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