Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/10/17 - Minutes - Special (2)October 17, 2007 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING A. CALL TO ORDER: A special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council and Redevelopment Agency was held on Wednesday, October 17, 2007, in the Chaffey Room at the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor/Chairman Kurth called the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m. Present were Councilmembers/Agencymembers: Rex Gutierrez; L. Dennis Michael, Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairman Diane Williams, and Mayor/Chairman Donald J. Kurth, M.D. Also present were: Pamela Easter, Assistant City Manager; D. Craig Fox, Assistant City Attorney; Kirsten Bowman, Special Counsel for the Board; Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Director; Mahdi Aluzri, Deputy City Manager/Community Development; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk/Assistant Secretary. B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS No communication was made from the public. C. ITEM(S) OF BUSINESS c1. Refer to attached transcript for meeting discussion. NOTE: A recess was taken at 5:30 p.m. in order for the Council/Agency to deliberate. The meeting was called back to order at 5:48 p.m. with all members present. MOTION: Moved by Michael, seconded by Williams to deny the appeal of the Crawford's. Motion carried 4-1 (Gutierrez voted no). D. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:52 p.m. }Re~~ectfully mittngdq, _ Debra J. Ad s, CMC City Clerk/Assistant Secretary Approved: November 7, 2007 I.. October 17 2007 meeting.txt • 0001 1 CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 2 SPECIAL MEETING 3 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2007 4 4:30 P.M. 5 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 REPORTED BY: 24 Amber DdWn Cdstanedd, RPR „ CRR 25 CSR No. 7640 0002 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 Mayor/Chairman Don Kurth • 3 4 Mayor.Pro Tem/vice Chairman Diane Williams Councilmember Rex Gutierrez S Councilmember L. Dennis Michael 6 Councilmember Sam 5pagnolo 7 Linda Daniels 8 Mahdi Aluzki 9 Pam Easter 10 D. Craig Fox, Esq. 11 7ohnny Crawford 12 Maquita Stoval Crawford 13 Debra Adams . 14 Kirsten Bowman, Esq. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0003 1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA 2 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2007 3 4:37 P.M. 4 5 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Okay. Good 6 afternoon, everybody. 7 we're here for the relocation board Hearing • 8 for Mr. 7ohnny Crawford and Mrs. Maquita Stoval 9 Crawford with regard .to the Pepperwood relocation. 10 And, basically, you have been provided with Page 1 October 17 2007 meeting.txt • 11 a notebook containing the administrative record from 12 the initial offer of relocation assistance.up until 13 the most recent hearing, which was the board hearing 14 of July 17th, 2007. No. July 7th. I'm .sorry. Or 15 July 10th. My apologies. 16 And so what the purpose of today's hearing 17 is is to give the appellant an opportunity to appear 18 before you and offer whatever he wishes for you to 19 consider in this matter and then I will provide you 20 with the board's decision as to the evidence and the 21 testimony that has been submitted and then it will 22 be Ms. Daniels may have a few questions or few 23 matters to offer on behalf of the agency and then 24 you folks will have an opportunity to make a 25 decision as to whether or not you wish to confirm 0004 1 the board's decision, deny the board's decision or 2 come up with some type of modification that you may 3 feel is fair and reasonable in terms of this 4 particular appeals process. 5 So with that said, i think we need to call 6 Mr. Crawford and Mrs. Crawford in so that they can 7 present their aspects. 8 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: Is there an 9 . opportunity to ask for clarification or not? 10 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Absolutely. I think 11 that they would invite that. That if you have any 12 questions; I think that it would be very fair for 13 you to ask them a question so that you understand 14 what exactly they're talking about and what their • 15 particular case is about. 16 MS. LINDA DANIELS: It might be more 17 appropriate to have them sit in the center rather 18 than off to the side. I'll sit down here since I'm 19 not expecting to talk a lot. 20 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: It would probably be 21 better for them to sit as close to the court 22 reporter as possible, since they will probably do 23 most, if not all of the talking. 24 MS. LINDA DANIELS: Okay. 2$ MR. CRAIG FOX: Kirsten, can I ask you one 0005 1 question? For the Appeals Board's consideration, 2 how much money are we talking about in issue here? 3 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: What'S at -- 4 MR. CRAIG FOX: The range of the claims? 5 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: The range of the 6 claims are, and it's specifically outlined in here, 7 basically, it's $100 more a month for four years. 8 M5. LINDA DANIELS: 42 mOnthS.~ 4,200. 9 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: SO lt's dbOUt $4,200. 10 what we have to keep in mind is that there 11 were approximately 200 relocations. 12 Is that correct, Linda? 13 MS. LINDA DANIELS: Families, but 100 14 and -- about that, yes. 15 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Yeah. And 50 what we 16 did or what the agency did was they took that into 17 consideration, you know, the -- what you'll hear is 18 how the board and the agency came up with their • 19 20 conclusions as to what is fair. And I know sitting here thinking, well, gee, this is over $100 a month, 21 why are we here? But we have to think about what Page 2 October 17 2007 meeting.txt • 22 the rules and the laws require of us and that is 23 what we are planning on presenting as will 24 Mr. Crawford. 25 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: Could I just d5k 0006 1 this quick question then? 2 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Absolutely. 3 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: If there was 200 4 people that accepted the relocation agreement, does 5 that put -- does that give them opportunity? 6 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: They have up t0 SlX 7 months. 8 MS. LINDA DANIELS: 18 months. 9 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: 18 months I saw, 10 and so that's -- 11 - ~ MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Yes. 12 MS. LINDA DANIELS: From the time they 13 relocated. 14 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: Thdt'S a year and a~ 15 half. So they could came back and use this as a 16 basis to ask for more. 17 ~ MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Absolutely. I mean, 18 that's the inference that you can make from that, 19 but definitely they have 18 months in which to file 20 an appeal. And these matters were resolved, I would 21 say, the beginning of 2007 and end of 2006. 22 MS. LINDA DANIELS: Anywhere between August 23 and December. It's 18 months from the time they 24 relocated, so somebody relocating in December would 25 actually have until mid 2009. • 0007 1 MR. SAM SPAGNOLO: Cdn I ask a gUeStlOn? 2 Linda, is everybody being relocated? 3 MS. LINDA DANIELS: YeS. 4 MR. SAM SPAGNOLO: And they~re all in their 5 .new units or houses or wherever they chose to move? 6 MS. LINDA DANIELS: YeS. - 7 MR. SAM SPAGNOLO: Whether in the City Or 8 out of the city or out of the state? 9 MS. LINDA DANIELS: All the families who 10 did not qualify to stay have relocated. 11 MR. SAM SPAGNOLO: Has there been -- 12 MS. LINDA DANIELS: I'm'wOndering if we 13 shouldn't wait for the board. 14 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Yeah. I think that we 15 probably need to have the parties here so we can 16 answer these type of questions. 17 MR. SAM SPAGNOLO: Okdy. 18 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: But what I would like 19 to do is just direct the board to tab ten just past 20 the agenda and what that contains is, basically, the 21 analysis and the opinions of the board in addressing 22 the appeals of Mr. and Mrs. Crawford. 23 MR. SAM SPAGNOLO: Did you say tab ten? 24 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Tab ten. And Whdt you 25 do is flip back. There's an agenda. Go past the 0008 1 agenda. And it says in the matter of relocation 2 assistance appeal and what it does is it summarizes 3 the evidence and what the claims were, the natures • 4 S of the --'the nature of the claims and pretty much outlines those matters that you are asking or 6 inquiring of. Page 3 October 17 2007 meeting.txt • 7 MR. CRAIG FOX: Ms. Bowman, are you going 8 to have the entire notebook made an exhibit or are 9 you going to introduce exhibits as you go? 10 MS. KZRSTEN BOWMAN: I dm, baSlCdlly, going 11 to make the entire notebook as an exhibit. I'm 12 assuming that the board has already had an 13 opportunity to review the notebook. 14 This represents the administrative record, 15 so in the event that they do file a petition for 16 writ of mandate, this is the administrative record 17 that they will rely upon in the event that they wish 18 to challenge the board's decision or the agency's 19 decision. 20 MS. LINDA DANIELS: And at the relocation 21 t was already entered into the appeals meeting i 22 , record the relocation plan and other documents that 23 are not in here. I don't think that needs to be 24 repeated because it's already in the record. 25 M5. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Yes. Yes. 0009 1 MS. LINDA DANIELS: Mr. Crawford is anxious 2 to come in. 3 MR. CRAIGFOX: Okdy. 4 - M5. LINDA DANIELS: So I'll go get him. s M5. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Yes. 6 (Recess taken from 4:43 p.m, 7 to 4:44 p.m.) 8 M5. LINDA DANIELS: If y0U Want t0 take the 9 two end seats. 10 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: sure. 11 Hello. • 12 M5. MAQUITA STOVAL CRAWFORD: Hi. 13 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Welcome. 14 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: WelCOme. 15 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: This is d city 16 council and Redevelopment Agency meeting. This is a 17 special meeting and I'm going to -- as mayor, I'm 18 going to call this to order. 19 we have dispensed with the Pledge of 20 Allegiance, but our roll call, Mayor or Chairman 21 Kurth? Here. 22 Mayor Pro Tem Williams? 23 M5. DIANE WILLIAMS: Here. 24 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: COUnCllmembers/ 25 Agencymembers Gutierrez? 0010 1 MR. REX GUTIERREZ: Here. 2 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Michael? 3 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: Here. 4 MR. DONALD 7. KURTH: And Spagnolo? 5 MR. SAM SPAGNOLO: Here. 6 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: COmmUnlCatlOns from 7 the public? This is the time and place for the 8 general public to address the city council. 9 Do we have any members of the public that 10 would like to speak? Hearing none. 11 Items for discussion. 12 Consideration of a recommendation of the 13 Relocation Appeals Board in a matter of relocation 14 assistance, Johnny Crawford and Maquita Stoval 15 Crawford. • 16 I'll turn it over to staff. 17 M5. KZRSTEN BOWMAN: Okay. Klrsten BOWmdn Page 4 • October 17 2007 meeting.txt 18 appearing on behalf of the board. 19' The board recommends that the agency 20 confirm the board's findings that there is 21 insufficient justification to approve an increase in 22 the appellant s entitlement to rent. And with that 23 said, I would like to hand that aver to 24 Mr. and Mrs. Crawford to address the agency with 25 regard to their claims. 0011 1 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Okay. My name is 2 Johnny Crawford and I would like to stand up when I 3 speak. 4 Why are we here? The last meeting that I 5 was at actually I suffered a little indignation, 6 being. accused of trying to het welfare. I moved 7 into the apartments -- what s the name of them? I 8 don't remember. 9 MR. REX GUTIERREZ: Pepperwood. 10 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Yedh. We were living 11 there and the city caused the action as far as me 12 having to move and subsequently, I moved to Del Mar. 13 They hired an agency, I guess Pierce Consultant, and 14 I kind of misspoke, on an issue when I was at the 15 last meeting as far as when did I get the apartment, 16 when did i actually, in fact, sign for it. And the 17 fact of the matter is I didn't move in until the 18 Redevelopment Agency approved the transfer. what 19 had happened, I had put the $200 down deposit to 20 secure the apartment but there was no agreement 21 signed and i did call Ms. Reynolds to explain that • 22 to her and she said, you know, after the meeting 2 23 realized that I had made a mistake. 24 But that's really not the issue. The issue 25 is why am I here? I was impacted by an action from 0012 1 the City. And we went out into the community and 2 looked for an apartment based on Pierce Consultant. 3 And as I explained to them, which I don't think any 4 consideration was liven, Del Mar Apartments and all 5 of the apartments in the area realized that 6 Pepperwood had a degree of residents that were going 7 .to be displaced. They raised their rent. 8 I did not and my wife did not go to 9 Pepperwood and says, "Give me the most expensive 10 apartment." we didn't do that. we moved into -- 11 there was short availability. ` 12 I explained to them also in the meeting ' 13 that i work in law enforcement, which I'm on my way 14 to work today. I have to be very concerned where I 15 live. 16 And I think you all know that in every city 17 you have some degree of crime. Rancho Cucamonga is 18 not immune to it. 19 I told Ms. Reynolds that some of the areas 20 which they had suggested that we move or Pierce 21 Consultant had suggested, I said, well, I find it 22 unacceptable because knowing what I know. And I'm 23 not going to divulge that information because i 24 could see things that perhaps I'm not supposed to 2s divulge because o_f my position, so I'm not going to • 0013 1 give you a report that I could look at and say, 2 well, I know there's crime in this area. Page 5 • October 17 2007 meeting.txt .3 what I had said to Mrs. Reynolds, you're 4 part of the municipality, why don't you look for 5 that information. I don't believe she ever provided 6 it. 7 5o my concerns were moving into an upstairs 8 apartment. That's just a small issue. But the real 9 issue here is did I cause this situation? No. 10 There was price gouging going on and not one person 11 from this agency, the Redevelopment Agency even 12 acknowledged that. The onus is on me. And i 13 believe I m the only one impPacted because everybody 14 else was paid. I didn't ask to move. I was forced 15 to move and i moved into the newer part of Del Mar. 16 That is what was available. 51,600 a month. That's 17 the difference. 18 I did not go there and says, "Give me the 19 highest apartment so that I can get the max amount 20 of money. I went there, that's what they had Z1 available and that's what I moved, that's where I 22 moved, but I did not move until Pierce Consultant 23 said the Redevelopment Agency had approved the plan 24 for us to move. I didn't sign the agreement. 25 And, you know, the way I really look at it 0014 1 is like I have to ask myself; well, why am I really 2 here? You know, I mean, I'm pretty sure you all 3 have something more important to do. And at this 4 point, you know, whatever decision you make, it's 5 okay with me, but the fact of the matter is I feel 6 that the Redevelopment Agency has treated me • 7 unfairly, treated us unfairly. They have put the 8 onus on us as if we have created the situation. we 9 have not. we were merely a tenant just like 10 everyone that was forced to move. And the price is 11 what it is. 12 I didn't go in there and says -- I couldn't 13 tell them what to charge me. That's what they 14 charged me. So I really don't feel that we should 15 even be here. They should have paid. That's what I 16 got and it is what it is. 17 And I really don't have too much more to 18 say about it. if you have some questions, I'll be 19 more than happy to expound on it as much as 20 possible. 21 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Does anybody have any 22 questions? 23 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: A COUple. 24 ~ MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Sure. 25 ~ ~ MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: YOU jUSt sdld they 0015 1 should have paid. I'm assuming the Redevelopment 2 Agency you're speaking of? 3 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Wh02ver they hired, 4 which was Pierce Consultant. 5 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: Right. 6 But then you should have been paid whatever 7 it was. what is that full amount? 8 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: The full amount is 9 $1,605 a month and I think they paid me SZ00 a month 10 times the 42, and that's what I should have been • 11 entitled to. , 12 I mean, I didn't create the action. I 13 don't tell Lewis Homes what to charge me. That's Page 6 • 14 October 17 2007 meeting.txt what they charge. 15 And sure, there were other places out there 16 that I probably could have moved in for 51,100 or 17 51,200 a month, but there was no stipulation that i 18 had to move to the cheaper place. And, you know, 19 they can. correct me on this if I'm wrong. it says 20 find a comparable or better and that came from 21 Mrs. Reynolds' office. Find a comparable or better. 22 And I wouldn't say that I found comparable or 23 better. Actually, the apartment i think is smaller 24 than where I came from at Pepperwood. 25 out the issue here is I didn't cause this 0016 1 situation. The Redevelopment Agency along with I 2. guess you having to provide the city's requirement 3 or the state requirement having to provide 4 low-income housing for people in your city, I was S impacted by it and then now I am thrust into a 6 position where I have to defend why I moved into 7 that apartment. It doesn't make sense to me. 8 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: Just two other 9 quick questions, Mr. Crawford. one is you've said 10 that other apartments throughout the city or in the 11 city, I think you stated that other apartments 12 raised their rent when they found out Pepperwood was 13 having relocation issues. 14 MR. JOHNNY GRAWFORD: Yes. 15 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: Did that apply t0 16 all the tenants across the board? Do you have 17 evidence of that? 18 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: It was brought to • 19 Mrs. Reynolds' attention. it was brought to 20 Mrs. Pierce's attention. They went out and did 21 another survey more than once, at least two times. 22 They didn't even know the area. Number one, they're 23 from the Seal Beach area. They did not know 24 Rancho Cucamonga. And some of the areas in which 25 they directed us to go to, I don't believe anyone 0017 1 here would live in that area. I don't know if you 2 do, but I don't think you would live in some of the 3 areas that they were saying, which is below Grove or 4 some of the Fourth Street. I can't say Fourth 5 Street. Fourth Street is nice now. out even some 6 place over there is questionable. And she 7 definitely did not know the area. 8 she went out twice and did a survey and we 9 brought to her attention that price gouging was 10 going on. That's a fact. And that's a fact that 11 the Redevelopment Agency refused to acknowledge in 12 any correspondence that i have submitted to 13 Mrs. Reynolds' department. 14 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: YOU ]~St led me t0 15 my last question. 16 Explain to me what you mean by price 17 gouging. 18 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Well, everybody 19 raised the rent. That's what happened. The rents 20 were not that high prior to everybody finding that 21 Pepperwood was displaced 400, 500 people. The 22 reason I know they did price gouging is because the 23 same apartment was doing much cheaper two months • 24 ago, so why did it Jump up 5300? And that fact can Page 7 October 17 2007 meeting.txt • 25 be attained from, I think, Lewis, because I asked 0018 1 them about it. And they know that they raised the 2 rents. "oh, we raised the rent." well, I know why 3 they raised the rent. Because Silverwood or 4 Pepperwood, whatever it's called, was displacing 5 400-plus people. •And that was brought to 6 Mrs. Pierce's attention. 7 And I'm not sure if I spoke with 8 Mrs. Reynolds about this, but I spoke with someone 9 on her staff. I can't really remember her name. 10 I saved all of the e-mails. I was about to 11 throw my folder away last week and I forgot that I 12 did ask for this hearing, because i thought that it 13 was a deal done. And you know, I don't have time to 14 keep fighting, you know, over the issue. 15 Any other questions? - 16 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: HOW much time did you 17 have to find a place to move to? 18 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Well -- 19 MR. DONALD 7. KURTH: When did this -- 20 when were you first notified? 21 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Everybody over there 22 got in a panic at about July,.lune, July when we 23 were told that the Redevelopment Agency was 24 reviewing and that it was going to be approved on a 25 certain date. And we know it was going to be 0019 1 approved in, i think, August. I can't remember the 2 exact dates. • 3 4 MS. MAQUITA STOVAL CRAWFORD: August. MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: And s0 we went out in 5 July, started looking. You know, we waited because 6 wasn't sure whether it was going to be approved. At 7 least that's what was told to us. 8 There was several meetings and there was a 9 lot of misinformation at a lot of meetings by both 10 the Mrs. Pierce Consultant and also people that I 11 think came. I don't know if they represented the 12 city so I don't want to misspeak here, but there was 13 a lot of misinformation, a lot of angry people about 14 what was said, what was promised and what didn't 15 take place. And I don't have those facts before me, 16 but I'm speaking on from what I can remember. 17 MS. LINDA DANIELS: Can I ask a question? 18 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Sure. 19 Ms. LINDA DANIELS: Mr. Crawford, when did 20 you sign your intent? You indicated you signed an 21 intent to move to Del Mar. 22 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: After I consulted 23 with Mrs. Pierce, she says it has not been approved 24 and you cannot sign the agreement. But what we did, 25 and that's what i called you on that day right after 0020 1 that meeting, what we did is we went and put a $200 Z deposit to retain that apartment. we didn't sign 3 the rental agreement. 4 M5. LINDA DANIELS: And that was in July? 5 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: No. That was after 6 the date of approval is when we went back in and 7 signed. And I don't know if you have it in there. 8 we didn't sign the agreement until -- to the best of • 9 my recollection, we didn't sign that agreement until - Page 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 • 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0022 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 • 19 20 the city council had approved. After Mrs approved. and was October 17 2007 meeting.txt approved -- yeah. After it was Pierce said, okay, it's been MS. LINDA DANIELS: And your $200 deposit your intent, what was the rent quoted to you? MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: I'm not sure if that really the issue, Ms. Reynolds. MS. LINDA DANIELS: I'm Daniels. MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: It was Reynolds I spoke with. Mrs. Daniels. The issue here is the impact. It impacted me to move. Ms. LINDA DANIELS: I think in your initial request for additional compensation your focus was security. MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: It was Security, but that shouldn't have even been an issue. M5. LINDA DANIELS: I'm just trying to clarify for the board that the gouging concern came up more -- it came up in one brief statement during the formal process with me. MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: No, md~dm. No, ma'am. It came up in the very beginning. Even Mrs. Pierce was aware of this. I brought it to her attention. MS. LINDADANIELS: In my conversations with you it came up in the formal meeting, but I'm trying to clarify the reservation date you signed was in July 10th of '06 and your rent was $1,605. when you came and signed your final lease the rent was the same, which would have been a month later. So the rent and the rent gouging issue as it pertains to your lease, your rent did not increase for the time you made. your reservation to the time you signed the lease. MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: That's when they increased the rent. Because everybody knew in Pepperwood all the way back to. April that we were going to be displaced. MS. LINDA DANIELS: But your rent and reservations date is $1,605. MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: I'm not sure what your point is there. All I can say to you without being argumentative is that I could not attest for the 51,605. All I know is when we went over there from the list that Pierce Consultant gave us that we went there, Pierce Consultant who you hired when we went over, that's what we was quoted. That's a fact. So it's irrelevant and i have no control of what that price was. That's what was quoted to us. We don't control how Del Mar decides to charge. They charge that price. That's what I was faced with. MS. LINDA DANIELS: What I want to explain to the board is the price of the rent comparable was established after August 2nd when the relocation plan was approved. so the rent comparable was initially established at 51,305, I believe, and it was increased subsequent to that because of Mr. Pierce's peace officer status and the need for security, so the rent comp was increased by $200 a Page 9 • 21 October 17 2007 meeting.txt month to $1,505. There was no evidence in any of 22 the hearings with Mr. Crawford both with myself as 23 relocation board and the relocation board with 24 respect to rent youging, but all I can offer is the 25 rent commitment at 51,605 made in 7uly, the 0023 1 comparable in August after the relocation plan was 2 done and the rent that the lease that was signed 3 maintained the $1,605 based on the information that 4 had been submitted to us, so Mr. Crawford had the S same rent amount quoted to him and because the 6 comparable rent was actually done after the 7 relocation plan, if rent gouging were to occur, and 8 again no evidence to that has been presented, the 9 increase -- any increases in rent would have taken 10 into account because of the time frame difference of 11 7uly when this was signed and/or commitment and then 12 when the final lease was done. 13 we have had no evidence of any rent gouging 14 - and I.-- it is hard for me to say if other 15 apartments or one apartment complex in particular 16 increased rent because they knew people were 17 relocated, but you can also look at Rancho Cucamonga 18 as we've talked about a very desirable place to 19 live, both housing prices and rents do increase on a 20 frequent basis. But we've got no evidence. I was 21 never presented any evidence regarding rent gouging. 22 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: May I respond to 23 that, please. 24 The question is, Ms. Reynolds, did you -- 25 MS. LINDA DANIELS: Daniels. • 0024 1 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: I keep sayying 2 Reynolds because I spoke to her quite a bit. 3 Did yyou actually do any investigation to 4 find out if there was p n ce gouging? 5 - MS. LINDA DANIELS: No. 6 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Okay. SO how Cdn you 7 make the statement.that there wasn't? Free market. 8 Bears out in any market. They knew that there was a 9 dispplacement of several people. For the statement 10 to be made that there's no evidence of price gouging 11 would be disingenuous in the sense that if there s 12 been no one that went out to look and investigate 13 it, then you can't make that statement as a matter 14 of fact because all of the tenants brought that 15 attention to Mrs. Pierce's attention that everybody 16 increased their rent. So if you didn't know, in my 17 opinion, you should have known. 18 MS. LINDA DANIELS: I would like t0 take 19 just a few moments to explain the process of how a 20 tenant comes in who -- if a tenant did not qualify 21 to stay at Pepperwood, they would come in, verify 22 their income. And at the time that they came in, 23 they would also be -- what would be shared with them 24 is a listing that Pierce would do every seven to ten 25 days more or less of apartments that were available, 0025 1 their location, their amenities, as well as their 2 rents. At that time they would be given an 3 approximate comparable rent and so the tenant knew • 4 what they could look at in terms of a comparable 5 rent. Anything at that or below would be within Page 10 • 6 October 17 2007 meeting.txt the relocation benefit. their comparable rent 7 , Anything that exceeded it would not be covered, if 8 you will, by the relocation benefit. 9 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Now, wait a minute. 10 He said that he was told that he should look for 11 something comparable or better. 12 ~ MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: That's the language. 13 MS. LINDA DANIELS: I'm not aware of that. 14 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: That's the language. 15 That's when I was at your meetings. 16 MS. LINDA DANIELS: So if you came in in 17 August but it took you a month to find an apartment, 18 when you actually come in with a commitment or with 19 a signed lease subject to the relocation, the comp 20 would be reevaluated to make sure any changes in the 21 values of rents were taken into consideration. 22 As staff, we did not do any investigation 23 on increases in rent because the process would, in 24 essence, address that. If you came in in August and 25 you found a final unit in September, a new 0026 1 evaluation would be done and a new comp set and that 2 would be the comp once you come in with a signed 3 agreement, that would be the comp that would be 4 addressed. 5 So if you were given 1,400 in August and 6 the rents did go up, your comparable unit would be 7 reestablished to address the actual rents going on 8 at that point in time. And I want to share that 9 with you. 10 Again, Mr. Crawford, we requested • 11 information on rent gouging as.well as crime 12 statistics, but -- 13 MR. JOHNNY~CRAWFORD: It shouldn't be On me 14 to prove. 15 MS. LINDA DANIELS: -- none were provided. 16 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: It shOUldn't be On me 17 to prove. You caused the action. 18 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Mr. Crawford, do you 19 have anything more to say with regard to your 20 arguments? 21 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: No. Just t0 respond 22 to any other questions. 23 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Okdy. Cdn y0U please 24 have a seat, sir. 25 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Sure. 0027 1 MS. LINDA DANIELS: AS part Of the adoption 2 of the relocation Plan, the council was very clear 3 that the comps would be based on Rancho Cucamonga 4 units only and not of the surrounding neighborhoods. 5 That if a person chose to move outside of the city, 6 that is fine, but the comparable units would be 7 based on rental rates in Rancho Cucamonga 8 specifically. 9 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: So when -- if you 10 took what is believed to have been stated but 11 there's no evidence on that that was a statement 12 made by Pierce about comparable or better, but if 13 you said better, you could go out, i would assume, 14 and buy an apartment in the highest priced apartment 15 complex in the city, could you not? • 16 MS. LINDA DANIELS: Conceivably. Page 11 • 17 October 17 2007 meeting.txt MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: I'm just dskl ng. 18 The question is if you -- i don't ever recall on any 19 of our dialogue that we said on the relocation there 20 was going to be a price set and if you could go find 21 ourself a comparable unit, but -- or even better, 22 but not meaning better meaning whatever price the 23 market -- 24 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: I think that what's 25 going on here is that initially the appellant was 0028 1 provided with a notice of displacement and 2 eligibility for relocation assistance. And what 3 happens is that the person who is preparing the 4 relocation assistance evaluates market data and 5 comes up with a conclusion. The first rental amount 6 that she came up with included the rental amount 7 plus S45 for utilities. My understanding is she 8 spoke with Mr. Crawford, he indicated he was a peace 9 officer, so she had to search out additional market 10 data to support the higher rent where she came up 11 with the conclusion that it was $1,505 and she based 12 that on two bedroom homes. She indicated that she 13 was able to find that market data based upon her 14 prior experience dealing with peace officers and 15 relocation of peace officers. They were looking for 16 homes that were safer than two bedroom apartments 17 and that is how she came up with the money. She did 18 an evaluation of the market data. And so, 19 basically, the amount that she came up with is a 20 maximum amount that they would be eligible for and 21 then they can find the rentals .based upon that • 22 maximum amount. It.'s not if they find something 23 that is more than what they're entitled to in terms 24 of the maximum amount, they, basically, for lack of 25 better terms, they're going to have to eat that 0029 1 additional cost. And that's what's specified in the 2 letter and that is what went through the evaluation 3 process. 4 Also, in terms of the evidence, once again, 5 i want to reiterate Mr. Crawford did not provide any 6 evidence of any type of rental or price gouging. He 7 made a reservation in July of 2006 for the 8 apartment, the Del Mar apartment, which is actually 9 a better apartment than what was actually listed as 10 part of apartments in the survey which was not even 11 the market data that was presented to him in August. 12 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: she's wrong g 13 M5. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: And, baSlCa ly, h2 14 entered into that agreement but he did that 15 prematurely, was able to meet with Mrs. Pierce, 16 Mrs. Pierce then came up with a conclusion as to how 17 much the rent differential will be. 18 5o if anything, what you need to bear in 19 mind was is that she did an initial evaluation, she 20 took in the information that he gave her with regard 21 to his being a peace officer and actually looked for 22 comparable market data to justify the higher number. 23 And that's what we need to remember here is that we 24 need market data, we need a market comparable to 25 show what is represented to them, what the 0030 • 1 individual is entitled to. Page 12 • 2 October 17 2007 meeting.txt MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Why the fOUr years? 3 why is there four years? Is that the length of his 4 lease? 5 ~ MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: That is part Of the 6 statute. 7 MS. LINDA DANIELS: 42 months. 8 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Yes. That is part of 9 the statute. That's why in addressing 10 Mr. Crawford's concerns about the City coming in and 11 taking this away, that's something that's really not 12 factored in to what benefits he's entitled to. He 13 is protected by the laws and the laws dictate how 14 relocation assistance is compiled. 15 so it's a law. it's not an arbitrary 16 number that is taken out of the air. It is 17 something that a relocation assistance expert has 18 come up with and reached her conclusion and that's 19 how we, basically, gget to the numbers that we are. 20 So if anything, bear in mind the 51,505 21 already reflects an adJustment that she'made because 22' he was a peace officer and the adjustment was based ' 23 on the existing market data. 24 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Can I let him -- 25 M5. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Absolutely. . 0031 1 MR. DONALD7. KURTH: -- respond? 2 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Okay. She Said d 3 lot. 4 I want to just state .for the record one of 5 the things that Pierce Consultant along with the 6 Redevelopment A ency also proposed, they said • 7. categorically that if you wish to buy a home, we 8 will provide I don't know if it was down payment but 9 assistance. Now, if I was to choose to buy a home 10 during that time it would have been a lot more than 11 the little bit of money that I'm asking for. That 12 was something that you guys proposed. 13 Am I correct on that? 14 MS. LINDA DANIELS: The -- 15 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Assistance was 16 available? 17 MS. LZNDA DANIELS: People just buy a home; 18 we wanted to make them aware of our down pa ment 19 assistance program if they were first-time home 20 buyers that that could be coupled with any 21 relocation benefits they were entitled to. 22 MS. DIANE WILLIAMS: In addltlOn t0 that.. 23 MS. LINDA DANIELS: COrreCt. That i5 d 24 separate program. 25 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Also, Mrs. Pierce. for 0032 1 the first time that I heard about, well,. we couldn't 2 find comparable apartments and we used a house as 3 the basis, everyone is making the argument because I 4 let it out that I'm a peace officer. That's not the 5 issue here. You know, we can argue that all day 6 long. I'm not asking for any special benefits. All 7 I'm saying is I was impacted and the facts are i had 8 to move. Lewis Homes charged this price. whether 9 we went out and did the p n ce gouging, whether we 10 went out and find out if there was price gouging or 11 not, that onus shouldn't be on me. I don t think it • 12 should be the expense or the onus should be on me Page 13 • 13 October 17 2007 meeting.txt that I have to came back with all of this data and 14 give to the Redevelopment Agency, "Look, this is my 15 support. This is my support for this:" I don't 16 think that should be on me. The impact, I was 17 impacted. .And I don't have the resources nor do I 18 think that I should have been tasked to do that. 19 so, yyou know, they can make the argument 20 about, well, he was a peace offer, he's asking for 21 special privileges. No. That was merely.a 22 discussion. That was merely a discussion. And that 23 is not the focus of whether I'm entitled to these 24 benefits or not. 25 And if the law does not permit -- and I'll 0033 1 say this to everyone in-here. If the law does not 2 permit for the additional benefits, then I say to 3 the board here, do not provide them. But if the law 4 permits, I personally feel that I was treated S unfairly or my wife was treated unfairly based on 6 the impact that we had to move, an action that was 7 caused by the City, the Redevelopment. Agency and the 8 State of California. And that really is the issue 9 here. And if the board doesn't feel that we should 10 be compensated, then, you know, it's really fine 11 with me. 12 MR. DONALD 7. KURTH: Why were you treated 13 unfairly? 14 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: 62Cduse we had t0 15 move into that apartment. That was the apartment. 16 that we found. it was on the list that Pierce 17 Consultant recommended. we didn't move anywhere 18 where they didn't recommend. 19 5o where myy biggest concern is or argument 20 is, how can you tell.me that you recommend that I 21 move here and I move here and now you tell me, well, 2Z I'm not going to pay the difference? But it's on 23 your list. That's the problem i got a Problem with. 24 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Whdt WOUId have made 25 it more fair? I'm not sure why you were treated 0034 1 unfairly. 2 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: The rent is $1,605. 3 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Did they have other 4 rents that were less? 5 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Sure, they probably 6 did. But that was the apartment that was available 7 when I went and secured that one because they didn't 8 have any availabilities. it was a shortage in 9 availabilities and we secured that one because it 10 was coming available and it would have been 11 available in August and that's when we moved in. So 1Z that's why we did it. 13 MR. REX GUTIERREZ: Can I dsk a question, 14 please, Mr. HOnOrdble Mayor? 15 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: YeS. 16 MR. REX GUTIERREZ: Thank you. 17 When did the Hinbane residence enter the 18 picture? Did you investigate renting a house? I 19 see some mention of a residence. 20 MS. LINDA DANIELS: BecaUSe Of the peace 21 officer status, the consultant started searching for • 22 two bedroom homes, whether they be townhomes or 23 homes, and to identify a comp for security purposes Page 14 • October 17 2007 meeting.txt 24 instead of reviewing apartments only they looked at 25 townhome home situation. 0035 1 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: And that would allow 2 the relocation expert to justify whatever 3 conclusions she came up with in terms of the fair 4 market value for the rents. 5 MR. REX GUTIERREZ: Okay. And She Came Up 6 with that house because it was close to what they 7 were -- their range? 8 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Yeah. It was based 9 upon her experience of having worked with peace 10 officers in other relocation matters wherein peace 11 officers have requested two bedroom homes versus two 12 bedroom apartments because of security concerns. 13 And that is how she came up with that particular 14 residence to justify the rent that she had reached. 15 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: May I respond t0 16 that? 17 yet me say this. Mrs. Pierce brought that 18 up-for the first time during the last meeting. This 19 is the biggest spin if I've ever heard one. My 20 status as a peace officer was not a consideration. 21 She never ever told me anything about I'm going out 22 to look for a comparable home. You don't really 23 find too many homes in Rancho Cucamonga that's 24 renting for $1,600. 5o that's very disingenuous. 25 This stuff about peace officers, her experience. 0036 1 The lady and her firm had no knowledge of • 2 Rancho Cucamonga. Every tenant over that place came 3 down to the city council meeting, I don't know which 4 one of you all attended, and they were furious. I 5 wasn't able to make that meeting but I have the 6 notes from it because Pierce Consultant was almost 7 incompetent, as far as I'm concerned. She's not 8 here to defend herself, but the way they handled it, 9 the tenants were given misinformation and it was 10 definitely brought to the Redevelopment Agency's 11 attention and I have some a-mails to that effect. I 12 didn't bring them here, but it was brought to their 13 attention about the misinformation that was given. 14 so the argument about my peace officer status, that 15 is not the issue. 16 And Mrs. Pierce, if she made those 17 statements along with the attorney, it's very 18 questionable because that shouldn't even be an 19 issue. I shouldn't be treated any fairly -- I mean 20 be treated any different than anyone else when it 21 comes to, in my opinion, what am I entitled to or 22 not entitled to. I'm not asking for special service. 23 because of my peace officer status, but i do -- I 24 will concede and say to you there are certain areas 25 I'm not going to move into because I probably locked 0037 1 up some of those people. You don't live with the 2 people you locked up. 3 5o yes, as a responsible person I'm going 4 to look for an area that's safer, people more like 5 me, working class people. Unfortunately for me I • 6 was just not too long, a couple years divorced and 7 remarried and that's why I'm Jn an apartment. I 8 don't live in an apartment. But this is what it is. Page 15 October 17 2007 meeting.txt • 9 But the fact of the matter is i was not 10 asking and I am not asking for any special treatment d li if ' 11 because of my status. As I sai ear er, we re 12 entitled to any more benefits because of the impact, 13 then let your judgment be on that. The impact of 14 what happened, don't consider my peace offer status. 15 That's not an issue here. The issue is the 16 Redevelopment Agency caused an impact and the impact 17 is me having to move. That is really the issue. 50 18 we could argue around on the peace offer that went 19 to our house. That's not the issue. 20 Thank you. 21 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: I have a question 22 of you. 23 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Okdy. 24 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: Not considering a 25 peace officer status, if you just left that aside, 0038 1 all of the other people that received relocation 2 allowances received those allowances of I would 3 suspect around $1,300 a month, whatever that was, 4 and in this case because of Mr. crawford's 5 discussion and appeals process because it was maybe 6 not his request but he did state apparently that he 7 was a peace officer and had some concerns, so then 8 there was an adjustment? 9 ~ ~ MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: That is correct. It 10 was an adjustment upwards. 11 I cannot say that other people qualified 12 for 1,300, but what I can say is that Mrs. Pierce 13 made a determination based upon her interview of • 14 Mr. and Mrs. Crawford and their income and what 15 other factors and came up with an initial amount 16 that they were entitled to, 13 and change. And then 17 subsequent to the interview and her additional 18 analysis, she raised it to $1,505. 19 So technically, if we were not to consider 20 his peace offer status, then I don't know if 21 Mr. Crawford would then want the City to go back to 22 that original 1,300 a month offer. But yes, she 23 made an adjustment upwards already and she did it on 24 a case-by-case basis. 25 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: ~SO then my point 0039 1 from that, Mr. Crawford, was that you probably 2 didn't want your peace officer status to interfere 3 like you stated earlier, but the City based upon 4 your appeal and your discussions with the relocation 5 specialist or Pierce Consulting made a determination 6 that because of that status they were going to make 7 that .adjustment. 8 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: And the adjustment, if 9 you want to look at tab four, it's the second page, 10 it actually reflects -- if you see there, there's 11 claimant's A and it talks about the initial 12 qualifications and then it says paragraph C 13 claimant, a $1,605, which is the rent in Del Mar 14 Apartments, and that's $1,650. And if you notice 15 there's some corrections 51,505 and that reflects 16 the adjusted amount that Mrs. Pierce came up with. • 17 18 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: What was your original rent? 19 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: I think it was 13 Page 16 • 20 October 17 2007 meeting.txt something. $1,325. 21 MS. LINDA DANIELS: $1,280. 22 ~ MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Well, it was $1,325 23 in the fact that we were paying for a washer and 24 dryer. 2$ MS. LINDA DANIELS: Okay. $1,280 for base. 0040 1 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: I can't get the facts 2 right here. 3 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: SO there was -- 4 what is reflected now and what the City is 5 offering or the agency is offering already contains 6 an adjustment upwards. 7 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: I just wanted t0 8 clarify that. 9 Thank you. 10 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Any more discussion? 11 okay. I guess then that the next step will 12 be is that -- . 13 MS. DIANE WILLIAMS: I'm just rereading 14 this. I couldn't find it. 15 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Okay. 16 MS. DIANE WILLIAMS: The letter in tab 17 three is a letter to the crawfords. it talks about 18 that you may be eligible for rental assistance to a 19 maximum of $9,450? So when that adjustment was 20 made, that maximum also went up? 21 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Yes, it is. Because, 22 basically, what it is is the letter is dated 23 August 3rd and that was right when the relocation 24 assistance plan was adopted. • 25 MS. DIANE WILLIAMS: So that $950 was 0041 1 adjusted upward reflecting the $1,005 amount. 2 MS. LINDA DANIELS: So $200 times 42 3 months. 4 MS. DIANE WILLIAMS: More. 5 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: That is correct. Yes. 6 MS. DIANE WILLIAMS:' Okay. 7 MS. LINDA DANIELS: I do Want t0 pOlnt OUt 8 one thing and this was something that the relocation 9 board was also interested in. Mr. Crawford talks 10 about a list and I want to clarify that for this 11 Appeals Board. When the relocation plan was done, 12 originally done, it was a requirement to show that 13 there's ample supply of affordable rental housing 14 for displaced tenants to relocate to. 5o a survey 15 was done throughout the city and other areas because 16 the direction had not been made at that time to only 17 look at Rancho, but a survey was done to show that 18 there were ample supply of available vacant units so 19 that we didn't come into a problem where we had 40 20 tenants looking to relocate and on1y,20 apartments 21 available. So the -- there was not an issue. 22 On that list, Del Mar, the complex that 23 they relocated to, was included, but it was included 24 just as a sampling, if you will, of where available. 25 units were identified. The comparable, once that 0042 1 relocation plan was adopted to determine the 2 comparable, you look at the point in time when • 3 people are actually moving and you look at what's 4 available and you look and determine what is the - Page 17 • S October 17 2007 meeting.txt not the average but the median of the comparable 6 units that were available. 7 So just to clarify, when Mr. Crawford 8 indicates that Del Mar was on the list, that list 9 was used to identify and serve justification that 10 there were comparable units or available units to 11 relocate to so that we weren't dealing with a 12 situation of people being forced to move out of the 13 city if they did not want to. That was a question 14 that the Relocation Appeals Board had as well. 15 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: When you went t0 16 Del Mar and they said the rent was significantly i hi k 17 ng, did you t n higher than what you had been pay 18 that maybe I shouldn't be looking at an apartment 19 this much more expensive? 20. MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Well, when I looked 21 at there was a shortage, we had not only gone to 22 Del Mar. She speaks as there wasn't a shortage. 23 There was a shortage of apartments. Because 24 everybody was scrambling, going around. There were 25 no availabilities. we secured that because that was 0043 1 going to become available in August. It was 2 approved August 3rd, as she said, which is my 3 birthday, and we went on and secured an apartment. 4 we needed an apartment. i didn't need any 5 instability of having to look for an apartment. So 6 that's what we did. That apartment was coming 7 available and we wanted to -- it's a good area and 8 we wanted to secure that. 5o that's why we did 9 that. And we signed it, the agreement, after it was • 10 approved. 11 Now, even though we put the $200 down 12 deposit saying that we would like to rent this, and 13 they knew that it was pending approval from I guess 14 the Redevelopment Agency -- that's pretty much it. 15 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: I guess -- 16 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: I have another 17 question. 18 was it approved by the Redevelopment 19 Agency? 20 M5. LINDA DANIELS: On August 2nd the 21 relocation plan was approved. Yes. So August 3rd 22 is when the consultant was able to formally notice 23 the tenants and start to identify who qualified to 24 stay in the complex and who exceeded the income 25 eligibility criteria. 0044 1 M5. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: SO, In other Words, 2 prior to August 3rd, 2006, Mrs. Pierce was not able 3 to enter into any type of agreement with any of the 4 people. 5 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Oh, please. May I 6 respond to that? 7 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Sure. 8 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Mrs. Pierce 9 encouraged us to go and look. She says you cannot 10 sign until after the redevelop the agency approved. 11 And I didn't sign the agreement until after it was 12 approved. 5o those are facts. Now let's get that 13 straight. I didn't sign the lease until 14 August 16th. So it was approved, they came over, • 15 Mrs. Pierce's people came over, approved the Page 18 • 16 October 17 2007 meeting.txt apartment. And if they didn't approve it, I 17 couldn't even stay there. They would have to 18 approve the apartment. They signed off on it. 19 MS. LINDA DANIELS: Part of the process in 20 relocation is to go view the apartment, make sure it 21 exists, make sure it's decent, safe, sanitary and 22 they aren't approving it in terms of any, for any 23 other reason, that it exists, that it is available 24 and that it is not something that not an overcrowded 25 situation or anything, you know, like that. 0045 1 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Wd5 the addltlOndl 2 expense approved? 3 MS. LINDA DANIELS: No. In August 11th, I 4 believe, when the final relocation benefit 5 assessment was done, the 51,505, it was increased 6 from 51,305 or 1,300 to $1,505 and that was signed 7 but -- and that already took into consideration the 8 peace officer status. But when a tenant goes and 9 rents an apartment, if it exceeds the comparable 10 unit there is no commitment, as Kirsten Bowman 11 indicated, there is no obligation for the agency or 12 Link to compensate beyond the comparable. 13 MS. DIANE WILLIAMS.: ThlS l5 signed 14 August 1st. 15 MS. LINDA DANIELS: There i5 tw0. There'S 16 one that was signed August 1st and then there's 17 another one that was signed August, I believe, 11th. 18 Let me check. 19 MS. DIANE WILLIAMS: The one with the 20 changes on it indicating the increase was on • 21 August 1st. Unless it was increased after the 22 signature. 23 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: I think what they did 24 is they saw the August 1st and then they pulled out 25 the same document and made the changes and then 0046 1 subsequently prepared a cleaned-up version. 2 - MS. DIANE WILLIAMS: I see. 3 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: What were you going 4 to say? 5 - MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: She said something 6 that I'm a little puzzled about. She stated that on 7 the list, on the apartments that Link or whatever 8 they want to call their name, Pierce Consultant 9 provided us, it's just a sampling. Now, I'm a 10 little confused with that. How do you give me a 11 list and I'm supposed to know that this is just a 12 sampling but maybe you can move there or you can't 13 move there. You know, 'you can sample the market. 14 That's a little ambiguous. And it doesn't make 15 sense to me. This is just a sampling, but it's on 16 the list. Go here, get an apartment. 17 So Pierce Consultant, as far as I am 18 concerned, for the board, they did not.know the 19 area, they did not do their proper study of the 20 market in the area as far as what apartments go for, 21 they did not do it. It was brought to their 22 attention on numerous occasions, the prices that 23 they were coming back with. And your Redevelopment 24 A ency is well aware of that, because we spoke to 25 them on numerous occasions. I have e-mails. • 0047 Page 19 • 1 October 17 2007 meeting.txt i keep calling her Ms. Reynolds because Z Ms. Reynolds was one of the ppeople that I was 3 speaking to on a continuous bass on that particular 4 subject. 5 But I have a problem when someone is 6 saying, well, it's a sampling. That's a matter of 7 who you hired to do, to help in the relocation. 8 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: It's jUSt d SUrVey. 9 it was part of a relocation plan. And if we were to 10 look at dates of value that would have been 11 representative of what was back in 7uly, May, 7uly 12 of 2006. i mean, but we have to keep in mind is 13 that rents are always changing. 14 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: ExdCtly. 15 ~ MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Around Christmastime 16 people may be less inclined to rent. But 17 Mr. Crawford was provided with market data on 18 August 3rd that showed the rents in the area. And 19 once again, the agency's expert made an adjustment 20 upwards based upon market data to reach her 21 conclusion that she is entitled to $1,505 for the 22 rent plus $45 for the utilities. 23 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Okay. Dld y0U know 24 how much was approved? 25 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: They did not provide 0048 1 us with updated market data. That's incorrect. 2 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: I mean, did you know 3 how much you could spend on the apartment? 4 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: NO, t0 be quite 5 truthful. what she said to us is go find an equal • 6 place or better. That was the language. That was 7 - the language. Find an equal place or better. 8 MS. DIANE WILLIAMS: When did you know then 9 what dates they considered you qualified for? lO MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: When I moved into the 11 place, they came over and approved it. And then 12 when we got to the office, went in, Mrs. Pierce's 13 statement to me was, "well, I can't approve the 14 $1,605, but I'm going to do it at $1,505 and you can 15 go through the appeal process for the rest." That 16 was her statement. So we figured it wouldn't be 17 such a big thing and a hard thing. But this is 18 already -- 19 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Right. 20 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: -- an arduous task 21 for everyone here. 22 MS. DIANE WILLIAMS: And this was 23 August 3rd, two bedroom referral. 24 Did you -- 25 It says -- it doesn't call any of them 0049 1 Del Mar. 2 is one of these yours on this list or 3 survey? 4 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD:. Del Mar is On the 5 list that they gave us at the very beginning, which 6 they only gave us one list one time. 7 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: And like I Sald, he's 8 referring to a list that is a part of a survey of a 9 part of a relocation assistance plan. 10 MS. LINDA DANIELS: Under tab one, just so • 11 we know what list we're referring to, on tab one, Page 20 • 12 October 17 2007 meeting.txt page 25 of 49 is both on page 24 and 25 is a list. 13 And at the paragraph underneath the bottom of that 14 table, it indicates there's over 40 decent, 15 sanitary, comparable, available units during the 16 time period of the survey of May 1st to the 8th. 17 And again, this was done to show that 18 within the reasonable expectation of when people 19 would need to relocate August 3rd to January we 20 weren't going to deal with a situation where there 21 was not an available supply of rental units for 22 people to move to. 23 what this is is only a list, as Kirsten has 24 indicated, for survey purposes only. it's not the 25 comparable rent unit. Those have to be done at the 0050 1 time people are actually moving because rents will 2 change over time. 3 M5. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: .And it indicates t00 4 in the paragraph that the survey was based upon a 5 one-week period of time for May 1st to May 8th. So 6 it was that particular time, you know. 7 MS. DIANE WILLIAMS: What time is this 8 August 3rd then? At what point in the process is 9 that provided to? 10 M5. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Those are provided 11 during the date of value, which was around August of 12 2006. 13 M5. LINDA DANIELS: And they will be 14 typically updated seven to ten days. But if you 15 come in on August 12th, they will do a survey and 16 ensure that you are getting a comparable unit based • 17 On units that are available at that point in time. 18 And it is even required of them if you're 19 moving to whittier and you ask for comparable units 20 to be researched in whittier, even though your comp 21 is not based on that but you want help ~n finding, 22 they will even provide you information on another 23 city that you're locating, but the comparable is 24 based on the apartments in Rancho Cucamonga. 25 MR. REX GUTIERREZ: When was this list 0051 1 given to them? Do you know? 2 M5. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Which list? 3 MR. REX GUTIERREZ: Th2 survey. 4 M5. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: DO y0U mean the 5 relocation assistance plan? 6 My understanding was that it was given 30 7 days prior to the adoption as part of the notice 8 requirements or it was made available to them. 9 MR. REX GUTIERREZ:' Okdy. 10 MR. CRAIG FOX: Mr. Mayor, I think it's 11 appropriate to conclude the presentation of 12 evidence. And if anybody has final arguments or 13 final statements to make, I think this is -- this 14 hearing has been provided,.it's in compliance with 15 state law. They've been given their due process, 16 both sides have, and it would be appropriate to 17 conclude it as reasonable. 18 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Does anybody have any 19 final statements? 20 Ms. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: Th2 Only final • 21 statement I would like to say is that the agency is 22 in compliance with the laws and the amount of money Page 21 • 23 October 17 2007 meeting.txt that was determined for the rental differential was 24 in compliance with the law and it was based upon 25 existing market data. 0052 1 And that is enough. 2 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Okay. Can we ask 3 both parties to step out so we can deliberate. 4 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: Could I d5k just 5 one quick question before the appellants are 6 given - 7 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: My understanding i5 8 they have the notebook right there. 9 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: Okay. 10 MS. LINDA DANIELS: It Wasn't available t0 11 them prior to the meeting, but it is theirs to keep. 12 MS. KIRSTEN BOWMAN: And they were given a 13 notebook prior to the most recent board hearing. 14 MR. L. DENNIS~MICHAEL: Okay. 15 (Recess taken from 5:33 p.m. 16 to 5:46 p.m.) 17 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Okay. We've had d 18 longg discussion about this. It's a perplexing 19 problem. it's a perplexing problem and I think we 20 have a consensus, although we -- not everyone on the 21 council completely agreed. And maybe the best way 22 to proceed is to let the dissenting -- 23 MR. REX GUTIERREZ: Well, I think anyone 24 should have an opportunity to speak. I want to make 25 that perfectly clear. 0053 1 I just wanted you to know that I dissented • 2 with the decision. 3 MR. CRAIG FOX: Well, far the record, 4 Mr. Gutierrez, there hasn't been a decision. 5 MR. REX GUTIERREZ: Okay. I will dissent 6 with the proposal to deny your appeal. 7 Is that adequate? 8 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Uh-huh. 9 MR. REX GUTIERREZ: Okay. 10 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Does anybody else 11 want to speak on this? Do we have a motion? 12 MR. SAM SPAGNOLO: Make the -- 13 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Or d0 you want me t0 14 speak further? 15 MR. SAM SPAGNOLO: It's up to you, 16 Mr. Mayor. if you have something else you want to 17 say or you want to make the motion. 18 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Only that I SUSpect 19 that I -- you know, after listening to the 20 discussion, I think all of us felt a great deal of 21 compassion for your plight. It's a difficult 22 situation. I'm sure it put you in an awkward 23 position. I don't think any of us would want to be 24 in that spot to suddenly have to go out and find a 25 new place to live and all of the uncertainties when 0054 1 you have to get up and go to work every day and try 2 and maintain your life. 3 At the other side i think we also can see 4 is that it looks like the City tried as much as 5' possible to follow the letter of the law. They made 6 the best attempt possible. I think it is clear to • 7 all of us that you were given special consideration Page 22 • October 17 2007 meeting.txt 8 because of your police officer status and we don't 9 disagree with that. we think that you should have 10 that special consideration to have a, you know, a 11 place to live that is safe and comfortable for you. 12 On the other hand, there was compensation 13 delivered for that. You did understand that there 14 was a limit to what that would be and the apartment 15 that you selected was over that limit. 16 i suspect that the council is going to deny 17 the appeal at this point and leave whatever options 18 .are open to you. 19 But let me go ahead, if I've spoken okay 20 for the rest of our council, can I have a motion? 21 So we're looking for a motion to deny the 22 appeal. 23 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: I'll go ahead and 24 move that we deny the appeal of the Crawfords. 25 MS. DIANE WILLIAMS: I'll second it. 0055 1 MR. DONALD 7. KURTH: Any further 2 discussion? 3 MR. SAM SPAGNOLO: NO. 4 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: We have d mOtiOn and 5 a second. 6 All in favor, please say aye. 7 MR. SAM SPAGNOLO: Aye. 8 MS. DIANE WILLIAMS: Ay2. 9 MR. L. DENNIS MICHAEL: ,Aye. 10 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: All opposed? 11 MR. REX GUTIERREZ: Nay. • 12 MR. DONALD 7. KURTH: So we have four/one. 13 The motion is denied. 14 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Thank you. 15 MR. DONALD J. KURTH: Thank you very much. 16 MR. JOHNNY CRAWFORD: Thank yOU. It~S a 17 pleasure meeting you all. 18 (whereupon, the proceedings 19 concluded at 5:50 p.m.) 20 ---ooo--- 21 22 23 24 25 0056 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 4 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 6 ) ss. 7 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) 8 9 10 I, AMBER DAWN CASTANEDA, RPR, CRR, a Certified 11 Shorthand Reporter within and for the County of 12 San Bernardino, State of California, do hereby certify: 13 That the said proceeding was taken down by me 14 in shorthand at the time and place therein stated and 15 was thereafter reduced to print by Computer-Aided • 16 Transcription under my direction; 17 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 18 attorney for any of the parties hereto or in any way Page 23 • October 17 2007 meeting.txt 19 interested in the event of this cause and that z am not 20 related to any of the parties thereto. Z1 Dated this 2Znd day of October, 2007. 22 23 . 24 AMBER DAWN CASTANEDA, RPR, CRR, CSR No. 7640 ZS • Page 24