Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 11 30 CC MIN1976 11 30 CC MIN(ÌìÎmpeINDEX NOVEMBER 30, 1976 Invocation Councilman Hamilton Mrs. Emmit Waldo Excuse Mayor Waldo Excuse City Treasurer Montenegro James Pulliam, Pulliam, Matthews & Associates James Pulliam, Pulliam, Matthews & Associates Joseph Montoya Robert L. Oilman, Oltman & Associates James Putliam, PuTliam Matthews & Associates James Magner, Fiscal Consultant Oath Public Hearing Report Re Adoption of Redevelopment Plan for San Gabriel River Redevelopment Project and Adoption of Plan: Consider Approval of Draft E.I.R Proper Publications and Mailings Opened Public Hearing: Henry Littlejohn William P. Willman. Representing Clare Schweitzer E. J. Gekas, Representing Ruth Havenar and Eva Cantrall Trust Bertha Regus Dorothy Mayes Fred Heitman Robert L. Oilman, Ottman & Associates Dorothy Mayes Loren Love joy Tom Carpenter Public Hearing Closed Councilman Hamilton James Pulliam James Puttiam Acting City Manager Ritchie James Magner, Fiscal Consultant James Magner Project Study Documents Councilman Blewett Councilman Aguilar Acting City Attorney Ritchie 10:12 P.M. Meeting Adjourned BIB] 37658-U01 1976-U02 11-U02 30-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9725-U03 DO9784-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/5/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1976 11 30 CC MIN(ÌìÎmpe0007324 ADJOURNED SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BALDWIN PARK CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS) 14403 East Pacific Avenue AND AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. BALDWIN PARK REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The City Council of the City of Baldwin Park met in adjourned special session at the above place at 8:00 p.m. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Baldwin Park met in adjourned regular session at the above place at 8:00 p.m. An invocation was given by Councilman Hamilton. Councilman Aguilar led the salute to the flag. Roll Call CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOP- MENT AGENCY DIRECTORS: Present: AGUILAR. BLEWETT, HAMILTON AND MAYOR PRO TEM KITCHEL Absent: MAYOR AND DIRECTOR WALDO Also Present: ACTING CITY MANAGER SEXTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CRA), ACTING CITY ATTORNEY RITCHIE, PLANNING DIRECTOR KILGOUR, ASSISTANT PLANNER MONTOYA AND CITY CLERK BALKUS Also Absent: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS LATHROP, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE HALLOWAY. CHIEF OF POLICE CHELLINO AND CITY TREASURER MONTENEGRO 00- Mayor pro tern Kitchel stated this was a continued Public Hearing to further consider the proposed San Gabriel River Redevelopment Project and the Environmental Impact Report. He said Mayor Waldo was convalescing at home and unable to attend the meeting. Mrs. Emmit Waldo, 4635 North Bogart, thanked those who had called or sent expressions of concern over Mayor Waldo's health and for their prayers and quick aid that was given when they needed it. She read a letter Mayor Waldo had asked her to read to the Council in which he expressed regret at not being able to attend this important meeting, due to doctor's orders. He said he was with the Council in his thoughts and prayers in the hour of their decision on the project. Letter in official files.) 00- EXCUSE MAYOR WALDO. M/S/C: HAMILTON/AGUILAR. There were no objections. 00- EXCUSE CITY TREASURER MONTENEGRO. M/S/C: AGUILAR/ HAMILTON. There were no objections. 00- Acting City Manager Sexton introduced James Puttiam, the architect/planner who had coordinated the study; Robert Oilman, who did the Environmental Impact analysis; continued) NOVEMBER 30, 1976 8:00 P.M. INVOCATION FLAG SALUTE ROLL CALL MRS. EMMIT WALDO EXCUSE MAYOR WALDO EXCUSE CITY TREAS. MONTENEGRO BIB] 37658-U01 1976-U02 11-U02 30-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9725-U03 DO9784-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/5/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1976 11 30 CC MIN(ÌìÎmpeOCO/325 Adjourned Special Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council and Adjourned Regular Session of the Board of Directors, Baldwin Park Redevelopment Agency November 30, 1976 Page 2 and James Magner, who was there on financial matters. He said Taylor Dark, the economist, had submitted a letter relative to the questions raised during the last Public Hearing. He said the team would update any information which was required and appropriate before the Public Hearing was opened. City Clerk Balkus noted that a written comnunication had been received from Taylor Dark and also read a letter from the County Administrative Office relative to their position on the Redevelopment Plan. Copy in official files.) Acting City Attorney Ritchie stated the effect of the County letter is to support the Plan with the exception that they take the position that to provide for a maximum million dollar tax increment to be used is to also provide for a maximum 35-year life plan. He said Mr. Dark pointed out at the last meeting that this is not true. He said you will sell such bonds or create such indebtedness as may be necessary to carry out the Plan and then pay it off with increment not to exceed a million dollars a year as quickly as possible. If it takes 5 years to pay it off because you have a lot of increment, or 10 years or 12 years, that is the purpose of having that flexibility. Once it is paid off, unless you embark upon other work within the project area which would require additional indebtedness, you would not necessarily, or even likely, attempt to use $35 Million by taking down a ntlTlon dollars a year for 35 years. Mr. Ritchie said the County would also like to be advised if we develop any public facilities associated with the project and that that request should be on file so that they can be notified in that case. Otherwise, the tetter was helpful and supportive of the Plan. Councilman Blewett asked if it was unusual for the County to support a Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Ritchie said that although the young lady from the County couldn't identify blight in the slides, evidently other experts had reviewed the Plan and found it not unreasonable. He said the County had not always opposed redevelopment but have been doing so in the last month or so Mr. Sexton requested that the consultants address themselves to the questions raised during the Public Hearing. James Pulliam, of the firm of Pull 1am and Matthews, 672 South West Morel and, Los Angeles, said the question relating to school enrollment had been responded to in Mr. Dark's letter to the Council. In 1970 there were approximately 13,000 enrolled students; in 1974 that had dropped to 11,800; in 1975 the trend reversed itself and there had been an increase of 100 to 120 students in the last year. He said that there is a dear provision in the Redevelopment Plan and in the State Law for the Redevelopment Agency to rebate monies to the school district if they should determine to do so. The school distict's present assessed valuation of alt the properties within the school district is approximately $83 Million and the assessed valuation of the property in the project area is $923,000, about 1% of the assessed valuation that the district looks to for their taxing funds. continued) JAMES PULLIAM, PULLIAM. MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES BIB] 37658-U01 1976-U02 11-U02 30-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9725-U03 DO9784-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/5/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1976 11 30 CC MIN(ÌìÎmpeCOG7326 Adjourned Special Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council and Adjourned Regular Session of the Board of Directors, Baldwin Park Redevelopment Agency November 30, 1976 Page 3 Mr. Pulliam referred to a statement that there had been bias shown in the cities listed in the Planning Report and stated that the cities they made comparison upon were Irwindale, Industry, Covina, West Covina and El Monte. He said they had studied the possibility of a street constructed approximately parallel and contiguous to the Department of Water and Power utility easement along the easterly boundary of the study area. They determined that such a road, if it went all the way from Los Angeles Street to Live Oak, would be about 7600 feet long, and utilizing the right-of-way establish- ed for the rest of the streets proposed in the redevelop- ment project for industrial use at 80 feet in width, it would require approximately 14 acres of land and at a cost of approximately $85 a liniat foot of road would cost in excess of $650,000. He said they are suggesting that the secondary street servicing the redevelopment project in the study area be held in abeyance until such time as a definitive need is determined, based upon direct interest and desire to purchase a particular site, and then responding by providing the streets necessary for that particular development. He referred to the question of rezoning the southerly portion of the redevelopment project from M-2 to M-1. This represents a continuity in the zoning pattern for the entire area and keeps the zoning consistent and uniform for the developers. He said there were many uses permitted under M-2 zoning that weren't suited for land located that close to residential development. All the uses presently located in the study area conform to the M-1 use as classified. He said all the properties in the study area bounded on the west by the San Gabriel River Channel; north by Live Oak Avenue; on the east generally by the Department of Water and Power easement and on the south by Los Angeles Street are included in the redevelopment project even though some conform to uses contemplated in the over a11 Plan. Documentation to substantiate this position was given in Section V., H. of the Planning Report in greater detail. The photo- graphs of the study area were taken at random and were not intended to show bias and only the problem areas, but the potential of the site as well. He explained that the U.S. Concrete Pipe Company parking lot located on the south side of Live Oak Avenue was used as a storage area by the Company, bounded on the West by Webster's Refuse Disposal, and was locked in as a conforming use to the Plan. He said there was a significant amount of vacant land available for development and acreage that can be combined into considerably larger sites and that there was an agreement with U.S. Concrete Pipe in the preliminary discussions on provision of landscaping, screening and additional set backs. He suggested that when the land can be used more intensively for another purpose, the parking would be relocated within the land north of Live Oak Avenue, and doesn't presently interfere with the beginnings of the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan. He stated the 605 Speedway had been determined not a conforming use in the City of Irwindale. It operates under a Conditional Use Permit there and is revocable at any time. Since their portion of the project is within a redevelopment project in that City, the logical next step would be to incorporate the project as a redevelopment area and then, within the City level, initiate constructive discussions between the two cities continued) JAMES PULLIAM. PULLIAM, MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES BIB] 37658-U01 1976-U02 11-U02 30-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9725-U03 DO9784-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/5/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1976 11 30 CC MIN(ÌìÎmpe00&732V Adjourned Special Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council and Adjourned Regular Session of the Board of Directors, Baldwin Park Redevelopment Agency November 30, 1976 Page 4 regarding bringing about improvement of the entire area for the benefit of both cities. The City of Irwindate, in discussions with the consultants, had indicated interest in discussing the possibilities further. Joseph Montoya, Assistant Planner, referred to the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared with the cooperation of Robert L. Oltman and Associates. The City Council must certify the final Environmental Impact Report after appropriate Public Hearings. Publications, mailings and postings had been accomplished. He stated the guidelines necessary for the preparation of the E.I.R. required certain elements that should be in- cluded in the E.I.R. and listed those elements. The evaluation of the Draft E.I.R. should focus on the sufficiency of it and the Addendum in discussing the possible impacts upon the environment and alternates or ways adverse effects might be minimized in the proposed project. The final E.I.R. should contain a section listing all the organizations and persons consulted, and all comments received through the consultant process as well as responses by the City Council. He said the Planning Department had analyzed the confonnance of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance with the Draft E.I.R. and it was their opinion that the Draft E.I.R. was consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the adopted General Plan and the development standards of the adopted Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Department had determined that the Draft E.I.R. had been prepared in accordance with all mandated state, county and local regulations and that it had sufficiently addressed itself to the identification of all significant effects and mitigating measures of the proposed project and was consistent with the adopted Plans and Ordinances of the City of Baldwin Park. The Planning Commission had reviewed the Draft E.I.R. on November 22, 1976 and indicated 1n Resolution No. 76-57 that the Draft E.I.R. and Addendum had been prepared in accordance with all regulations and sufficiently addressed itself to all elements and is consistent with the adopted Plans and Ordinances of the City of Baldwin Park. A 30-day review period is mandated by State law, between the completion and certification of the document. The period between October 19 and November 17 was provided to allow inter- ested agencies and persons to comment on the Draft E.I.R. No agencies or persons have filed comments on the Draft E.I.R. He stated that the Planning Department recommended that the City Council approve the Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the San Gabriel River Redevelopment Project Area as presented and that all comments received during the review period and Public Hearings be incorporated in the Draft E.I.R. and its Addendum to form the final Environment Impact Report Robert L. Ottman, 672 Lafayette Park Place, L.A., said his firm had been retained to analyze the proposed project area. They had addressed themselves specifically to items that Staff had set forth in their environmental assessments and to those set forth by the State of California. Revisions had been made by Staff after the Draft E.I.R. was submitted. Initially, the Plan had included a recreational commercial use which was dropped and is reflected in the Addendum to the Draft E.I.R. An in-depth noise analysis of the potential project and its effect on the residential area and a more detailed approach to the energy problem had been requested by Staff and were included in the Addendum. He stated the E.I.R. contained their finding and stressed continued) JOSEPH MONTOYA ROBERT L. OLTMAN, OLTMAN & ASSOCIATES BIB] 37658-U01 1976-U02 11-U02 30-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9725-U03 DO9784-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/5/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1976 11 30 CC MIN(ÌìÎmpeAdjourned Special Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council and Adjourned Regular Session of the Board of Directors, Baldwin Park Redevelopment Agency they did not make judgements whether there are substantial impacts of the project on the area or not. James Pulliam stated he had reviewed the Draft E.I.R. as part of the over all program for the Redevelopment Plan. He said that if specific development is proposed in the project area,supplemental E.I.R.'s wilt be required and submitted, in addition to the various controls on land uses set forth in the Redevelopment Plan. This constitutes additional safeguards to assure that property is developed within the parameters of good standards. James Magner, fiscal consultant, referred to the County letter dated November 30, 1976, and said they had overlooked the business of municipal financing. He said if any City or Agency proposes to market a tax allocation bond issue, the amount of increment available to it will have a substantial impact upon the cost of that money. Bond buyers will be more apprehensive on an issue that has a limited amount of income than on others who have a greater amount of income. This would be reflected in either the ability to market the issue or in the cost of borrowing. He stated this should be recognized by the County before they suggest limitations on increment to the various Redevelopment Agencies. He referred to school district revenue and said that when Senate Bill 90 was passed, there was a complex formula to determine the tax rate that a school district would have to levy to recover the revenue to meet their expenses after deducting the State apportionment. He said at the conclusion of SB 90, a redevelopment project could have a financial impact upon a school district. AB 657 allows school districts to levy, so this eliminates any difference. A study of other projects in which 9 districts were involved indicated one-half had no increase or a minor decrease, so there will not be any significant financial impact on this district. He stated that since 1970 the land value has remained the same. City Clerk Balkus administered the oath to those in the audience desiring to be heard during the meeting. 00- It was the time and place fixed for a public hearing on considering a report concerning the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan for the San Gabriel River Redevelop- ment Project and the adoption of said Plan, and to consider the approval of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Proper publications and mailings had been accomplished. 0007328 November 30, 1976 Page 5 JAMES PULLIAM PULLIAM. MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES JAMES MAGNER, FISCAL CONSULTANT OATH PUBLIC HEARING REPORT RE ADOPTION OF REDEV. PLAN FOR SAN GABRIEL RIVER REDEV. PROJ. & ADOPTION OF PLAN: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF DRAFT E.I.R. PUBLICATIONS & MAILINGS Mayor pro tern Kitchet opened the Public Hearing on the E.I.R. Report and the Redevelopment Plan. He said this was an opportunity for those who had withheld their opinion at the last Public Hearing, pending additional information and in order to have additional time to study the reports. continued) OPENED PUB. HEARING BIB] 37658-U01 1976-U02 11-U02 30-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9725-U03 DO9784-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/5/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1976 11 30 CC MIN(ÌìÎmpe0007329 Adjourned Special Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council and Adjourned Regular Session of the Board of Directors, Baldwin Park Redevelopment Agency November 30. 1976 Page 6 Henry Littlejohn, 4225 North Jerry, spoke in favor of a road he had proposed along the Department of Water and Power right-of-way, ending at Merced and continuing up to Arrow Highway. He disagreed that property belonging to U.S. Concrete Pipe Company was a conforming use, as he said the property was in Irwindale, who was receiving all the benefits from it except a small amount of taxes. He was opposed to putting cul-de-sacs into industrial areas. He was in favor of relocating the school area in order to make use of it as an industrial section to increase revenue to the City. He said that he and other property owners had not been contacted. HENRY LITTLEJOHN 00- Witliam P. Willman, 14350 Mullholland Dr., L.A., attorney representing property owner Clare Schweitzer, stated Mr. Schweitzer was in favor of the Redevelop- ment Plan and objectives, as he understands them, if they are pursued. He stated his understanding of the provisions for condemnation or in the case that they wish to be bought out within 3 years by eminent domain, and said with this understanding they are in favor of the Plan. WILLIAM P. WILLMAN. REPRESENTING CLARE SCHWEITZER 00- E. J. Gekas, 15 North First Avenue, Arcadia, attorney E. J. GEKAS, representing Ruth Havenar and Eva Cantrall as trustees REPRESENTING RUTH of the CantraU Trust which owns property partially HAVENAR & EVA leased to Brooks Products, stated that he did not see CANTRALL TRUST any tie-in language in the Plan that that use shown on the map as a comforming use will be determined to be a conforming use once the Plan is adopted. Mr. Ritchie stated that being shown on the map makes them part of the Plan and a conforming use. Mr. Gekus said it was his understanding that if you were a conforming use that nothing could be demanded of the conforming use property owner as long as the use does not change, unless the owner wished to embark upon new construction and would then have to meet the requirements of new construction as set forth in the Plan. Mr. Ritchie said that was the intent of determining a conforming use. Mr. Gekus asked if you are a conforming use, could you still have the option of entering into a Partic- ipation Agreement without losing your status as a conforming use? Mr. Ritchie said, yes, the Agency would be willing to negotiate in writing something to specifically spelt out Mr. Gekus's needs. Mr. Gekus said he wished to lodge the following objections for the record only. 1) The E.I.R. didn't take into account any other project development which may take place adjacent to the project. 2) It is contemplated that the City of Irwindale will participate in some way. He said that without a definite plan involving Irwindale, the Plan may not be as feasible as it might otherwise be. 3) He did not acknowledge blight continued) BIB] 37658-U01 1976-U02 11-U02 30-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9725-U03 DO9784-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/5/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1976 11 30 CC MIN(ÌìÎmpeAdjourned Special Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council November 30, 1976 and Adjourned Regular Session of the Board of Directors, Page 7 Baldwin Park Redevelopment Agency on their property and said it should not be included in the Plan. He said these objections are reserved for the record only in case the project doesn't turn out to be what was anticipated. Bertha Regus, 5013 Cutler, opposed the approval and adoption of the redevelopment project and a Plan which included properties which were not blighted and needed no redevelopment. She said these properties were included in the project for the purpose of im- pounding taxes incurred from future tax increase and improvements brought about by the business of plant expansion and other improvements brought about by the property owner. County, school and City taxes will be siphoned off to the Redevetopments Agencies without benefit of redevelopment. Mr. Ritchie said that Mayor pro tern could limit comments to new information without comments repeated from the last Public Hearing. Mrs. Regus protested the secrecy and withholding until November 29, one day before the second reading of the Ordinance, of reports. Plans and Environmental Impact Report, without publishing their existence in the Public Library. She said 2 copies were placed there, depriving 14,000 property owners of the Agency's intentions. She demanded that no action be taken until the above objections were eliminated or corrected. She read a quote attributed to Mayor Waldo from a Tribune article dated October 30. 1973. in which he opposed CRA. Dorothy Mayes, 3453 North Big Dalton, questioned adjournment of the last meeting. She felt there should be some commitment from the City of Irwindate implemented before the Plan was voted on. Mr. Ritchie said that following the last meeting, the City Clerk had followed up on the adjournment by posting an adjourned notice of the meeting. Fred Heitman, representing Brooks Products, 13205 Los Angeles Street, asked if the Ordinance was in addition to the Plan or if the Plan becomes the Ordinance Mr. Ritchie explained that when the Ordinance is adopted, it will adopt the Plan by reference. The Plan is separate from the Ordinance. There will be nothing In the Ordinance to change the provisions of the Plan. He suggested Mr. Heitman obtain a copy of the Ordinance but said it would not be voted upon until December 2. He said he would have to see where the diffence lay before telling Mr. Heitman which was the governing document, the Ordinance or the Plan. Mr. Heitman asked if it wouldn't be advisable to attach some type of rider to the Plan when it was adopted, that would require the inclusion of the City of Irwindale before initiating the redevelopment project. Mr. Ritchie recommended against writing this into the Plan. He said there were a number of things to continued) BERTHA REGUS DOROTHY MAYES FRED HEITMAN BIB] 37658-U01 1976-U02 11-U02 30-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9725-U03 DO9784-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/5/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1976 11 30 CC MIN(ÌìÎm pe000^333- November 30, 1976 Page 8 Adjourned Special Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council and Adjourned Regular Session of the Board of Directors, Baldwin Park Redevelopment Agency be done to enhance it and create development. He said the Plan could be adopted and then an attempt made to coordinate with the City of Irwindale. It would be making the Plan somewhat inflexible to say this had to be done first. Mr. Heitman stated that if that order of business was not taken care of. he didn't feel there was anything else to develop. Acting City Manager Sexton stated that adoption of the Redevelopment Plan would give the Agency status that it does not have now to enter into negotiations with the City of Irwindale. The Redevelopment Plan will be the Agency's authorization to proceed to make arrangements with them. Acting City Attorney Ritchie referred to Mr. Gekus's comment regarding the E.I.R. and the accumulative effect of this project and adjacent projects and whether that might amount to a significant negative impact upon the environment. Mr. Ottman said the noise from the 605 Speedway created such an overwhelming impact that, if the facility stayed and new development came along within the area. the cumulative effect would be very minor because of the already existing noise. ROBERT L. OLTMAN, OLTMAN & ASSOCIATES Dorothy Nayes» 3453 North Big Dalton, said she would like to have the City Clerk read how the previous meeting was adjourned. DOROTHY MAYES Mr. Ritchie stated that this information could be obtained from the City Clerk's office. Loren Lovejoy, 12749 Torch, asked if the CRA can void LOREN LOVEJOY any contract that stands in the way of any project making. Mr. Ritchie said there might be some contracts the CRA would have no effect upon, and many others which the CRA could have set aside. It might cost the CRA money to do so» because the power of condemnation carries with it the obligation to compensate. Development standards could be imposed which might significantly effect an on-going contract. Mr. Lovejoy referred to the theatre contract and asked if that could be broken if the CRA wished to take over the ground the theatre is on, and what if there is a homestead? Mr. Ritchie said if the Plan encompasses the possibility of acquiring that property and if the purpose of acquisition is to carry out some announced purpose of the Plan, then they could acquire the property and redevelop it. If there is the right to condemn, there is the right to condemn out the lease interest, but that value has to be paid as well as the value of the property. The total award must be apportioned between the tenant and the landlord. He said a house could be condemned whether it is homesteaded or not. Homesteading was a device to protect against creditors, and since the homeowner was being paid for the house when it was taken, there would be no concern about the homestead provision. continued) BIB] 37658-U01 1976-U02 11-U02 30-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9725-U03 DO9784-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/5/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1976 11 30 CC MIN(ÌìÎm peAdjourned Special Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council and Adjourned Regular Session of the Board of Directors, Baldwin Park Redevelopment Agency Tom Carpenter, 4346 Jerry, Chairman of the League to Preserve Constitutional and Civil Rights, said he understood that the Draft E.I.R. was flexible so that it could be manipulated so that it will take care of whatever the environment presents in future development no redevelopment in some areas. Acting City Attorney Ritchie stated the law says the E.I.R. is a draft at the time of the Public Hearing. He said the comments from citizens and input from the consultants will be incorporated by reference into the final Environmental Impact Report. It will be on file and will be the document to guide the City Council in deciding whether it is going to go forward with the project or not. He said the E.I.R. was not something to be manipulated and invited Mr. Carpenter to identify any environmental problem he thought needed connent upon so that the consultants could respond to it. Mr. Carpenter asked if there was some particular business the Agency would like to include, would the E.I.R. be flexible and made to conform to what they would like to put in? Would it have to conform? Mr. Ritchie stated that the law says that an E.I.R. on a General Plan must be general, where an E.I.R. on a factory must be specific, because you have the plans and know precisely what the impact will be. The E.I.R. on a Redevelopment Plan must be as general as the Plan is general and as specific as the Plan is specific. If there is to be specific develop- ment of any consequence, there will be another E.I.R. done, or a supplement to this one, to address itself to the new environmental concerns that will be created by a specific, identified project. When you are only talking about an area in general terms and about the potential for redevelopment, you can only address the environmental consequences in the same general way. If the Plan doesn't fit. the project shouldn't be approved that has been specifically studied. Mr. Carpenter asked what good the E.I.R. would be years from now when the bonds are paid off and many changes have been made. Mr. Ritchie said 10 years ago there was no E.I.R. legislation. He said the E.I.R. was only as effective as the good faith of the people who do it. The law says an E.I.R. must be done, and sometimes it can be very helpful. Mr. Carpenter asked how the Council can eliminate statements from the public that happen to be along the same lines as someone had stated before. He stated he thought that was unconstitutional. Mr. Ritchie said that if 10 people want to get up and oppose the Plan, they had the right to do that, but the Chair had some discretion to limit, for example, someone getting up and reading the same statement as she had read at the last Public Hearing. Mr. Carpenter said she had not read anything. continued) CC07332 November 30, 1976 Page 9 TOM CARPENTER BIB] 37658-U01 1976-U02 11-U02 30-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9725-U03 DO9784-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/5/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1976 11 30 CC MIN(ÌìÎm pe000^333 Adjourned Special Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council and Adjourned Regular Session of the Board of Directors, Baldwin Park Redevelopment Agency Mr. Ritchie said as many people as want to can get up and say that they agree with the last speaker and are opposed to the Plan, but that it was not helpful to get up and repeat the same observations. As there was no further testimony in behalf or opposition to the report concerning the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan for the San Gabriel River Redevelopment Project and the adoption of said Plan, and to the approval of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Mayor pro tern Kitchel closed the Public Hearing. Councilman Hamilton responded to comments made by individuals opposed to CRA that the City was ripping off" the County with the tax money on increment bonds. He stated the County gets 59% and the City 9% of taxes paid, and asked what services the property owners get from the 59% paid to the County and what benefits from the City's tax dollars. He said the School Super- intendent and business manager had told him they did not object to CRA in Baldwin Park. It will cost them less than 1/2% which they felt was minimal. He stated that CRA is the only way to get all this vacant, blighted land developed and that he had been favor of CRA since there had been a change in the law regarding relocation cost. The citizens will a11 benefit from CRA. Mr. Pulliam, consultant, stated he agreed with Mr. Gekus that the Cantrall Trust property was not blighted and said the reasons for its inclusion in the project area were in keeping with the principle of including all the property within that logical planning boundary. He thought to exclude it would be detrimental to the potential for full implementation of the Plan. Mr. Ritchie clarified that the Act stated that all property in the project area need not be blighted and its inclusion is necessary for the effectuation of the Plan. Mr. Pulliam listed the problems of upgrading the area as consolidation of land; division of proper street and utility access; improvement of Rivergrade Road all the way from Los Angeles Street to Live Oak Avenue; improvement of the intersection at Los Angeles Street; and improvement of the Dept. of Water and Power easement through the entire project from Los Angeles Street to Live Oak Avenue. He said these problems deal with all the properties that lie within the boundaries north of Los Angeles Street and south of Live Oak Avenue. Mr. Ritchie asked how the vacant and unused land belonging to the Cantrall Trust represented by Mr. Gekus and its ultimate development utilization could be enhanced by CRA activity. Mr. Pulliam said that improvements such as set backs and landscaping could be established as a legitimate project expense for enhancing this property along Los Angeles Street and the small portion that fronts on Rivergrade Road, with the concurrence of Mr. Gekus and his clients. If the cooperative venture with Irwindale is successful^ that will impact upon this property and make it more desirable for full development by him or somebody else. Having this property included continued) November 30, 1976 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED COUNCILMAN HAMILTON JAMES PULLIAM BIB] 37658-U01 1976-U02 11-U02 30-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9725-U03 DO9784-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/5/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1976 11 30 CC MIN(ÌìÎm 1976 11 30 CC MIN(ÌìÎm peOOG'7335 Adjourned Special Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council November 30, 1976 and Adjourned Regular Session of the Board of Directors, Page 12 Baldwin Park Redevelopment Agency existence of that increment. Any cost incurred in redevelop- ing that area would be pledged to be repaid by the increment and that cost would be incurred by the Agency. Acting City Attorney Ritchie said there could be a loss if someone went in and redeveloped by tearing down improvements and didn't replace them. Then the County's assessed valuation would drop below the point where it was when you started the Plan. Mr. Magner said the assessed valuation had dropped, in some cases, for a year or two where there were large, extensive clearance programs where many so-called residential struct- ures were eliminated and new ones were constructed. He said that during the time of demolition and prior to the time of construction, the assessment date of March passed and the assessed valuation was lower for that period of time than it was at the outset. Subsequently, the assessed valuation rose again. Mr. Sexton asked if it wasn't true that the Redevelopment Agency in that area will stabilize and set a level that it is assured, if not guaranteed, that the County's tax flow from that area will not decrease. Mr. Magner said that in many parts of Los Angeles County there had been a decline in value, principally because of the inroads of blight and that no effort was taken to cure the situation. The values went down and the County and every other taxing entity lost tax revenues. He said the basic reason for redevelopment was to stabilize and improve the area. It is a form of insur- ance policy to the taxing agency to see that the property values do not decline any further. Mr. Sexton asked if $35 Million worth of new development did occur, as outlined in the report, whether that would have a favorable impact to the County, other than guaranteeing the taxes that are frozen, and whether It would have a positive impact upon other areas near the project, such as the City itself. Mr. Magner said it definitely does. but the County officials fail to recognize that redevelopment by itself not only stabilizes and improves that area but the area on the border of the project. If this industrial development occurs in this area, property outside the project boundaries will receive benefits in that properties will be more valuable and perhaps there will be some type of similar develop ment occurring. The County, without investing any money whatsoever, reaps the harvest. Mr. Sexton asked what happens after all the debt is paid on the project and what happens to those tax flows. Mr. Magner stated that after the debt of the Agency had been retired, the property at its increased value, returned to be taxed by alt the taxing agencies at the high level. At a point in time, the County will receive the benefit without having to risk any capital. He said that 1f the County looked at the over-all benefits from all the redevelopment agencies in Los Angeles County, they would probably find that a consider- able amount of their revenue existed as a result of redevelopment, far exceeding what they claim is now somewhat of a loss. He said they claim about $20 Million continued) JAMES MAGNER BIB] 37658-U01 1976-U02 11-U02 30-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9725-U03 DO9784-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/5/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1976 11 30 CC MIN(ÌìÎmpe000^336 H 1 Adjourned Special Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council November 30, 1976 and Adjourned Regular Session of the Board of Directors, Page 13 Baldwin Park Redevelopment Agency in revenues goes to Redevelopment Agencies. He said there were untold millions of dollars of revenues \ that go to the County as a result of redevelopment, because the area just adjacent to, and outside the project, was stabilized or improved. Ji Acting City Attorney Ritchie asked that a11 the study documents be identified in the record as having been received, PROJECT STUDY DOCUMENTS Preliminary 1976 Northwest Industrial Development Study In-House) Environmental Impact Report Robert L. Oltman and Associates) Market Analysis and Economic Impact Analysis for the San Gabriel River Redevelopment Project Taylor Dark) Planning Report for the San Gabriel River Develop- ment Area Revised) Pultiam, Matthews and Associates, Architects and Planners) Redevelopment Plan for the San Gabriel River Redevelopment Project Pulliam, Matthews and Associates, Architects and Planners) Relocation Plan for the Proposed San Gabriel River Redevelopment Project Port & Flor, Incorporated) Housing and Community Development Review Panel Report Councilman Blewett said he was concerned about the City of Irwindale. Since they are probably in as much of a revenue squeeze as is Baldwin Park, due to losing rock quarries which are a substantial source of sales tax revenue to them, they will be looking for revenue alter- natives. It will be up to us to present revenue alternatives to them so they might want to develop that property to a higher tax base for their community. He favored CRA but didn't want to look down on those who oppose it because they oppose it on philosophical grounds. He looked at CRA as a tool that had to be used, because the State had failed to address itself to the greater problem of tax reform and believed that CRA is a way of having local tax reform and local redistribution of taxes. COUNCILMAN BLEWETT Councilman Aguilar stated that the 190 acres proposed for COUNCILMAN AGUILAR redevelopment employs 280 people. When properly developed, it will bring in between 2500 and 3000 new jobs. New people will come in and fix up homes and upgrade the town. He favored CRA and said industrial parks are the going thing right now. In the San Gabriel Valley, Baldwin Park rates No. 2 in vacant land; Gtendora is No. 1. He favored the project as it wi11 help the majority of people in the City. Mr. Ritchie stated that the Plan wi11 not be adopted tonight. December 2 will be a regular meeting and the Ordinance and Resolution will be adopted at that time. This is not a'regular meeting, it is an adjourned special meeting and an adjourned Public Hearing. A11 action will be taken at the next regular meeting. AT 10:12 P.M. THE MEETING ADJOURNED. M/S/C: HAMILTON/ AGUILAR. There were no objections. 00- A.C.A. RITCHIE 10:12 P.M. MEETING ADJOURNED r\ /' // THELMA BALKUS, CITY CLERK APPROVED: \l_}jz.c£t>^^ 1976 Date of Distribution to City Council: December 10, 1976 Date of Distribution to Departments: December 10, 1976 BIB] 37658-U01 1976-U02 11-U02 30-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9725-U03 DO9784-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/5/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 peAdjourned Special Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council and Adjourned Regular Session of the Board of Directors, Baldwin Park Redevelopment Agency in the project will create mutual benefit to all the property owners and it will bear its fair share of the tax revenue to help pay for things that wilt enhance its own value and productivity. Mr. Pultiam said he wanted to restate what had been said about the cumulative effect of the Environmental Impact, if negotiations with Irwindale are successful for the change of use of the Raceway into a conforming use. All the controls set forth in the Plan regarding external emissions are exceeded with regard to small sound, dust, and so forth by the present operation and there would be a definite lessening of impact as a result of a change to a conforming use as set forth in the Plan. This area is isolated and the gradual development of this property would probably have a beneficial and stabilizing effect upon the single family residential area to the east. In its present state of vacancy and blight, a detrimental effect could be imposed on the residential area. Mr. Ritchie asked if there was any particular benefit to the Agency in including the Gekus property in the project area for the purpose of capturing impounded increment," since there is no development going on on the property now that might generate any significant amount of increment. Mr. PuTIiam said the primary benefit of the inclusion of that property is the opportunity to negotiate with his clients the improvements on the frontage as the properties relate to the streets that are a key to this project, and enhancing the general area that encompasses the entire redevelopment project. This property is the gateway" to the project, with its entrance at Los Angeles Street and Rivergrade Road, and the Los Angeles Street and intersection treatment are fundamental to the development of the entire area. He said if these improvements take place, they would have a snowballing" effect on that property and the property to the north. He referred to the last paragraph of Secton 503, page 8, of the Redevelopment Plan, and quoted The Agency shall not acquire real property which hereafter is designated as a conforming use." He stated that hereafter" implicitly was contained on the map on the Redevelopment Plan which clearly ident- ified the Cantralt property as a conforming use. Councilman Aguilar asked Mr. Magner whether the City of Los Angeles would gain or lose revenue from this project James Magner, fiscal consultant, stated that on this project the assessed valuation, as of March 1976, will be established and each year thereafter, if this Plan is adopted, the County win levy its tax rate against that total assessed valuation that existed March 1976 and continue to collect taxes on that property, as will every other taxing Agency. If there is an in- crease in assessed valuation in future years, that increase in assessed valuation multiplied against the combined tax rate of a11 Agencies would become revenue to the Redevelopment Agency, assuming it had obligations. He said there would be no loss of revenue as it is presently existing to the County of Los Angeles. If there would be any increase in the assessed valuation in the area, it would come about as the result of redevelopment, and the cost of redevelopment would first have to be repaid from that increased increment or the continued) OCCT/334 November 30, 1976 Page 11 BIB] 37658-U01 1976-U02 11-U02 30-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9591-U03 FO9725-U03 DO9784-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 2/5/2003-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06