Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/05/79 MINUTES RA JOINT MINUTES BAKERSFIELD REDEVELOPMEHT AGENCY JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DECEMBER 5, 1979 A Joint Meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield and the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency was held in the Council Chamber of City Hall at 4 p.m. Tuesday, Decmeber 5, 1979. Purpose of the meeting was to conduct public hearings on the Third Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project, and the Joint Development Agreement between the Agency and Bakersfield Associates on a Retail Shopping Center Site. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vincent Casper, Chairman Jeanne Foth John S. Mooneyham Dr. Glenn D. Puder ABSENT: Robert E. K[ng Frank S. Lewis Ralph H. Poehner, Vice Chairman STAFF PRESENT: H. E. Bergen, Executive Director Dennis Needham, Deputy Executive Director Philip Kelmar, Treasurer Kenneth Hoagland, City Attorney Richard Oberholzer, Assistant City Attorney Melvin Tooker, Development Services Coordinator Jim Gilchrist, Community Development & Housing Coordinator E. B. Jacobs, Murray Kane and Erma Lake, Agency Special Counsel Calvin Hollis, Agency Financial Consultant Edward A. Holden, A.I.C.P. (Preparer of the E.I.R.) Jerry Keyser, Land Consultant OTHERS PRESENT: Daniel W. Donahue, Tom Schreiber and Dick Jensen of John S. Griffith & Company (Developers) Jeff Nagle, Downtown Business Association, Fresno A copy of the Minutes of the Council of the City of Bakersfield dated December 5, 1979 marked Exhibit "A," reflecting all action taken at the Joint Public Hearings, is attached hereto and thereby made a part hereof. Bake rs f i e~l-d ~e~eve 1 opmen t ~..,~ c y Bernice E. Stewart, Secretary to the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1979 Minutes of a Joint Public Rearing of the Council of the City of Bakersfield and %he Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency, held in the Council Chambers of City Hall'at 4:00 P.M., December 5, 1979. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart. Mayor Hart stated this is the time for the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Bakersfield Redevelop- ment Agency called for the purpose of conducting joint public hearings on (1) the proposed Third Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project, which includes the addition of certain land to the Project area; and (2) the proposed sale and lease of land in the Project area, as proposed to be amended, as provided for in the proposed Joint Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Bakersfield Associates. Notice of these joint public hearings have been published and mailed as required by the California Community Redevelopment Law. As Mayer I will chair the joint bearings. Will the members of the Redevelopment Agency and the staff please take their places. Mayor Hart led the Pledge of Allegiance. The City Clerk call(d the roll of the Council, as follows: Present: Councilmen Means, Miller, Payne, Ratty, Barton, Christensen Absent: None The Agency Secretary called the roll of as follows: Present: Agency Members Foth, Mooneyham, Puder, Absent: Agency Members King, Lewis, Poehner Mayor Hart stated he would like to make of procedural rules governing this public hearing. contains the following documents: Strong, the Agency, Casper a statement The record E X H I B I T "A" Bakersfield, Califernia, December 5, 1979 - Page The proposed Third Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Agency Report to tile City Council on the proposed Third Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan. Proposed Amended Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Owners, Operators of Businesses and Tenants in the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project. do The existing Amended Redevelopment Plan. The proposed Joint Development Agreement. The Summary Report on the proposed Joint Development Agreement which includes an "Analysis of the Cost of Agreement" and a Reuse Analysis." The Replacement ttousing Plan. The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Third Amendment and the Joint Development Agreement. Environmenta/ Documents prepared for prior Project area activities which includes: (1) Bank of America Tower and Retail Complex, October 30, 1972. (2) "K" Street Parking Garage, June 28, 1974. (3) New Police Facilities, August 12, 1974. (4) Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project and Area Proposed to be Added to the Project, November 18, 197.1. (5) Supplement to the EIR on the Bakers- field Redevelopment Project and the Area Proposed to be Added to the Prqject, September 1, 1976. Ladies and Gentlemen, in order that we may have an orderly meeting and make the most efficient use of our time here, I am going to ask that everyone who participates in this hearing observe a few simple rules. To assure that everybody who wishes to speak will have an opportunity to be heard, the Council and the Agency will follow the following rules: The written agenda will govern the course of the meeting. Copies of the agenda are available in case you did not take one at the door. Baker~field, California, December 5, 1979 Page 3 b. All persons who desire to be heard will have an opportunity to speak. People who wish to speak for or against the Proposed Third Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan and the Proposed Joint Development Agreement should fill out a form. These form~ will now be ricked up. If you do not have a form~ please raise your hand and one will be given to yon. d. Before commencing to speak, you will be sworn in by the City Clerk. Before you start to speak, please give your name and address and the organization, if any, which you are representing at this hearing. In order that everyone will be able to hear those who are speaking, we want to urge you to speak clearly and directly into the microphone. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for the City Council. Agency Chairman Casper declared the hearing open for the Redevelopment Agency. City Manager and Executive Director of the Redevelop- merit Agency Bergen stated this project has taken a long time and many people have put a considerable amount of effort into it in order to reach this point. Mr. Bergen introduced the Agency consultants and developer as follows: Eugene Jacobs, Murray Kane and Erma Lake, Special Counsel for the Redevelopment Agency. Calvin Hollis, Financ'ial Consultant for the Redevelopment Agency. Jerry Keyser, Land Economist for tile Redevelop- ment Agency. Edward Holden, Regional & Environmental Planner for the Redevelopment Agency. Dan Donahue, President of John S. Griffith Company. Mr. Donahue introduced Mr. Tem Schriber and Mr. Jack Jensen, Vice-Presidents of John S. Griffith Company. Jeff Nagle, President of Fresno's Downtown Business Association. Bakersfield, California, l)eccmber 5, 1979 - Page Deputy Director of ~he Redevelopment Agency Needham entered the following two documents into the record: 1. Proposed Addition to Section 511 of the Joint Development Agreement: (h) The Agency at its option may terminate this Agreement if the Agency Js required to issue bonds in an amount higher than presently estimated in order to fund higher than presently estimated Agency costs as set forth in the Summary Report for this Agreement dated November 1979, and the Agency despite diligent effort is unable to obtain (other funds, such as federal UDAG or EDA funding, to replace such bond funding. In the event of such termination the Agency shall return Developer's Deposit and neither party shall have any further rights or liabilities against the other, except as set forth in Part III of the Method of Financing, Attachment No. 2. Addendum to Report to City Council, Section VI, Method and Plan for Relocation of Occupants and Businesses, Proposed Third Amendment to Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project. The Agency participants were sworn in as a body by the City Clerk. Deputy Director of the Redevelopment Agency Needham, with the aid of a map, explained the Proposed Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan and Joint Development Agreement. The Proposed Third Amendment includes the site for the downtown shop- ping center, which is bounded by 20th Street on the south, "Q" Street on the east, 23-24th Streets on the north and "L" Street on the west; and the hotel project which is bounded by "N" Street on the west, Truxtun Avenue on the north, "Q" Street on the east and 16th Street on the south. The total shopping center area is approximately'44 acres and encompasses approximately 16.7 blocks of property. The total area of the hotel site is approximately 20 acres of land. The Joint Development Agreement stipulates that the Redevelopment Agency will acquire the property for the purpose of constructing a regional shopping center containing approximately Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1979 - Page 5 850,000 square feet, building parking £acilities and making public improvements. The Redevelopment Agency is responsible for acquisition of land, relocation of people and businesses, demolition of structares, clearing the land and public improve- ments, including signal lights, traffic changes, street improv~- merits, sewer mains, fire hydrants and water facilities. Mr. Needham, with the aid of a sibe plan, pointed out the two areas that the developer will purchase for the shopping center at a price of $7,000,000. Mr. Edward Holden, Regional City Planner for the Rede- velopment Agency and author of the subsequent EIR for the Third Amendment, stated the EIR covers the additional areas, shopping center, hotel complex and amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. There are basically two documents, the draft report and supple- mental report. The supplemental report contains the basic summary of the impact areas, mitigation measures, communications received' on the basic draft document and comments on the communications. The bottom line of these documents is the finding that there are no substantial potential adverse impacts identified with respect to the items reviewed. The documents identify three unavoidable impacts. It is not completely possible to identify and quantify all the things the impact the downtown shopping center will have on other areas. These impacts are likely to be both negative and positive. There are some that just cannot be identified. Another unavoidable impact is that there will be an increase in traffic associated with both of these items. Mitigation measures have been suggested that should take care of the basic traffic problems. In a situation of this kind there are likely to be a few more accidents than normal, simply because of the increased traffic. In any situation where activities are expanded in the downtown area, more electrical, etc., energy will be used, although conser- vation measures are recommended to be considered in as many situations as possible. The Environmental Impact Statements Bakcrsi'i(~ld, Califr~rnia, Ih~comb(?r 5, 1979 - P~gt) 6 47! contain a number of recommendations on traffic as well as other areas. The Redevelopment Agency has reviewed these documents, certified the subsequent EIR and recommended it to the City Council. Mr. Calvin Ho]lis, member or the firm of Katz, tlollis, Coren & Associates, the Redevelopment Agency's Financial Consul- tants, stated the document entitled "Summary for the Proposed Sale of Land to Bakersfield Associates for the Development of a Retail Shopping Center" contains the estimated cost, projected revenues and financing plan for the Amended Redevelopment Areas which will contain the shopping center. Page 3 of that document lists the cost for land acquisition, demolition-site preparation, on and off improvements, relocation, public parking facilities, administrative and interest computations. The acquisition appraisals are a result of a budget estimate prepared by local appraisers. Relocation costs and budget estimates were prepared by the firm of Port & Flor, who are relocation specialists. Parking facilities costs were prepared after discussions with the developer and are the basic costs presented by him. Interest on loans and bonds to finance the agreement were prepared by our office, based on the assumed financing plan. The financing plan being presented, at this time, is a combination of lease revenue financing and use of land£ill proceeds. The developer will pur- chase the retail center parcels (Parcels A and B) for $7,000,000. The developer will advance $5,000,000, of the $7,000,000, to the Agency. The Agency will then have use of those funds for acquisi- tion, relocation, etc. It is proposed that the Agency sell a Lease Revenue Bond Issue of approximately $20,000,000, which will finance the balance of the acquisition site assembly cost and construction of the parking facilities. The revenue to support that bond issue will come from tax increments from the Redevelop- ment Project Area and lease payments from the developer. Lease payments for the first four years will be $800,000 per year, Bakersfield, Cal. i£ornia, December 5, 1979 - Page 7 going to $900,000 per year in the fifth year and thereafter to the end of the lease. There is nothing in the Gann Initiative (Proposition 4), Proposition 13 or recent legislation that implements Proposition 13, which will prohibit the Redevelopment Agency fron~ issuing Revenue Bonds. Each bond issue will be judged by the bond market on its own merits There is no reason · to think that a bond issue, as we have structured it, could not be sold on the market. Within the next two months there will be agencies in the State going to the bond market to issue exactly the type of financing that is anticipated for this project· Mr. Jeff Nagle, President of the City of Fresno's Downtown Business Association, stated coming from Fresno it is a little bit difficult to understand how a proposal such as the one being discussed today can be considered controversial. Down- towns across the country would jump at the chance to attract a qualified developer with a proven record that is not only willing, but anxious, to bring a multimillion dollar retail complex with four, and possibly five, major department stores to Bakersfield's downtown area. Fresno's City Council has never has 'the opportunity to say yes to a development that would mean the beginning of a new era for the entire City. During business hours downtown is a hustling-bustling place, but comes that magic hour, the exodus takes place, then it is a desert. This proposed retail complex can change all of that in time because Bakersfield will have, once again, a downtown that is a vital thriving place for evening shopping, dining and entertainment. Bakersfield is fortunate in that the City has developed in a way that the downtown area is really the center of the City. The Council's obligation to their constituents is to do what is in the best interest of the entire City. All selfish considerations should be set aside· This could very well be the most important decision that this City Council will ever make. Approval of this downtown complex will spur additional development, improve property values, generate Bakc, rsfield, Cain[ >lnla, December 5, 19'[9 - Page 8 Jobs and tax revenues, and those revenues will benefit every citizen of the City of Bakersfield. Opportunities like this do not come up every day. Bakersfield can survive very well with- out another suburban shopping center, but it cannot survive and continue to grow and prosper wiChout a strong, vital, viable and well-balanced downtown. Mr. Nagle urged the Council and Redevelopment Agency to approve the development of the downtown area. Mr. Jerry Keyser, President of Keyser, Marston Associates, Land Economic Advisors to the Redevelopment Agency, stated their role has been to prepare a document that' covers the following: 1. Reuse value for the retail center parcel. 2. Fair lease value for the parking facilities. 3. Section 33433 - Evaluation of price that the site could command for alternative uses. The conclusion of the findings is that the disposition price of $7,000,000 and lease payment of $800,000 per year, increasing in the fifth year to $900,000 per year, represents a fair value for the transaction between the Agency and developer. Further, the $7,000,000 exceeds the value that could be achieved for this site by some other use or combination of uses. Mr. Keyser then reviewed the procedure they used to reach these conclusions. Mr. Murray Kane, Special Counsel to the Redevelopment Agency, stated one of the step~ they have taken towards the adop- tion of the Proposed Third Amendment to the Redevelopment P2an is to try, in the time available, to meet and consult with those people affected by the adoption of the plan and obtain their advice about relocation and displacement. Meetings have been held with as many property owners, business people, renters, churches, nonprofit groups and community organizations that time would allow. It has become clear, from the advice obtained, that in certain circumstances this will not be a full and just compen- sation for them. The office of Special Counsel Eugene Jacobs has Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1979 - Page 9 prepared, and previously made available to the public, an addendum to the report to the Council from the Agency on this subject. Mr. Kane then summarized the specific circumstances they feel the Agency should consider when special relocation assistance is needed to meet the needs of the area involved and changed circum- stances, such as the passage of Proposition 13, to avoid substan- tial economic loss in these moves. Mr. Eugene B. Jacobs, Special Counsel for the Redeve- velopment Agency, stated from the date of adoption, and the date the contract with the developer is signed, the process would be that within 90 days the Agency would seek to obtain its money in order to buy the property and move the project and the developer would put up the $5,000,000. That money would then be used to make the offers and necessary purchases. These purchases and moves would be geared in such a way that the owners could stay in place while their new location is being prepared and then they could move over a weekend or evening in such a way that there not be a loss of business. This kind of timing could be would started by March or April and the sale take place, so the land goes to the developer within a period of five months to one year. To bring the cost down, as much surface parking as possible has been planned, with one deck of structured parking. If money is &yailable at a later date, fro~ other sources, and if the deve- loper brings in a fifth store, then additional structured parking would be added to the site. This was done in order to cut down the Agency's cost at the front of the process. There will also come out of this process a requirement that all iow and moderate income housing be replaced in the project or City and that 20% of the tax increment from the last and this proposed amendment be used for low or moderate income housing, people, business and residences, and they would have to be assisted in their move to another location. Bakers field, Call rornia, December 5, 1979 - Page 10 Mr. Jacobs pointed out a plan of the hotel on the wall and stated that the Joint Development Agreement will be brought back soon, but it is not ready at this point in time. Mr. Jacobs than reviewed some of the problems that have been raised by the public in meetings and the newspaper. After being sworn in by the City Clerk, Mr. Dan Donahue, President of John S. Griffith & Company, developer of the project, stated the most important thing that can be stated tonight is that all of the answers are not known. The City consultants, Redevelop- ment Agency members, concerned citizens and business associates do not know all the answers. John S. driffith and Company, in part- nership with the May Company Department Stores, is prepared to expend the effort, funds and time to rebuild downtown Bakersfield. Tonight we are requesting an expansion of the boundaries and approval of basic business terms, an understanding of how we will proceed and finance both the public and privaLe portions of this development. Mr. Donahue then reviewed the displacement of exist- ing tenants and homeowners, people who may be adversely affected by this development. John S. Griffith & Company has developed four other redevelopment projectswhere it was necessary to use condemnation and relocate people. Without a doubt people were inconvenienced. It is a long drawn out process, but without question, in time, all of these people realized it was for the betterment of the community, and he personally believes each and every one of them was financially rewarded equal to the value taken from them. The second issue of controversy is that the taxpayers will be subsidizing the bond issues and public costs are going to be paid by the taxpayers. Tl'e City's consultants, particularly Mr. Keyser and Mr. Hollis, have explained that John S. 6riffith & Company is prepared to pay $7,000,000 for Parcels A and B. Of that amount, $5,000,000 will be advanced, in cash, so the process can be speeded along. Furthermore, the bonds will be Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1979 - Page for an extremely long period of time and payments will be made to the City for an extremely long period of time. John S. Griffith & Company and May Company are going to own a develop- ment in downtown and participace and become fabric in the com- munity. The reason this area has been chosen for the shopping center, rather than the 19th Street and Chester Avenue area, is the cost of parking. There have been questions as to how many shopping centers this con, unity can support. A great deal of research has been done on that subject. John S. Griffith's partner, the May Company, has conducted, at their expense, a retail evaluation of this community. That evaluation concluded, beyond a question of doubt, that the community can support one full-blown regional shopping center in the foreseeable future. That conclusion has been seconded by the Research Departments of J. C. Penney Company and Montgomery Ward. Mr. Donahue also stated he would like to second the statements made by Mr. Nagle as to the reasons why this develop- ment would be good for Bakersfield and urged approval of the project. Deputy Director of the Redevelopment Agency Needham stated this concludes the Agency's presentation. If there are any questions, Agency represent.atives are available for a more in-depth discussion. Special Counsel Eugene Jacobs stated that Agency Member Poehner is not participating in this hearing because his family owns property in the area. Mayor Hart stated the City Clerk will read the names and addresses of all persons who have submitted written communi- cations in favor of the proposed Third Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan and the proposed Joint Development Agreement. The Clerk will also g~ve a brief and general summary of each written communication. Bakersfield, Californi. a, Dcc(m~bor 5, ]979 - Page Letter from Dick Foster, David W. Thomley Corporation, Investment Properties, P. O. Box 212t, Bakersfield, dated November 20, 1979, strongly urging that the Council support the downtown sbopping center. Letter from Joe tfenl(~y, Henley's Photo, Inc., 2000 "H" Street, Bakersfield, dated November 30, 1979, offering their experience in relocation to help in the downtown project and also stat.lng their relocation has been very successful. Letter from Skip Witham, President of the Downtown Business Association, 1408 - 17th Street, Bakersfield, dated December 4, 1979, stating their Board of Directors voted to support the Council, staff and Redevelopment Agency in their efforts to proceed with the proposed shopping center. Telegram from Cletus Stanley, Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Kern, Inyo and Mono Counties Building Trades Council, dated December 4, 1979, stating the Building Trades Council and all its affiliated local unions are in favor of the Downtown Rede-. velopment Program and further delays would be detrimental to the community. Telegram from Bob Carter, President of the Kern, Inyo and Mono C~,unties Central Labor Council, dated December 4, 1979, supporting the Downtown Redevelopment Project and urging that the Council take all necessary steps towards the completion of the project. Letter from Jeff Wattenbarger, President of Bakersfield & Kern County Builders' Exchange, 711 24th Street, dated December 5, 1979, recommending the Council proceed and take positive action on this development. Mayor Hart stated at this time we will have oral state- ments and questions from person's in favor of the proposed Third Amendment and Joint Development Agreement. Will the City Clerk please call the persons who have turned in forms and swear in each speaker. After being sworn in by the City Clerk the following persons spoke in favor of the proposed Third Amendment and Joint Development Agreement: Mr. Ted Fritts, Co-Publisher/Editor of the Bakersfield Californian, stated if the Council and Redevelopment Agency think the downtown retail center has merit it should be approved, but approval should not be based on. what some other private citizen plans to do in the future with his property. 4'??' Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1979 - Page 13 Mr. Edwin W. Wilson, 1208 Tam O'Shanter Drive, practicing law and a property owner in the downtown area. Mrs. Lois Anderline, 6708 Norris Road. Mary Rohde, 4308 Alexander Street, business in downtown area. Mr. Arthur Rockoff, 4501 Christmas Tree Lane. Mr. Robert A. Miller, 2620 College Avenue, and representing Wilbur Rickett and William C. Kuhs on development of First Baptist Church property into professional offices and commercial property. Mr. Frank Casey, 4105 Coronado Avenue, representing Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Jack Balfanz, 612 Vista Verde, representing the Bakersfield Board of Realtors. Mayor Hart stated the City Clerk will read the names and addresses of all persons who have submitted written communi- cations in opposition to the proposed Third Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan and the proposed Joint Development Agreement. The Clerk will also give a brief and general summary of each written communication. Letter from Mrs. P. Cummings, 175 La Mesa Drive, in favor of John Brock's proposed shopping center in Northeast B~kersfield, but opposing a downtown shopping center. Letter from Richard H. wise, Law Offices of Mullins, Wise & Dickman, 21st Floor, Crocker Plaza Post at Montgomery, San Francisco, California, representing Charles A. Holloway, owner of Pacific Telephone Building at 22nd and "L" Streets and two parking lots, concerned with con- demnation of his building. Letter from Mrs. Roger Glendening, 2425 Truxtun Avenue, expressing a desire to allow the pub]lc to vote on the downtown shopping center project. Mayor Hart stated at this time we will have oral state- ments and questions from persons in opposition to the proposed Third Amendment and Joint Deve]opment Amendment. Will the City Clerk please call the persons who have turned in forms and swear in each speaker. Bakersfield, Cali fornia, December 5, 1979 - Page After being sworn in by the City Clerk the following persons spoke in opposition to the proposed Third Amendment and Joint Development Agreement: Mr. Larry Gean, 2015 - 3rd Street, representing himself, Mrs. Tom Eng, 2120 "O" Street, and the Board of Directors of Confucius Church, 2128 "N" Street. Mr. William C. Kuhs, 1815 Ridgewood Drive, Attorney at Law, representing Gray,bar Electric Company, 820 - 22nd Street. Submitted two photographs of Graybar Electric's building in the proposed Downtown Redevelopment Area. Mr. Ralph J. Poehner, 1109 Princeton Street, owner of Ralph's Piston Ring Service, 830 - 21st Street. Mr. Poehner submitted a petition containing 76 signatures from persons in the area opposing the location of the Downtown Shopping Mall in the area between 23rd Street, 20th Street, "L" Street and "Q" Street. Mrs. Anne Monroe, 3991 Marella Way. Mr. Mike M. Munoz, 2723 Noble Avenue owner of Sinaloa's Restaurant, 910 - 20th Street. Mr. Glenn Sogo, 600 "T" Street, representing Japanese Buddhist Temple, 2207 "N" Street, stated they are very concerned about moving a shrine that was brought from Japan and put into the building in 1931. They are afraid it will collapse. Mr. David B. Jones, 706 Arvin Street, owner of Callaway's Automotive Machine Shop, 2216 "N" Street. Tillyen Edna Dewey, 2615 18th Street. Mr. Dominic Bianco, Attorney at Law, 1107 Truxtun Avenue, representing several residents, property owners and businesses in the proposed redevelopment area. Mr. Tom Poor, 3529 Country Club Drive, owner of Communication Enterprises, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bakersfield Electronics, 2315 "Q" Street. Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, a brief recess was declared at 6:55 P.M. and the hearing reconvened at 7:10 P.M. Mr. Dominic Bianco, Attorney at Law, 1107 Truxtun Avenue, representing several residents, property owners and businesses in the proposed redevelopment area, continued his presentation in opposition to the proposed Third Amendment and Joint Development Agreement. Mr. Bianco presented 32 photographs of the area proposed 479. Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1979 - Page 15 to be added to the redevelopment area and a copy of an article from the Los Angeles Times dated December 2, 1979, entitled "Propositions 13 and 4 Add Up to Trouble for Municipal Bonds in State." Mayor Hart stated the City Clerk will read the names and addresses of all other persons who have st~bmitted written communications regarding the proposed Third Amendment and the proposed Joint Development Agreement. The clerk will also give a brief and general summary of each such written communication. Mr. Thomas L. Eveland, Attorney for the Bakers- field Chinese Church, 2010 "O" Street, prin- cipally concerned with replacement cost and relocation site of new church. Mayor Hart stated at this time we will have oral state- ments and questions by other persons not wishing to declare either in favor or in opposition to the proposed Third Amendment and Joint Development Agreement. Will the City Clerk please call the persons who have turned in forms and swear in each speaker. After being sworn in by the City Clerk, Mr. Donald J. Olsson, 2900 Dartmouth Street, stated he wholeheartedly supports the improvement and redevelopment of downtown Bakersfield; how- ever the sleazy hotels, bars and pornography shops in the heart of Bakersfield are more of a blight than the churches, Y.M.C.A., businesses and existing substandard housing in the area of the proposed Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. It does not make sense to construct a shopping center of this magnitude next door to the smut shops on 19th Street. Mr. Olsson requested that the Council consider a plan for the incorporation of 19th Street into the redevelopment of downtown. After being sworn in by the City Clerk, Mr. Tom Eveland, 3707 Barbara Avenue, Attorney speaking on behalf of the Bakers- field Chinese Church, stated they are not in favor or opposed to the Redevelopment Plan, and the Council & Redevelopment Agency should vote in the interest of the people of the entire City. Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1979 -. Page Their concern is that the Bakerslield Chinese Church be given adequate compensation if they have 5o move, and they would like to be relocated in tae same genera] area with no interruption in church set%ices. After being sworn in by the City Clerk, Mr. John Kelly, Attorney representing the Y.M.C.A., stated 'the Y.M.C.A. is not taking a position either in favor or against the proposed Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan or Joint Development Agreement. Their concern is that they will be able to continue with their activities and have a replacement cost position for purchasing alternate facilities. After being sworn in by the City Clerk, Mr. Richard D. Jones, 1950 Port Edwards Place, Newport Beach, California, Trustee of Gladstone Foundation who owns Valley Plaza, stated they are not taking a position either in favor or against the proposed development; they merely have questions as taxpayers. Agency Chairman Casper briefly recessed the joint public hearing at 7:55 P.M., in order to convene the regular Council Meeting. ~ayor Hart briefly recessed the joint public hearing at 7:55 P.M., in order to convene the regular Council Meeting. After being sworn in by the City Clerk, Mr. Richard Hill, 10425 Haines Canyon, Tujunga, California, representing ~unicipal Services, Inc., consulting firm based in representative of Valley a redevelopment and municipal financing Los Angeles, stated he was asked by a Plaza to review the financial aspects of the Third Amendment and Joint Development Agreement for the proposed shopping center. Their purpose is not for or against the project, but rather to express concerns on the aspects of the proposal for consideration tonight. Mr. Hill asked several questions of Mr. Hollis regarding the financing of the proposed project. Bakersfield, Calii'ornia, December 5, 1979 - Page 17 Jan Comer, 2417 Hubert #A, representing WUI/TAS, Inc., 2315 "Q" Street, (Able-1 Telephone Answering Service), submitted the following question: "What will the City do to ]nsure that my 300 customers will not incur any additional m~)nthly charges for services they now receive?" Special Counsel Jacobs stated Ms. Comer should meet with the staff to discuss this, but as a general answer there should not be any additional charges due 'to this process. Mr. Preson H. Burdette, Multi-Business Systems, 101 Cart Street, requested that the record show the following comment: "I think this project would be good for the business community." Mrs. Grace Shelton, 811 - 22nd Street, and rental at 2125 "Q" Street, submitted the following question: "Will I get the real value of ~ny property?" Special Counsel Jacobs stated there would be the market value as if it were sold on the private market. Osie L. Wood, 821- 22nd Street, representing requested that the record show the following Mr. & Mrs. Carter's Super Shop, comment: "The price of my prop(rty." Special Counsel Jacobs stated they could not give him the price of his property tonight, because only budget appraisals have been conducted at this ti~e. The price of the property will be given to him at th~ appropriate time when specific appraisals have been done by the appraisers. Mayor Hart asked if there were any other per~Mons desiring to speak at this time. Hearing no requests to speak, the public hearing was declared closed for the purposes of the City Council. Agency Chairman Casper closed the public hearing for the purposes of the Redevelopment Agency. Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1979 - Page 18 Mayor Hart asked if the members of the Redevelopment Agency desired to discuss and consider taking action at this time. Agency Chairman Casper asked if any members of the Redevelopment Agency desired to ask questions or request further clarification on.the proposed Third Amendment and the proposed Joint Development Agreement. Special Counsel Jacobs and Financial Consultant Calvin Hollis clarified all the points which |las been raised by the individuals participating in the public portion of the hearing. Agency Member Foth explained her support of the proposed redevelopment of the downtown area. Approval!of Addition to Section 511 of the Joint Development Agreement and Addendum to Report to City Council, Section VI. Method and Plan for Relocation of Occupants and Businesses, Proposed Third Amendment to Redevelop- ment Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project. Upon a motion by Agency Member Puder, seconded by Agency Member Mooneyham, Addition to Section 511 of the Joint Development Agreement and Addendum to Report to City Council, Section VI, Method and Plan for Relocation of Occupants and Businesses, Proposed Third Amendment to Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project, were approved to be included in the respective documents. Adoption of Resolution No. RA 11-79 of the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency approving and adopting "Amended Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Owners, Operators of Businesses, and Tenants in the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project." Upon a motion by Agency Member Foth, seconded by Agency Member Mooneyham, Resolution No. RAll-79 of the Bakersfield Rede- velopment Agency approving and adopting "Amended Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Owners, Operators of Businesses, Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, Dec(tuber 5, 1979 - Page 19 and Tenants was adopted by the following roll call vote: in the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project," Ayes: Agency Members Foth, Mooneyham, Puder, Casper Noes: None Absent: Agency Members King, Lewis, Poehner Adoption of Resolution No. RA12-79 of the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency making certain findings that provisions of low and moderate-income housing out- side the Project Area as Amended by the Third Amendment, will be of benefit to the Project as Amended. Upon a motion by Agency Member Puder, seconded by Agency Member Foth, Resolution No. RA12-79 of the Bakersfield Redevelop- ment Agency making certain findings that provisions of low and moderate-income housing outside the Project Area as amended by the Third Amendment, will be of benefit to the Project as Amended, was adopted by Ayes: Noes: Absent: the following roll Agency Members Foth, None Agency Members King, call vote: Mooneyham, Puder, Casper Lewis, Poehner Adoption of Resolution RA13-79 of the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency approving and recommending the adoption of the Third Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelop- ment Project. Upon a motion by Agenby Member Foth, seconded by Agency Member ~ooneyham, Resolution No. RA13-79 of the Bakersfield Rede- velopment Agency approving and recommending the adoption of the Third Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Down- town Bakersfield Redevelopment Project, was adopted by the follow- ing roll call vote: Ayes: Agency ~Iembers Foth, Mooneyham, Puder, Casper Noes: None Absent: Agency Members King, Lewis, Poehner Bakersfield, Cali l'orn~ a, Decemb(~r 5, 1979 - Page 20 Upon a motion by Agency Agency Member Foth, Resolution No. Adoption of R()so]ution No. RA14-79 of the Bakersfield Rodeve]c~pment Agency making environmental findings necessary for the Proposed Joint Developmen~ Agreement between the Bakersfield Redeveiopmen~; Agency and B~tker~fie!d Associates for the sale and develop- ment of real property located in the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project. Member Mooneyham, seconded by RA14-79 of the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency making environmental findings necessary for the Proposed Joint Development Agreement between the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency and Bakersfield Associates for sale and development of real property located in the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Agency Members Foth, Mooneyham, Puder, Casper Noes: None Absent: Agency Members King, Lewis, Poehner Adoption of Resolution No. RA15-79 of the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency making certain findings with respect to the consideration to be received by the Agency pursuant to the Joint Development Agreement between the Agency and Bakersfield Associates; approving the proposed sale~ lease and sublease of real property and the Joint Development Agreement; and authorizing the execution and imple- mentation of said Joint Development Agreement. Upon a motion by Agency Member Puder, seconded by Agency Member Foth, Resolution No. ment Agency making certain tion to be received by the meat Agreement between the RA15-79 of the Bakersfield Redevelop- findings with respect to the considera- Agency pursuant to the Joint Develop- Agency and Bakersfield Associates; approving the proposed sale, lease and sublease of real property and the Joint Development Agreement; and authorizing the execution and implementation of said Joint Development Agreement, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Bakersfield, California, D~cember 5, 1979 - Page 21 Ayes'. Noes: Absent: Agency Members Foth, None Agency Members King, Agency Chairman Casi)er stated ,~!ooneyham, Puder, Casper Lewis, Poehner that that completes the Agency's consideration and actions. Mayor Hart asked if any members of the Council desired to ask questions or request further clarification on the proposed Third Amendment and the proposed Joint Development Agreement. In answer to a question by Councilman Miller, Special Counsel Jacobs explained the various forms of blight. In answer to a question by Councilman Means, Deputy Director of the Redevelopment Agency Needham stated as the Amendment is written, he feels very comfortable with it and concurs that if it gets to a point where the bonds cannot be sold, etc., the staff would definitely recommend that the Council take the necessary action to cancel the project. Special Counsel Jacobs stated the amendment added to the Joint Development Agreement tonight is a double fail-safe, because the agreement already contains a termination clause if the bonds cannot be sold. If the bonds can be sold it means there is adequate money to take care of it. This is an additional out that even if the bonds could be sold at an amount higher than $20,000,000 you would not be required to do so. In answer tq questions by Councilman Strong, Special Counsels Jacobs and Kane explained the tax increments for the downtown area. Adoption of Resolution No. 90-79 of the City Council o£ the City of Bakersfield adoptiz{g the Final Sub- sequent Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelop- ment Project, and making certain findings with respect to the Environ- mental Impact of said Project. Bakers frigid, CaliN)rni;~, D('c(~mL, cr 5, 1979 - l';i~ 22 After a lengthy discussion, Councilman Barton made a motion that Resolui;ion o~ thc City Council of the City of Bakers- field adopting the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Bakersfield Rec!~vetoplnfknt Pr~jec:~, and £~aking certain findings wi. th respect ~o the Environmental Impact of said Project, be adopted. Councilman Strong stated he is not in favor of the project because there are too many unanswered questions. IIe stated he has thoroughly revi(~wed most of the documents available in connection with the proposal and listened to arguments for and against. Over the years he has tried to remain objective allowing the facts to determine his sense of direction. It has been admit- ted here tonight that people within the Agency and outside the Agency will have to subsidize the project to some extent. If i~ did not require taxpayers I>articipation then the Redevelopment Agency and Council would not be involved. is not blighted. Ail a person has to do to buy a parcel of land within the area. The area in question to find that ()ut is try Councilman Strong also stated he has a problem with government taking land from private citizens who have worked hard to establish businesses or homes and then paying them what they Jhink is a fair market value and giving the land to other private interests. Another overriding thing that exists in this particular project is that the public does not want it. Councilman Christensen stated he concurs with practi- cally everything Councilman Strong said. He would like the people to know he believes in the free enterprise system. He does not believe in subsidizing a downtown agency to make a man move from his property and then turn around and ~ell it to some yokel from out of town. It is not part of the American way and he cannot swallow that pill. He has to vote the convictions of his constituents in the 2nd Ward, who were polled very heavily, Bakersfield, Ca!iio~'nia, Decembc. r 5, 1979 - Page 23 and they are 90% opposed to the Downtown Redevelopment Agency. He promised he would vote their will. Councilman Means stated he is aware this is an issue that concerns every resident of Bakersfield. Any decision like this requires a tremendous amount of research, discussions with residents and thinking about what is best for all the citizens. It is not an easy decision. After talking to many business people and surveying over 400 people in the 5th Ward, the decision was that they were in favor of it. This was a written question- naire that was handed out to 477 people, which included 23 signa- tures against the project. 109 were opposed, 338 in favor and 30 had no opinion. He supports the downtown center and the majority of the residents in his ward seem to support it. He talked to City officials in Santa Moniaa, Fresno, Santa Cruz and Los Angeles and they seem to feel if we do not take this opportunity to improve the downtown area that it will never be what we in Bakersfield hope it will be. The senior citizens in Ward 5 want a downtown to be proud of and a place they can go to on the bus. The Council should continue to be certain that the taxpayers will benefit and support this center. If it is found that that is not true, he would not vote to approve the bonds. He demanded that the staff monitor the project and keep him informed. He felt the downtown center will be in the best interest of the entire City. Councilman Miller stated, as stated by several Councilmen, he is also bullish on Bakersfield and downtown. He wished he could vote for this project, but as stated by Mr. Donahue there are unanswered questions. For that reason he cannot support this particular proposal. However, it should be stressed that the Council set forth in the next few weeks a safety valve, somewhere along the line, so the Council can be assured the expenditures are monitored and the City tire that the Council keep tures made on this project. knows where it is going. It is impera- close tabs with regards to the expendi- Bakersfield, Cal[f~>rp, i~'~, December 5, 1979 - Page 24 Councilman Payne staled he does not believe that this Council can sit here a~d make a decision based upon a choice between two hypothetical projects, downtown redevelopment and the eastside shopping center. The choice here tonight is clear. The Council has to decide ~hether or not the downtown shopping center or redevelopment project stands on its own merits, just as the decision will have to be made on the other shopping center one month from tonight. He stated he also believes in the free enterprise system and it is a matter of clear-cut economics that one of the centers will survive and the other one will-not. That is not the Council's decision to make. Re also conducted a survey from anyone who wanted to address the subject, the only stipulation being that only "yes" and "no" votes would be accepted. 499 "no" votes and 657 "yes" votes were received. Every question he had about the downtown redevelopment has been adequately answered either tonight or during the past two weeks. This Council has to be a little farsighted before casting votes tonight. The long-term effects and results of this project need to be kept in mind. He honestly believes the contract and project the Council is being asked to enter into tonight has sufficient safeguards to protect the City and constituents and he fully intends to support it. Councilman Ratty stated this is a hard decision for everyone. The intent .is clear and the Council is trying to make the best judgment for the community. Bakersfield has a rare opportunity at this time which not many cities get, to correct an error that was made some 15 years ago. If this downtown center does not go, these department stores will be in peripheral centers and this town, like San Diego, will be without a major retail department store. In other words, it will be a downtown without a major draw. It is not a viable center now and it will become worse and that has to be taken into account. He stated Bakersfield, California D ~ ~- , ecemD..r 5, 1979 - Page 25 he does not undersLand all the balk about subsidy, because he has not seen that subsidy identified; maybe to a minor degree but nothing of a substantial nature. As far as low income housing is concerned, a 'resolution will be passed later on regarding supplying logy and moderate ~ncome housi~)g~ Most of the concerns expressed tonight were about relocation and compensation. They were not necessarily against the center as against the dislocation and compensation they would receive for their prdperty. Council- man Ratty then read a letter from Mr. Joe Henley, 2000 "H" Street, who went through the relocation process, to show what happened to his business and the compensation he received. Mayor Hart declared a brief recess in order to change the tape on the recording equipment. Councilman Ratty stated he feels this is a free enter- prise effort. The developer is paying for these things. It is coming from monies generated by the center. Location and number of shopping centers is not normally a factor in determining the City's future. Whetber or not the central core of the community is downtown, the retail, financial and government heart are alive or dead makes a vital difference in the life of the City. The difference affects almost everybody. The cost of government, transportation, crime, unemployment opportunities and property values. This will be one City if we have a prosperous vital com~nunity core and another entirely different City if the com- munity center is allowed to die. Disapproval or postponement of a downtown center will seriously affect existing business and some will be forced to close. Councilman Ratty then reviewed some' Of the things that will happen if the downtown center is approved. There is not any question of what will happen if this very vital project is not approved for the City. Bakersfield, Caiif(~,.~ii:~, Decemb~.~r 5, 1979 - Page 26 Councilman Barton for 37 years and has seen a the type of business moving viable downtown. ?his is a st~.i(~d he has been in Bakersfield decline in the downtown area and in that does not lend itself to a too~ the Cou~cil can use to improve the downtown area. Be stated h~ will support these motions that will start the process for the downtown regional center. For the people in the area affected, he will take a hard look and be an ongoing participant i~ seeing that they are given all of the courtesies and conditions they deserve and warrant, not only by law, but those that are brought about by the new actions taken tonight. He sta~ed he will personally watch, hopefully, every one of the transactions that take place in the area that will affect someone relocating to be sure they come out of this with a fair shake. After a lengthy discussion, upon a motion by Council- man Barton, Resolution No. 90-79 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield adopting the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project, and making certain findings with respect to the Environmental call Impact of said Project, was adopted by the following roll vote: Ayes: Councilmen Means, Payne, Ratty, Barton Noes: Councilmen Miller, Strong, Christensen Absent: None Adoption of Resolution No. 91-79 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield making certain findings that provision of Low- and Moderate- Income Housing outside the Project Area as amended by the Third Amend- ment, will be of benefit to the Project as amended. Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Resolution No. 91-79 of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield making certain findings that provision of Low- and Moderate-Income Housing outside the Project Area as amended by the Third Amendment, Bakersfield, California, December 5, 1P79 - Page 27 will be of benefit to tile Project as amended, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ratty, Ayes: Councilmen Means, Payne, Noes: Councilman .Miller Absent: None Strong, Barton, Christensen First reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Bakers- field approving and adopting the Third Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Projeqt. First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield approving and adopting the Third Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project. Adoption of Resolution No. 92-79 of the City Council msking environmental findings necessary for the Proposed Joint Development Agreement~ as changed, between the Bakers£ield Redevelopment Agency and Bskersfield Associates for the sale and development of real property located in the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project. Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Resolution No. 92-79 of the City Council making environmental findings necessary for the Proposed Joint Development Agreement, as changed, between the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency and Bakersfield Associates for the sale and development of real property located in the Downtown was adopted by the following Bakersfield Redevelopment Project, roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Means, Payne, Noes: Absent: Ratty, Barton Councilmen Miller, Strong, Christensen None Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, December 5, 1979 - Page 28 Adoption of Resolution No. 93-79 of the City Council approvin~[ a change in the Joint Development Agre~ment between tile Agency and Bakcrsfie].d Associates; making certain findings with respect to the consideration to be received ~y the Bakersfield Redevelopn:ent Agency pursuant t,) ~;a~d Agreement, a~ changed; approving the sale, lease, and sub]ease of real property; consenting to %he p~'ovisions for certain public improw~ments; and approving the Joint Development Agreement, as changed. Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Resolution No. 93-79 of the City Council approving a change in the Joint Development Agreement between the Agency and Bakersfield Associates; making certain findings with respect to the consideration to be received by the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency pursuant to said Agreement, as changed; approving the sale, lease and sublease of real property; consenting to the provisions for certain public improvements; and approving the Joint Development Agreement, as changed, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Means, Paync, Ratty, Barton Noes: Councilmen Miller, Strong, Christensen Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, all documents involved in the Joint Public Hearing between the City Council and Redevelopment Agency were received and ordered placed on file. Upon a motion ADJOURNMENT by Agency Member Foth, seconded by Agency Member Puder, the Joint Public Hearing before the Council of the City of Bakersfield and the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency on the Proposed Third Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project and the Joint Development Agreement between the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency and Bakersfield Associates, was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Bakersf.ieild, Cali ~'~)raia, ~ec(~mber 5, 1979 - Page 29 Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Joint Public Hearing before the Council of the City of Bakersfield and the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency on the Proposed Third Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project and the Joint Development Agreement between the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency and Bakersfield Associates was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. DONALD M. HART MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield, Calif. ATTEST: H. E. BERGEN CITY CLERK and Ex O££icio Clerk of the of the City o£ Bakersfield, California ma Council