Remarks to Riverside County Board of Supervisors

Board Meeting held Feb 10, 2009

Comments for official record of meeting minutes, presented by Nancy Gruttman-Tyler.

As a property owner in the unincorporated community of Meadowbrook, I raise the following objections to the Proposed I-215 Corridor Redevelopment Area Project and the manner in which it is being processed by the County of Riverside’s Board of Supervisors, the Economic Development Agency and the Redevelopment Division.  Details of my objections are:

1. The first scheduled meeting for a public hearing on the redevelopment project on November 10, 2008, in Perris, California, was invalid as a public meeting of the MAC because of the overcrowded conditions of the meeting room.  The redevelopment project was to be introduced to the public at this meeting, but the citizens voiced concerns that the room was filled beyond official capacity, with many standing in the hallway.  Therefore the meeting could not be safely conducted.  At that time, the citizens requested that another meeting be scheduled in a venue that could accommodate the large numbers of people who would be attending.  The vast majority of citizens present left at that time, before the meeting was held and the redevelopment proposal presented.

2. The second scheduled meeting for a public hearing on the redevelopment project held on January 26, 2009, was not conducted according to California statute.  During the meeting, the EDA staff stated that the questions would be translated into Spanish for the Hispanic audience in attendance.  There were no translations of the questions or answers as promised.  Our Hispanic citizens were significantly represented, but not offered translations of the information presented during the official program or during the Question and Answer period.

3. We citizens of the four communities of Good Hope, Meadowbrook, Warm Springs, and South Mead Valley object to the term “blight” to describe our communities as it appears in the Preliminary Plan for the I-215 Redevelopment Project Area, Amendment No. 2, dated August 12, 2008, on page 17, stating, “Blight, as defined by the CRL, appears to exist throughout much of the Study Area.”  We are NOT blighted.    

4. This study was conducted by Urban Futures Incorporated, UFI/GRC Redevelopment Planning, Orange, CA.  We reject the validity of the study and “Preliminary Plan for the I-215 Redevelopment Project Area, Amendment No. 2 – Mead Valley, Good Hope, Meadowbrook, and Warm Springs Sub-Areas” by Urban Futures Incorporated because that corporation is specifically hired to find blight in the areas it is commissioned to study.  Historically, Urban Futures Incorporated consistently labels areas under its study as “blighted” to support redevelopment proposals and projects of this nature. 

5. We citizens do not feel the Amendment Area (described as the four communities of Meadowbrook, Good Hope, Warm Springs, and Mead Valley) meets the criteria as being “necessary for effective redevelopment” because the current state of the economy is not pressing for redevelopment or development of any kind in our communities.  There is no evidence of any condition of necessity at this time for redevelopment; the economy simply will not support it.

6. According to the CRL, the Amendment Area is required to be “urbanized,” meaning not less than 80% of the land has been or is developed for urban uses, or is an integral part of one or more areas developed for urban uses.  Our communities are primarily Rural Residential parcels with Single Family and Mobile Home Residences on one-acre lots, and many vacant parcels of multiple acres.  Our rural acreage supports several livestock types such as horses, goats, sheep, pigs, fowl, and even elephants and American bison.  This usage is inconsistent with a description of “urbanization” which usually specifically prohibits these livestock.  Additionally, there are no major commercial businesses such as supermarkets, gas stations, and drug stores to support a description of urbanization within our four communities.

7. The Preliminary Plan for the project area offers no specific details as to the nature of the proposed redevelopment concept, and is void of descriptions of potential outcomes and impacts on the four communities involved. 

8. The ultimate outcome of the proposed redevelopment project appears to be focused on increasing population densities and commercial activities in our communities without regard for our rural lifestyle and the natural habitat preservation of our properties.  We object to this type of development.

9. The official notification of this Redevelopment Area Project is not provided to absentee landlords or out-of-state property owners, according to the procedures of the Redevelopment Division.  We object to this practice which fails to inform the owners of a significant portion of the properties within the project area about the county’s future endeavors regarding their private property.

          Although the above list does not constitute the entire body of our objections, we believe these objections are significant enough to raise several issues of procedural and legal concerns regarding the future of this proposed redevelopment project as it is currently being pursued by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors.  We request that you abandon this project.