HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - No. 2008-117RESOLUTION NO. 2008-117
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI
ADOPTING FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
TO ADOPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
LODI COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi (the "Agency") has formulated
and prepared a Redevelopment Plan for the Lodi Community Improvement Project (the "Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Agency held on May 28, 2008, a joint public hearing on
the adoption of the proposed Plan and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (the
"Final EIR") on the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard and has
considered all written comments received and all evidence and testimony presented for or against
any and all aspects of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 33363 of the Community Redevelopment Law provides that, before
adopting the Plan, the City Council shall make written findings in response to each written objection,
if any, received from an affected taxing entity or property owner received before or at the noticed
public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The written objections from affected property owners and affected taxing
agencies to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Lodi Community Improvement Project
are hereby overruled for the reasons detailed in the written responses attached hereto as part of
Attachment No. 1 and by this reference are incorporated herein.
SECTION 2: The written responses attached hereto as Attachment No. 1 are hereby
adopted as the written findings cf the City Council in response to the written objections received from
affected property owners and affected taxing agencies.
SECTION 3: The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit certified copies of this
Resolution including the written responses attached hereto as Attachment No. 1 to the objectors by
first class mail, postage prepaid.
Dated: June 18,2008
I hereby certify that Resolution No. 2008-117 was passed and adopted by the City Council of
the City of Lodi in a regular meeting held June 18, 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hansen, Johnson, and Katzakian
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Mayor Mounce
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS — None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS — Hitchcock
ATTEST:
JENN �- R M. PE f RIN, Deputy City Clerk
JOAg7NE MOUNCE, Maybr
2008-117
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESPONSE TO-WRITTENJBJECTIONS REGARDING
THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE
LODI COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
I. Introduction
On May 28,2008, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi held
a joint public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed Plan for the Lodi Community
Improvement Project ("Redevelopment Plan")1 Following a staff report, testimony was
given by several speakers, both in favor of and opposed to the adoption. Prior to the time
set for the hearing, eight written objections were received by the Lodi City Clerk.
Section 33364 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety
Code Section 33000, et seq. ("Redevelopment Law"), at Sections 33363 and 33364
thereof,2 provides that if written objections to the adoption of a redevelopment plan are
received, written responses are to be prepared and considered by the legislative body not
earlier than one week after such written objections were presented. This Response to
Written Objections Regarding the Proposed Plan for the Lodi Community Improvement
Project is intended to provide a considered response to each of the written objections
received by the Lodi City Clerk prior to the hearing, as provided by Section 33363 of the
Redevelopment Law.
The following sections describe the constitutional and statutory framework of the
Redevelopment Law and the applicable evidentiary standard. Then, each written
objection to the proposed Redevelopment Plan received by the Lodi City Clerk is set
forth and followed by a written analysis and response to such written objection based on
the evidence in the record before the Lodi City Council, including the Report to City
Council for the Lodi Community Inprov&nent Project (the "Report to Council"), as
transmitted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi (the "Agency") to the City
Council. The Report to Council was primarily compiled by GRC Redevelopment
Consultants and Fraser & Associates. Resumes of persons at GRC Redevelopment
Consultants and Fraser & Associates that were involved in the preparation of the Report
to Council are set forth at Exhibit A.
II. Constitutional and Statutory Framework
Redevelopment, including tax increment financing for redevelopment, was included in
the California Constitution by voter -approved initiative in 1952. The proposition that
redevelopment is a public purpose is long-establishedin California (see, for example, the
California Supreme Court decision In Re Bunker Hill (1964) 61 Cal. 2d 21). The
Legislature has provided authority for "communities", mainly cities and counties (see
Section 33002 of the Redevelopment Law, providing the definition of "community") to
2
A video of the May 28,2008 joint public hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit J and incorporated
herein.
The full text of Sections 33363 and 33364 i s attachedhereto in Exhibit I and incorporated herein.
DOCSOC/ 1285743v6/200107-0002
1
175
activate redevelopment agencies and to adopt and amend redevelopment projects and
project areas.
The funding source for redevelopment agencies in California is "tax increment."3
Briefly, tax increment is that portion of property tax generated within an identified
redevelopment project area from increases in assessed value of that area over a starting
point, or "base roll." Taxing agencies, such as the County, continue to receive their share
of base roll revenues. However, redevelopment law provides for the re -allocation of
revenues attributable to increases in assessed value above the base—such revenues
constituting "tax increment revenues" (or 'tax allocation revenues'> -as the funding
mechanism for redevelopment activities (see, for example, Section 33670 of the
Redevelopment Law).4
The Legislature has prescribed a series of fmdings which are to be made by the host city
council in order for a redevelopment plan to be adopted by that city.5 It is within the
authority of the city council of a city to consider the adoption o f a redevelopment plan
and whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support fmdings which are
required for the adoption of a redevelopment plan. In the case of Fosselman 's v. City of
Alhambra, the City Council of the City of Alhambra had adopted certain fmdings and had
proceeded to adopt a redevelopmentplan for a portion of the City of Alhambra. Various
private parties, as well as the County of Los Angeles, challenged the validity of the
adoption of that redevelopment plan in the California Superior Court. The trial court
ruled in favor of the City of Alhambra, upholding the adoption of the redevelopment
plan. The County did not participate in the appeal, but private plaintiffs did. On appeal,
the Court upheld the trial court's determination and upheld the validity of the adoption of
the redevelopmentplan by Alhambra. In so doing, the Court stated: "In the Community
Redevelopment Law the Legislature delegated to the agency and the city council the
power to determine blight as well as the power to adopt and implement redevelopment
plans.. .. (citations omitted); the acts of the agency and the city council in carrying out
such functions have been termed `legislative."'6 The same decision states: "The
substantial evidence standard, not the independent exercise of the court's judgment,
governs judicial review of the fmdings and determinations of an agency and legislative
body in the adoption and approval of a redevelopmentplan."7
The Court's ruling in Fosselrnan's, and its rationale, are particularly apposite relative to
the matter before the Lodi City Council: a proposed plan adoption, with the interposition
of written objections. As was the case in Alhambra, the ability of a city to adopt or
amend a redevelopmentplan is within the purview of the City Council of the host city;
consent of other governmental agencies and individual citizens is not required. In
3 Report to Council, pages 123-128 and the draft Plan for the Lodi Community Improvement
Project at pages 31-35.
4 The use of tax increment financing is very common in Californiaand is found in the communities
of Tracy, Stockton and Manteca within San Joaquin County. See Appendix A of the State
Controller's Report (defined below), an excerpt of which is attached as Exhibit B.
5 See Secticn 33367 of the Redevelopment law; see also Fosselman's v. City of Alhambra (1986)
178 Cal.App.3d 806.
6 SeeFosselman's atpage 811.
7 Fosselman'' atpage 810.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
2
176
considering evidence, the "substantial evidence test" applies! What is required for a plan
adoption is that the city make various findings (see, for example Section 33367 of the
Redevelopment Law; a full copy of the text of Section 33367 is set forth at Exhibit I,
attached hereto and incorporatedherein) and that the findingsbe supportedby substantial
evidence (see Fosselman's v. Alhambra; and see Evans v. San Jose (2005) 128 Cal. App.
4th 1123, which is discussedbelow). Where there may be conflicting evidence, it is not
for third parties, such as individual citizens within a community, to resolve those
evidentiary conflicts; nor is it the province of individual citizens to weigh the sufficiency
of evidence; that function has been allotted to the host city council (namely, in this case,
the City Council of the City of Lodi) in connection with the pending redevelopment plan
adoption.9 In weighing evidence, the City Council may consider relevance, specificity,
credibility, reliability, experience and other factors to determine the weight to be given to
various evidence—the City Council has the authority to assign greater weight to certain
evidence and less weight to other evidence."
The basic approach illustrated by Fosselman's was applied in the recent case of Evans v.
San Jose, supra, upholding the adoption of a new redevelopment project area in San Jose
over objection that there was not substantial evidence in the record to support the City
Council's findings, including a fmding of blight." The Evans decision follows the
principles and approach set forth in the Fosselman's case. In Evans, the plaintiff
challenged the adoption, in 2002, of a redevelopmentplan by the City of San Jose and the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose (collectively, "San Jose"). The Superior
Court decided in favor of San Jose. On appeal, the plaintiff contended that there was not
substantial evidence in the record to support the City Council's findings of blight.12 The
reviewing court found in favor of San Jose, determining that the finding of blight was
supportedby substantial evidence.
9
10
11
12
Briefly, substantial evidence means "evidence of ponderable legal significance"; "enough relevant
information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to
support a conclusion even though other conclusions might also be reached"; evidence that is
"...reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value..... The foregoing excerpts are from Friends
of Mammoth v. Town cfMammoth Lakes RedevelopmenfAgency (2002) 82 Cal. App. 4's 511, 537-
538), San Franciscans Upholding theDowntown Plan v. City & County d San Francisco (2002)
102 Cal. App. 4" 656, 675, and Estate ci Teed (1952) 112 Cal. App. 2d 638, 644, respectively.
See discussion in Part III, infra.
"In applying substantial evidence review, a court may not weigh the evidence; rather, we Simply
determine whether the record contains substantial evidence to support the agency's decision. [Ijf
there are conflicts in the evidence, their resolution is for the agency." Moss v. County cf Humboldt
(2008)162Ca1. App. 4th 1041 (citations omitted; alterationin original).
See footnotes 9 and 11.
In Evans, the Can=t of Appeal wrote: "The scope of judicial review of an agency's decision to
adopt a redevelopment plan is quite limited. Both the trial court and this court review the
administrative record to determine whether the findings and decision of the legislative body are
supported by substantial evidence. (citation omitted) In the application of this standard, '[tjhe
decisions of the agency are...given substantial deference and presumed correct.' (citation omitted)
'[T)he reviewing court must resolve reasonable doubts in favor of the administrative findings and
determination.' (citation omitted). And where conflicting inferences can be drawn fine the
evidence, we accept all reasonable inferences supporting the administrative findings. (citation
omitted)" (Evans, at pp. 1145-1146) .
Evans, page 1130.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
3
177
The redevelopment project area at issue in Evans consisted of six noncontiguous areas
totaling approximately 10,456 acres.13 In contrast, Lodi's proposed Redevelopment
Project Area (herein, the "Project Area") consists of approximately 2,000 acres.14 While
not addressed in the Evans opinion, the median income for a family of four in the County
of Santa Clara (in which the City of San Jose is located), as shown in median income data
published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development dated
as of February 25, 2005, was $105,500.15 The median income (for a family of four) in
the County of San Joaquin for the same year was $55,300. This provides one economic
comparisonbetween the two areas.
Similar to the pending Lodi process, a portion of the area which had been proposed for
inclusion within the territory being added as a project area was deleted — in the case of
San Jose — "...just prior to the adoption of the...Plan."16
Concerning the evidence in the record offered by the consultant employed by San Jose,
the plaintiff criticized the inclusion of local code violations as evidence of blight and
generally questioned the methodology used by the consultant!' In commenting upon
information adduced by the consultant and presented before the City Council of San Jose,
the Court noted that information concerned such matters as:
• infrastructure deficiencies in the ProjectArea;18
• codeviolations;19
• "site deficiencies, such as unpaved or overpaved driveways, improper storage of
materials, fence deterioration, broken or missing sidewalks, curbs and gutters and
excessive or deteriorated signage',;20
• incompatible uses, irregularly shaped lots;21 and
• inadequate public improvements, including deteriorated street, storm sewer and
sanitary sewer systems.22
The staff of GRC Redevelopment Consultants has extensive experience in the area of
redevelopment and describing and documenting conditions within proposed
redevelopment project areas 23 Much time and effort has gone into the collection of
evidence for the Report to Council and the record which will be considered by the Lodi
13 Evans, page 1134.
14 Ftecart to Council, page 1.
is See Income Limits on the website of the California Housing and Community Development
Department.
16 Evans, page 1141.
17 Evans, page 1144.
`s Evans, page 1146.
19 Evans, page 1148.
20 Evans, page 1149.
21 Evans, page 1149.
u Evans, page 1151.
23 See Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, containing resumes of the GRC
Redevelopment Consultants staff people who prepared the Report to Council, as well as the
resume of Don Fraser of Fraser & Associates, who assisted with the preparation of the Report to
Council.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
4
178
City Council when it makes its decision whether to adopt the proposed Redevelopment
Plan for the Lodi Community Improvement Project. As described in pages 25 through
105 of the Report to Council, the record before the Lodi City Council is replete with
specific, documented examples of the occurrence and pervasiveness of similar features
within the proposed Project Area.
III. The Substantial Evidence Test
The Report to the City Council and all other evidence and documentation in the record
before the Lodi City Council, including the testimony received at the joint public hearing,
contains information concerning the Project Area, In order for the City Council to adopt
an ordinance approving a redevelopment plan, the City Council is required to make
certain fmdings (as set forth in Section 33367 of the Redevelopment Law), which
fmdings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The Project Area must
exhibit both physical and economic characteristics which cause blight, as defined in
Section 33031 of the Redevelopment Law, and be predominantly urbanized and the
combination of physical and economic conditions set forth in Section 33031 of the
Redevelopment Law must be so prevalent and so substantial that it causes a reduction of,
or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious
physical and economic burden on the community that cannot reasonably be expected to
be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without
redevelopment.24
Substantial evidence is defined as "enough relevant information and reasonable
inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a
conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached."25 The evidence "must
be reasonable in nature, credible and o f solid value; it must actually be `substantial' proof
of the essentials which the law requires in a particular case."26
IV. Response to Written Objections to the Proposed Redevelopment Plan
Each of the written objections to the proposed Redevelopment Plan is set forth below.
The statements in each writing are then separated into areas of concern, which are then
responded to individually; this format is intended to provide a more meaningful response
and to ensure that each objection or item of concern is fully and meaningfully addressed.
24 Conditions of blight and their extent are descnied in Sections 33030 and 33031 of the
Redevelopment Law. Reportto Council, pages 9-11; see also Exhibitl.
25 San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102
26 Cal. App. 4th 656, 675.
Friends of Mammoth v. Town cEMammoth Lakes RedevelopmentAgency (2000) 82 Cal. App. 4th
511,537-538 [superseded by statute on another issue].
DOCSOC/1285743v6/2001 07-0002
5
179
. . . .
. . .
. .
• - • : : • .--X 6(660:..ijid.rk.:9,iiiO4.ii.6_:' : •: - - , , :),4- ' -: •:. -:- ..... .
• • - - • 41Nr..00,illAii,eg:Ot lUE•OITY 0131401L;0,14..,..;z01740.0.1fifY4* :-114: 44:4i
A.?PROVNGA0Cf..Agortty4:04gAEOEV454,PEAl.17.1.-RLAME•PX-.
• .. :. . : ' ...:. -TEM 004.000-MIT.Y-01-3:VAP.OrriPPZOMI-I%eFililifii: ::-.'": :.:".;. -. -.:1::::•''..
:• ... „... , . • : , . .,. ham s that • ..i., combined..'1:1914.*n!?7/t1.' •:.-- 8above Wilir...' 1 . .
• . :••, . ..•- • •
. .. ortning;i:Rli A....i 2.nO 011i rLO.:V?..:,!.t.4 T..!::are:....°'..1•4r.5';iitrin)11i.uAiliiti•aliiii.••1,f-.4°.oti.:i!rl?:;.•,11Y.:"'ili••••!:;:-• • .. .
. ... • .. mai$81
aee
can bat1y hold their head
r - -. •-• - :. ....• • -...-vse
cornuaunitiO.:ge.....„_,_::.W0_,- •,24,...1•Y•::----•odi'•- -,••0ity----- '. vii-aifi:16tlrt ••P•4: IMPIC11165t., .•• _ •this••
. -. • • :, -- • : : • ... -
told niSY:lit•dr.r4P1171:'Ei . ''''''' ...t._,.!..,..iiiiilojii., .0.0.6iiiii....iiii:6ii4i]iiii.v4W:pAge4::
" :":• . . •••:: - ' • -:;-.--•-•
idea concerned .cii,,,Afiiiii-irilith, sf'-''%i '-- .gned 11417eirk"-eaninilkiieliiidi6fiif:d414.6it1A4tAiieti!;"0:#1.
• . • -: . • " ' -. - dit'OPtV That .6.°--"'•:'----•z•7' "•'1.; :-3-'-'••• do. :'-•,ia ' •U!riii.'.tniiiiio!ii:*,./1.0,0•••• !Y:44 i•iii .1 '
ry
• " niiilisi• for Iiiet.U.:*.iv.0,*•4514!1“..... •• - -- •,- •••••-- :•proposition-• ' ' the.--411inct: ...
Oifili4i4•1
• — :.:— .'•-•:::. :.•-,;:•.•:.••:....itt.*4•litti:-...:114afirlinanao..tre..":::ii:l'il,!.',”••,ded, Mr B!air:!..,---• ---- • - ' -
,.• .*:--i... • - .• ....: ..':'•.:','•:::•....--.
have here iiiiq'tintll !,.. Il •'':•-•--•••• *" :.
• ...- • •: • 's • : •• ' • .'•• :. flelibUrnialif•!iragiA und•men.huut zu ........_
zs
the
.wheixoye :,. or ,... •..?uliiiiie ,oici.ig. ..toi1.4..ted
ciTin4ti"- r..., , „ .,_ e.0 . ...:. .. , .
...- .....::., .... ••• i. .•. ••• :: - •• : ..cal
...,.,...,...„,.. ". • .,,.,,„,,.,„-••sea:;..'•ak (...pyg.VVY,...FY- of e..•N•V
. !! • : : : :. ...•—• ,•:, rpeal
ecinj.......,.-t•?.t---:,suspicion). •kitiiiii.ii:•inL e - fi
.. : ;-' • '.... .• - . '•'•••• !" tie ••• truth' is in the -...l.t..)!......_.......4.•:„. :.
suppositionaless
The
thata
..
speculative,and,.......tcicisi
• .• : :-.. • ... .:.:,.: .... '. .. (i.inleiilnioiTlia'gu6iiik ".4A!......1;0#::-.. debt Ile
. . : • —rii*...:'cii7? : ...............
.• -, : .:.:.F. ..,..... : .....- .: .. . ••• , • Wecan not pay:our c1c ln:.!.w.s.i.3 ...they.A .. . . . to create4 ,bureaucracy . .:. ••• As.••the-•• power to
' .1..!...- : • • 1 '...: librio inid.0.4t•iii,!:0.i.t4A0i... Oiiii!,,,Oit if4..iegoii:110;a::::...04t,akoiii, • .,.F,4,?441e,k;.,4;.,,.,,I
. . ':!•-- - .•:. :!: : : : :.. : tu
*4,*d-i61.(4/§.:00*14iii0ii0j.4EA 4.•0:.0iif0A:jiii:i4aii.ii6-i- '-• ii.44.40Cfkilit• •
..• . • •.. . • ... . • ... - . :„..... ., • , .. : •• • •• ...... . j
.• ,.._ ..• •..
• ; '.... ..• • .; ;
credit cad ;16 create an jgve;n•ig
••.bg-E.r•pi-oblOn:•for...ninzitt.*wexa
.---••tir our je-wiiiy ;0: ..,
. . .... ,.. r. • .. I r. • . ..... ....: .. . • •• • . • •• • ••• . ••• r .....
. • ' • our town .ti-Oiviihin.its'91e.Sniii.01:91iit'q*cuitenit4•,•ilkie.ssi.ii0:af G'-#ZiOrt4"3i.:iliatit40';Hi-7- .
. - not -Wind in on4er:o.tiii.iii.lidii'iiiin't4ic*.' •!--•;-. •:.7...:'::. -, - ..• • : .1." • -. .: : -.••••,•, .': . -:: ' - :. ;"'.': i• !-,••; -,•:-: ....' • . :- -,
• • "
: ••••• • • : •
Writing A:
Jerold E. Kyle, 327 Del Mont Street, Lodi, California 95242;
NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO: AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODX APPROVING AND
ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LODI
COMMUNITY 11/1PROVEMENT PROJECT, received by the City
Clerk of the City of Lodi on May 28,2008.
DOCSOC/128$743 v6/200107-0002
6
180
Comment No. I:
Forming a RDA is nothing new. There are so many communities in California involved
with RDA's that their combined debt is now a staggering $81 Billion. Some of these
communities are in so deep they can barely hold their head above water. Some, I am
told, may be drowning.
Response No. 1:
The statement manifests some confusion in that debts of redevelopment agencies are not
debts of the host cities.
It is true that redevelopment agencies are funded through the incurrence of debt. This is a
function of a state constitutional amendment (Article XVI, Section 16) that was approved
in 1952 by the voters. That Section, which is also found in Section 33670 of the
Redevelopment Law, states as follows:
Thatportion of the levied taxes each year in excess of that amount shall be allocated to
and when collected shall be paid into a specialfund of the redevelopment agency to pay
the principal of and interest on loans, moneys advanced to, or indebtedness (whether
funded, refunded, assumed or otherwise) incurred by the redevelopment agency to
finance or refinance, in whole or in part, the redevelopmentproject.
The source for the "$81 billion" figure referred to above appears to be from Statement of
Indebtedness ("SOI") section of the Community Redevelopment Agencies Annual Report
(State Controller's Report), dated May 20, 2007 and compiled by the California State
Controller's Office (herein, the "State Controller's Report"), a portion of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein. It is also important to understand
that redevelopment agency debt, as shown on the 90I, can take many forms. The chart
below shows the various forms of indebtedness for redevelopment agencies as shown in
the State Controller's Report.
Statement of Indebtedness
(Amounts in thousands)
Tax Allocation Bond Debt
Revenue Bond Debt
Other Long -Term Debt
Advances from City/County
Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund
All Other Indebtedness
Total Indebtedness
Available Revenues
Net Tax Increment Requirement
2005-06
$26,261,490 32.54%
2,943,687 3.65%
6,273,424 7.77%
7,169,832 8.88%
14,485,967 17.95%
23,571,776 29.21%
80,706,1 76
3,668,784
77,037,392
As shown in the chart, bonded debt (both tax allocation bonds and revenue bonds)
represent approximately 36 percent of ail debt. Redevelopment agencies often issue
bonds for major capital investments, such as street reconstruction; water and sewer
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
7
181
system improvements; the construction of public facilities (libraries; community centers;
etc.); and to assist property owners with improvements to their property.
The category of other long term debt represents about 8 percent of total debt and could
cover a variety of different obligations that an agency has incurred. One common form
of such debt is a commitment to assist the private sector through owner participation
agreements or disposition and development agreements. Often, these agreements require
an agency to reimburse the property owner a portion of the tax increment to be generated
from the increase in value of their property from redevelopment. Agencies may provide
such assistance when a property owner can show it is needed to make the development
fmancially feasible. Assistance can take a variety of forms, including the installation of
public improvements needed for the development. The key point is that the new tax
increment revenues to be generated by the development are used to assist in the funding
and without redevelopment assistance, such developments and the corresponding revenue
would not occur. Agencies have used this technique to help create new shopping and
entertainment centers, industrial developments and affordable housing. Several examples
of activities undertaken by redevelopment agencies are set forth in the State Controller's
Report. A few illustrations are included below under this caption. In addition, see
Exhibits D, E and F, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein, for news articles
and other publications describing redevelopment agency activities that have used public
incentives to leverage private investment in developmentprojects.
Advances to a redevelopment agency from the host city or county represent
approximately 9 percent of total debt and reflect borrowing from the host city or county.
Agencies typically use this source for:
1. The cost to start up the agency before tax increment is first received.
2. As an alternative to issuing bonds for capital project funding. The
alternatives to the city not being a creditor of the agency are: a) the city
pays for projects, with no expectation of any repayment at a later date (i.e.,
foregoing any greater share ofproperty tax revenues for the local economy
in the form of tax increment); orb) the community foregoes projects - i.e.,
streets aren'timproved, libraries are not constructed, etc.
3. As a short term funding source to pay for the operating costs of the
agency. The first payment of tax increment is typically received in
December or January of a fiscal year. For the period of July through
December, agencies may need to borrow money to pay for staff costs.
Such advances are normally repaid within the fiscal year in which they are
borrowed.
The Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund ("Housing Fund"), which is created under
Sections 33334.2 and 33334.3 of the Redevelopment Law, represents roughly 18 percent
of total debt. Redevelopment agencies are required to deposit 20 percent of their total tax
increment into a Housing Fund. The Redevelopment Law specifically requires that this
be treated as debt. Redevelopment agencies generate more housing subsidies than any
other group in California (Source: CLT Financing in California Working Paper #2
California Redevelopment Law, Institute of Community Economics).
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200 107-0002
8
182
"All Other Indebtedness" represents about 29 percent of agency debt. It is not clear
specifically what is included in this number. Don Fraser, principal of Fraser &
Associates, is of the view that one major item that is included in this "All Other
Indebtedness" figure is pass through payments that flow to counties, schools and special
districts. Such payments are made either pursuant to agreements that have been entered
into (for project areas adopted prior to 1994) or based on statutorily required payments
pursuant to Sections 33607.5 and 33607.7, as applicable, of the Redevelopment Law.
The State Controller's Report indicates that such payments totaled $817 million in
2005-06 out of a total of $4.1 billion of tax increment generated state-wide.
Approximately 20 percent of all tax increment is used for pass through payments and
such amounts are treated in the State Controller's Report as debt. Assuming that all
agencies correctly reported their pass through obligations on the SOI, then such payments
would represent approximately $16.1 billion of the $23.6 billion recorded as All Other
Indebtedness. If an agency pays off all its other debt and is no longer receiving tax
increment, then this debt item would no longer exist.
Another point in regards to the pass through obligation is that these payments actually
generate additional funds for schools that would not be available in the absence of
redevelopment. The State Controller's Report indicates that agencies paid schools over
$190 million in pass through payments in 2005-06. Such funds can be used by the
schools to upgrade and build new school facilities.27
The Comment also indicates a concern about the health o fredevelopment agencies due to
the debt that has been incurred. The State Controller'sReport indicates that agencies are,
in fact, quite healthy. In the aggregate, the revenues and other resources for agencies
exceeded their expenditures in 2005-06 by $1.6 billion. The total fund balance that
agencies reported equaled almost $13 billion.
Agencies also had more than sufficient tax increment revenue to repay their bond debt.
Typically, tax increment bonds can only be sold on the basis of an agency's ability to
repay the debt from its current tax increment revenues. Credit markets require that
redevelopment agencies show that assessed valuation is in place sufficient to support
fmancing (and not based on speculative growth in the future) sufficient to repay bonds.
Bond buyers also want to see that a redevelopment agency has a cushion should tax
increment go down in the future. Usually, tax increment must be shown to exceed debt
service payments by at least 25 percent. This is often referred to as the coverage ratio.
The State Controller's Report actually shows that on a state-wide basis, agencies exceed
this coverage ratio by a significant margin. Total debt service payments equaled
approximately $2 billion, compared to over $4 billion in tax increment, which represents
a 200 percent coverage ratio.
Agencies have used their tax increment funds and related debt to complete a substantial
number of projects in the state. The State Controller's Report shows almost 32 million
square feet of new or rehabilitated commercial, industrial and public buildings
constructed in 2005-06 alone. The number of j obs created totaled 42,465 in 2005-06.
The California State Department of Housing and Community Development reports that
27 See also the discussionset forth at Response No. 5 to Writing B.
9
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
183
agencies assisted in the construction of 7,079 new affordable housing units in 2005-06.28
Agencies also assisted with the substantial rehabilitation of 1,709 affordable units within
the same time fram ,29
A sampling of the accomplishments of various agencies, as shown in approximately 40
pages of the State Controller's Report, indicates that a wide a range of infrastructure,
affordable housing and private development projects have been assisted. A few of these
are described below:
Community Improvement Carmission of the My ofAlameda:
A. Assisting Alameda businesses through the Facade Improvement Program;
B. Completing construction of 109 market -rate and 72 below -market -rate
housing units;
C. Completing construction on Breakers at Bayport, a 52 -Unit affordable
rental housing project with a 10 -unit affordable ownership project;
D. Completing 10 units of affordable housing though the Down -Payment
Assistance Program;
E. Completing construction of Park Street Streetscape Project; and
F. Completing the Storm Drain Pump Station Improvement.
Monterey Cir tyRedevelopmentAgency:
A. Completing construction of a new library, family resources center and
public plaza;
B. Installing a new traffic signal on Salinas Road at Paj aro Middle School;
C. Completing Phase I of the Salinas Road Affordable Housing Project
consisting of 26 units;
D. Completing Phase 11 of the Boronda Storm Drain Master Plan
Implementation;
E. Painting 12 homes owned by low-income households through the Boronda
Paint Program;
F. Beautifying the Boronda community though the Boronda Spring Clean -Up
Program;
G. Providing loans to Boronda Oaks and Jardines de Boronda Affordable
Housing Projects;
H. Providing loans to four low-income homeowners through the Housing
Rehabilitation Program;
L Providing loans to 12 homebuyers though the First -Time Homebuyers
Down -Payment Assistance Program; and
J. Creating 11 inclusionary units though the Inclusionary Housing Program.
26
See California Department of Housing and Community Development report dated April 1, 2007,
29 Exhibit E-1, at page 20, attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporatedherein.
See California Department of Housing and Community Development report dated May 1, 2007,
Exhibit B-5, at page 6, attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
10
184
Pasadena CommunityDevelopment Commission:
A. Providing 180 beds to homeless people during the emergency and bad -
weather season;
B. Completing 12 rehabilitation projects for low-income elderly and disabled
persons;
C. Providing fmancial assistance for housing rehabilitation, code
enforcement, economic development and capital improvements within the
Service Benefit Area;
D. Providing loans to 25 low- and moderate -income homebuyers through the
Homeownership Opportunities Program;
E. Providing home rehabilitation within the targeted revitalization area;
F. Providing commercial storefront improvements in the Lake/Washington,
Villa -Parke and Downtown Redevelopment Project Areas;
G. Providing tenant -based rental subsidies to 1,256 very -low-income
families;
H. Providing rental assistance to eight very -low-income families though the
Housing Opportunity for Persons With AIDS Program;
1. Providing assistance to 45 very -low-income families with disabilities
though the ShelterPlus Program;
J. Providing supporting services to 1,015 homeless, very -low-income
families though the Supportive Services Program;
K. Providing rental assistance to 28 very -low-income families through the
Home Tenant-BasedRental Assistance Program; and
L. Providing fmancial assistance to local non-profit agencies for the
provision ofpublic and human services to low-income families.
Lincoln RedevelopmentAgency:
A. Providing a loan to Lincoln Brand Feed for rehabilitation of a commercial
building site;
B. Providing funding for residential sewer line rehabilitation and
replacement;
C. Completing a 41 -space public parking lot;
D. Providing funding for construction of 20 affordable single-family
residential units; and
E. Providing funding for new furniture in the downtown area.
City cf. Cathedral City RedevelopmentAgency:
A. Completing construction of a 61 -unit moderate -income family housing
project;
B. Providing assistance to very -low-, low- and moderate -income
homeowners with home repair;
C. Completing construction of sanitary sewers, water lines and road
pavement on 35th Avenue; and
D. Continuing assistance to low-income homeowners through the Assessment
District Fee Assistance Program and Sewer Hook -Up Assistance Program.
DOCSOC/1285743 v6/200107-0002
11
185
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rialto:
A. Completing 27 residential rehabilitationprojects through the Emergency
Home Repair Program;
B. Completing 12 rehabilitation projects though the Home Sweet Home
Program;
C. Providing funding to 129 Lower-income households through the Senior
Minor Repair Program;
D. Providing assistance to eight low- and moderate -income households
through the Exterior Home Beautification Grant Program;
E. Completing the Target distribution center, creating 1,500j obs;
F. Completing the third and fmal building as part of the Prologis, creating
650j obs;
G. Completing two buildings by the Sares-Regis Group, creating 500 jobs;
and Completing OPUS' three -building industrial projects.
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Redwood City
A. Completing the parking facility and the cinema at the Broadway Cinema
Retail Project;
B. Completing reconstruction of the Rolison Road Alley;
C. Completing rehabilitation of 10 single-family units and 45 multi -family
wits though the Home Improvement Loan Program;
D. Completing 15 projects through the Lead-BasedPaint Grant Program;
E. Completing 47 units though the Residential Exterior Paint Program; and
F. Completing 26 home repair projects for low-income seniors through the
Minor Home Repair Program.
Comment No. 2:
When the Lodi City Council last tried to implement this RDA idea, concerned citizens
signed a petition in sufficient numbers that the matter was dropped. That council
understood the meaning of no. This one decided what they want to accomplishfor there
[sic] own reasons and do (sic] not take no for an answer. They simply try again.
Response No. 2:
The proposed Redevelopment Plan before the City Council concerns an area different
than that before the City Council in 2002.
Moreover, the municipal referendum law, Elections Code Section 9235, et seq., and
Section 33378 of the Redevelopment Law provide that upon receipt of a referendum
petition challenging an ordinance which is signed by not less than ten percent of the total
votes cast within the city or county for Governor at the last gubernatorial election, the
City Council must reconsider the ordinance. Elections Code Section 9241 provides:
If the legislative body does not entirely repeal the
ordinance against which the petition is filed, the legislative
body shall submit the ordinance to the voters. ... The
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
12
186
ordinance shall not become effective until a majority of the
voters voting on the ordinance vote in favor of it. If the
legislative body repeals the ordinance or submits the
ordinance to the voters, and a majority of the voters voting
on the ordinance do not vote in favor of it, the ordinance
shall not again be enacted by the legislative body for a
period of one year after the date of its repeal by the
legislative body or disapproval by the voters. (Emphasis
added.)
In 2002, the City Council considered adoption of a redevelopmentplan. Upon receiving
a referendum petition signed by the requisite number of voters objecting to adoption of
the redevelopment plan, the City Council took action to reconsider and repeal the
ordinance. Where an ordinance has been referended, Elections Code Section 9241
prohibits the ordinance, once repealed in response to a referendum petition or invalidated
by vote of the electors, from being reenacted for a period of one year after the date of its
repeal.
The City of Lodi electorate has never rejected the implementation of a redevelopment
plan in Lodi. Although a signature drive was successful in requiring an election relative
to the 2002 plan, the City Council opted instead to rescind the ordinance.
Seven years have passed. Even assuming the Redevelopment Plan before the City
Council were essentially the same (while it is not; it deals with a different area), the City
Council would not be prevented from adopting such an ordinance. importantly, the City
Council early on in the current plan adoption proceedings took care to consider and
attempt to address the objections raised by the citizens of Lodi during the 2002
redevelopment plan adoption proceedings, specifically excluding the power of eminent
domain from the Redevelopment Plan early in the plan adoption proceedings. The City
Council has continued to take the concerns raised by the public during the 2002 plan
adoption proceedings into consideration throughout the present redevelopment plan
adoptionproceedings.
For example, one person speaking at the joint public hearing conducted May 28, 2008,
Chuck Easterling, testified that during the prior plan adoption proceedings, the members
of the project area committee (of which he was a member) and City Council considered
the comments and objections to determine the concerns which were driving the
opposition to Lodi' s adoption of a redevelopment plan. Mr. Easterling stated that the two
main concerns voiced by the citizens of Lodi in opposition to the adoption of a
redevelopment plan were based on (1) a misunderstanding and fear of the use of tax
increment financing and (2) the fear of eminent domain. In response to these concerns,
the Lodi City Council has directed its staff and consultants to attempt to reach out to the
community to provide information and explanations regarding redevelopment and the use
of tax increment financing and, importantly, instructed that the proposed Redevelopment
Plan not provide the Redevelopment Agency with the power to exercise eminent domain
authority. These are two examples of how the Lodi City Council has taken the concerns
and desires of the citizens of Lodi into consideration in the preparation of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan, in response to the objections raised during the prior plan adoption
proceedings. Mr. Easterling pointed out that the City could have made good use of the
DOCS OC/ 1285743 v6/200107-0002
187
13
JJ1::
tax increment it could have been collecting had the redevelopment plan been adopted in
2002 and that he supported the adoption of the presently proposed Redevelopment Plan
to assist in the eradication of blight within the Project Area.
Comment N o. 3:
This time, in order to get morepeople behind thisproposition the council has resorted to
makingpromises to many interests to get more approval. The information is deliberately
vague and without a cost figure.
Response No. 3:
As described above, the Lodi City Council and staff have attempted to tailor the proposed
Redevelopment Plan to meet the needs of the City of Lodi and its residents and business
owners, while ensuring that the concerns of the citizens of Lodi are taken into account.
Because a redevelopment plan is a planning document and does not constitute approval
of any specificproject or expenditure, no specific cost figures are able to be included at
this time. In order to be a useful tool over the course of many decades, a redevelopment
plan must be somewhat general, to permit the Redevelopment Agency to flexibly react to
changing circumstances within the community. According to the City Manager, no
formal commitments have been made to any private person for particular treatment; there
have not been "promises" to "interests."
Comment No. 4:
A t the last meeting 1 attended, Mr Blair King, whenpressedfor particulars stated, "We
have here a theoretical scenario." He tried to make it sound wonderful. He was telling
us the absolute truth when he referred to all the information he was giving us as
theoretical. The truth is in the dictionary meaning of the word theoretical. Theoretical
means; conjectural (surmised — as opposed to fact), hypothetical, speculative, and
suppositional, (opinion, guess, suspicion).
Response No. 4:
This argument is a semantic and rhetorical device rather than an analysis cot description of
a meaningful flaw in the proposed Redevelopment Plan, redevelopment in general, or any
specific actions of the City Manager. In fact, in describing the implementation of the
proposed Redevelopment Plan as a theoretical scenario, Mr. King was being forthright
with the citizens of Lodi. He cannot promise that any specific projects will be
undertaken, or that any specific amount of money will be raised. These decisions will be
in the bands of the members of the City Council, who are elected by the citizens of Lodi
themselves and, in terms of activities of private parties, by the investment decisions made
by the property owners in the Project Area.
The proposed Redevelopment Plan is a guiding and planning document. Each actual
project to be undertaken by the Agency pursuant to the proposed Redevelopment Plan
will undergo practical and fiscal consideration by the Agency board and environmental
review to the extent necessary and appropriate pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act and other applicable statutes and regulations. The proposed Redevelopment
Plan does not provide for specific spending or development actions.
DOCSOC/I285743v6/200107-0002
188
14
Comment No. 5:
The truth is in the reality that a RDA, by law, cannot exist unless it incurs debt. It is a
debt machine.
Response No. 5:
A redevelopment agency exists within each community, but lies dormant until the
legislative body of that community (m this case, the Lodi City Council) enacts an
ordinance finding that a need exists for the redevelopment agency of the community to
function. The Lodi City Council authorized the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Lodi to function within the community by Ordinance No. 1675, adopted July 7, 1999.
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi has existed since the inception of the
Redevelopment Law in California and has been authorized to transact business and
exercise powers pursuant to the Redevelopment Law since 1999, but has incurred no
debt.
Thus, redevelopment agencies can exist without incurring debt, but are only able to
receive tax increment revenues to the extent the redevelopment agency has incurred debt.
In this way, the California Legislature ensures that redevelopment agencies are taking
immediate steps to institute projects and activities to eliminate blight within designated
redevelopment project areas. Without the incurrence of debt, no funds would be
available early in the life of a redevelopmentproject to institute projects for the purpose
of eliminating blight and without the reduction or elimination o f blight within a
redevelopment project area, property values may not increase with inflation or at all and
little or no tax increment revenue can be expected to accrue within the project area (for
the benefit of the agency, the city, or the other taxing agencies that receive property taxes
from the project area). In addition, without tax increment fmancing, the Agency would
forego the opportunity to retain a substantially greater share of property tax within the
community. Tax increment fmancing is an advantageous, positive component of a
successful redevelopment plan. Indebtedness of the Agency is not debt of the City.
Commentbb. 6:
We can not pay our debt now and they want to create a bureaucracy that has thepower
to borrow and put us evenfurther in debtfor longer than many of our life expectancies. I
am expected to live within my means. If I have spent my income I do not reach for a
credit card to create an even bigger problem for tomorrow. We want our leaders to let
our town live within its means and quit squandering large suns cf city money that it can
not afford in order to gain their own ends.
Response No. 6:
The Comment equivocates over who "we" are and what "our" debts are. The debt of a
redevelopment agency is not debt of the host city (let alone its residents). Bonds which
are issued by a redevelopment agency and secured by tax increment revenues are not
secured by the general funds of the host city, nor do such bonds incorporate a lien against
any real property within the city or the project area. The issuance of bonds by a
redevelopment agency does not and cannot result in an increase in property taxes.
Obligations entered into by a redevelopment agency are not obligations of members of
the public or the City. Agency obligations are not a lien on private property. A
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
15
189
redevelopment agency cannot impose a tax. To the extent the Comment suggests that tax
increment fmancing equates to personal debt of citizens or increased debt of the City, the
Comment is incorrect.
The adoption of the proposed RedevelopmentPlan, which includes provisions allocating
tax increment revenues to the redevelopment agency and permits the redevelopment
agency to issue bonds and incur other obligations secured by such tax increment
revenues, results in a net increase in dollars which are allocated to be used in the
community, as directed by the governing board of the redevelopment agency (in the case
of Lodi, the elected members of the City Council). Testimony was provided at the joint
public hearing by Ken Bingamaxl that, without a redevelopment plan allocating tax
increment revenues to the Agency, the community receives $0.16 per each dollar of
property taxes collected within the City, whereas the proposed Redevelopment Plan
would enable the community to receive approximately $0.60 per each dollar of new
property taxes collected within the Project Area. This increase in the percentage of
property tax dollars which would be permitted to stay within the community, for local
purposes and local needs, will permit the Agency to accomplish needed public and
infrastructure improvements within the City of Lodi, while lessening the burden on the
City's general fund and with no added tax burden on the Lodi tax payers.
The proposed Redevelopment Plan would not cause the City of Lodi to spend in excess
of its means; rather, the proposed Redevelopment Plan will increase the means available
to the City and Agency to provide services and facilities which are badly needed by the
community. The Redevelopment Plan will substantially increase revenues available for
use in the community.
The incurrence of debt can be accomplished in many ways, but all of them are typically
limited by the ability of the Agency to repay the debt. The City, as it is able, could loan
money to the Agency (provided that the City Council elects to so proceed} and then
receive tax increment as a source of future repayment of principal and interest. This
method would provide a fairly limited borrowing capacity that would likely need to be
repaid in a fairly short period of time (1 to 3 years) because the City will need its money
for other priorities. Another way to raise money is to sell bonds to investors. Debt in this
form is limited by the amount of fax increment that an agency is currently generating.
(SeeResponseNo. 1 above).
DOCSOC/ 1285743v6/200107-0002
16
190
40.
COUNCIL AND T`HE Opt DEV L{ 111 i.EN r
ON THE PROPO ED P LS N FOR;THE IMPi d
PI CT ;Al+if i=f2 tir 4 ATfON :OFA
: ENs8A06NME iTAI~`1t1lfPACT REPQR'i :vvEDDNESS
.28;.-2008:.._
sehoois• 0rid dizni
arca: Yc sliotiid.
wfir'ofly dishonest .
I�av��:epeat�ti� ti�ciar�d;s
L Y
t:1d(agaI •becau:E
`oirerty:tax:revet.uesfrom:
•ices it itho€ t. being,*tr ly'
darned t f yourselves;
?edeveibpment taw:::.:
Writing B:
John Talbot, 800 Maplewood Drive, Lodi, California 95240,
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE LODI CITY COUNCIL
AND THE LODI REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON THE
PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND
CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
DOCS 0C/1285743 v6/200107-0002
17
191
REPORT WEDNESDAY May 28,2008, Hand Delivered May 28,
2008 to the City Clerk of the City of Lodi
Comment/Z. 1:
The Eastside of Lodi is not "blighted". It is as strong physically as the Westside. It is
growing with new construction. Just recently a new drug store opened on Cherokee
Lane.
Response No. 1:
The record before the Lodi City Council is replete with evidence that the proposed
Project Area is blighted, including much of what is referred to as the east side of Lodi,
but also including several areas of the west side of Lodi, treating the Union Pacific
Railroad tracks as the "center."
The Report to Council contains evidence of numerous examples of both physical and
economic blight throughout the proposed Project Area. Numerous physical conditions
which causeblight pursuant to Section33031(a) of the Redevelopment Law are described
in the record before the Lodi City Council. For example, the Report to Council contains
evidence (statistical, photographic and citations to other evidence) that the Project Area
contains buildings which are unsafe or unhealthy in which to live or work due to the
presence of hazardous materials contaminationwithin the Project Area, inferences which
can be made based on the age of many of the buildings within the Project Area and
photographic evidence showing dilapidation on the exterior of buildings within the
Project Area, which could lead to the inference that more serious dilapidation exists
within such buildings?' Photographs A3 and A4 at pages 31 and 32 show clear
dilapidation of specific structures within the Project Area, including damaged walls and
inadequate roofing material and even large missing portions of exterior wall material.
Page 27 of the Report to Council contains a map showing the extent of the TCE and PCE
groundwater plumes within the City of Lodi—five plumes underlie extensive territory
within the proposed Project Area, as well as other areas within the City. Approximately
1,830 properties in the proposed Project Area are likely to contain asbestos and/or lead-
based paint.31
The Report to Council contains evidence of conditions that prevent or substantially
hinder the viable use of buildings or lots within the Project Area. For example, field
surveys conducted on foot and in a vehicle by a professional with over 20 years of
property evaluation experience in California produced evidence, which is included in the
Report to Council, showing that many of the buildings in the Project Area suffer from
varying levels of deterioration, as described and presented in photographic evidence in
the Report to Coiincil.32 The Report to Council also includes evidence that many
buildings and properties are owned by absentee owners who do not live in the Project
Area, the City, or even the State of Califomia.33 Additionally, the Report to Council
30
31 Report to Council, pages 25-32.
32 Report to Council,page 28.
Report to Council, pages 32-35. Field surveys were conducted by Paul Schowalter on February 6,
33 7, 12, 13 and 14,2008. Mr. Schowalter's resume is attachedin Exhibit A and incorporatedherein.
Report to Council, pages 37-38.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
18
192
contains evidence that new buildings and properties in the Project Area suffer from
commercial obsolescence and many such properties likely require significant investment
due to the age of structures.34 Mr. Ken Bingamaxl testified at the May 28, 2008 joint
public hearing that properties in the proposed Project Area have open sewage in their
yards and feral cats and dogs in the alleys and that the east side o f Lodi is in serious need
of assistance. He further testified that, as a painter, he has seen properties in serious need
of maintenance, that the houses smell like urine and that many people in the Project Area
are unable to maintain their properties.
The Report to Council and numerous testimonial statements made during the joint public
hearing by both members of the public and members of the Lodi City Council, provide
specific evidence, including photographic evidence and a description of the results of the
field survey conducted within the Project Area, that the Project Area suffers from
inadequate public improvements.35 The Report to Council shows that much of the
proposed Project Area suffers fan wastewater system deficiencies, street system
deficiencies and water system deficiencies.36 The cost to remedy the public infrastructure
defects shown by the Reort to Council to exist within the Project Area is estimated to
exceed $148,000,000.00.'7
Evidence that incompatible land uses (both existing incompatible uses and uses which are
incompatible with the planned use for that property and surrounding properties) within
the Project Area is shown at pages 66 through 73, including a description of where heavy
concentrations of such incompatible uses are found and photographic evidence which
provides specific examples of incompatible land uses. Examples of incompatible uses
that hinder the viable use of properties within the Project Area include residential uses
adjacent to commercial uses without adequate buffers, as depicted in photographs C 1
through C4 and C8 through C14 at pages 69-72 in the Report to Council, as well as
residential uses adjacent to industrial uses without adequate buffers, as depicted in
photographs C6 and C7, at page 71 in the Report to Council. Where residential uses are
adjacent to commercial and/or industrial uses without an adequate buffer, noise, traffic,
odors and other nuisances are likely to reduce the viability not only of the residential use
but also of the adjacent commercial or industrial use. Commercial uses often create
traffic and excessive noise which disturbs residential users. Industrial uses often create
noise, odor and traffic which disturbs residential users. And the existence of nearby
residential uses can create problems for commercial and industrial users because of likely
complaints by residential users and resulting additional restrictions on the use of the
commercial and industrial properties.
The Report to Council also provides evidence that the Project Area contains numerous
parcels which are subdivided into inadequate sizes and/or irregular shapes to permit most
viable current land uses, which parcels are in multiple ownership .38 Specific examples of
irregular parcels within the Project Area include shallow lots along Sacramento, Main
34
35 Report to Council,pages 35-37.
36 Report to Council,pages 39-43.
See maps in Report to Council at pages 41-43.
37 Report to Council, page 39. This figure is based on interviews and data provided to GRC
36 Redevelopment Consultants by (iii of Lodi staff.
Report to Council, pages 74-80.
DOCSOC! ]285743v6/200107-0002
19
193
and Stockton Streets, where some heavy industrial parcels are only 125 feet deep;
residential lots north of Lockeford Avenue, east of Pleasant Avenue, where parcels are
only 45 feet wide; residential lots south of Lockeford Avenue, east of Washington Street,
where parcels have no frontage on a street and are accessed only by an alley; and over
100 privately owned parcels that are less than 2,500 square feet in area.39 Again,
photographic evidence is provided at pages 75 through 80 of the Report to Council to
illustrate specific examples of these blighting conditions within the Project Area,
including a parcel with poor layout causing cars to be parked at an angle, sticking into a
public street,40 parcels with inadequate parking in which cars are parked over a sidewalk
or where a sidewalk should be (but is not),41 and numerous parcels in which the layout
requires cars to park in a manner which will require them to back out directly onto a
street42
The Report to Council also provides evidence and analysis regarding economic
conditions in the proposed Project Area which cause blight, pursuant to Section 33031(b)
of the Redevelopment Law. Statistics show that the property values within the Project
Area are declining and that the rate of turnover and improvement to properties within the
Project Area are comparatively lower than the surrounding areas, showing a significant
lack of new investment in the Project Area.43 Evidence has also been presented that
property values in the Project Area suffer comparatively to surrounding areas due to the
existence of hazardous materials contamination, both relating to the documented
groundwater contamination and the presence of lead based paint and asbestos
contamination which is typically present in buildings constructed prior to 197644 The
existence of hazardous materials contamination constitutes a deterrent to reinvestment, as
the cost of remediation must be added to the normal cost of development or rehabilitation
of a property. This in ton results in lowered property values.
Evidence of high vacancy rates, low lease rates and abandoned buildings within the
Project Area, including photographic documentation showing numerous vacant
residential, commercial and industrial buildings in the Project Area, is also provided in
the Report to Cad!' Many of the vacant properties shown in the Report to Council
are badly maintained.46 These conditions result in lower property values, reduce the
incentive of surrounding property owners to maintain their properties, increase crime and
fire rates and can even constitute a hazard to children 47
Another important economic blighting condition found in the Project Area is a high crime
rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare The proposed
Project Area suffers from a comparatively higher crime rate, including serious, "Part 1"
39 Report to Council, page 74.
40 Report to Council, photographD2.
41 Report to Council, photographsD3, D6, D 12 and D13,
42 Report to Council, photographsD8, D9, D11 and D14.
43 Report to Council, pages 80-83.
44 Report to Council, pages 26-30.
45 Report to Council, pages 83-97 and photographs El through E40.
46 See in particular, photographs E2, B8, EIO, E12 and E14 in the Report to Council at pages 84
through 88.
47 Report to Council, page 83.
48 Report to Council, pages 97-99.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200 107-0002
20
194
crimes, than the remaining areas of the Citi of Lodi 49 In addition, the Project Area is the
center of gang activity within the City.5 See also discussion in Response No. 8 to
Writing F.
A summary of the physical and economic conditions found within the Project Area which
cause blight is found at pages 101 through 105 of the Report to Council, including maps
depicting the locations of such blighting conditions.
In addition to the voluminous evidence set forth in the Report to Council and described
above, at the May 28, 2008 joint public hearing, the Lodi City Council heard and
considered testimony that buildings within the Project Area were old and dilapidated and
require significant investment to rehabilitate, that the Cherokee Lane corridor is
considered to be unsafe, which affects the viability of the hotels in that area, that the
Project Area suffers from graffiti and that numerous infrastructure and public
improvementprojects were needed in the Project Area.51
Notwithstanding the assertion that one new drug store opened recently within the
proposed Project Area, the record before the City Council shows that development and
commercial activity within the proposed Project Area, including the rate of
development,52 vacancy rates,53 and property values,54 all compare unfavorably with the
remainder of the City of Lodi and San Joaquin County, The proposed Redevelopment
Plan is intended to assist the proposed Project Area, both economically and physically
and to place this blighted area on equal footing with other areas of the City and County
which contain thriving, economically and physically sound commercial and residential
communities.
The Report to Council also includes evidence, at pages 17 through 22, that the proposed
Project Area is "predominantly urbanized" within the meaning of Section 33320.1 of the
Redevelopment Law.
As held by the court in Fosselman's v. Alhambra, supra, the determination of whether an
area is blighted within the meaning of the Redevelopment Law is delegated to the
legislative body of the host community, in this case, the Lodi City Council. The writer's
assertion that the Eastside of Lodi is not blighted is a statement of the opinion of
Writer B. The above discussion shows that the Lodi City Council would be justified in
determining that substantial evidence exists in the record before the City Council to
support a fmding that the Project Area is a legal redevelopment project area pursuant to
Section 33320.1 of the Redevelopment Law.
49
50 Report to Council , page 99.
Report to Council, page 99.
51 See testimony of Ken Bingamaxl, Dale Gillespie, N rry Beckanan, Beth Kim and Steve Spiegel
52 and the May 28,2008 j oint public hearicg.
Report to Council, pages 81-83.
53 94 vacant commercial or industrialbuildings exist within the project area. Report to Council,page
83. Numerous photographs showing vacant properties within the project area, as well as
additional blighting conditions at these properties, are set forth at pages 84-97 of the Report to
54 Council.
Report to Council, pages 80-83.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200 107-0002
21
195
Comment Nb. 2:
To red -tag the Eastside as "blighted"is not only dishonest, but contrary to state law.
Response No. 2:
This Comment is vague and uncertain as to its meaning. It is not clear what is meant by
"red -tag" and no authority or explanation is given as to: (1) in what way the Eastside is
being red -tagged, (2) why the actions of the City Council are dishonest, or (3) what state
laws are being violated. If the writer is asserting that by adopting the proposed
Redevelopment Plan, the Project Area and properties and residents therein will be
stigmatized in some way, this assertion is contradicted by the following evidence that
redevelopment project areas experience a higher rate of growth (i.e. in property values)
than areas which are not included vin a redevelopmentproject area.
If residents and businesses in. a redevelopment project area were not able to obtain
financing for improvements, then one would expect to see a stagnant or declining
assessed valuation in redevelopment project areas. However, a study prepared by the
Public Policy Institute of California found that over the 1983 to 1996 period assessed
values in the studied redevelopmentproject areas rose by 270%, while assessed values in
similar areas not in redevelopment rose by 144%, or by only 53% of the growth rates
experienced by redevelopment project areas.55
In a similar manner, a study entitled The Impact of Fiscal 2002-03 Community
Redevelopment Agency Activities on the California Economy56 found that
redevelopment agencies directly and indirectly generated some $31.84 billion in total
economic activity during fiscal year 2002-03. It is unlikely that this activity would have
taken place if fmancial institutions were not Willing to invest in redevelopment project
areas.
Further, Pat Patrick, President and CEO of the Lodi Chamber of Commerce, testified at
the May 28, 2008 joint public hearing that the implementation of redevelopment results
in increases in property values within Project Areas. Mr. Patrick also testified that
redevelopment creates jobs, expands business opportunities, creates affordable housing
and homeownership opportunities for families in need of housing assistance, reduces
crime rates, improves infrastructure and attracts private investment in redevelopment
project areas.
The Writer did not provide any evidence or authority for the apparent claim that stigma or
harm will come to the property or residents located within the proposed Project Area,
either in the writing included above or i n his testimony at the joint public hearing.
As for the notion that designation of an area stigmatizes the area or community, the State
Controller's Report lists among communities with redevelopment project areas the
following: Menlo Park, Pasadena, Redwood City, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa
Barbara, Town of Los Gatos, Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa—areas hardly suffering from a
stigma. These redevelopment project areas in cities that hardly can be said to be under a
55
Dardia, Michael. SuhsidizingRedevelopment in California. Public Policy Institute of California,
56 1998. page xiii.
The Center for Economic Development at California State University, Chico, The Impact of Fiscal
2002-03 Community Redevelopment Agency Activities on the California Economy, p. 1
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
22
196
"stigma" refutes the notion that a stigma attaches to an area based solely on findings that
the area is "blighted" and inclusion of such area within a redevelopmentproject area.
CommentNo. 3:
On average residents areyounger, making this a vibrantpart of Lodi.
Response No. 3:
The residents within the Project Area may be younger on average than the residents of
the remainder of the City. The crime rates within the Project Area are also higher than
the remainder of the City."
The determination that the proposed Project Area is predominated by physical and
economic characteristics which cause blight does not rest on the age of the population
within the Project Area.
Comment No. 4:
The courts of California have repeatedly declared such project areas to be illegal.
Response No. 4:
The writer's reference to "such project areas" is vague. It is unclear what project areas
the writer is alleging ate illegal. Clearly, as there are hundreds of operating project areas
in California, it is possible to legally establish aredevelopmentproject area.
Courts in California have upheld numerous redevelopment project areas upon a
determination that substantial evidence exists in the record to support a finding by the
city council that the project area is blighted as required by the Redevelopment Law. One
example is Evans v. City of San Jose (2005) 128 Ca1.App.4th 1123, discussed supra,
which upheld fmdings made by the City Council of the City of San Jose in creating a new
project area within the City of San Jose. During that year, the median income for a
family of four in the County of Santa Clara (in which the City of San Jose is located), as
shown by the California Department of Housing and Community Development's
publication dated February 25,2005, was $105,500. The median income (for a family of
four) in the County of San Joaquin for the same year was $55,300. The fact that San Jose
had a relatively higher median income did not prevent the Evans court frau upholding
the fmdings of the City Council of San Jose that the project areas in that case were
blighted. San Joaquin County's significantly lower median income figure constitutes
further evidence from which an inference of blight can be taken, as discussed at
pages 23-24 of the Report to Council.
The proposed Project Area contains numerous blighting conditions, as listed in more
detail in Response No. 1 to Writing B above. The discussion in Response No. 1, above,
shows that substantial evidence exists in the record before the Citi Council to support a
57
Report to Council, pages 97-99. Wall calls for service received by the Lodi Police Department,
over half (54%) originated in the Project Area during the period spanning ZOOS through 2007.
Similarly, 54% of the (mss major ("Part 1") crimes occurred in the Project Area. Report to
Council, page 98. Page 99 of the Report to Council contains a table comparing the number of
criminal incidents within the Project Area and the remainder of the City and shows that the project
area bas a higher proportionate number ofcalls for service, reported Bel crimes and lit I cases
filed than the remainder of the Chi.
DOCSOCI1285743v6/200107-0002
23
197
finding that the Project Area is a legal redevelopment project area pursuant to
Section 33320.1 of the Redevelopment Law.
Comment No. 5:
They are illegal because they attempt to steal future property tax revenues from local
schools and county services without being a truly "blighted "area.
Response No. 5:
The Redevelopment Law requires and provides a procedure for conducting consultations
with and providing information to taxing agencies that maybe affected by the adoption of
a redevelopment plan.58 Blair King, City Manager of the City of Lodi, met with
representatives of each of the affected taxing agencies, including school districts and the
County of San Joaquin, to discuss the proposed Redevelopment Plan and its possible
effects on such taxing agencies, including the future tax revenues to be received by such
agencies, None of the affected taxing agencies testified in opposition to the
Redevelopment Plan or asserted any objection (in writing or otherwise) to the adoption
by the Lodi City Council of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. An analysis of the 33328
report and the consultations with the affected taxing agencies is included in the Report to
Council at pages 231 through 234.
In fact, schools and other taxing agencies receive more money as a result of the
implementation of a redevelopment plan than they would in the absence of
redevelopment. Redevelopment agencies are required by Section 33607.5 of the
Redevelopment Law (enacted by AB 1290) to make statutory pass through payments to
school districts and other taxing entities affected by a redevelopment agency's receipt of
tax increment. The Redevelopment Law only requires that the schools report a portion of
the AB 1290 pass through payments as property taxes, which offset state aid. The
balance is used by the schools for facilities.S9 The schools benefit because the State of
California is required under the California Education Code and Proposition 98 (passed in
1988—not to be confused with the 2008 version of Proposition 98 which dealt with rent
control and eminent domain and was defeated at the polls in June, 2008) to fully fund the
operations of schools based on their revenue limit Any loss of property tax due to
redevelopment must be made up by the state and in addition the districts get to deduct a
portion of the AB 1290 pass through payments from the amounts they report as property
taxes received, which amounts maybe used to pay for facilities.
Further, the State Controller's Report states that within the State of California,
redevelopment agencies provided a total of $163,274,000 to school districts during the
fiscal year ending June 30,2006, including pass through payments and other financial or
construction aid (including aid to alleviate overcrowding of schools caused by the
implementation of redevelopment plans and projects).60 In addition, redevelopment
agencies provided a statewide total of $27,738,000 in fmancial assistance in the form of
pass through payments and other fmancial and construction aid to community college
ss See, e.g., Sections 33327, 33328, 33328.1, 33333.3, 33344.5, 33344.6 and 33360.5 of the
ss Redevelopment Lasa.
See, for example, Section 33607.5(a)(4)(A) through (D), which sets forth this allocation between
60 funds for facilities and funds to be counted as property taxes.
State Controller's Report, at page xxiii.
DOCSOC/ 1285743 v6/200107-0002
24
198
districts during that same time period.61 Thus, school districts are not likely to suffer--
they
ufferthey are more likely to benefit—as a result of the adoption and implementation of the
proposed Redevelopment Plan. And other taxing entities stand to benefit as well; in 2003
alone, redevelopment construction activities generated $L58 billion in state and local
taxes in California.62
Comment N o. 6:
You should be ashamed acyourselves.
Response No. 6:
The statement constitutes the writer's opinion. Other witnesses expressed frustration that
no City Council of Lodi had already enacted a redevelopment plan and implementing
programs in Lodi. Witnesses also testified that redevelopment is needed in Lodi to
encourage investment in the proposed Proj ect Area.63
Comment No. 7:
This is a wholly dishonest use cf redevelopment law.
Response No. 7:
The statement is vague and is not supported by evidence or citation of legal authority.
The adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Lodi Community
Improvement Project is permitted by California law, upon compliance with certain
procedures and upon certain fmdings and determinations being made by the City Council.
All legally required procedures have been complied with and all required fmdings and
determinations are supported by substantial evidence in the record before the Lodi City
Council, as described above in response to Comment No. 4. In addition, Lodi staff and
consultants have provided public notice and held numerous community meetings in
excess of legal requirements for a redevelopment plan adoption.64 Substantial evidence
supports a determination that the proposed Lodi Community Improvement Project may
legally be adopted by the Lodi City Council in its discretion and that the proposed Project
Area is a blighted area within the meaning of the Redevelopment Law.
61
62
63
64
State Controller's IE}xrt, at page xxiii.
See CED,Executive Summary: The Impact of Fiscal 2002-03 Community RedevelopmentAgency
Activities on the California Economy, conducted by: Center for Economic Development at
California State University, Chico, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein; see also
California Redevelopment Association, Redevelopment—Building Better Communities, at
Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
See testimony of Ken Bingamaxl, Dale Gillespie, Nancy Beckman, Beth Kim and Steve Spiegel
and the May 28,2008 joint public hearing.
Report to Council, pages 157-214, includes copies of two newsletters distributed within the City in
English, Spanish and Urdu and describes the meetings and additional outreach efforts
implemented by Qui staff during the currentplan adoption process.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200 107-0002
199
25
Lodi City Coup „'•
':.;:
An Oisiinance ofthe City Couiicil-ofttie; City;of I odi Approxi
the. Redeveloputegrpian focihe:Lodi Comtniunity:ltzipove;reei
The project speaks of usins Rbtt funds`for ground water.eontaniinatioo cleanup:.:..: ;.
However, rafe.payers'ofLodi_are ahead}+.paying- 10.50:Oi :ilieir utility l ili:far tl is clean
.
up, .'f lierefor?e;.this is another. example of double: taxation, and an excuse to create an!::
Comment No. 1:
The project speak of using RDA funds for ground water contamination clean up.
However, ratepayers of Lodi are alreadypaying $10.50 on their utility billfor this clean
up. Therefore, this is another example of double taxation and an excuse to create an
•Aproject that is already being corrected through other means cf taxation.
Response No. 1:
Comment No. 1 does not describe double taxation. Further, adoption of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan will not result in double taxation. It would result in the host
community retaining a greater portion of property taxes.
Groundwater contamination in Lodi is a very serious problem and by recent estimates is
likely to cost in excess of $46,500,000.00 to remediate.65 Toxic plumes under Lodi have
been the source of litigation, a cooperation and a settlement agreement between the City
and the Department of Toxic Substances Control and enforcement actions by the
Department of Toxic Substances Contro1.66 The City has installed a portion of the
facilities required to remediate one of the five toxic plumes in the Lodi groundwater;
however additional remediation activities are still required and even after the facilities
have been installed, operation and maintenance of the remediation of the toxic plumes is
anticipated to continue for 30 years.
As discussed in detail below, the City estimates that its potential liability arising from the
PCE/TCE clean-up and related litigation that has not been funded by settlements is
approximately $35.46 million (in 2007 dollars, with no adjustment based upon inflation
or booming costs). In 2005, without any other current source to pay those costs, the City
Council approved an average $10.50 rate increase to fund the remainder. Currently, that
rate increase is expected to continue over the life of the expected 30 year cleanup to fund
the operations and maintenance. However, if redevelopment moneys were be used to pay
for all or portions of those costs it would allow an early termination of the water rate
increase. As such, the City would not be tapping two sources of revenue to double
recover its costs.
The City also settled with all but fa]r groups of potentially responsible parties regarding
the remaining four plumes and with its own insurance carriers, raising $34.2 million
65 Report to Council, page 26. It is extremely difficult to estimate the cost to complete the
remediation of the groundwater contamination in Lodi. This i s because it is difficult to measure
the Contamination, in particular as the remediation efforts progress and the measurements become
more difficult to obtain. In addition, attainment standards for groundwater quality change over
time, normally becoming more restrictive, such that more remediation activities are required than
previously believed to be necessary. Finally, costs of remediation do not remain stable over time,
just as costs of construction vary based on the availability of materials and labor. As discussed
66 below, other estimates of the total cost to remediate the toxic plumes reach $49,500,000.00.
See California Environmental Protection Agency, News Release, dated June 3,2003, at Exhibit F,
attached hereto and incorporated herein, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Notice cf
Proposed Settlement Lodi Groundwater Site Lodi, San Joaquin County, California (Public
Comment Period: May 20 to June 20, 2005), at Exhibit F, attached hereto and incorporated
herein, Matt Brown, Lodi Contamination Settlement near end; cleanup neves ahead, dated
June 15,2007, at Exhibit F, attached hereto and incorporated herein, see also Report to Council,
pages 25-27.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200 107-0002
27
201
toward the currently estimated $49.5 million total cleanup cost. The settlements reached
as of September 2007 leave the City obligated to fund the $15.3 million remaining
shortfall in clean-up costs. Settlements with the remaining defendants would reduce the
City's potential clean-up liability.
However, the litigation program created several other liabilities for the City including the
Lehman financing described below, litigation and consultant costs. To finance the
litigation, the City and the Lodi Public Improvement Corporation entered into a financing
arrangement nth Lehman Brothers Inc. ("Lehman") in June 2000 entitled the Lodi
Financing Corporation Environmental Abatement Program Variable Rate Certificates of
Participation ("2000 COPs"). Lehman advanced $15,625,000, which was repayable with
interest accruing at the rate of "LIBOR" plus 20% per mum, adjusted quarterly and
compounded annually. In 2004, litigation arose between Lehman and the City over the
City's obligations under the 2000 COPs. The matter settled in 2005 with the City paying
Lehman $6 million to fully discharge its obligations under the 2000 COPs.
In 2005, City staff and outside consultants estimated that the cost of the City's potential
liability arising from the PCE/TCE clean-up and related litigation that was not yet funded
was $45 million. Although this potential liability could be shared by the System and the
Water System, the City determined to fund the unfunded costs through the Water System
by raising water rates. Accordingly, Bartle Wells performed a rate analysis and concluded
that a $10.50 average monthly rate increase, phased in over 2 years, would meet the
City's unfunded potential liability. This $10.50 average rate increase was adopted
pursuant to Council Resolution 2005-203 on September 21,2005 and is projected to raise
$2.7 million in additional revenue each year ("Water Rate Increase Revenue"). This rate
increase was unsuccessfully challengedby citizen initiative in November 2006; the effort
to repeal the water rate increase was defeatedby a vote of 63.9%to 36.1%.
The estimated future costs, immediately available sources of funds (excluding the $2.7
million of Water Rate Increase Revenues that the City expects to be generated on an
annual basis) and resulting unfunded potential City liability with respect to the PCE/TCE
clean-up and related litigation is summarized below. The City expects to fund the
unfunded liability with Water Rate Increase Revenues and not with assets or revenues of
the System.
Item Amount (in millions)
Cleanup Costs67 $49.50
Water Fund Loan68 12.50
Legal Fees 1 6A
Total Costs $63.66
67 Includes a $15 million contingency.
68 Represents a loan from the Infrastructure Replacement Water Fund Account to the PCE Water
Fund Account, which is now being repaid from Water Rate IncreaseRevenue.
DOCSOC/ 1285743v6/200107-0002
28
202
Available Sources of
Ftinde •
M&P settlements $14.60
Insurance settlements'
Total Sources of Funds 2820
Unfunded Potential City
Exposure to be funded from
Water Rate Increase Revenue
4
Adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan is expected to result in additional
revenues available to assist in the remediation of the groundwater contamination in the
Project Area. The fact that funds are already being collected for this purpose does not
mean that additional funds will not benefit the Project Area and the community as a
whole—these additional revenues will enable the Agency to assist remediation of the
groundwater contamination, resulting in the earlier completion of such remediation. It is
unlikely that the assessment of $10.50 paid by the tax payers in Lodi is, by itself,
sufficient to fully fund this remediation.
Comment No. 2:
How will the C iy of Lodi refund the ratepayers PCE/TCE ground water contamination
since RDA funds willpayforfuture clean up?
Response No. 2:
This statement is a non sequitur. It does not hold that if future tax increment revenues
assist with the remediation of the groundwater contamination in Lodi, the rate payers'
funds will not be needed to pay for the remediation as well. As discussed above, the
availability of added funds to assist with the remediation can increase the likelihood of
success and reduce the time within which the remediation can be completed.
As discussed in Response No. 1 to Writing C above, use of redevelopment funds to assist
in the remediation of the ground water contamination in Lodi may assist in completing
this remediation more quickly and efficiently than would otherwise be possible. Rate
payers in Lodi will not pay more than the cost to complete this important remediation;
instead, use of redevelopment funds may reduce the ultimate amount to be charged to the
Lodi taxpayers for the remediation of the ground water contamination in Lodi.
Comment No. 3:
The plan indicates eliminating blight conditions through improvements to appearance
and attractiveness of residential neighborhood through neighborhood improvements
programs, code enforcement efforts. However, Lodi's code enforcement has not been
funded nor has it used the power of the law or fines to improve any deteriorated
conditions in Lodi. What will be derent about code enforcement in an RDA If code
69
Reflects use of $6 million of the USF&G settlement to pay Lehman in connection with the 2000
COPs, as described above.
DOCSOC/ 1285743v6/200107-0002
29
203
enforcement couldn't clean up blight with the law & fines at there [sic] disposal frar the
past 2 years?
Response No. 3:
The photographs in the Report to Council show an abundance of code violations within
the Project Area. The City spends a disproportionate amount of its funds on law
enforcement efforts within the Project Area, as opposed to within the remainder of the
City.7° The crime rate for serious (Part 1) crimes is higher in the Project Area, per capita,
than elsewhere in the City?' This constitutes a burden on the remainder of the
community, as tax dollars allocated to the City of Lodi are required to be used in greater
amounts within the Project Area in the attempt to maintain reasonable levels of safety and
compliance with the law. Increases in code enforcement activities within the Project
Area, which will be necessary if the proposed Redevelopment Plan is not adopted, will
result in an increased burden on the community which is disproportionate to the revenues
generated for the City from within the Project Area.
As stated in Comment No. 3, the proposed Redevelopment Plan adoption is expected to
provide additional funding which would be available for neighborhood improvement
programs. In addition, redevelopment funds are expected to be available for public
improvements which would otherwise be required to be funded by moneys in the City's
general fund. This is anticipated to make funds available to the City for code
enforcement which would not otherwise be available and has not been available in the
past.
Together, the increased ability of the City to focus on code enforcement efforts in
conjunction with the institution by the Redevelopment Agency of neighborhood
improvement programs to provide grants and/or loans to property owners who wish to
participate in such programs to improve their properties is expected to have a beneficial
and long term effect on the physical and economic conditions in the Project Area, which
could not be achievedby code enforcement done.
Two years is not a sufficient period for determining how well code enforcement is
working; code enforcement is a relatively slow and expensive process. Code
enforcement is a tool which takes a long time to use and is not always effective at
preventing repeated code violations as well as code violations which are difficult to
detect. Moreover, redevelopment can address many communityproblems that cannot be
addressed with code enforcement, such as inadequate lot size and contamination.
Comment No. 4:
With thepassing of proposition 98 or 99 how will that affect the current RDA project?
Response No. 4:
Without undertaking a comprehensive analysis of the terms and potentially far-reaching
effects of Proposition 99 (Proposition 98 was not adopted by the voters at the June 3,
2008 election), insofar as the writer specifically refers to the effects of Proposition 99
relative to the ability of the Redevelopment Agency to exercise the power of eminent
70
71 Report to Council, pages 97-99.
Report to Council,pages 98 and 99; see also discussion in ResponseNo. 8 to Writing F.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
30
204
domain, Proposition 99 is not expected to have any effect on the proposed
Redevelopment Plan. The proposed Redevelopment Plan does not provide the
Redevelopment Agency of the Cily of Lodi with the authority to exercise eminent
domain powers.
Mr: Ernest'Glover;
would like to:know inoreraboiut.*Is #4evelopment:project in L940 -live on*:).
: Sacramento; Street aridthis.` s, gang to effeot:me: -The nop; or :whatever:.(etter.:you sent,out: .
inade'to sense with all 1h6 codes on;it so I got on the internet and _started reading about it:
l already am a first time hoinebuyer:on government_ loans so how vrotild ties affect gle? I; ;
ve,in;a low,density;area according to your map w:hat-exactly::does ;tbat;.inean?:It also `
refers to the fact that there is contanunated water in some areas and I was wandering
which -ones and. if:I should concerned about the health:of inyaon and myseif?,.1;think
the resr:of the areas effectedi°by this would hke:to;know to_the.paper sent aut lettiri us
know how:tocontest:and;by wilien wasn't.very faotual and mostpeople didinot
understand it Where will all of the people go that. are going to be:displaoed out of tlns7 , ;;
Are morehouses °going to bttilt'over;ours`and:ifso: is there'a new eleriieatary;and lugIi`
'school being bxnif:since the.oaty is already overerowded9;T completely: detest tivs project.
and there has to be a simpler way; of doing flits than displacing: Elie Iovv_income people, I'
am a first:time hone buyer and have owned my:house since September of _2007 and<;
had known zia of this tfieu':I°vrovfdjnot
A4CSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
31
205
a
637.5: Sacrair.ento:
L dita 95240::
209327-054.
zt7o.
Writing D: Cara Fink, 1637 S. Sacramento Street, Lodi, California 95240,
letter received by GRC Redevelopment Consultants on May 21,
2008.
Comment No. 1:
I would like to know more about this redevelopment project in Lodi. I live on south
Sacramento Street and this is going to effect (sic] me. The nop or whatever letter you
sent out made no sense with all the codes on it so I got on the internet and started
reading about it.
Response Nb. 1:
The proposed Redevelopment Plan, Report to Council, Draft and Final Environmental
Impact Report and other documents and materials prepared in connection with the
proposed adoption of the Redevelopment Plan are all available for public inspection at
the office of the Lodi City Clerk. City Manager Blair King and other City of Lodi staff
and consultants provided notice o f the proposed Redevelopment Plan adoption to the
public as required by the Redevelopment Law by publication in a newspaper of general
circulation for not less than four weeks (Sections 33349(a) and 33361 of the
Redevelopment Law) mailing notices to all residents, businesses and property owners
within the Project Area (Section 33349(b) and (c)); and mailing notices to the governing
body of each taxing agency that levies a tax upon property within the Project Area
(Section 33349(d)). In addition, Lodi staff and consultants conducted numerous public
meetings and circulated two city-wide newsletters in English, Spanish and Urdu to
attempt to raise awareness and provide information to the public regarding the proposed
plan adoption.72 The City's website contains a page devoted to informing the public
about the proposed Redevelopment Plan adoption, including copies of documents
prepared in connection with the plan adoption proceedings and copies of the newsletters
referred to above.73 The City of Lodi made significant efforts to ensure that members of
the public who had questions or concerns regarding the proposed Redevelopment Plan
were provided with the information they needed to understand the plan adoption process
and the goals and objectives of the Mei.
CommentNo. 2:
1 already am a first tinrehomebuyer on government loans so how would this affect me?
Response No. 2:
No specific plans or programs have been adopted by the Redevelopment Agency at this
time; however, housing programs adopted by redevelopment agencies often focus on
providing rental assistance and/or first time homebuyer assistance. Thus, it is not likely
that the Agency will adopt a program for which the writer would qualify. It is possible
that the Agency may approve a program to provide loans or grants for the rehabilitation
of residential and/or commercial property within the Project Area, but any such program
would be limited to property owners who voluntarily wish to participate.
72
Report to Council, pages 157-167.
73 http://www.lodi..goy/Redevelopment html
DOCSOC/ 1285743v6/200107-0002
32
206
Comment No. 3:
I live in a low density area according toyour map what exactly does that mean?
Response No. 3:
Areas designated as "Low Density Residential" in the Lodi General Plan are limited to
five residential units per gross acre (i.e. including streets and public right of way). Land
use designations are a function of the City's General Plan and will not be modified by the
RedevelopmentPlan.
Comment No. 4:
It also refers to the fact that there is contaminated water in some areas and I was
wondering which ones and if I should be concerned about the health of my son and
myse J3
Response No, 4:
1637 S. Sacramento Street does not overlay any of the known PCE/TCE contamination
plumes. In addition, the City of Lodi has been working to remedy the ground water
contamination to ensure that the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of
Lodi are not harmed by this environmental contamination. Additional information is
available by contacting the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. The
proposed Redevelopment Plan is expected to make additional funding available for this
purpose through the receipt by the Redevelopment Agency of tax increment revenues and
the exercise of redevelopment authority under the Polanco Act, Section 33459, et seq., of
the Redevelopment Law.
Comment No. 5:
I think the rest cf the areas effected [sic] by this would like to know to [sic] the paper
sent out letting us know how to contest and by when wasn't veryfactual and mostpeople
did not understand it.
Response No. 5:
The writer is the only person who has stated that they did not understand the notices sent
out by the City of Lodi in connection with the Redevelopment Plan adoption proceedings.
As described above in Response No. 1, the City and City staff and consultants have made
substantial efforts (including efforts well beyond statutory requirements) to provide
notice and information to the community in connection lith the adoption of the
Redevelopment Plan, to ensure that individual members of the community were fully
informed about the City's goals and objectives, the procedures being followed by the City
and the rights of the citizens of Lodi with respect to the proposed Redevelopment Plan
adoption.
The Lodi City Council, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi and City and
Agency staff and consultants made numerous efforts to communicate with the citizens of
the City of Lodi and the residents and business owners within the proposed Project Area
to ensure the community was provided with ample information regarding the proposed
Redevelopment Plan adoption process and to ensure the citizens of Lodi had a
meaningful opportunity to provide comments and feedback relating to the proposed
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
33
207
1
Redevelopment Plan adoption. An important part of the procedure set forth in the
Redevelopment Law for the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan is the consideration and
response to written objections, which is required prior to the introduction of the ordinance
adopting a redevelopment plan (with which requirement this document is intended to
comply). Several written objections (as well as a written statement in support) have been
received by the Lodi City Clerk and numerous individuals attended and spoke both in
support of and in opposition to the proposed Redevelopment Plan at the joint public
hearing held May 28, 2008. Significant efforts (much more than legally required) were
made to ensure that the community was provided with all information reasonably
necessary to permit individuals in Lodi to evaluate the proposed Redevelopment Plan and
ample opportunity was provided for public comment on the proposed plan.74
Comment No. 6:
Where will all of the people go that are going to be displaced out of this? Are more
houses going to built [sic] over ours and if so is there a new elementary and high school
being baltsince the city is already overcrowded?
Response No. 6:
The proposed Redevelopment Plan does not include the power of eminent domain; thus,
all projects involving private property undertaken by the Agency will be based on
voluntary participation of Lodi property owners. The implementation of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan is not expected to result in significantnumbers of displaced persons,
but if any displacement occurs as a result of the activities of the Agency, the Agency will
comply with all applicable relocation laws, rules and regulations, including without
limitation the California Relocation Assistance Law, Government Code Section 7260, et
seq. Such assistance, if warranted pursuant to applicable laws, may include relocation
advisory assistance, payment of actual movin5g and related expenses and in the case of
businesses, the cost of lost business goodwill.'
It is unclear what the writer means by "Are more houses going to be built over ours."
The proposed Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the Lodi General Plan and any
development which occurs within the proposed Project Area must comply with the Lodi
General Plan and zoning ordinances, as they may be amended from time to time. No
specific projects are proposed at this time; however, at the time specific projects are
considered by the Agency the effect on public services such as educational facilities will
be considered, to the extent provided by the California Environmental Quality Act and
other applicable laws. No persons, regardless of income, are expected to be displaced by
the proposed Redevelopment Plan. The implementation of the proposed Redevelopment
Plan is expected to improve the physical and economic conditions within the Project Area
and to increase the value of property within the Project Area, which will in turn increase
the revenues available to the City, the Agency and the other agencies that levy taxes
within the Project Area, including the school districts. For a more detailed discussion,
see Response No. 5 to Writing B.
75 Report to Council, pages 157-167.
See, e.g., Government Code Sections 7261 and 7262.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200 107-0002
34
208
Comment No. 7:
I completely detest this project and there has to be a simpler way of doing this than
displacing the lair incamepeople.
Response No. 7:
This statement is the writer's opinion and is vague and unclear as to meaning. As stated
above in Response No. 6, the proposed Redevelopment Plan does not include the power
of eminent domain; thus, all projects to be undertaken by the Agency will be based on
voluntary participation of Lodi property owners. The implementation of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan is not expected to result in significant numbers of displaced persons,
but if and when displacement occurs as a result of a redevelopment project, the Agency
will comply with all applicable relocation laws, rules and regulations, including without
limitation the California Relocation Assistance Law, Government Code Section 7260, et
seq.
Comment No. 8:
I am afirst time home buyer and have owned my house since September of 2007 and had
I had known all of this then I would not have bought in this area.
Response No. 8:
The implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan is expected to improve the
physical and economic conditions within the Project Area and to increase the value of
property within the Project Area, which will in turn increase the revenues available to the
City, the Agency and the other agencies that levy taxes within the Project Area.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
35
209
City:Clerk
City 'of.. Lodi
221 West PineStreet
Lodi;; _.CA 95240. ;:. :.
I, as.'aproperty:owner::in the proposed Cit
Area,': hereby lodge: a ':protest against' tki'e.:'E.T:R.
Redevelopement ,Agency for'''011-ty." of Lod .
The 'anviranaental. • Smpact:'2eport ;as.. p'r'esented:
address 'ttse 'effect. on :'tiie' 4thriic `. groups zn.; Ehe', propose
have.'been.decceed°..as; diving in,:blYg?iE°°=
The-:c{uestion• here is,, frith .:the' bl'zght stigma attached'.`to:'them, . _. _
wilh,:.they continue' t'o.:eXhib t .inotavat ori:, "to . impzove;:he r liv ng:".area?
The' second gues:t•ion::that must :be';.addressed s.;.what-...effec
th'e . b`l i ght .;label ',have::when': the's e; .Lodi 'Citi zeas r:wi:
: 'improvements cn"'houses and'bu'sinesses
because;:';they are'-;zri;::a..z, 1ight'ed-"rea:
P.S_`Vv immediatei"interest is ..
that I. have'property.:interests.`:
in the proposed
bighted "area. .:
Writing E:
James A. McCarty, 16830 N. Rous Lane, Lodi, California 95240,
letter received by the Lodi City Clerk on April 28.2008.
Comment No. 1:
1, as a property owner in theproposed City of Lodi Redevelopment Area, hereby lodge a
protest against the E.I.R. related to theproposed Redevelopment Agencyfor the City cf
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
36
210
Lodi. The Environmental Impact Report, as presented, does not sufficiently address the
effect on the ethnic groups in the proposed area once they have been decreed as living in
blight. The question here is, with the blight stigma attached to them, Pal they continue to
exhibit motavation [sic] to improve their living area?
Response No. 1:
The proposed Redevelopment Plan is intended and designed to alleviate blighting
conditions and to provide an additional incentive to property owners within the proposed
Project Area to improve and maintain their properties, through economic assistance in the
form of rehabilitation grants and loans and the provision of additional needed public
improvements to support the existing properties and possible future development within
the proposed Project Area.76 Implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan is
expected to increase revenues (in the form of tax increment) available to provide public
improvements and infrastructure, as well as to provide assistance to individual property
owners and tenants as described above.77 Designating an area as a redevelopment project
area indicates that the local governmental agency has acknowledged that physical and
economic conditions existing in the area are inhibiting the full and proper utilization and
development of the area and has indicated a willingness and commitment to the
improvement of such area. The adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan is
expected to have a positive effect on the property values and viability of properties within
the Project Area and is further anticipated to provide an incentive for property owners
within the Project Area to invest in their properties to a greater extent than is currently
occurring. As part of its redevelopment efforts, the Agency may seek to assist in
attracting merchants to serve the needs of the various ethnic groups on the east side.
See the discussion in Response No. 2 to Writing B regarding the numerous cities in
California which, despite having adopted redevelopment project areas, do not suffer from
a stigma and evidence that property values in redevelopmentproject areas increase more
quickly than in areas not included within a redevelopment project area.
The Comment relative to the sufficiency of the Environmental Impact Report prepared in
connection with the proposed Redevelopment Plan was addressed in the Final
Environmental Program Impact Report for the proposed Lodi Community Improvement
Project.
Comment No. 2:
The second question that must be addressed is what effect will the blight label have when
these Lodi Citizens will seekfinancingfor improvements on houses and businesses, but
will be denied loans because they are in a blighted area?
Response No. 2:
Designating an area as a redevelopmentproject area indicates that the local governmental
agency has acknowledged that physical and economic conditions existing in the area are
inhibiting the full and proper utilization and development of the area and has indicated a
willingness and commitment to the improvement of such area; with tax increment
76
77 Report to Councilpages 114-119.
Report to Councilpages 119-122.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
37
211
fmancing, such a designation significantly increases the likelihood of and facilitates
opportunities for investment in the area. The proposed Redevelopment Plan is intended
and designed to alleviate blighting conditions and to provide an additional incentive to
property owners within the proposed Project Area to improve and maintain their
properties, through. economic assistance in the form of rehabilitation grants and loans and
the provision of additional needed public improvements to support the existing properties
and possible future development within the proposed Project Area.78 Implementation of
the proposed Redevelopment Plan is expected to increase revenues (m the form of tax
increment) available to provide public improvements and infrastructure, as well as to
provide assistance to individual property owners and tenants as described above.79 The
adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan is expected to have a positive effect on the
property values and viability of properties within the Project Area. Before the City
Council at the May 28,2008 joint public hearing, Pat Patrick, President and CEO of the
Lodi Chamber of Commerce, testified that redevelopment "attractsprivate investment"
and leads to an increase in property values, increased business opportunities and the
creation of new jobs.80 In addition, the Executive Director of the California
Redevelopment Association has determined that between 1993 and 2002, redevelopment
activities leveraged between $194 and $225 billion in private investment in California."
No empirical evidence was presented supporting the thesis that institutional lenders will
not make loans within redevelopment project areas. In fact, projects within
redevelopment project areas are routinely financed by loans by institutional lenders, as
may be inferred by the long list of projects instituted by various redevelopment agencies
during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, as listed in Appendix A of the State
Controller's Report. This long list of projects includes numerous projects listed in
ResponseNo. 1 to Writing A, above.
In addition to the projects discussed in Response No. 1 to Writing A, the City of Clovis
and the Clovis Community Development Agency increasedjobs, sales tax revenues and
property values within that community by working with Anlin Industries to establish and
expand this window manufacturer's business, requiring Anlin to obtain private fmancing
for a portion of the prof ec t.82
Also, the publications and articles included in Exhibits D, E and F, which are attached
hereto and incorporated herein describe numerous recent significant redevelopment
accomplishments of the Cities of Chula Vista, Pleasant Hill and West Sacramento and
other redevelopment agencies.83 Petco Park in San Diego was developed on
contaminated property using private and redevelopment moneys and. since 1998, the area
has attracted investment in an amount of almost $2 billion. The City of Petaluma has a
new theatre district, including a 12 screen cinema complex, a mixed use project and a 4
78
79 Report to Councilpages 114-119.
Report to Council pages 119-122.
SO ResponseNo, 2 to Writing B.
See John F. Shirey, RedevelopmentMeans Rebuilding Camzinities,presented at the 3rd Annual
82 Tools to Revitalize California Communities Conference, July 23,2004 at Bakersfield, CA.
83 ExhibitD, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Exhibits D, E and F, attachedhereto and incorporated herein.
sa Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporatedherein.
DOCSOC/ 1285743 v 6/200107-0002
38
212
level parking garae, developed pursuant to an owner participation agreement with a
private developer. These are merely a few of many examples of redevelopment
agencies using tax increment revenues to leverage private investment within and for the
benefit of redevelopment project areas, which often includes institutional financing and
other private sources of funds.
85 Exhibit D ,attached hereto and incorporated herein.
39
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
213
- Protest Against: - 200410 2.8 P1142:
•An ordinanccCityCouncil Of:the CiWc't••:14(i'aPPr9v111gand'-
•• r',••• ' - • .' :T. • : • .:;"; • ..;.• •
taevelOproie$:•. .
istientplan for '. the Loth.•
• • . -. • :Citizen's Opposed !o.114: • eVelortinentAien and the 1' itt
• • • • ,• , •
To thc Loth Cttyto4fiti4
, . i• .. - chirad„tic,p.ponOikeone..„tit*eit.,..1 i C ,....kti-..z9.1, 11. !'9.;:t.!..ig,-.?4C-,..4)..:.'1?s'..''r. el- eC-..::.".'t'?....*!...!..":4i'd' 9:-D
- ..... • : . .. .. ,..•• . .- . . . . • • ,r . , ,. . ,•?.; : ....• • .: - • ,-- . .1...\\ii.oideettO,1 ' T
' .. '' • ''. :: .• • ...A ciib ' 'ihel••.titili':*City.Ccionsi:: - : : , :". - •: i...i:
' . . '• ' v1Oltnient:',4c11uY.,---1-- -Y: • ' • • , 1., - :...s.1 -.:,::". • -:..::4:,,i.•:,:•i ::•.-:-:. _
'Kt4P,.. • .. ..-.. --.. - •.:,.../ . -.-.:::.,•,::::,::......- ,,..":-••••:.•':i.i;,Y-:..6'ilat.teiraii$A.
.• • ."'"'"''':•••••• .-,••'•""-ii'vgimiont0iin f.g.ipi#tr41 • , - -
••• ..:!inct:th o111!al.8,1- V!1•.• • ••• " • .: :.; :.:.. :':.• .• .' ' • ' .' ••:••••1..:::".•:::::::'•.2.",;.! .
. :'• • : ••-• doi14. tititnatq.:ftq.oq,.- : • ::.• ,
. . .. . ..
proposcd
un
minders
now
rncIude
• , ::
'.1''.....::'..ri•i'.'.::',$'.i.i-ia—ig4Itairtie4.04:::81e°11Pal:::1161'it••6:•4..15..1;':*::a:t."141.. :il16°::es::''.,..'ae.:.:27:t...::°.174.-r'iti'''
-.'*...:'::•••'.':..1..-'-' .?::::.:''::!..:. ::i:.f : '''• -::: ..-% .:. ' :::: !':':',-;:.",t;..;1:;::::.;.. ::;:::!.,:,::::' -:./.:::::A:2;TL
trifh-iif,tlig Oi.O.ie4.:nien;,Oiti tiVotti - 4-Iiiiiiie6frOxii the east
s
- '' :::' ::::.',i -:,:.1..:•:.;i'.. --:'..-;:.':::.:....,f,'::•!• :"..,:.".:::;,i,4, " :::::::
.. 'itie (SOO Ogflrdp9i.t: 0.-130 ' nf---' -G.V),'
,. ...,. ......,
es tlns
gi : i'ii,•••alt.A.r.: , :- • '2 '.•-• ,i'.. -:.. : . ;C.. . .,..:';', ...:'-' - . ••-. •• •...
. ..: .;,..;
•The projected area mapihOwsl siurnbei-ofisolated areas within •the ircjected are
: . :•• • .: *. . • .".'•::::;•••••• ;.•
• „ • inap:thatheye been r6movcd froi the ongma3 inap We subrnit that the proposed RAmaps
. . • .
. • .
. • -hwatidiindl each of thesechanges is explained hythepet•soit•nr.
• • .:.....bAnge,.3-.711*Phagigq.sir!clu.40v3POTar.it*d•futuo.
. .
•.• J... •
• 's not sufficent pbysical b1igit in the proposedkpxorpt
justfyLodi hiteii..thi!anddonsultants to t 011-rOC.ii "„rOpprttp..-...':i
filsifyzihe-elenients:ofiiiight,,criineinnfflasiztanOthei:soctit.*4 • .
. . . .
'rnk af all the nesh into the ailiforniaCornatonity.gegivni6Otiet*LaW....FAIT a large
'
fce Ly*k., or another Oinisuitaiii will falsify blight whe thero is honO.' Theref.pre, GRA
•
• . . . • • , • " ." • . • - • : • ,
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
40
214
.*-' ••••••.'.• ••
. . , , • cis), socio,secmcmic pr9filo. an 8Apiosio05LEcaiicame..Cong13 !lolls.. 7 :........,... ,,., .
. . . . . . .
„ , . •.•
. .. . . ._ .
. . . . . .
. . . .„ . . _ • -
ii*eaO:n° t*:°. ija, 11i.v•'i.ial_ ..x.„;_e_lietici,,,i• :°Z..Pous:la,:.i,,,,,T.::;iiinua..:., ,.,.1:::;tnii;;„:...77„,4;;,,'9_,..7:,....,:.:;:.:::::::„.„,.,..,:
..:..
s
-....:--.:.f:.-.:.,1'tesimit:,..J..,,,,,,,,-..:-....:.::::..„.,......,,,..,,torclabls liF1:1•,! •:::•:Y•Yr.::;',:::,•:•:-. -.,:.:•••,-'
• • i. ' s.„,%-ai.,aie.uiSith.7. .4.P:*,: *7'7.7 ,. -': - • *.t,-,,,...- ilrpe.41099. 7:- c:••
• The .01.--7 - : -- • • . %. - -• tug_P-s•"! • -• --. -: • . . , :.,,ed 4a sbovi•
. :.: .._, .; : ,..: = -:. ',- , . - .- : ,. ' :, • ..iik*sc.fle.r-51 .:. - • •• • *:. - • ,••• • • GReregpft:fl!1t-••• •:--- :'• *.'fisi-,-
• * - • •• • • • ' • - ti 1 1101ne:Lar ! . ': ". " ::.••, '::'1:,•-• '- ' -;!:::;:" oni... did.' ThP • - -,-:' ,• ;:,,::;!..:.•:. -...,,:;•:: !:-.'• -',
... .. :• : .::- -.. , :.:PSili!"1t.. : . • - ,:: • ' . • ' -"•• • il:i164,0, i'a,(Y47:!?.?7..;....:.-.... - ::.;,,4.:iiii.r.* -. el*:,--:
*.: ..: ' . :. •:: rOje'it. urea SI%ow...iiSt ..tes.e ,. , .....:,... , tem . an.sto... .,.,.
ttleaehoin• aivoigrenntlyWiii'i.... , **•-•°11e-r-11*"' s* • - * ' • ' "
•-iVii7lint fid, 1:n ...-ei*41 :i°."'
• '.' . •*.-*'. *.•• .--bus44.5se:s v"10'-•illinitiln41;i4°:1414:***
,. ;,.. ,....-...... ,,, ',. : • .••••• -,.„ - ',-::..-:.--: t••• -,.-..ii':*: ••:.-. *:".;,•::.
: . ' . • '... : ':. : -the .81A.Vandclo**40,004t5`..6194.Y•F!.9ed
. ,, .....,.. -.• • .,7•04,60.st: We
t the
:. : ...„, • • • .-- •-•• . - :-..:,:. ',i Contii*Y.'.0.illi,PICHO....,:: kr--..--'-...•''.'•:.t-'.--
' ' .. '' .. '''' " --'''''''' .':' .-'-'''. '•-• •)'IS ii-lic &gel 'faders; a•T•idTt.,..
* • .•:.* '‘. • :***•.: .*..*; :*; •L'init*U' y.* -p les..*•**4 :.*Of.f.o,..feign,. . b Orn....., .,...,,i,Pi.:,.:,:-.....
tht
,.. i: ...,.......-; • ..• • . 'Tjli,S.OEf.O.Yr:1-s..not a ee ow theW1140,!;1:!•:••=,:, .,
„..•.; :;.!. •••: 4iee10'440,1nIrT:•Y-7-', -.: ,.. • , -. --.,.;-: ".: ' ' r*:.'• '.• -*:'..!,.;,•::::,-;,:ii: • -
... i 01411-#5.1SL,
ro
inulOrsvIn .
'CRC cOinPletki '
'4. . ' ..' • '1 * " *. a,.4 siiiiik:OlOtili.i-44:re licl„...•-.. ,:: ,t.::..:..:,:r., ,-., • ....:! ..,.. -
• and pftSCflIe4Iitieii(i4i,CiLy COOG11,81! .;.,:invalid-
nOO
...iS...-.Notin**441- thP •CT•P•i'Pli;5":4/*:exiAt°* Pi' six: 'Ikil*kelif:' 'c'..
arc.;.The success of ibe•eclu'ogildo sysferriAnffie...,a•prri.sjel.ldst4i7fuowioillts!aiooditranati.tb;,ilen.,
Ll
• ..:, , .., , .....:, ft,144ing.by,therAiviAi3ils: Tha.ogc,rtortli.f.!.,"..,
Ottaient.1400f*Y.:13;•10:00%;41#:4400:*ilzang:imAYV
.'..4ecieaOng:Furtheii0ff,. in iii0:09,ii-**iiiiiiii! of thopfopos0•00,e. .
. :_... ,..:„...consUuonlsyiks,400•Ark4;°6-ItS'Y'q611°C°..,•,°:nl, ail.: tin-, e4-..-,11"*1cfOrl
::,::::i*!
• . • ; erroneous.
: • '
• . • ' • -- - .
•
•
• ..„ .
DOCS0C/1285-143v6/200107-0002
•
41
215
The California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL). at Health; and•Safety;Code
sections 33030 and 33021listse,;•eiai iequirementsthat must:be:sausfiedin ordecto create
project arear.
(GRC Consultants eport to City:CounciI;:pg 109)
The tironosed tiroieet area::.' = r
t.
the area must have at least one of
a.. Physical_Blight:,:;.;::.:..::::::...... - -
en
b. ;EcononiicBliglit:::.:::.:;:::;::.::.
ne.: went,
2;'plight niustcause'a. ac. lcot:proper ttilizanon.ofarea .:'; ..a::::: _Ndif&Present
: 3: Improper Utilization is a buriden in entire corinkinity... ..: ::::.:::. ..None Present
4; Lack;of•p6y.ate investment ik the area; :::.:::...::.::...••••. ,.T;otS of new;investineiit
S.,: Must ,have s:R.A_to corrocC' ;;:: ;::°. ; ; .::.• ,....:.:.:....::..:::.:.. '.:.,.,,..:N
•otNeeded-
This Score Card Shows Some of: the current conditions, irr tlie:project':40;: the' City if
does not need's RedeveloptneintAgency.:
A' Redevelopment requires that a portion of its revenues be spent op affoi dable
housing.:There is: already mote affordable housinngithe proposed. project area than:any other.:
place_ on the.City of Lodi.:.Tlie Project Area (PA) had more. schoolst}taa any other area.in
.Lodi (L.odi Adult $chool,:Joe 'Salta .Charter:School,LawrenceEle neniarySchool;:Heritage
Primary School; L:odiAcadcmy; and. E.odttS,D.A:Elementary:School)
••'The PA has more -well maintained churches than anyotherrare iii L.o,
•.• '.The.PA has a lvloslem:Ivlosque,,: .
.. Tire PA has a BuddiiistTemple and Hntl,_.:.::.:..:::
• The PA has a;.Boys and:Giris'.Cfub:
•T'he.PA has multiple, well kept soft-halll: diamonds.
••..ThePA.has Zuppo.Field._ • • • . :
• Che PA: hasDeBenedetti.Soft.BaIIField::
DOCSOC(1285743V 6/200107-0002
42
216
• : The Fa has ihe;.Crrape:andWineFestiyal;Grounds. ' : .
• The PA. has four parks: FlakEark; A{niory Park; Lawrence Park, •arid Blakely
Park:
: • ThePA•hasa.newpatkiagGarage(.NorthSacramentoStixe't.and:East•Pi)1e_;::
Street):
• The PA has the new Transportation Centex (Sacramento 00Oak).: •
• • :Tbe'RA has.:a.new P.harn�acy;(i.niacy"; on Cherokee;T :. •
•: • : The FA' has the. very `sticc f...Wa1:Rancjio.San Migucl.2vlatket:(Cheiokee.ia ne).:
'The PA''has neiv.aonsiiiiotions sites ttiroughotit it a jirojeci:s#ica:;::: :;
summary; we Clic:ebttcerned citizens,o i odi.op{•
soled to.ihe proposed:project tt e
°:FLIR;:allactions of-the.I odr:Planning:C6nuni;sign In'Cemfying;origilial'and::;:
anietided project•a0ii aps;; We.also:reject:in its the4111 ufly;dec fitful `GRC :
consultant' rt to the'C�t Council5/28/2008 Fsnail the cl '. s `.a.
. .... �P°'...:;:�-:�..; �....:.:::...i� ....Y:,..:=::�S:P�PAtof�this:.=-;.':
'• :proposed fredevelopmezn:projcct'are is.to diverkfu ure
new constniCtion 7n violaupri •of state:l'uW; cOuit.decisioi
;tncrtmentseveki..
Writing F.
Phyllis E. Roche, 1812 Cape Code Circle, Lodi, California 95242-
4207; Nicolas Santoyo Razo, 738 South Lee Avenue, Lodi,
California 95240; John R. Talbot, 800 Maplewood Drive, Lodi,
California 95240; Eunice Friederich, 425 E. Oak Street, Lodi,
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
43
217
California 95240; Jack J. Lockhart, 331 La Setta Drive, Lodi,
California 95242; Jerold E. Kyle, 327 Del Mont Street, Lodi,
California 95242, Protest Aeainst: An ordinance of the city
Council of the City of Lodi approving and adopting the
redevelopment plan for the Lodi community improvement project,
received by the Lodi City Clerk on May 28,2008
Comment No. 1:
Our ad hoc group of concerned Lodi Citizens categorically reject (sic] the adoption of a
RedevelopmentAgency (RA) by the Lodi City Council.
Response No. 1:
Pursuant to Section 33100 of the Redevelopment Law, "there is in each community a
public body, corporate and politic, known as the redevelopment agency of the
community." Such redevelopment agencies are generally unable to transact business or
exercise any powers unless, by ordinance, the le6gislative body declares that there is a
need for an agency to function in the co -- t', 8 The Lodi City Council authorized the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lodi to transact business and exercise powers
under the Redevelopment Law pursuant to Ordinance No. 1675, adopted July 7, 1999.
This Written Comment is therefore inapposite at the present time. Insofar as the
Comment intended an objection to the proposed adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for
the Lodi Community Improvement Project, such objection is noted. The Redevelopment
Plan will achieve increased revenues and enhanced public improvements in the Project
Area as discussed herein. See Response No. 6 to Writing A, Response No. 3 to Writing
C and Response No. 1 to Writing E; see also Exhibits D and E, providing numerous
examples of redevelopment agency activities and achievements in California.
Comment No. 2:
We object to the proposed project and the final program Environmental impact Report,
and any council reliance on the GRC Consultant's Report. Furthermore, we strongly
object theproposed Project Area map as it has undergone a series of gerrymanders that
now includes the southern extension of Hutchins Street and a large apartment complex
that requires extensivepolice presence. This new stretch ofproject area, even though a
far distance from the "eastside" was done to show high crime (See GRCreport 8.8 High
Crime Rate, PG 97). Does this high crime ratejustify the need for a RA?
Response No. 2:
The boundaries of the proposed Project Area have been reviewed and approved by the
Lodi Planning Commission and the Lodi Planning Commission has submitted its report
and recommendation to the City Council recommending approval of the Redevelopment
Plan for the Lodi Community Improvement Project.
The proposed Project Area is comprised of parcels which contain physical and economic
conditions which cause blight, or parcels necessary for the effective redevelopmento f the
Project Area. Section 33031(b)(7) of the Redevelopment Law lists "a high crime rate
that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare" as one economic
86
Section 33101 ofthe Redevelopment Law.
D O C S O C/ 12 8 5 743 v6/200107-0002
44
218
condition that causes blight. The Report to Council and the record available for
consideration by the Lodi City Council contains substantial evidence that the proposed
Project Area is a blighted area and all areas contained therein have been properly
included in the proposed Project Area, for the reasons stated above in Response No. 4 to
Writing B.
CommentNo. 3:
Theprojected area map shows a number cf isolated areas within theprojected area map
that have been removed from the original map. Wesubmit that theproposed RA map is
invalid until each of these changes is explained by theperson or persons who made the
changes. These changes includeany current and future changes.
Response No. 3:
Some areas have been excluded from the proposed Project Area because they are in
agricultural use, which would impose additional procedural requirements on the Lodi
City Council in connection with the proposed Redevelopment Plan adoption.87 Other
areas have been omitted from the proposed Project Area boundaries because they may
not be blighted and/or necessary for the effective redevelopment of the entire Project
Area, or because they are not in urban use and therefore would reduce the percent of
acreage within the proposed Project Area that is developed or previously develdped for
an urban use, or which are integralparts of an urbanized area.
CommentNo. 4:
We hold that there is not sufficientphysical blight in theproposed Project Area to just
a RA. The City ofLodi hired the GRC Consultants to compile afictitious report tofalsify
the elements of blight, crime and as many other social and municipalfailures as they
could think of all the mesh into [sic] the California Camnmity Redevelopment Law.
For a large fee GRC or another consultant will falsify blight, where there is none.
Therefore, GRC report (7.0 Socio -Economic Profile, and 8.0 Physical and Economic
Conditions,pages 23 and 24) is erroneous.
Response No. 4t
As discussed above in Response No. 4 to Writing B, the Report to Council and the other
evidence and documentation in the record before the Lodi City Council, including the
testimony received for and against the proposed Redevelopment Plan at the joint public
hearing on May 28,2008, support the conclusion that the proposed Project Area contains
both physical and economic characteristics which cause blight, as defined in
Section3303 1 of the Redevelopment Law, that the proposed Project Area is
predominantly urbanized and that the combination of physical and economic conditions
set forth in Section 33031 of the Redevelopment Law is so prevalent and so substantial
that it causes a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an extent that
it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the community that cannot
87
See City of Lodi Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 23,2008, page 2, at Exhibit H,
attached hereto and incorporated herein; see also testimony of City Manager Blair King at the
May 28, 2008 joint public hearing explaining the reason for the exclusion of specific property
because that property vas determined to be in agricultural use.
D0CS0C/1285743 v6/2001 07-0002
45
219
reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental
action, or both, without redevelopment.
The staff members of GRC Redevelopment Consultants have extensive experience in the
area of redevelopment and evaluating and documenting conditions within proposed
redevelopmentplans.88 The record before the Lodi City Council, including the Report to
Council, includes evidence of blighting conditions which exist within the Project Area
and no portion of the Report to Council or the record to be considered by the City
Council has been falsified by City staff or consultants hired by the City in connection
with the Redevelopment Plan adoption. Numerous photographs and other data have been
provided in the Report to Council, as described in Response No. 1 to Writing B.
Comment No. 5:
The proposed area is economically vital experiencing public and private investments.
The citizens living in the proposed are make up [sic] a young homogenous community.
The residential homes are starter houses, sewing as the affordable housing. Inspections
of theproject area show that these homes are being upgraded. The GRCreportfailed to
show that these homes are currently being upgraded. Furthermore, small stores are also
starter businesses with a multinational diverse population thriving from extensive new
investments in the area and do not need to be redeveloped.
Response No. 5:
The Report to Council and other documents, testimony and evidence in the record
supports the conclusion that the proposed Project Area is a blighted area in need of
redevelopment, as discussed in Response No. 4 to Writing B. The record contains two
specific references to development within the proposed Project Area: The testimony of
Ken Bingamaxl, a Lodi resident who rehabilitated his business with assistance from
federal Community Development Block Grant moneys administered by the City and the
testimony of Beth Kim, a Lodi resident and prior owner of a hotel located on Cherokee
Lane in the Project Area, who is now developing a new hotel within the City (but outside
the Project Area) and who strongly supported the adoption of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan, because of the unsafe and generally unappealing appearance of
Cherokee Lane. Other than these, the record is devoid of specific references to new
development or rehabilitation of residential or commercial structures, or other new
investment within the Project Area, which has not been funded in whole or part using aid
from the City of Lodi.89 Conversely, the record contains substantial evidence to support a
88
See Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, containing resumes of the GRC
Redevelopment Consultants staff people who prepared the Report to Council, as well as the
resume o f Don Fraser of Fraser & Associates, who assisted with the preparation of the Report to
fig Council.
The statement set forth in Writing F, quoted below as Comment No. 9, that "new construction is
now underway on Lodi Avenue, Kettleman Lane and Lockeford Street" is extremely vague, as is
the statement in Writing F, set forth below as Comment No. 13, that "The PA has new
constructions (sic] sites throughout theproject area." No information about the type or extent of
development, whether it is new construction or rehabilitation, business or residential, or the
specific location of such alleged development is given. The parking garage and transportation
center referenced in Comment No. 13 below were b oth developed entirely using public funds.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
46
220
determination that the proposed Project Area is blighted and in need of redevelopment to
assist in the elimination of the many blighting conditions found in the Project Area.
The age of the current residents in the proposed Project Area is not determinative as to
whether this area suffers physical and economic conditions which cause blight. Nor is
the diverse national background of the residents of the Project Area determinative of
whether this area is blighted.
CommentNo. 6:
Contrary to the GRC report theproposed Project Area (the east side) s composed of a
healthy blend aEforeign born Hispanics, Middle Easterners, and Far Easterners all
living in a healthy community. This society is not a burden on the remainder f the City
of Lodi; it is in turn very successful and thriving. This group of citizens may have
different mores, customs, colors, foods, signs, clothing, and religion; however, the GRE
completely missed this element andpresented the Lodi City Council an invalid report.
Response No. 6:
The Report to Council does not describe the ethnic mix within the proposed Project Area,
as the nationality of the residents and business owners within the proposed Project Area
is irrelevant, to a determination that the proposed Project Area is affected by economic
and physical conditions which work together to cause blight. Nothing in the Report to
Council or the remainder of the record before the City Council argues that the ethnicities
or nationalities of the residents or business owners is itself a blighting characteristic or
otherwise causes blight. Conversely, however, the mix of nationalities within the
proposed Project Area does not eliminate the dilapidation, deferred maintenance, lack of
public infrastructure, hazardous materials contamination, high crime rate and other
blighting conditions which the Report to Council and other evidence and testimony in the
record before the City Council shows to exist within the proposed Project Area, which
characteristics have been shown to work together to cause blight within the Project Area
that private enterprise alone has been and continues to be. unable to remedy without
public assistance. These blighting conditions in the Project Area, described in more
detail in Response No. 4 to Writing B, constitute a burden on the remainder of the City of
Lodi, as shown by evidence and statistical information set forth in the Report to Council
at pages 39-43 (public infrastructure deficiencies) and 97-99 (high crime rates). The
Report to Council contains all required evidence and analysis required by Section 33352
of the Redevelopment Law, as well as substantial evidence to support a finding that the
Project Area is urbanized, blighted and in need of redevelopment to correct the blighting
conditions found therein and is therefore a valid report as set forth in the Redevelopment
Law.
CommentNo. 7:
Not included in the GRC report is the existence of six well kept schools in theproject
area. The success of the education system in theproject area will suffer and be denied
funding by these divisions.
Response No. 7:
The Report to Council did not deny the existence of well kept schools within the
proposed Project Area; however, Ken Bingamaxl presented testimony at the May 28,
47
DOCSOC/ 1285743 v6/200107-0002
2008 joint public hearing that the schools in the City of Lodi are already inferior due to a
lack of funding, resulting in Mr. Bingamaxl's decision to send his children to private
schools. The purpose of redevelopment is to provide for increased development, better
maintenance of buildings, reduction in criminal activities and reduction in hazardous
material within the project area, among other activities, all of which lead to the
expectation that implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan will likely improve
the physical and economic conditions within the Project Area and increase the value of
property within the Project Area, which will in turn increase the revenues available to the
City, the Agency and the other agencies that levy taxes within the Project Area, including
the school districts. For further discussion and analysis showing that schools and other
taxing agencies receive increased tax revenues as a result of the implementation of a
redevelopment plan than without and describing the payments made by redevelopment
agencies to school districts and community college districts in the 2005-2006 fiscal year,
see Response No. 5 to Writing B.
Comment No. 7 asserts that the schools in the Project Area are well kept and successful;
however, the Report to Council contains evidence that the Project Area experiences a
higher crime rate than the rest of the community and that the Project Area is a center of
gang activity in Lodi.9° Crime and gang activities can be expected to reduce the
effectiveness and success of public educational facilities.
Comment No, 8:
The GRC report in section 8.8,failed to address the Lodi Police Department report aE
May 13, 2008 showing that crime and gang activity in the urea is decreasing.
Response No. 8:
The document referred to by Comment No. 8 is not, in fact, a police report, but rather a
Lodi News -Sentinel article, which concludes with the statement that due to the efforts of
the Lodi Police Department, Lodi has seen a recent decrease in gang activity.
Notwithstanding this article, according to the Lodi Police Department, the Project Area
remains the center of gang activity within the City, with a much higher occurrence of
gang activity than is found outside the Project Area. Police Department staffreport that
gang activity tends to be cyclical, in that after long term, aggressive efforts on behalf of
the Police Department, gang activity will be reduced due to the incarceration of large
numbers of active gang members; however, as those gang members are released from]ail
and children within the community grow up to become new gang members, the frequency
of gang -related crimes, including violent crimes, increases again.
Additionally, the Lodi Police Department reports that the Project Area suffers from a
comparatively higher crime rate, including serious, "Part 1" crimes, than the remaining
areas within the City of Lodi.91 The Lodi Police Department has reported that the central
portion of the Project Area has the highest concentration of major crimes?' Further,
between 2005 and 2007, 54% of calls for service to the Lodi Police Department
originated in the Project Area, while only 25% of the City's population lives in the
90
91
92
See discussion in Response No. 8 to Writing F.
Report to Council, pages 97-99.
Report to Council, pages 97-98.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
48
222
Project Area.93 In 2007, the Project Area's Part 1 crime rate was 107 crimes per thousand
persons, while the crime rate in the balance of the City VW 30 crimes per thousand
persons.94
Comment No. 9:
Furthermore, in and about the corridors of theproposed Project Area, new construction
is now underway on Lodi Avenue, Kettleman Lane, and Lockeford Street.
Response No. 9:
No specific evidence is provided to support the assertion made by Comment No. 9.
Further, each of the streets identified in the Comment contain numerous blighting
conditions:
Lodi Avenue: Contains incompatible adjacent land uses primarily between Hutchins
Street and Highway 99.95 Water pipes in this street are sized six inches or smaller and
require replacement to improve pressure and flow in the water system.96 The street's
pavement condition index is lower than 50 out of 100 and requires reconstruction.97 The
wastewater lipes in this street are more than 50 years old and require lining or
replacement. 8
Kettleman Lane: Is within the site of the City's highest concentration of major crimes 99
The wastewater pipes in this street are more than 50 years old and require lining or
replacement.'°°
Lockeford Street: The wastewater pipes in this street are more than 50 years old and
require lining or replacement."' The street's pavement condition index is lower than 50
out of 100 and requires reconstruction. 102 Residential lots on this street east of
Washington Street have no frontage and are accessed only by an alley. 103 Residential
lots on this street east of Pleasant Avenue are only 45 feet wide. 1°4
Comment No. 10:
The California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) at Health and Safety Code
sections 33030 and 33021 list several requirements that must be satisfied in order to
create aproject area:
(GRC Consultants report to City Council,pg 109)
93 Reportto Council, page 98.
94 Report to Council, page 98.
95 Reportto Council, page 67.
96 Report to Council, page 43.
97 Report to Council, page 42.
98 Report to Council, page 41.
99 Report to Council, pages 97-98.
109 Report to Council, page 41.
101 Report to Council, page 41.
102 Report to Council, page 42.
103 Report to Council, page 74.
104 Report to Council, page 74.
DOCSOC/ 1285743v6/200107-0002
49
223
The proposed Proiect Area:
1. the area must have at least one ofi
a. Physical Blight None Present
b. Economic Blight None Present
2. Blight must cause a lack of proper utilization of area None Present
3. Improper Utilization is a burden in entire community None Present.
4. Lack of private investment in the area Lots of new investment
5. Must have a RA to correct Not Needed
This Score Card shows some of the current conditions in the project area, the City
if Lodi does not need a Redevelopment Agency.
Response No. 10:
The Comment generally has some similarities to but does not correctly set forth the tests
for blight; see Sections 33030 and 33031 of the Redevelopment Law as set forth at
Exhibit I. Moreover, the Comment incorrectly describes the Project Area and the
blighting conditions existing therein. It further provides no factual data, citations to data
or credentials in support of its assertions. In contrast, the record before the City Council
contains significant amounts of specified, quantified data supportive of a finding of
blight. Some examples of this data are briefly described below.
Legal Requirement Evidence
Physical blight The Project Area is burdened by the existence of
extensive groundwater contamination that threatens the
health and safety of the City's residents.105
Approximately 1,830 properties in the Project Area
contain buildings that were construction prior to the
abolition of asbestos and lead-based paint as building
materials. The existence of these materials in structures
throughout the Project Area renders those buildings
unsafe or unhealthy places in which to live or work.1°6
Numerous properties in the Project Area are unsafe or
unhealthy due to their extensive dilapidation.1°7
Forty-five percent of the commercial properties in the
Project Area are commercially obsolete in one or more
category.108
105 Report to Council, pages 26-27.
106
Report to Council, page 28-29.
107 Report to Council, pages 30-32.
108 Report to Council, pages 35-36.
D0CS0C/1285743v6/200107-0002
50
224
Legal Requirement Evidence
The Project Area is hampered by inadequate
infrastructure and public facilities; the cost of these
facilities and infrastructure is estimated at more than
$148,000,000.109
The Project Area contains 293 properties without
landscaping, containing residential overcrowding,
damaged by graffiti and/or utilizing barbed- or razor -
wire.'
See also the discussion at Response No. 1 to Writing B.
Economic blight The Project Area is characterized by stagnant property
values and a lack ofproperty re -investment 111
The Project Area is burdened by the existence of
hazardous waste that has caused extensive groundwater
contamination that threatens the health and safety of the
City's residents."
The Project Area is characterized by high business
vacancies, low lease rates and abandoned buildings. The
Project Area is burdened by the existence of extensive
groundwater contamination that threatens the health and
safety of the City's residents.113
The Lodi Police Department has reported that the central
portion of the Project Area has the highest concentration
of major crimes. 14 Further, between 2005 and 2007,
54% of calls for service to the Lodi Police Department
originated in the Project Area, while only 25% of the
City's population lives in the Project Area." In 2007,
the Project Area's Part 1 crime rate vis 107 crimes per
thousand persons, while the crime rate in the balance of
the City was 30 crimes per thousandpersons.116
See also the discussion at Response No. 1 to Writing B.
Blight causes a lack of The Project Area shows nervy effects of blight including
proper utilization of the a median household income that is significantly lower
area than the City's median income and the County's median
income; per capita income that is significantly lower than
109 Report to Council, pages 39-43.
110 Report to Council, pages 44-66.
191 Report to Council, pages 80-83.
112 Report to Council, pages 26-27.
113 Report to Council, pages 83-97.
114 Report to Council, pages 97-98.
115 Report to Council, page 98.
116 Report to Council, page 98.
D0CS0C/1285743v6/200107-0002
51
225
117
118
119
120
121
Legal Reauirement Evidence
the City's median income and the County's median
income; lower rate of homeownership than both the City
and the County; 35% of the households in the Project
Area earn less than 50% of the county median income as
compared to 24% for the City as a whole; and an average
year of construction of 1961 for structures in the Project
Area com7pared to 1972 for the City and 1973 for the
County.l1 The blighting conditions in the Project Area
hinder proper utilization of properties throughout the
Project Area.' 18
Improper Utilization is The groundwater contamination and other conditions of
a burden on the physical and economic blight limit the viable use of
community properties in the Project Area. The estimated cost to
improve just the infrastructure in the proposed Project
Area is over $148,000,000. The City must also pay more
than $46,000,000 for groundwater cleanup.119 These two
factors alone establish that the blighting conditions in the
Prooject Area are a substantial burden on the community.
Lack of Private The Comment diverges from the tests set forth in
Investment in the Area Sections 33030 and 33031 of the Redevelopment Law.
The Comment provides no citation for the proposition
that there exists "Lots of new investment" in the Project
Area.
Must have a RA to
correct
This is not a requirement of the Redevelopment Law and
the Commentprovides no citation for the proposition that
redevelopment is "not needed."
Further, the groundwater contamination and other
conditions of physical and economic blight limit the
viable use of properties in the Project Area. The
estimated cost to improve just the infrastructure in the
proposed Project Area is over $148,000,000. The City
must also pay more than $46,000,000 for groundwater
eleanup.121 The private sector, acting alone has not and
cannot address these issues.
Report to Council, page 24.
Report to Council, page 109-110.
See footnote 65.
Report to Council, pages 110-1 11.
Report to Council, pages 110-1 11.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
52
226
Comment No. 11:
A Redevelopment requires that aportion of its revenues be spent on affordable housing.
There is already more affordable housing in the proposed Project Area than any other
place on the CityofLodi
Response No. 11:
Comment No. 11 accurately notes that redevelopment agencies must spend a portion of
their revenues on affordable housing. However, the assertion that there is "already more
affordable housing in the proposed Project Area than any other place on the City of Lodi"
is without citation or factual support. Further, the RedevelopmentPlan will authorize and
enable the Agency to provide programs to (a) improve the appearance and attractiveness
of residential neighborhoods through neighborhood improvement programs, code
enforcement efforts and residential rehabilitation programs; (b) protect the health and
general welfare of the Project Area's low- and moderate -income residents by utilizing
20% of the property tax increment revenues to improve, increase and preserve the supply
of low- and moderate -income housing; (c) provide replacement housing as required by
law if any dwelling Units affordable to low- or moderate -income persons or families are
lost from the housing supply as a result of Agency activities; (d) provide relocation
assistance to businesses and households, if any, displaced by Agency activities; and (e)
provide housing rehabilitation programs to upgrade properties to eliminate blight and
adverse code conditions.122
Regardless of the current cost of housing within the Project Area, if and when the Agency
provides new affordable dwelling units in implementation of the Redevelopment Plan the
Agency will place covenants on most if not all affordable dwelling units developed or
substantially rehabilitated with assistance from the Agency, ensuring that such units
remain affordable to persons and families of low- and moderate -income for at least 45
years (in the case of owner -occupied housing) and 55 years (in the case of rental
housing).123 This will ensure that such units remain available to such low- and moderate -
income households at an affordable housing cost regardless of whether average property
values increase within the Project Area, which is one of the intended goals of the
proposed Redevelopment Plan.
Comment No. 12 :
TheProjectArea (PA) had more schools than any other area in Lodi (Lodi Adult School;
Joe Serna Charter School, Lawrence Elementary School, Heritage Primary School, Lodi
Academy, and Lodi S.D.A Elementary School).
Response No. 12:
The existence of schools does not indicate an absence of blighting conditions within the
proposed Project Area.
122
123 Reporf to Council, page 6.
Section 33334.3(f)(1) of the Redevelopment Law.
53
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200 107-0002
227
Comment No. 13:
ThePA has more well maintained churches than any other are [sic] in
Lodi.
ThePA has a Moslem Mosque.
ThePA has a Buddhist Temple and Hall.
ThePA has a Boys and Girls Club.
ThePA has multiple, well kept soft -ball diamonds.
The PA has Zuppo Field.
ThePA has DeBenedetti SoftBall Field.
ThePa has the Grape and WineFestival Grounds.
• ThePA hasfourparks: Hale Park, Armory Park, Lawrence Park, and
Blakely Park
• ThePA has a new parking Garage (North Sacramento Street and East
Pine Street).
• ThePA has the new Transportation Center (Sacramentoand Oak).
• ThePA has a new Pharmacy (LodiPharmacy on CherokeeLane).
• ThePA has the very successful Rancho San Miguel Market (Cherokee
Lane).
• ThePA has new constructions[sic] sites throughouttheproject area.
Response No. 13:
The existence of churches, mosques, Buddhist temples and other facilities, a Boys and
Girls Club facility and athletic facilities, parks and festival grounds does not indicate an
absence of blighting conditions within the proposed Project Area.
City staff have indicated that the parking garage located at North Sacramento Street and
East Pine Street in the proposed Project Area was completed in 2002 and was developed
entirely with public funds. The transportation center located at Sacramento and Oak in
the Project Area was completed in 2000. This development consisted of relocating an
abandoned train depot south by one block, renovating it and building anew sidewalk,
parking lot, driveway, train platform and other ancillary improvements. This
development was also built entirely with Federal Transportation Agency (public) funds.
These public improvements are examples of the improvements that may be funded by the
Redevelopment Agency, using tax increment revenues, if the proposed Redevelopment
Plan is adopted. The Agency's ability to fund much needed public improvements such as
transportation and parking facilities will significantlyreduce the burden which the Project
Area places on the community by freeing up greatly needed City funds for other
purposes.
City staff indicated that the new pharmacy located on Cherokee Lane opened in October
2007 and occupies a previously vacant building. One new business within the Project
Area does not negate the overwhelming evidence of other blighting conditions within the
Project Area. It should be noted that less than two months after the pharmacy opened, a
break-in occurred; a safe containing cash and about $1,800 worth of prescription
narcotics were stolen from the pharmacy, according to the Lodi Police Department. The
DOCSOC/1285743v61200107-0002
54
228
Project Area has a significantly higher crime rate, as shown not only by this anecdote but
also by statistics and evidence cited in the Report to Counci1.'24
The Rancho San Miguel Market on Cherokee Lane in the Project Area has been open for
business since 2004. While Comment No. 13 of Writing F, asserts that the Rancho San
Miguel Market is "very successful," no empirical support is provided to support this
statement. The City cannot verify the success of this business. Any success enjoyed by
the Rancho San Miguel Market is likely aided by the fact that only one other similar
grocery store (providing a full line of groceries, including fresh produce and deli) is
located within the Project Area. That other market, the "S -Mart" on Lodi Avenue at
California Street, is located one and one-half miles away from the Rancho San Miguel
Market.
The City of Lodi spent $4 million in 1998 to repave Cherokee Lane and to add a
landscaped median and new streetlights. Additional public investment in Cherokee Lane
was supported and even requested by several people who offered testimony in support of
the proposed Redevelopment Plan at the May 28, 2008 joint public hearing. 25 In
addition, several individuals testified at the joint public hearing that Cherokee Lane is
unsafe and unappealing and acts as a deterrent to potential tourists as well as to
investment in the Project Area.'26
City Council member Bob Johnson made this point when he spoke after the joint public
hearing but prior to the close of the City Council meeting held May 28, 2008.
Councilman Johnson described his experience as a real estate appraiser, which was his
business until one year ago when he retired. In his business, Councilman Johnson had
the opportunity to drive through the entire proposed Project Area and to experience first
hand the blighting conditions that exist there. He also described his experience hearing
from the residents of the Project Area who, over many years, have expressed a feeling
that they are neglected and not given their fair share of benefits. He stated that issues
such as absentee landlords, decayed infrastructure and a continuing need for investment
in the Project Area and indicated that these sentiments had been expressed by members of
the community numerous times.
No information about the type or extent of development, whether it is new construction
or rehabilitation, business or residential, or the specific location of such alleged
development is given.
Comment No 14:
In summary, we, the concerned citizens of Lodi opposed to the proposed project, the
FEIR, all actions of the Lodi Planning Commission in Certifying original and amended
project are maps. We also reject in iis entirety the willfully deceitful GRC consultant
report to the City Council5/28/2008 [sic].
Response No. 14:
This Comment states the author's opinion.
its See discussion in Response No. 8 to Writing F.
Testimony of Ken Bingamaxl, Dale Gillespie, Nancy Beckman, Beth Kim and Steve Spiegel at the
May 28,2008 joint public hearing.
126 Testimony ofNancy Beckman and Beth Kim at the May 28,2008j oint public hearing.
55
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
229
Comment No. 15
Finally, the clear purpose of this proposed redevelopmentproject are is [sic] to divert
future tax increment revenues from new construction in violation of state law court
decisions.
Response No. 15:
Courts in California have upheld numerous redevelopment project areas upon a
determination that substantial evidence exists in the record to support a finding by the
city council that the project area is blighted as required by the Redevelopment Law. One
example is Evans v. City of San Jose (2005) 128 Ca1.App.4th 1123, discussed in Fat II,
supra, which upheld findings made by the City Council of the City of San Jose in
creating a new project area within the City of San Jose. See the more detailed discussion
and analysis set forth in Part 11, supra. The Agency would not divert revenues in
violation of law.
As described in pages 25 through 105 of the Report to Council, the record before the
Lodi Chi Council is replete with specific, documented examples of the occurrence and
pervasiveness of similar features within the Project Area. See also the discussion in
Response No. 1 to Writing B for a description of blighting conditions in the Project Area,
as well as the discussion in Response No. 5 to Writing B for a discussion of the benefits
of redevelopment to other entities, including school districts in particular, that levy taxes
within redevelopmentproject areas.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
56
230
Writing G: BarbaraFlockhart, 331 La Setta Drive, Lodi, California 95242,
writing received by the Lodi City Clerk May 28,2008.
AOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
57
231
Comment No. 1:
Lodi, Wake up! Why do we need the Redevelopment Agency to tell Lodi how to go into
debt? The RDA willhave thepower to sell bonded debt withoutany voter approval.
Response No. 1:
As pointed out by Chuck Easterling's testimony at the joint public hearing on May 28,
2008, one apparent reason for the opposition to redevelopment expressed by the citizens
of Lodi is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of tax increment and the methods of
fmancing a redevelopment project. As discussed in Response No. 6 to Writing A, the
debt of a redevelopment agency is not debt of the host city. Bonds which are issued by a
redevelopment agency and secured by tax increment revenues are not secured by the
general funds of the host city, nor do such bonds incorporate a lien against any real
property within the city or the project area. The issuance of bonds by a redevelopment
agency does not and cannot result in an increase in property taxes. Obligations entered
into by a redevelopment agency are not obligations of members of the public or the City.
The statement that, if the Redevelopment Plan is adopted, the Agency will have the
power to sell bonded debt without first obtaining voter approval is a correct statement.
However, the City currently may incur certain obligations without a vote and, thus, the
import of the Comment is unclear.
Comment No. 2
Our Lodi Council is in debt $200 million dollars on loans. The $47 million worth of
electric utility bonds willjump to $64.3 million to get fixed rate on interest. Expect an
increase of 5 percentfor your electricity by 2010.
Response No. 2:
The outstanding debt for the City of Lodi as of June 30, 2008 comprises the following
amounts by fund:
General Government $23,759,452
Electric Fund 80,750,000
Wastewater Fund 57,740,000
Water Fund 1.754.606
Total Principal Owed $164,004,058
The $200 million figure referred to in Comment No. 2 presumably includes both interest
and principal payments. It is inaccurate to say that the indebtedness of the City of Lodi is
over $200 million. The City's financial statements and the balance sheets of other
governments do not show interest payments to be made in the future as outstanding debt
unless they have not been paid when they become due and payable.
The statement: "The $47 million worth of electric utility bonds will jump to $64.3 million
to get fixed rate on interest" is vague and unclear. The electric utility bonds issued by the
58
D OCSOC/1285743 v6/200107-0002
232
City and the amount charged the taxpayers in Lodi for electricityis unrelated and will not
be affected by the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan.
As discussed in Response No. 6 to Writing A, the debt of a redevelopment agency is not
debt of the host city. Bonds which are issued by a redevelopment agency and securedby
tax increment revenues are not secured by the general funds of the host city, nor do such
bonds incorporate a lien against any real property within the city or the project area. The
issuance of bonds by a redevelopment agency does not and cannot result in an increase in
property taxes. Obligations entered into by a redevelopment agency are not obligations
of members of the public or the c J J.
To date, the cost of improvements has been borne by the City; the cost of such
improvements to the City has limited and negatively impacted other General Fund
operations such as police, fire and park maintenance.
Comment No. 3:
TheRDA will be callirgthe shots for 40years. It will have a debt c ilirgof about $400.
(sic] million dollars.
Response No. 3:
The Redevelopment Plan limits the term of effectiveness of the Redevelopment Agency's
actions under the Redevelopment Plan to a term of 30 years from the date of adoption of
the ordinance adopting the plan.127 After the expiration of this 30 year term of
effectiveness, the Agency "shall have no authority to act pursuant to [the Redevelopment
Plan], except to pay previously incurred indebtedness, to enforce existing covenants or
contracts, including nondiscrimination and nonsegregation provisions, which shall run in
perpetuity, to complete its housing obligations in accordance with [Sections 33333.2 and
33333.8 of the Redevelopment Law], and to take any other actions permitted by law."128
The Agency will continue to receive tax increment revenues for an additional 15 years
past the date the effectiveness of the Redevelopment Plan expires.129
The proposed Redevelopment Plan imposes a $400 million limitation on the total
outstanding principal of any bonds issued and payable fiom tax increment.130 It is
important to note that the proposed Redevelopment Plan prohibits the Agency fiom
incurring "loans, advances, or indebtedness to finance, in whole or in part, [theproposed
Lodi Community Improvement Project] and to be repaid from the allocation of taxes
described in [Section 33670 of the Redevelopment Law]" beyond 20 years from the
adoption of the ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan.131 The $400 million limit
also takes into account the circumstance that the schools may wish to have their pass
through payments included in one or more future Agency bond issues (see Table 14 in
the Report to Council).
127
DRAFT Plan for the Lodi Community ImprovementProject dated April 18,2008, at page 37.
128 DRAFT Plan for the Lodi Community ImprovementProject dated April 18,2008, atpages 37-38.
129 DRAFT Plan for the Lodi Carmmity Improvement Project dated April 18,2008, at page 35.
130 DRAFT Plan for the Lodi Community ImprovementProject dated April 18,2008, at page 34.
131 DRAFT Plan for the. Lodi Community Improvement Project dated April 18,2008, at page 34.
59
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
233
As for the notion that the Redevelopment Agency would "call the shots," it should be
kept in mind that the governing board of the Agency consists solely of the elected City
Council of the City of Lodi.
Comment No. 4:
It is a separate state agencyfrom Lodi Government
Response No. 4:
The Redevelopment Agency is a separate legal entity from the City of Lodi, but the
governing body of the Redevelopment Agency is made up of the same five persons
elected to serve as the Lodi City Council. Thus, while the Redevelopment Agency can
enter into contracts and incur debt, for example, without in any way binding or obligating
the City of Lodi, the decisions ofboth the governingboard of the RedevelopmentAgency
and the City Council will be made taking into account the best interests of the City of
Lodi and its citizens and the City and Agency will be able to work in conjunction with
each other and coordinate the resources of the City and Agency to provide services,
facilities and assistance to the citizens of the City of Lodi.
Comment No. 5:
When the consultant's findings of blight are certified , [sic] a law farm is retained to draw
up the paperwork & to defend against any legal challenges. Then the bond brokers can
start borrowing. Lodi City Council has spent $300, [sic] thousand for the Redevelopment
Agency tofind blight.
Response No. 5:
The City Council, not a consultant, would make findings.
If the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan is challenged in court, the City will be
required to answer the complaint. How the City may handle such a situation is not.
known at this time. If the Redevelopment Plan is adopted, the Agency may decide to
issue bonds or other debt secured by future tax incrementrevenues, as permitted by law.
Any City wishing to adopt a redevelopment plan in accordance with the Redevelopment
Law must spend a substantial amount of money to do so. The Redevelopment Law
requires substantial evidence of blight, a meaningful analysis regarding blight and the
need for redevelopment in the proposed Project Area and a variety of other
documentation and analyses including an Environmental Impact Report, Relocation Plan,
PreliminaryRedevelopmentPlan, Preliminary Report and Report to City CounciL132 Yet
this cost and effort is well worth the ultimate benefits of redevelopment, which provide a
blighted community with the tools necessary to remedy blighting conditions and provide
needed assistance and incentives to investment in the project area.133
132
133 See, e.g., Redevelopment Law Sections33325, 33333.3, 33344.5, 33352 and 33352(0.
See, e.g., testimony at the joint public hearing of May 28,2008, of Beth Kim, a resident and hotel
owner in Lodi, stating that redevelopmentis a much needed tool in the project area.
DOCSOC/1285743 v6/2 00 107-0002
60
234
Any contracts to be entered into by the City and/or Redevelopment Agency in
implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan (including contracts relating to
financial matters) will be brought back to the City Council and/or Redevelopment
Agency board for consideration and approval or disapproval, as applicable, at a public
meeting. Adoption of the Redevelopment Plan will not constitute approval of any
contract, nor will the Redevelopment Plan authorize approval of any contract without
prior consideration at a public meeting in accordance with the law.
To date, the Agency has paid less than $200,000 for consulting and advisory services in
connection with the consideration of adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan; that
figure will increase due to ongoing work (such as preparation for and attendance at the
joint public hearing and the preparation, in conjunction with staff, of responses to
objections, but is anticipated to fall well below the $300,000 figure mentioned in the
Comment.
Comment No. 6:
Smart -Lodi does not think the map RDA shows is 100% blighted.
Response No. 6:
In her testimony before the City Council at the May 28, 2008 joint public hearing,
Ms. Barbara Flockhart stated that the Project Area is not 100% blighted, but she
acknowledged immediately that blight does exist within the Project Area. The
membership or qualifications of "Smart -Lodi" was not indicated,
The Redevelopment Law does not require that a redevelopment project area be 100%
blighted. Section 33030 of the Redevelopment Law states:
"(a) It is found and declared that there exist in nervy communities blighted
areas that constitute physical and economic liabilities, requiring
redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of
the people of these communities and of the state.
"(b) A blighted area is one that contains both of the following:
"(1) An area that is predominantly urbanized, as that term is defined in
Section 33320.1, and is an area in which the combination of conditions set
forth in Section 33031 is so prevalent and so substantial that it causes a
reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an extent
that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the
community that cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or
alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without
redevelopment.
"(2) An area that is characterized by one or more additions set forth in
any paragraph of subdivision (a) of Section 33031 and one or more
conditions set forth in any paragraph of subdivision (b) of Section 33031.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
61
235
"(c) A blighted area that contains the conditions described in subdivision
(b) may also be characterized by the existence of inadequate public
improvements or inadequate water or sewer utilities."
Substantial evidence is set forth in the Report to Council and the record before the Lodi
City Council to support a determination that the Project Area is a blighted area within the
'meaning of Section 33030 of the Redevelopment Law. See Response No. Ito Writing B
for a summary of the substantial evidence of blight contained in the record.
Importantly, Section 33321 provides:
"A project area need not be restricted to buildings, improvements, or lands
which are detrimental or inimical to the public health, safety, or welfare,
but may consist of an area in which such conditions predominate and
injuriously affect the entire area. A project area may include lands,
buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, but whose inclusion is found necessary for the effective
redevelopment of the area of which they are a part. Each such area
included under this section shall be necessary for effective redevelopment
and shall not be included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax
increment revenue from such area pursuant to Section 33670 without other
substantialjustification for its inclusion."
No portion of the proposed Project Area has been included for the purpose of obtaining
the allocation of tax increment revenue from such area pursuant to Section 33670 of the
Redevelopment Law without other substantial justification for its inclusion. In fact, as
stated by City Manager Blair King at the May 28, 2008 joint public hearing in response
to an inquiry by Mr. Ed Atwood, portions of the Project Area which are in agricultural
use were removed. See also Planning Commission staff report dated April 23, 2008,
discussing the exclusion of territory from the proposed Project Area, which is attached
hereto as Exhibit H and incorporated herein.
Comment No. 7:
It's timefor Lodi registered voters to be able to vote No on Redevelopment.
Response tb. 7:
The California Legislature has delegated the authority for determining what areas are
blighted and in need of redevelopment to the legislative bodies of cities and counties in
which proposed redevelopmentproject areas are located. The Lodi City Council, and not
the citizens of Lodi, has the authority to determine whether the Project Area is a blighted
area within the meaning of Section 33030 of the Redevelopment Law and whether
adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and Project Area is an appropriate means of
responding to and remedying the blighting conditions within the Project Area.134 The
Redevelopment Law permits a referendum petition to be filed in response to an ordinance
adopting a redevelopment plan and if the citizens of Lodi desire to vote on the adoption
134
See discussion in Part II, Constitutional and Statutory Framework, supra.
62
DOCS OC/1285743v6/200107-0002
236
of the Redevelopment Plan, the procedure set forth at Elections Code Section 9235,
et seq., may be followed to place this matter on the ballot. See also Response No. 2 to
Writing A. Requiring a vote on the adoption of redevelopment could result in loss of a
base roll, permanently reducing moneys that could become available for use within the
Project Area.
May 28th; 2008
• Theproject:�ces: not, address tort double dipping of: using RDA funds and the estimated _
$15.00 an city.utihty;bilis for Watenand Sewage infrastructure repiageinent; The project
language states "'unprove project aces public infrastructure system & provide. -grange of '.
-dbhc .
,.p.._ _ rrfrastn?cfureisnproYements",::IfRDAispaytng>.for2iie�;iix&as_6�ucturetharihow:=;;
wi l a rertied of the;tnoney s taken by the city from uhi�ty users be m�ngated or refundcii''
to. the:rate•payer?.: Tliisappears tobe;,aelear case d,(double taxaiie-ii4 . ;t;aaii alieaa4
paying for infrastnicture,icp[acement iitari thiis;RDl.iiifrasliuctue; iiripi ovemeati;wouid,
•:appear in ;beonly an excuse iii: have'8ri RD project ::.: i ."., .,•
With ali the public projects, proposed within:this plan;;bow wiU the;debt:lie paid offwhei s
public entities don't pay taxes.or have:tax mcrements7 The plan does not define with
• :detaii •an income generatingproject.
• One ofthe rnutigations;to;the vacant businesses in the EIR for the:Super: Wal=Mart=was
the RDA,. The.RDA:would finauce:the reniediathon ofblight, vaeant•tiusini sses°and'
derogation of aehghborhoods £rou► a:Super•Wal-Mart being built in i odi ..If the Pian is :.:
.overturnedwith a tpfes endurii;; wiil: this stop future big: box:'developn¢eiits?_'.::. •. _ ..... :
'
Pease indicate these concerns in+the publie'recerd of this draft ordinance
requesting i&at Council rejeef the above named proposed:oidinanoe::.::" .: ::: [; :` :..,: ;:C :.:'
Resliectfally. :..::
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200 1 07-0002
63
237
Writing H:
Comment No. 1:
EuniceFriederich, 425 E. Oak Street, Lodi, California 95240, letter
received by the Lodi City Clerk May 28,2008.
The project does not address the double dipping of using RDA funds and the estimated
$15.00 on city utility billsfor Water and Sewage infrastructure replacement. Theproject
languagestates, improve project areapublic infrastructure system &provide a range of
public infrastructure improvements".
Response No. 1:
The Comment is vague as to the meaning of "double dipping."
The rates charged for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements are sized based
on a 100 year (1% per year) replacement schedule. Adoption of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan is expected to result in significant additional revenues (in the form
of tax increment) available to assist in the construction of needed public improvements in
the Project Area. The fact that funds are already being collected from rate payers in Lodi
for water and sewage infrastructure replacement does not mean that additional funds will
not benefit the Project Area—these additional revenues will enable the Agency to
accelerate what is otherwise an extraordinarily long replacement schedule and provide
public infrastructure improvements, resulting in the earlier completion of higher quality
public improvements in the Project Area and/or an early termination of certain charges.
It should also be noted that, according to informationprovided by the City of Lodi, as of
October 1, 2007, the wastewater service charges in Lodi are lower than comparable
charges in Galt, Manteca and Tracy.135
Comment No. 2:
If RDA ispayingfor the infrastructure than how will a refund of the moneys taken by the
cityfrom utility users be mitigated or refunded to the rate payer? This appears to be a
clear case of double taxation. If am alreadypayingfor infrastructurereplacementthan
this RDA infrastructure improvementwould appear to be only an excuse to have an RDA
project.
Response No. 2:
No refund of the assessment referenced in Writing H is proposed, nor is a refund
warranted (in that the moneys collected have been and are being expended for the
identical public purpose and one which promotes the public health and safety). The
money currently being collected in taxes and assessments by the City of Lodi is
insufficient to pay the cost of necessary public improvements in the Project Area and the
remediation of the groundwater contamination in the City. Adoption of the
Redevelopment Plan will provide additional funds to the Redevelopment Agency, which
will permit the Agency to assist in the remediation of the serious groundwater
contamination in the Project Area as well as to pay for needed public improvements
135
See Exhibit 1.
64
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
238
which otherwise could not be provided by the City. The City currently lacks sufficient
funds to provide these necessary services.
Adoption of the proposed RedevelopmentPlan will not result in double taxation.
Comment No. 3:
With all thepublicprojectsproposed within thisplan, how will the debt be paid off when
public entities don'tpay taxes or have tax increments?
Response No. 3:
Comment No. 3 appears to be based on the premise that when the Agency constructs
public improvements or other public projects, this will result in an increase in the amount
of real property which is exempt from taxes due to ownership by a public entity. This
assumption is not necessarily accurate; public improvements contemplated by the
Redevelopment Plan may and likely will be located within the current public right of
way, or currently existing utilities easements (enacting the redevelopment plan does not
change the layout of streets). The purpose of the Agency in acquiring property (from
willing sellers) would be to recycle the propertyback into private ownership.
The Agency has an economic incentive to maintain the taxability of property within the
Project Area.
Comment No. 4:
Theplan does not define with detail an incomegeneratingproject.
Response No. 4:
The point of the Comment is not clear. The proposed Redevelopment Plan is a guiding
and planning document. Each actual project to be undertaken by the Agency pursuant to
the proposed Redevelopment Plan will undergo practical and fiscal consideration by the
Agency board and environmental review to the extent necessary and appropriate pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act and other applicable statutes and regulations.
The proposed Redevelopment Plan does not provide for specific spending or
development actions.
Comment No. 5:
One of the mitigations to the vacant businesses in the EIR for the Super Wal-Mart was
the RDA. The RDA would finance the remediation of blight, vacant businesses and
derogation ofneighborhoods from a Super Wal-Martbeing built in Lodi.
Response No. 5:
Comment No. 5 is extremely vague and confusing. Nowhere in the Redevelopment Plan
or any other document related to the Redevelopment Plan has the Agency expressed any
interest in having a Super Wal-Mart.
65
D O CS O C/ 1285743 v6/200107-0002
239
Comment ND. 6:
If the Plan is overturned with a referendum, will thisstopfuture big box developments?
Response No. 6:
Big Box development, like other types of residential and commercial development, can
occur without regard to whether a redevelopment project area is adopted. If the
ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan is repealed in response to a referendum, it
will not prevent the development of additional big box retail stores, car dealerships, or
any other development within the Project Area or the City of Lodi.
DOCSOC/1285743v6/200107-0002
66
240