Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-243 ; . RESOLUTION NO. 90-243 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO OVERRULING ORAL OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MT. VERNON CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. WHEREAS, a proposed Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project Area has been prepared by the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino (the "Community Development Commission"); and WHEREAS, on June 11, 1990, a duly noticed joint public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan was conducted by the Mayor and Common Council and the Community Development Commission; and WHEREAS, any and all persons having any objections to the proposed Redevelopment Plan, or the regularity of the proceedings, were given an opportunity to submit written comments prior to the commencement of or at the joint public hearing, or to give oral testimony at the joint public hearing, and show cause why the proposed Redevelopment Plan should not be adopted; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council have directed the Community Development Commission staff to respond to written objections received from affected property owners and taxing entities, giving reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions, and the Mayor and Common Council have reviewed such responses; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council have heard and considered all evidence, both written and oral, presented in support of and in opposition to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino as follows: SECTION 1. The Mayor and Common Council hereby find that all persons have had the opportunity to be heard or to file a written objection to the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project Area and the regularity of the proceedings with respect to the proposed Redevelopment Plan, and having heard and reviewed such oral and written objections, the Mayor and Common Council hereby make the findings and responses to written objections as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this ~ reference, and determine that there are compelling reasons to justify adoption of the Redevelopment Plan as proposed, notwithstanding written and oral objections. SECTION 2. The Mayor and Common Council and the Community Development Commission have duly complied with all the provisions, requirements and procedures of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code, Section 33000 ~ ~.) relating to the preparation and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. SECTION 3. The Mayor and Common Council, accordingly, overrule any and all objections to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project Area. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ~/~ day of June, ATTEST: .b'@/r?/~1b City Clerk of the City of San Bernardino I hereby certify thaL the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a r~g'" "r meeting thereof held on the 1 Rt-n day of 1nn~ , 1990. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Estrddd. Reillv. Flores. Mdudslev. Minor. Mille!.' NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Council Member Pooe-Ludldm hd~/~40' City Clerk of the City of San Bernardino Approved as to form and legal content: JAMES F. PENMAN, City Attorney By: /Jt%tUlJJ1f/-&e..) / Y ATTORNEY 0130u/2601/011 -2- ~ EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MADE PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33363 RELATING TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MT. VERNON CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA The following letters were received in objection to the Redevelopment Plan and delivered to the City Clerk prior to or during the public hearing held on June 11, 1990. (1) Letter from Amanda Gutierrez dated June 6, 1990. (2) Letter from Mr. Brooks P. Coleman, California School Financial Services, Inc., on behalf of the San Bernardino County Board of Education and Superintendent of Schools, dated June 11, 1990. (3) Letter from Mr. Brooks P. Coleman, California School Financial Services, Inc., on behalf of the San Bernardino Community College District, dated June 11, 1990. (4) Letter from Mr. Harry M. Mays, County Administrative Officer for the County of San Bernardino, dated June 8, 1990. A. Response To Letter Received From Amanda Gutierrez on June 6, 1990 Amanda Gutierrez failed to testify at the June 11, 1990 public hearing. The following constitute the written findings of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino made in response to the letter received from Amanda Gutierrez on June 6, 1990, which letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment No.1. Comment No.1: I am writing this letter in response to your article sent to me. I don't like the idea of trying to relocate senior citizens who have lived in the city for 60 years. I own my property and have kept it up. It was recondition in 1960 and again in 1972. It is an old house, but every room has been reconditioned. Electrical wiring, plumbing and some of floors. I do not make $10,000 a year so I could not qualify for a loan. I cannot pay high rent. So they would put us in apartments. At my age I don.t want to be involved in arguments with tenants or harassed by children or have Police every day on the premises. That is my complaint. ~ Response: A number of persons who attended and testified at the Joint Public Hearing on June 11, 1990, shared similar concerns regarding the potential displacement and relocation of Project Area residents. As discussed at the Joint Public Hearing on June 11, 1990, it is not the intention nor the policy of the Community Development Commission to relocate or displace residents from their homes within the Project Area. Although the commission has reserved the right to utilize the power of eminent domain, they may only exercise that power after following certain legal procedures, including notification to property owners. Furthermore, if the property owner objects to such acquisition, the issue must be brought before a superior court judge. B. Response To Letter Received From Mr. Brooks P. Coleman, California School Financial Services, Inc. , Qn Behalf of the San Bernardino County Board of Education and Superintendent of Schools, Dated June 11, 1990 Brooks P. Coleman failed to testify at the June 11, 1990 hearing. However, Walter Wells appeared and asked that Mr. Coleman's letter be placed in the record. The following constitutes the written findings of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino made in response to the letter received from Mr. Brooks P. Coleman, California School Financial Services, Inc., on behalf of the San Bernardino County Board of Education and Superintendent of Schools, dated June 11, 1990, which letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment No.2. Comment No.1: A major problem faced by the county superintendent is the need to provide classrooms and other facilities for [low-incident student] programs because the State of California provides no allowance for most of them. Also, as you are aware, the county superintendent does not have the ability to collect developer fees, as do school districts. As you know, our portion of the tax base of the project area is only .6%. However, we are still greatly concerned about the erosion of our tax base which, of course, extends throughout the entire county. 06/14/90 0172uI2601l011 -2- The material you have provided to date, regarding the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project, has been carefully reviewed and we have concluded that there will be an impact on the Office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools. The inevitable new development, homes, jobs, and the resulting students, must be accommodated. For these reasons, we must register this objection to the redevelopment project as it is now presented because of the severe financial detriment we would experience. Response: With respect to the position of the County Superintendent of Schools, the Agency staff reiterates that the County Superintendent of Schools has made no showing that the adoption or implementation of the Redevelopment Plan would adversely effect the County Superintendent of Schools. The Superintendent's assertion that the Redevelopment Plan would increase demands for services is not supported by substantial evidence. In fact, no data is set forth. Comment No.2: In order to partially alleviate this adverse impact, we suggest that a cooperative participation agreement be entered into which would pass through a portion of our share of the tax revenue back to the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Response: Representatives of the Agency have attempted to negotiate the terms of such an agreement with the County Superintendent of Schools. However, Agency representatives have experienced difficulty in these negotiations as many of their phone calls have not been returned. C. Response To Letter Received From Mr. Brooks P. Coleman, California School Financial Services, Inc., ,On Behalf of the San Bernardino County College District, Dated June II, 1990 Brooks P. Coleman failed to testify at the June 11, 1990 hearing. However, Walter Wells appeared and asked that Mr. Coleman's letter be placed in the record. The following constitute the written findings of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino made in response to the letter received from Mr. Brooks P. Coleman, California School Financial Services, Inc., on behalf of the San Bernardino County College District, dated June II, 1990, which letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment No.3. 06/14/90 0172u/2601/011 -3- Comment No.1: The state's provision for college facilities falls short of actual need, especially considering the age of the existing buildings on the campus and the rate of student growth currently being experienced. As you know, the portion of the tax base of the redevelopment project attributable to the College District is only 5.0%. The plans for the redevelopment agency to "capture" the District share of the tax base increase during the next 40 years should be accomplished with the complete involvement and cooperation of the District. The material you have provided to date regarding the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project, has been carefully reviewed and we have concluded that there will be an impact on the San Bernardino Community College District. The inevitable new development, homes, jobs, and the resulting students, must be accommodated. For these reasons, we must register this objection to the redevelopment project as it is now presented because of the severe financial detriment we would experience. Response: Concerning San Bernardino Community College District, the District again fails to substantiate that the Plan would increase its demand for services and thereby adversely effect the District. Moreover, to the extent that the Community College District is asserting that there is presently a shortage of physical facilities, such conditions already exist and are clearly not affected by the adoption or implementation of the redevelopment plan. Comment No.2: In order to partially alleviate this adverse impact, we suggest that a cooperative participation agreement be entered into which would pass through a portion of our share of the tax revenue back to the District. Response: Representatives of the Agency have attempted to negotiate the terms of such an agreement with the San Bernardino Community College District. However, Agency representatives have experienced difficulty in these negotiations as many of their phone calls have not been returned. 06/14/90 0172u/260l/0l1 -4- D. Response To Letter Received From Mr. Harry M. Mays, County Administrative Officer for the County of San Bernardino, Dated June 8, 1990 Harry M. May's letter generally states that no substantial evidence or specific documentation has been provided to support various findings which must be made to comply with the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law prior to considering the adoption of a redevelopment plan. After Agency staff and Agency consultants testified at the public hearing held on June 11, 1990, and after the information and documentation referred to in the responses to comments set forth below was entered into the record, Walter Wells appeared on behalf of the County of San Bernardino and Mr. Mays. Walter Wells testified that although the County was neither for nor against the Redevelopment Project, the County was concerned about the impact of the Redevelopment Project on the County's ability to provide services to persons within the Project Area. Even in light of this more narrow concern, the Mayor and Common Council have determined to make the responses below to each of the comments in Mr. May's letter. The following constitute the written findings of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino made in response to the letter received from Mr. Harry M. Mays, County of San Bernardino, County Administrative Office, dated June 8, 1990, which letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment No.4. Comment No.1: Neither the plan, the EIR, the Preliminary Report nor the supplementary material adequately supports the conclusion that the entirety of the project area is blighted and requires the use of redevelopment authority to achieve the pUblic purposes declared in the redevelopment law. Large tracts of land owned by the Flood Control District and lying within the flood plain are included within the proposed project boundary. No documentation is included in the plan documents to establish a condition of blight on that land nor do the plan documents indicate specific benefits to said property which would result from project activities. Response: First, it is not the purpose or intent of the Plan or EIR to make the determination that the Project Area or portions thereof are blighted or not blighted. The documents which substantiate the determination of blight are the Preliminary Report and the Report to the Mayor and Common Council, prepared pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 33344.5 and 33352, respectively. Second, blight is an area-wide concept, in that not every parcel of land or structure within a project area must be blighted before the project area as a whole may be 06/14/90 0172u/2601/011 -5- determined to be blighted. The flood control land is shown to be an integral part of the Project Area and is surrounded by parcels developed for urban use. The inclusion of the flood control land is necessary for effective redevelopment planning (See the Report to Mayor and Common Council, pages 14 and 38-76, See also Health and Safety Code Sections 33320(b)(3) and 33320.2). Comment No.2: No substantial and specific evidence or documentation is provided to support a finding that the redevelopment plan would redevelop the area in the interest of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. Response: The entire basis for establishing a Redevelopment Project Area is to alleviate existing physical, social, and economic conditions of blight in an area for the overall good of the public health, safety and welfare. The Community Development Commission has clearly documented and set forth needed projects and improvements which when implemented will reverse and/or alleviate the blighted condition within the Project Area (See the Report to Mayor and Common Council, pages 81-84). --- Comment No.3: Neither narrative information, financial plans, or budgets are included in the plan or supporting material to support any finding that adoption and carrying out of the plan is economically sound and feasible. Response: While it is recognized that the Project Area, in its depressed condition, does not have a sufficient assessed valuation (base year) to generate all of the funds necessary to immediately eradicate all of the conditions of blight, any attempt by the commission to reverse the conditions of blight will substantially benefit the Project Area residents. Furthermore, this redevelopment effort evidences the support of public officials to tangibly address the advanced state of deterioration within the Project Area in a positive way, and will promote private investment/reinvestment into the area. The economic soundness or feasibility of the redevelopment project, which is secured with and principally funded by property tax revenues in the form of tax increment financing, is set forth in the Report to Mayor and Common Council at, pages 77-80. 06/14/90 0172u/2601/011 -6- Comment No.4: Substantial evidence is not provided to sustain the finding that the redevelopment plan conforms to the general plan of the city. The plan's finding appears to be based solely on the undocumented assertion in the plan that its implementation will be in accordance with the general plan and zoning ordinances as may be amended from time to time. Response: In accordance with Sections 33346 and 33347 of the California Redevelopment Law, the Planning Commission prepared its Report on Conformity of the proposed Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Plan with the City's adopted General Plan. The report, set forth at Section 5 of the Joint Public Hearing Binder provides the basis for concluding that the proposed Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Plan is in conformity with the city's General Plan. Comment No.5: No substantial evidence or documentation specific to the area proposed for redevelopment is supplied to warrant the conclusion that carrying out the redevelopment plan would promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the community. Response: Please refer to the response to comment No. 3 above. Comment No.6: The plan and related material contains only minimum reference to the role that condemnation of real property will play in project implementation. Insufficient evidence and documentation are included to support the finding that condemnation is necessary to the execution of the plan. Further, the plan lacks substantial evidence, or any evidence at all, to warrant the conclusion that adequate provisions have been made for payment for property so acquired. Neither the plan nor supporting documents provide sufficient evidence to conclude that a feasible plan exists for the temporary or permanent relocation of facilities and persons displaced from the project area. The redevelopment plan, in fact, indicates that such a relocation plan does not yet exist but is to be prepared. 06/14/90 0172u/2601/0ll -7- Response: Because of the existence of a large number of non-conforming uses located within the boundaries of the Project Area, the condemnation of real property is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan and adequate provisions have been made for payment for property, if property is acquired by eminent domain as provided by law. The provisions of Sections 7260 to 7276 of the California Government Code would be applicable in the event relocation should occur due to the implementation by the Community Development Commission of the Redevelopment Plan. The provision of relocation assistance according to law constitutes a feasible method for relocation. (See Sections 402 through 404 and Sections 410 through 414 of the Redevelopment Plan; See also the Commission's adopted Owner Participation Rules and Relocation Guidelines Section 7A and 7B of the Joint Public Hearing Binder.) Comment No.7: No evidence is provided that there are or are being provided in the project area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons displaced from the project area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the numbers of and available to the displaced families and persons, and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The proposal set forth in the plan to evaluate this problem after adoption of the plan is legally inadequate. Response: Please refer to the response to comment No. 6 above. Comment No.8: Neither the plan nor supporting documents includes substantial evidence or documentation that the non contiguous portions of the project (shown as sub-area B and sub-area C) are either blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment and are not included for the purpose of obtaining tax increment without other substantial justification for their inclusion. Response: Please refer to pages 15 and 16 of the Report to Mayor and Common Council as well as Appendix C, photos 282 through 358 and photos 359 through 364. The aforesaid discussion and supporting photographs clearly illustrate the need for the inclusion of sub-areas Band C. 06/14/90 0172u/2601/011 -8- Comment No.9: Insufficient information is included in the plan and supporting material to justify inclusion of all of the properties in the plan. The project area includes many lands, buildings and improvements that are not detrimental to the pUblic health, safety or welfare. Only generalized information is provided to support the conclusion that all properties included in the project boundary are necessary for effective redevelopment. A substantial number of properties have apparently been included solely to obtain the allocation of tax increment and not because they are a detriment to the public health, safety or welfare or necessary for effective redevelopment. Response: Please refer to the response to comment No. 1 above. Comment No. 10: Neither the plan nor any other materials presented provide substantial evidence, or any evidence at all, upon which to base a finding that redevelopment could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the agency. Response: The deteriorated physical, depressed economic and maladjusted social conditions now existing in the Project Area and more extensively described in Section III of Report to Mayor and Common Council are the consequences of prior actions, inactions and the passage of time. No one specific action or inaction can be identified as the major contributor to the progressively declining conditions found in the Project Area. Over the past decade or so the needs, standards and expectations of the citizenry have changed, while buildings, structures and infrastructure facilities have worn, grown aged and become inadequate. Circulation patterns are overcrowded, outdated and hazardous. Public facilities and amenities have not kept pace with changing expectations, nor has the presentation, offering and variety of economic goods and services. Section III of the Report to Mayor and Common Council details the evidence of economic and physical deficiencies prevalent in the Project Area. In general, the residents and/or property owners in the project Area do not suffer the deficient conditions by desired choice. More likely, they suffer these conditions out of economic necessity and inadequate or unavailable financial resources. The combined affects of these conditions have resulted in the Project Area experiencing severe decline which cannot reasonably be reversed by private enterprise action alone. 06/14/90 0172u/260l/011 -9- Many of the deficiencies found in the Project Area and the proposed remedies found in the Projects List in Appendix B of the Report to Mayor and Common Council are outside the province of private enterprise. Historically, the role of government in California has been to provide for the health, welfare and safety of its citizens by providing adequate infrastructure and public services such as police, fire and flood control facilities. Private enterprise does not provide such facilities nor is it reasonable to expect them to do so in the future. The transformation of the Project Area into a physically and economically viable area is a high risk venture which private enterprise is unlikely to undertake. Cities across America, as well as San Bernardino, are declining, with little or no evidence of private enterprise alone showing a willingness to commit the resources necessary to even begin a comprehensive redevelopment program. In many instances, and perhaps because such efforts have been made on a modest scale, the attempt has failed due to the magnitude of the problem, making such attempts so risky that private enterprise will not act on its own. In fact, it is not uncommon to find private enterprise actually abandoning such areas, structures and facilities in order to avoid continued and/or potential economic losses. The history of urban development teaches us that as time passes, human knowledge, needs and levels of expectation change, grow and become more demanding. Simultaneously existing structures, facilities and infrastructure become less capable of satisfying these needs, while the costs of modification, renovation and redevelopment increase to a point of negative economic return. Consequently, those of sufficient affluence move or relocate to newer facilities or construct new facilities in undeveloped areas at a lower cost than modernization or redevelopment of the older facilities. The older facilities either continue to be occupied or become occupied by the less affluent even less capable of reversing the decline. This process continues and even accelerates until prevailing conditions change to offer an adequate economic reason to reverse the decline, such as a few select locations in the major metropolitan areas or until the area is abandoned as uninhabitable. The City suffers compounded losses from this declining process, for income from the blighted area decreases while the emerging growth (urban sprawl) increases the cost of fulfilling governmental responsibilities. 06/14/90 0172u/2601/0l1 -10- 1- The information provided in Section III of the Report to Mayor and Common Council clearly indicates that the Project Area is a blighted area and that private enterprise is not making the effort or investment which could seriously impact the area so as to reverse the declining conditions. There is no evidence to give reason to expect that private enterprise is likely to reevaluate its neglect of the area, without a significant contribution from the public sector. The foregoing reasons are compelling in reaching the conclusion that blight will not be eliminated nor will the Project Area be redeveloped by private enterprise acting alone. The size and scope of the Project Area require the combination of public and private resources and effort to reach a successful conclusion. Comment No. 11: The information provided by the agency does not support the conclusion that the use of tax increment revenues for project financing will not cause significant financial burden or detriment to affected taxing entities. Analysis by the county staff indicates that allocation of tax increment to the agency for project purposes will create a substantial burden on the County General Fund, County Flood Control District and County Library District. Loss of tax increment by these agencies will severely impair their ability to provide for the current level of service and meet those service demands, both in quality and quantity, created by project activities. Further information concerning this matter is contained in the report of the Fiscal Review Committee, which is incorporated herein by this reference. Response: The response to the report of the Fiscal Review Committee is located at Section 4-B of the Joint Public Hearing Binder. Pursuant to Section 33401(b) of the Health and Safety Code, an Agency may only pay to any taxing Agency amounts of money which the Agency has found are necessary and appropriate to alleviate any financial burden or detriment caused to any taxing agency by a Redevelopment Project. Such payments must be approved by resolution and adopted by the Redevelopment Agency. The resolution must contain findings supported by substantial evidence, that the redevelopment project will cause or has caused a financial burden or detriment to the taxing agency and that the payments are necessary to alleviate the financial burden or detriment. To date the Agency has not received substantial evidence which demonstrates to the Agency that the redevelopment project will cause financial burden or detriment to the County. 06/14/90 0172uI260l/011 -11- Representatives of the Agency have attempted to negotiate the terms of a cooperative participation agreement which would pass through a portion of the tax increment back to the County of San Bernardino. However, Agency representatives have experienced difficulty in these negotiations as many of their phone calls have not been returned. 06/14/90 0172u/2601/011 -12- - .-., . --_._--~ - .._, _..~..~ . . ',; 'P11111111l1J111!lllIlP IlH'111l1111Jlllm'PH'm,,, 1'1""1, i i ~ ; . ': : : ; '; ~ : I ~ 1 '-, I : . r, f! j ! j : !~; i : li I; i ' Ii! [ i i : I : i ' I i'i ; t; [ l ) , : ! ; ,I...I.'.,." .~_._..':. -':......i ,,'.. J :J.:,:_' ;:"':_-_"-.J.!:~_.d-,"';':"~~'~j"';': ~ '\,~~ " ~. ~ ~.. ,~~-~<~ .'~. .~.tb d G7j 4 ~ g~~ . - , ~ {I" / t; ",. '",' - ([;a 7J1A ',0 b _ () //Vk:J'O~()ILd~t c9~~~~ I'.. ~~~iJ~~~i t:b'~~ ,l) ~!7~ tL ~.. ~ Vlb; 'b5 ~ ~ 'I! ~A~v<J~~~~ ~' ~ oM. 6() ~. ~ c/'-4Pl ~ ~1~ c~ ~~ J0-f7.:..J.~.~~T r'" ~ . '\ - / , _ ~ !? b d~~. ~'-^-,___ ~ ) cr 72, V ~ <:::>l-^L. ~ ---iLc~ L? i A ____ /). _ ' ,A'-uA . -'~~~~1~' ~ /~ ~ ~4. J ~ :>:::!::LJ;;i tJ i) " -_ J.1- '~.~ c9 ~rvtU ~ ~ fvL~ y ~ ft"'j ~~ .-Sa ~ ~ II <I'~ ~~~\W~~ Attachment No. 1 .. ., jJ cLc~ ;tu~ t; ~ ~ ..~ ~_ ~1J::i~ ~~d? ~~l::5~~-, ;J~~~tyl"-. ~, 1~~ ~ ~~. ....... , ~~ { .~ tb/ '.' . 09 ~ i: f2 _ I . '11ll\"I"'~11I1il1l"nr.nlJ1!1"''''IJ1''""nl'liI''':''''''''''i 0 ~ 0':;: y." Ii - V. fb~ ~ ~ ~~. ~ S ../'--.JU/'''' '- ' i ~">?:t ~~~ ~ ~~~ q :l '{ ) / r"! .:IO'(:J~ - . ., ,: .. I, I, i tl , Whlr}d!!;:."]!',;iJ!'~i:L';8j!ljjtE;:!:!l!u~'L' ~ . ~ c r",,:,,~,pi r L ". FRO~ C~LIF~R~IA S~HoaL FIN~NCl~L S~RUlCES 96.11,19ge l4199 'P. 2 CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INe. bmuk.'i C:.ultm,lf\ lmu ^),'t(, .ltn ^ l'fOfC'!l<SIOh,ll c.:C'II'UI.,t'llll June 11, 1990 Honorabl. Council Members City of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino, California 92418 -0 o ;::; m (""> "., ~ ~ n ~ - - Ladie. and Gentlemen: - u "oJ .;,;. o On behalf of the San Bernardino County Board of Education Superintendent of Schoole, I would like to thank you for opportunity to present this information and our concerns. Subject: Mt. Vernon Corridor Revevelopment Project 71 "" ~ and the The Office of San Sernardino County Superintendent of SChools is charged with the responsibility of providing SChool-age citizens and School districts with a wide range of services. The types of educat; ona 1 programs conductlld by the county super i ntendellt are generally for "low-;ncidenr;;lJ" students, eueh as blind or mentally handicapped individuals. These students must be gathered from a large, or regional population base in order to generate sufficient numbers of students to form a ela8s. Other arlJae of county office respnnsibility include business, financial, and educational advisory services to school districte. A major problem faced by the county auperirtendent i8 the need to provide elas8rooms and other facilities for the.e programa because the State of California provides no allowance for moat of them. A1IO, as you are aware, the county euperintender.t does not have the ability to collect developer feea, aa do school districts. As yOU know, our portion of the tax ba.e of the project area is only .0.. However. we are still greatly concerned about the erosion of our tax baa. Which, of course, extends throughout the entire county. The material you have provided to date. regarding the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project. haa been carefully reviewed and we have concluded that there will be an impar;;t on the Office of the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schooll. The inevitable new development, hom.s, jobs. and the resulting students. mUlt be accommodated. For these reaaona, we muat register this Objection to the redlJvelopment projeet aa it ie now pre.ented because of the severe financial aetriment we would experience. 2850 Rutnsey Drive. l\iwr"id", Ca!iCorni" 92506 . (714) 686-3735 Attachment No.2 F~O" CRLIFORNIR SC"OOL FINRNCIRL SERUICES 06.11.1999 14199 P', 3 Honorabl. Coune i 1 Member'" City of San Bernardino June '1,1990 Page 2 In order to partially alleviate this adverse impact. we suggest that a cooperative participation agreement be entered into which would pas. through a portion of our ahare of the tax revenue baCk to the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools. Sincerely,._ ct ~""t3'-~ ~). . , ... O^.. . P' ~ Brooke P. Coleman President cc: Or. Barry Pulliam, Deputy Superintendent Offloe of San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools '. FRO~ CALIFO~NJR SCHOOL FINANCIRL SERUJCES e6.11.1j99 1'4119 p. . CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. I\mok." CJM-m.\n :lilt! A....,ll. .lll' ^ rllllrv.III'lI~ C."I'Uf,lW ,,, June 11, 1990 Honorable Council Member. City of San Bernardino 300 North "0" Street San Bernardino. California 92418 \Ci ;;a ,." 0 " on :: <:: , ~ - - - "'0 - N .- J:>. c-J Cl :"~,J Ladi.s and Gent18men: SUbj.ct: Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project On behalf Of the San Bernardino Community Col18g8 of Trust.... r would like to thank you for the pr..ent this information and our concerns. The College is re.ponaible for providing higher education opportunities for residents in the area. As you know, public education at all l.ve'. is directly dependent upon state and local revenue sources for the funding of operational programs and the facilities to hou.e the.e programs. District Board opportunity to The state's proviSion actual need. esp.cially buildingi on the campus being experienced. As you know, the portion of the tax base of the red.velopment project attributable to the Colleg. District i. only 5.0~. The plana for the redevelopment agency to "capture" the District ahare of the tax base increase during the next 40 years should be accompliahed with the complete involvement and cooperation Of the District. for college consid.ring and th4il rate facilities fall. short of the ag. of the existing of student growth currently The material you have provided to date regarding the Mt. V.rnon Corridor Redevelopment Project, haa been carefully reviewed and we have concluded that there will be an impact on the San Bernardino Community Colle;. District. The inevitable new development, home.. jobs, and tn. resulting students, muat be accommodated. For these rea.ona, we must register thia Objection redevelopment project as it ia now pr8eented becauie .evere financial detrim.nt we would experience. to the of the 28S0 Rumsey D,;\'(' · RjvcrsiJc, Calif(lI'niil 92.';06 . (714) 686.3735 Attachment No. 3 " FR,OI'l CAL.IF'QRr.llA 5CH-OOl F'JI~RHCIHL SEiC\;lCES 3b.ll.lige 14:19 p; ~ Honorable Council ~embers City of San eernardino June 11, 1990 Page 2 In order to partially alleviate thi. adverse impact, we susse.t that a cooperative participation agreement be entered into which would paas through a portion of our share of the tax revenue back to the District. '-'-"-~'t~ ~~Q.~_ Brooks P. Coleman President GC: Mr. Jack Sherman. Controller San Bernardino Community College Oi.trict ...EIiD..... L- " ,~\\J'11~ ~t~ ~ .~ ~ "~....... /1f'lltl\\\~\. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HARRY M. MAYS County Administrative Officer No. I Arrowhead Plaza, 5lh Floor 385 North Arrowhead A venue San Bernardino. CA 92415-0120 (714) 387-5418 Telecopier (714) 387.5430 Marsha Turoci .................... . First Dis/riel Jon D. Mikels. . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... Second District Barbara Cram Riordan. Chairman ". Third District Larry Walker. .. ................. Fourth District Robert L. Hammock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fifth District County Administrative Office ""' 6 ;0 en C; m -' June 8,1990 .'-:- ." -) Common Council/Redevelopment Agency City of San Bernardino 300 N. non Street San Bernardino, California 92408 ~ ~ --::J ".J .:,;, o CI Re: Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Plan Honorable Members: This letter is submitted to you as members of the governing bodies considering the subject redevelopment plan for adoption at the public hearing scheduled for June 11,1990. The following objections are made by the County Administrative Office to the referenced redevelopment plan, Section 33367, Health and Safety Code, State of California, mandates that the ordinance adopting a redevelopment plan include certain findings and determinations. The legislature intended that the Redevelopment Agency/governing body have before it clear, specific and substantial evidence and documentation substantiating its findings. Minimum documentation and perfunctory reference to provisions of the enabling legislation is insufficient. In general, the findings contained in the ordinance are not based on substantial evidence.. The following are specific objections of the County: 1. Neither the plan, the EIR, the Preliminary Report nor the supplementary material adequately supports the conclusion that the entirety of the project area is blighted and requires the use of redevelopment authority to achieve the public purposes declared in the redevelopment law. Large tracts of land owned by the Flood Control District and lying within the flood plain are included within the proposed project boundary. No documentation is included in the plan documents to establish a condition of blight on that land nor do the plan documents indicate specific benefits to said property which would result from project activities. 2. No substantial and specific evidence or documentation is provided to support a finding that the redevelopment plan would redevelop the area in the interest of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. 3. Neither narrative information, financial plans, or budgets are included in the plan or supporting material to support any finding that adoption and carrying out of the plan is economically sound and feasible. Attachment No.4 ; CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MT. VERNON CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN June 8,1990 Page Two 4. Substantial evidence is not provided to sustain the finding that the redevelopment plan conforms to the general plan of the city. The plan's finding appears to be based solely on the undocumented assertion in the plan that its implementation will be in accordance with the general plan and zoning ordinances as may be amended from time to time. 5. No substantial evidence or documentation specific to the area proposed for redevelopment is supplied to warrant the conclusion that carrying out the redevelopment plan would promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the community. 6. The plan and related material contains only minimum reference to the role that condemnation of real property will play in project implementation. Insufficient evidence and documentation are included to support the finding that condemnation is necessary to the execution of the plan. Further, the plan lacks substantial evidence, or any evidence at all, to warrant the conclusion that adequate provisions have been made for payment for property so acquired. 7. Neither the plan nor supporting documents provide sufficient evidence to conclude that a feasible plan exists for the temporary or permanent relocation of facilities and persons displaced from the project area. The redevelopment plan, in fact, indicates that such a relocation plan does not yet exist but is to be prepared. 8. No evidence is provided that there are or are being provided in the project area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons displaced from the project area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the numbers of and available to the displaced families and persons, and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. The proposal set forth in the plan to evaluate this problem after adoption of the plan is legally inadequate. 9. Neither the plan nor supporting documents includes substantial evidence or documentation that the non contiguous portions of the project (shown as sub-area B and sub-area C) are either blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment and are not included for the purpose of obtaining tax increment without other substantial justification for their inclusion. 10. Insufficient information is included in the plan and supporting material to justify inclusion of all of the properties in the plan. The project area includes many lands, buildings and improvements that are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Only generalized information is provided to support the conclusion that all properties included in the project boundary are necessary for effective redevelopment. A substantial number of properties have apparently been included solely to obtain the allocation of tax increment and not because they are a detriment to the public health, safety or welfare or necessary for effective redevelopment. I CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MT. VERNON CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN June 8,1990 Page Three Neither the plan nor any other materials presented provide substantial evidence, or any evidence at all, upon which to base a finding that redevelopment could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the agency. The information provided by the agency does not support the conclusion that the use of tax increment revenues for project financing will not cause significant financial burden or detriment to affected taxing entities. Analysis by the county staff indicates that allocation of tax increment to the agency for project purposes will create a substantial burden on the County General Fund, County Flood Control District and County Library District. Loss of tax increment by these agencies will severely impair their ability to provide for the current level of service and meet those service demands, both in quality and quantity, created by project activities. Further information concerning this matter is contained in the report of the Fiscal Review Committee, which is incorporated herein by this reference. The above information is provided for the consideration of the governing bodies empowered to adopt the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Plan. The provisions of Section 33367, Health and Safety Code, have n t been met and that the plan is not suitable for adoption. 11. 12. HMM:des Sj ~(~~V~\ \~~~\\9; ~ Ry~.MAYS ..I. Co ty Administrative Office