ":tl""~---':"..~........'Y"--- ..=::-'::':-~~....".';:-;r"-":=------ ~....--- -.~ JII .-"-' "'."I#_~--,...J..-._.z:::_4""""'~_"~_-----'" --A.I,. 1._ """';,/'1-~~",,_..__#_..,-_......,--_.._..~-.-_.. 'yllLr4...~-"'-'" ,-.-_.._-..............._.~.........". -~-:.-::':.. ~~~!:!.:=:=.:t:::""-..~~....~-------- :-...=-.. r: :=.~ .~.-~ -=.. -:-.~~ ....:::.:=:-~~-;:~ ..z;:;:---:;;: --?".z~~=--=.. -:----=-:~~- ':f~-=: ::=:.~~:::..""'-~- --~-~.-I~it::::;...._._,._....__.._-~,-~~.z..- __.......__ ..___~__'_4~_......... ...c..-..__..._~..... :-C"__=:-;._ 4 ::~=.::- .j==~-;-~.....;:',:::::,~W:-..."..~'=- :::-~~.~=..:;~....-..:- ~~_...--"..--:,-,-,,-.....- r!"..- ___._"J_....".-"_J~_-,.....".......,._~.._ +-=--_4 ~__"...," ._ ~-;::-;__..._............_~....4_....._ .......:.;_=.:::.~:::: ........_,___.....~_-,.-__~~ ~~L- ::.::.:...._~.,,-.,.,==:_IIC...__.......-,..-...w---.....-.-...-.- ~~:::....~L:~..!:,.~:-~~~,::;.~-I-_........-, A..t...r--.___~...~_.-I:::. --~_......-........_____ J..-. A"~__,A.: ..-:-,.--......-. -- ~:.2Z.-_..--...-..--:.... .. ~7%...-;=.:=-...-::"r~~..;:;~.......~~=:. ~.~:""_~-":~;:::'=---"~-'-" .60&-..1':i~-~....,,-~,-~,.._--~_...... --.- . ~:;:::.~ :.,.... ~"7".. ~-=-.:.:=-:-=.-_ -:-..,.:.;'"'..~-=~. ---.. ......._~~~=~re--..--~---....-~... .. .. --r.-.- ~--,~_._--........- - ...~.....~'.. ..__..~_".....,.,.....,..____..W__ ~ Il' ~-.~:.~1t;,-;:-'::";. -.,--,......-_. ---.-..,........-........ ~ .~----....- .~.-......-.--~,..,.........--... _ _ ......:..-.._~_ .,.z-~;:::.6.:.:.-::::;~~"':-=.=:~: 7.....-' ....,.... ---.-......... ---..~--#f!I-."..-.~,"""'"'" ~'~~.A.-;......~.=.::::==:4 _.,..;W~---'~ .'=_-.!.:: ~;.......~~-;;:...-:~-::::7....~r__-_~. .....-- .~__..._4_::r~ - _...-.....,..-~ _.....-...-._ -- =:::::":.:...~ ._...-,.,....-.- _. ..... tl::"'7':'~~..:~ j';;;;=:~..._~:::..~.::-...:.7.~r"'~.'" ..... . ~.6- -"7'""';,.~~...:.:-~";. ...:-.....::~.-....;7'".:"'~ J;.....~7.:.:;..::.;~.;-:. -= =~f.::.i:=::~-:.:i,~7~~~~~~~f:_:..:-~..:. .:z:.. -:- .=...::.:-;:::.:::;:::::-..t z:::::-.c~~-:::::::;..,- '-_ ~.-:?!:-::.:~~-;=~~=:.-=~~~ !4:=-"~ .. ___,...-. .r.....--~-~~-;_..-':"-_.... ~..--_.__..,..,._.-....;z..,?--..7......_.-- --.,-..-. .... ~~.""tc \ ';:':'-;-2E~~:-':~---;.p-"""_tr_-_I_"'.~" ,..~=~....~ :::=:.: ~';':..-"r~~~ -z:..:-::-=;.:...:~..::..; -':t~~J;::~--~.:.:z..--.;..=:.=~...~..;::;~---:- - -.. ~- ".7:~"-""'4"'_"""..1-" -,..-.".. .- : ~-=:.:.:r--=~.A.- .__..__ ...._.._. :"'-:'7C_,:...-7~ ~:~f.~_""'::"'~ ~ ~;.;,-:.-.:.:::~:.,,:=::; t ~J..:'" ....-.----.......- .""\.1. .. r~A 't,--~~I~-r---~.,......--_...,..-----."'- . "\.i\~ \1 -"':-.:;:.::r'.:..:;:..~--.......-;~_,.... _~~._._..,........ _.. ~ .......:.-=........~_. -~.._+--.......,,......__..._,,.._4___ ..--......- --. ..-- ..........~..- ~-~-_......-"'-'_.- ......-.--.._----_..._.....~ ..11111>,.....,...;,,"'~-;':.__.....~--"-- -._~,.....,..."""'"'___._.... .. ~,...-.. -..~4 ,--....-..---r ,~~%:.::.----_.&..&--!::=~:::.;~~-~.~... ~-._,- =--.................... ~~ -~ ...,.............-.,.,..,.-... ..-' '-' ,- r~ - ..,....._'...--f- '._,..___----__ _ . _~."""--'-''''''-'+--r--"",,,,,,,,,,,--,,-,,,,,-",,,.........,..4'''''''',,~ ..".~....._~-....."'""',I-~~~,..-.-4.-..--....,....__......~ .''- ...".~~_~ _........-.~_........~........~ .,...-_~,.."..-...,,~....... ....~~4 ~ -- ~~"'_.6--4-.....;Z------~'2.-~.-'-."....-p ,,'\' \ II ~~....._-_..~.:::=%:.....~_......~ ~..... .,",,-, --......-:~~~4L~+,.~~:,-=-..!:;--~~--::z- _...w.4.:h--,...-,,-...._II~.~r----. - -"M.....Mo ~__..._~-4'_ ~~ ,?Uk. ';:..o:',-.~. ~--~~~rl ~,. _ee,.''''....r,e,4____IJ&-.-'',~~A'.,.,;.N-A, ____I~-J~...:t:.T"50 J~~ ~ ~ ~ -~-'-~.~.,.~- 4-.... ;: .... ,-~,_.- -- .w4C:::'~_~--- -_:-~F"":f!:~Z;;',t:...~;;~ ~~r..~'--~.v~ \.Il\\ ~~'5.~ ".'" :.c:- ~ J ~_.a....;, ....e... ~ -"~-4wk? ___ .~~.....ar~:r.! ~ ~A. ~ ~ r+'-::.!,.,....,.. ~ Ao;; ~.'-.'.u!- I ~ ~ ti' .,,,~ ~ 1 K.J"".,c;,..,... ~.- ~ .AaW".J_~' ..,...:- [ J---". ...._~ [~:-;c" N1~ ~,!~ oOA.&,.", (~/,,~~, ~~:', , r~- '....~#4 t~t~ ~_J ~~ ...u...L bL-L ~r ~ CJ,.~,=, &"I(~~/.1 ~:;- IYM ..-., ~ ~L~ ~ JC;~\AC~~ .~. ; i i ~ i . ~. ~I'~~& We Tbe PeoPle Means Me I signed-on the Constitution California "Sign.on" Campaign September 1987 - December 1987 \ ....__""...u..~ ~orth Rrand, Suilt' ~'IO, GlmdaIc. CA 9120'\, (818) W).17fr 1-IL-. r , l ...' ........ II-36 - . I THE CHAMBER GILROY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. 80 WEST FIFTH STRE=T . 3iL~CY CALIFORNIA 95020 . '408) 8~2.5.137 OFFICERS ""ESIDENT OF THE BO..IIO Tom WIlIle ilI<<1 ~ ~.rry VICE ""ESlDENTS .wi ..."In ~U.s..' 0/ G.IIO. tk, ErIc ,...",.. C>>na., KaItly o..n. w.- F~ .."" ........ NlcIIolIe SouI1l V.-,. '*- .". PAST 80AII0 PIU!SlDt!NT JoIIrl YOUftll Gi/lOy FatxIs, InC DII'lECTOIIS 881 Ayet 1-/<<1<., p...... F_ty ~/Uf. ... o.n.., J, C ,..",..., Cc.. 11tc, ...... ImIcIl IIWM. s.::.- ~t ,,.. "1OIftV ~'. GMlIIn Flonst ...... IC_ ~0lM~11tc. IIII::fI ...... ~ Don 1IIIIInofI. Jt, GIlly Ml<<lr CcnipwIy Dol.- ...... Dr. ..... ,....., GotM/Irl ~ ..... ........ Ciivy 0Ib ~ ....... --. IlN. ,.,.,.. R, S-, III,D.. ft:, "T~ OIDI E....- VINR y..... ~~ IX~ DlMCTOIIIS .., .... CIy .. Gonly Dr. ... ...-..- GotM/Irl ~ Dr. IC8n ....... Ciivy IJrfIIIetI sa-r CMft:r .... --- ~~"c.m.w &.--. v........ 0Ib.. Q" s.--, "'-1. t o.IfIlI II, ......... '-- iIIcle ,,-, May 16, 1989 Community Development Agency of the Citv of Gilrov Ato1: Boam 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 fonnation 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 propeny 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 will 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. Sjdcerely. .~')' -; j ~ 1- 4' ,~;..- , '71./ t...:.- ~ ' 4,."":...-.;J . . ~.. " omas G. White President II-37 -Providing Leadership for Responsible Growth and Developme'7r . . SOUTH SANTA CLARA VALLEY WAR MEMORIAL COMMITTEE 7.. W, Sillfh 5,,..t GILROY, CALIFORNIA 95020 .. "OJ'" ..~ May 18, 1989 , .. Mr. Xichael Dorn Deputy Executive Director Community Development Agency City of Gilroy 7351 Rosanna Street Gilroy, California 95020 " . ,..,.,... ~ I -~lo!~ J:' ", 'j'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 limits. 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 .fJ~OCK 7lNV 1lSS0.~S c-...iIJ ~J#,..,u COMllJ..ts 1=0,. SUtItIl 'Distrids (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. powe r in the hands of .the Ci ty Council they say. The re 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 ! - eV"'UUU<;;UL ......<;;L L"'~ U, rCl~O::: L 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 coun try! ! 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 available to house an expanding student population. - We appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight and share these thoughts with you. Sin::l' 7J/~.,.L ~ Matlock II-40 . Jobn & Simoni . AItIJ,._'I ..,.J Co_Io,. 4/ .,1_ 20 m",u,. 3"..1 p. 0. &x 2086 r;to" Calfo,...u" 9502/-2086 AI'M Co,/. 408 J.!.pI..o... 842-3/44 S,J-'I S. JDi.-.,. /9/1 - 1979 JturI4~ 1/. SiwuJlIi 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 l<1embers: 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. ) / JVS/pt ,/James // II -41 V. 11 . 2 . 1:1. WRITTEN FI~INGS AND RESPONSES OF CITY4ItOUNCIL 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 1, 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 1, 1989 report. A.1. 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 ftllncial resources of the C~. Part 3 of the r Report is incorporated by references to provide further factual support for this Response A.1. 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 ddcumented in ~t 3 of the Report (which ~incorporated by , 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 aqreement, 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 mitiqated and is hereby overruled. A.5. Comment A.5 states two concerns: (a) that the Agency will be a "state" agency with almost "unlimited authoritYi" 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 Leqislature (see for instance, Health and Safety Code Section 33035), the Agency itself is exclusively governed and controlled 111-3 locally, by th~ected 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 makinq 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 articulatJlPhese 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.2g 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 111-5 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.6. 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 i~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.6. 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.6. With respect to the impact of redevelopment financing on the state budqet, 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 Leqislature 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.6. 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.6 is without merit, and is hereby overruled. A.7. Comment A.7 states that the Aqency 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 paQe 20 that: 111-7 . . "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.S that the Agency Boardmembers can "remove the local control of your city government." As emphasized in Responses A.S (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 Aqency 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.a). 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.10 constitutes an objection to the Redevelopment Plan, it is found to be without merit and is hereby overruled. A.ll. Comment A.l1 (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.I1. Based on the information and analysis contained in that response, to the extent Comment A.l1 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 bliqhting conditions as defined in the CRL. In fact, Part 2 of the Report contains an extensive analysis of the bliqhtinq 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 riqhts, 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 recoqnized 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 3S 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 ipcorporated .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 quidelines (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 I filctual suppo or the conclusion of thisW'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-15. Comment A.15 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.5 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.15. 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.15 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.15), seek to encourage and maximized participation by as many property owners as possible. Responses A.2I and A.27 through A.36 (which are incorporated by reference in this Response A.I5) provide detailed analysis of the operation of the Participation Rules. Based on the foreqoing 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. 1 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.5 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 Aoency 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. sea.). 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 officials and~loyees to avoid partici~.on in decisions i~ which they mall'ave a financial interest t would result in 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.18 expresses a nebulous concern that "suspect" and "stranqe" 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 Leqislature 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 aqency, the aqency is more 111-14 responsive to~munity concerns and less.one to the suspect ,a~d strange d'IPsions complained of in Co nt A.18 than if the agency is a separate, less accountable, appointed group of individuals. ' Comment A.18 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.5, A.9, and A.16, which responses are incorporated in this Response A.18 by reference. Based on the foregoing information and analysis, to the extent Comment A.18 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 5), 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 declinino 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 has 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 549 project areas in the State. However, the positive aspects of redevelopment are for more prevalent. The CDAC Report (pages 68-74) documents the "significant accomplishments" of California redevelopment in a relatively short period of time. These accomplishments (through mid-1984) include a net gain of approximately 145,000 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.21. 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 cateQories 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 111-16 w~lling to usJllteir property in a manner est 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 area; (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.21 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 38) 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 15 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.10, and Response A.I0 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.5 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.25. Comment A.25 reiterates the concern that redevelopment agencies are state "bureaucracies" operating without any checks and balances. Responses A.5, 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.25. Based on those responses, it is found that, to the extent Comment A.25 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.l throuqh A.2S address the author's summary comments in detail and are incorporated in this final response by reference. 111-18 . . 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 11-21. Comment A.27 objects to the Redevelopment Plan's imposition of "new and restrictive regulations upon property and busin,ess 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 o~he City of Gilroy Zoning ~dinance 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.28. Comment A.28 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 Aoency could affect some property owners; however, due to the protections included in the Redevelopment Plan, the Participation Rules, 111-20 the 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 quidelines. 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 qrounds that "those who hold a philosophy of social enqineering for the public good" (the Agency) will abuse their discretion in determining that 111-21 s~veral parcel4lle 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.21, 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 cooperatiallregarding 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.5 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.35. Comment A.35 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 111-23 determined thaAe property should be com.ed with other ,r parcels into a unified development site. As discussed in the response to Comment A.30 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.35 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.5, 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.5. 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 y . . .' 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) . 111-25 ~ 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. , ~ 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.5, 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 ~ , TherAgenC~OUld use this authority, tiling 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. ~ 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 " " . . ~ . 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 33353 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 1989. 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 33352(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-l ~ ~ . . . 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)