Loading...
RRA – Approval of Minutes 10-27-98 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OCTOBER 27, 1998 The regular meeting of the Rosemead Redevelopment Agency was called to order by Chairman Bruesch at 7:03 p.m. in the conference room of City Hall, 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, Rosemead, California. The Pledge to the Flag was led by Agencymember Taylor. The Invocation was led by Vice-Chairman Vasquez ROLL CALL OF OFFICERS: Present: Agencymembers Clark, Imperial, Taylor, Vice Chairman Vasquez and Chairman Bruesch Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: OCTOBER 13, 1998 - REGULAR MEETING MOTION BY AGENCYMEMBER IMPERIAL, SECOND BY AGENCYMEMBER TAYLOR that the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 13, 1998, be approved as submitted. Vote resulted: Aye: Bruesch, Vasquez, Clark, Imperial, Taylor No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. 1. RRA RESOLUTION NO. 98 - 20 CLAIMS AND DEMANDS The following Resolution was presented to the Agency for adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 98-20 - CLAIMS AND DEMANDS A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS IN THE SUM OF $49,676.47 AND DEMANDS NO. 5310 THROUGH 5320 MOTION BY AGENCYMEMBER IMPERIAL, SECOND BY AGENCYMEMBER CLARK that the Agency adopt Resolution No. 98-20. Vote resulted: Yes: Vasquez, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial, Taylor No: None Absent: None Abstain: None The Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. RRA:10-27-98 Page#1 2. APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT WITH BAHR VERMEER & HAECKER ARCHITECTS OF THE GARVEY AVENUE COMMUNITY CENTER AND SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT AND EXTENSION OF THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONTRACT WITH GRC INC. VERBATIM DIALOGUE BEGINS: DON WAGNER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a pretty extensive staff report. Basically we're at the point now where we need the Agency approval to give the architect the go ahead to move ahead with the final plans and specifications and also extend GRC's contract for project management. The thrust of this, to kind of give you some background of what were looking at, cost wise versus the money that we have to fund it. As you'll see on Page 4, it's basically a $10.8 million project with most of the funds coming from housing set-aside, some coming from County Park Grant, some from the HOME Funds which you've approved at the previous Council meetings. And, of course, $1 million in CDBG funds. We have, I've talked to the Finance Director, there is enough in tax increments in case there is a need for additional funds. If you have any questions, you can ask Steve, who is here, and the Architect also. Dale Brown, you probably haven't seen him in a long time. AGENCYMEMBER JAY IMPERIAL: What time element are we looking at? When are we going to start it, when will it be completed? DALE BROWN, BVH ARCHITECTS: I think there's a portion of the staff...wanting to get through design development and construction documents - about 7 months. Probably get plan check and bidding to take 2 to 3 total. We want to be under construction in the Fall of next year. CHAIRMAN BRUESCH: What is the planned schedule for building, about one year? BROWN: I think it will probably take about 12, maybe 14 months since there's 2 buildings on the site and there is fairly extensive additional site work in terms of over excavation and recompaction they'll be doing. BRUESCH: We're looking at almost 2 years, a little over 2 years. BROWN: About that, maybe a little less. IMPERIAL: So, when did we start this project, 1991? I think it was 1991. Now were looking at what, 1999? WAGNER: 1991 we started the Angelus Senior Housing project. IMPERIAL: No, it was... WAGNER: We purchased this, Jay, in 1989. IMPERIAL: We purchased this, anticipated this...the whole shot, in 1991. WAGNER: But, I think that at some point along the way, the Agency and/or the Council made the decision to move ahead with the Angelus project first. IMPERIAL: That was between 1992 and 1994. BROWN: I think Angelus was in development in 1993 and '94. IMPERIAL: It went into development in that period of time. That's why I'm asking the question, why is this going to take so long? Pager STEVE COPENHAVER, GRC CONSULTANTS: It's possible that we could save a few months on the schedule that Dale outlined, in terms of if we submit the plans incrementally for plan check and cut everything down as much as we can. But, it's not possible to reduce it in half The construction period, Dale says it's 14 months, at least 14 or 15 months. Angelus took about 11 months. We didn't have the complication of digging out and recompacting the 20 feet of fill. BRUESCH: I have a question about your compaction. Just cater-cornered from there, there was a project put in about 5 years ago, in South El Monte. Two to three years, they just had the pilings in there, it is my understanding that the pilings were being engineered so that they would withstand the liquifaction that might occur during an earthquake. In the compaction of that soil, in the studies, have there been any illusion to the fact that it is riverbed loam and that it needs extra compaction and extra fortification, or whatever you call it, to make it able to hold up that building in a major earthquake. BROWN: I think the soils report that was done did deal with liquifaction and other...cites other specific seismic occurrence that might occur. I don't remember right now the exact recommendations for the foundation system in terms of depth, but I think the feeling is that it can be over excavated and recompacted and placed on appropriate fill material. BRUESCH: Their answer at the cater-corner was to get those pilings way down. Now, what you're saying is that, the answer that you're suggesting is to dig out that fill and fill it back in compact it. BROWN: I don't know what type of project that was. BRUESCH: It was, still is, a shopping center. WAGNER: By the Burger King, back of the Burger King on Rosemead and Garvey. BRUESCH: For the longest time those pilings were in there and I asked people from South El Monte and they said it was because they wanted to make sure the engineering on those pilings was adequate to withstand the G-forces of a certain level earthquake in terms of liquifaction element in the soil. I've asked this question before and I want to make sure as we move forward on this that the subsoil there is either compacted enough or that we have the remediation type of method that they used with the pilings so that the whole structure is steady. COPENHAVER: It definitely will be built to the soils engineers specifications. The case of our soils problem is a little bit different, in that the area was never compacted. It was filled for an interim use. We have to take out that fill that was just put in there and not compacted for the interim use and now...compact it properly. BRUESCH: There is another question that I have, and maybe Don can answer this. We are leasing parking to the furniture company down there. Is that part of our project or is that outside the parameters of the project. WAGNER: That's part of the project and they are on a month-to-month lease on that, and they understood that when they entered into it. BRUESCH: In terms of signalization, do we have access to River or are we a long way from River? WAGNER: We tried, we looked at that, it's a good idea. We've looked at that, but there's no way we can gain access to River. RRA90-27-98 Page N3 BRUESCH: I'm a little bit worried about the signalization down there. That bridge is already bottlenecked. On the map, as well as question marks in the transportation plan. Couldn't we at least investigate our ability to get some type of access directly to River and to make that access to that site on River. I think it would save us a lot of problems with...I'm just thinking... COPENHAVER: We can take a look at it. There was quite an investigation done by the City Engineer at the time, and really, this is the only way we could figure out that would provide adequate access for the public building and still work. They reviewed the signalization in detail. We do not have the best spacing between the signals themselves. But, in terms of site distance and the grades, the signal at the main entrance there, if we went out across another property, we're going to be taking parking, etc., and cause a whole series of additional problems. BRUESCH: All I'm saying is that during rush hour, it is almost going to keep us from having any major events during the rush hour on Garvey because of the traffic down there. I think it would be alleviated if we could utilize River as an access. COPENHAVER: I don't think anybody disagrees. We'll take another look at it. BRUESCH: I've been down there and going through that traffic going toward South El Monte, it really is bad. COPENHAVER: It stacks up. BRUESCH: It really stacks up right before that bridge and add another light down there, it's going to add even more problems. I'm just thinking that during that time period of seniors trying to cut across and waiting because the signalization. We obviously have to allow more east/west flow than north/south flow. COPENHAVER: In the early analysis by the Traffic Engineer, when basically, having the optimum signal spacing, makes it very hard to pull out of this site onto Garvey. Without having the benefit of the signal, you could never be able to make the turnout. BRUESCH: Yes, I realize that. You would have to have a signal there. COPENHAVER: With a signal then it really helps us. If we go out across another property, as a main entrance, we really probably have to purchase additional property. BRUESCH: I don't know what the answer is. I put down, "What is the answer?" I would appreciate, staff at least looking into that type of thing. It's better to plan for these contingencies before they happen. IMPERIAL: Staff ought to look at the ingress on Garvey Boulevard and egress on Rosemead Boulevard with a ramp across the channel. I think that would be the easiest way. BRUESCH: We need a motion to approve. ,.JJ AGENCYMEMBER GARY TAYLOR: When are gooiingto get the guidelines for the tenants or the occupants? This Board tried the best they could and they first approved this, it was under the impression that it would be long-time residents of Rosemead would get the first choice. We got down to 2 years and tried to get occupants in the facility. We got down to the ninda and it was between 10 and 15 occupancies and they filled them very rapidly, and the ' peg ns from a month and a half to two and a half three months. In other words, people that had just moved into the City because we didn't have enough applicants to fill it. That doesn't seem right to me. I'm wondering what the regulations are going to be for this project. RRA10-27-98 Page Pd COPENHAVER: The way that it is structured so far is the same as Angelus. WAGNER: Six months. COPENHAVER: Six months was the minimum. WAGNER: From the date of the application. TAYLOR: That didn't work. That's not what happened. BRUESCH: There's a proviso in there because we already said, they're on the waiting list for Angelus. How many are on the waiting list? TAYLOR: It backfired, Bob. That's the point I'm trying to make. I asked for copies of all the residents. Are you aware of that, Don? I asked for copies of all the residents, how long they had been in the City before they were approved. You'll be surprised at how many were in here far less than six months. Because we had an opening date..we tried for about two years, getting all those applications in here. When it got down to opening date, we had to really fill those last ten to fifteen units. COPENHAVER: What happened is, and really, this Body had discussed it several times. We did those marketing efforts way before the project was under construction. Really, no one is interested in committing to an apartment before they can actually see the unit. It wasn't until the units were getting close to completion that we had tremendous interest. TAYLOR: I think staff needs to dig that information back out because when that we almost completed, there was still, like I said ten to fifteen units that were not occupied. That's when all the time limits just went out the window. I'm afraid with another 70 units down there, that were going to become a County housing project. That's the only way I can put it because we're taking in a lot of the County residents and if I'm not mistaken, the restrictions cannot be put on those units. COPENHAVER: We can't require any more than a six months residency. WAGNER: I've had people call up and tell me that, or ask me about Angelus, if we're going to build another one. I let them know, go down to Angelus, put your name on a waiting list. You have to be a Rosemead resident. In order to qualify you have to be a Rosemead resident for at least six months. The astute individual are going to pick up on this and realize that it's going to take two years to build this and they are going to move their parents or their relatives or people that they know into the City because they know that we require at least a six month residency. I don't know how we avoid that. TAYLOR: That didn't work the last time. Dig up the information. What with 50 tenants you're going to ndfricotriLthat�ii]�as j t a couple of months that they ended up wie}c.. �'22C#U�C. &511 COPENHAVER: eL is look at at it. I'll I'll bring back to the Board a report. We do have some time to figure out just the exact system that you want to follow in what the structure would be. We'll bring that back and investigate that because... TAYLOR: Mother question I've got is that the $68,000 per unit, does not include any of the site improvements, any of the cost of the land for the project. I figure it out between $110,000 and $120,000 per unit for the cost of the entire project. I don't like these figures when it says these are direct construction costs at $68,000. That's not a true cost of the project. COPENHAVER: It's not a total cost of the project. That's just for the construction contract... RRA10-27-98 Page p5 TAYLOR: you say that you're trying to build 72 units at a cost of $68,000 where it's more between $110,000 and $120,000. COPENHAVER: I think it would be more on the order of$90,000, if you really... TAYLOR: Just take the very figures you put on Page 4... COPENHAVER: It depends on how you allocate the project costs. TAYLOR: I took half of the site preparation, half of the contingency, and maybe split, you'll have to define which way it will be. But I took half and half,just of those figures, not counting the land cost, it comes out to $94,000 per unit. I think that's deceiving when the Board looks at it, people look at it, "Gee, it's only $68,000 a unit". There's a lot of cost in here that they're not up front so that people realize what it is costing. COPENHAVER: The land price that the City paid years ago, at this point is almost a sunk cost. The soils prep, we can't use the site at all without doing an extraordinary amount of soils prep. TAYLOR: I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying is... COPENHAVER: It would be no problem to show the entire cost. I think it would work out closer to...if we did a proportionate allocation of the cost, based on the actual area of the two project. TAYLOR: What's the area of the two projects? COPENHAVER: I can't tell you the land area off the top of my head. I'm just guessing... TAYLOR: I split it 50-50 as far as land. BROWN: I think the total land area is about 4 acres. The housing portion is half an acre. BRUESCH: 94,000 COPENHAVER: 1.1 acre is the nightclub, the muffler shop. That's where we're going to build the senior housing, a portion of it. TAYLOR: I just don't think it's a legitimate appraisal to tell us that $68,000 per unit when it's 50% higher than that right off the bat. That's just for the Board's purposes, however they want to do it that's... BRUESCH: I have one question, we agreed that one of the priorities is...the priority of putting people in there was that waiting list. How long is that waiting list right now? I heard it was about 20. WAGNER: It's 30 people when the last I checked. BRUESCH: Most of them have been on there for quite a long time, right. WAGNER: A couple have been on for a couple of years. TAYLOR: The other thing I'd like to find out, there's no restrictions from moving off of Angelus to Garvey. COPENHAVER: This Board can establish the policy that it fits the... RRA 10-Y0.98 Page d6 TAYLOR: I think that's a whole can of worms that is going to come up and I'm not in favor of telling people that you can't move. That's not right. COPENHAVER: In other cities where we've had government assisted housing, we have restricted. We've made the lowest priority someone moving from one assisted unit to another assisted unit. Everyone who did not have a unit had a higher priority for getting a unit than someone that was in another project. That same kind of system would work well here. TAYLOR: It might work. I'm still not decided as far as I now how it's going to be prevented and yet I don't want to tell people you can't move. They've got good housing as far as I'm concerned. But, expect an influx who want to be right at the bus line to be able to go back and forth on Garvey. Only time will tell. COPENHAVER: This is a wonderful project because they're next to the Community Center. There's a lot of benefits to it, no doubt about it. WAGNER: I guess that is something we'll have to deal with and the Corporation will have to set some kind of policy on that. BRUESCH: Steve, could you give the Council a memo on the total cost. COPENHAVER: Another thing I could do for you is, I could give you costs from a couple of Kauffman and Rhodes projects that were done totally as private senior citizen projects. BRUESCH: Include total costs from Angelus. $60,000 was the building cost and did not include the cost of the land. WAGNER: The Angelus property, as I recall, was we paid about $250,000 for the initial chunk, the biker safe house. Then we paid another, Peter, $150,000 for the Edison right-of-way. So the total cost of the land was $400,000. Add that to the cost of the project, which was right around $2.9 million, so that's $3.5 or $4 divided by 50 units is how much. COPENHAVER: I will bring you a very clear outline of the total cost and we'll try to be as fair as possible so everyone will know what it is. I'll even compare it with some other projects if you like. This was not to be a presentation of the total cost. This is just a presentation of.."Look, if this body wants to proceed with the project, we've got to come up with $10.8 million'. These are the only sources that we know of for that $10.8 million BRUESCH: I want to remind Council that on both these properties, one of the purposes was to get rid of an eyesore problem piece of property. TAYLOR: There are many ways to do that, Bob. It just happens to be that that's the way this one is being handled. BRUESCH: Do I hear a motion? Are there any more questions? AGENCYMEMBER MARGARET CLARK: I just wanted to clarify that having the porous pavement will be included in the parking lot? WAGNER: Yes. I sent all that material you gave me to Dale. BRUESCH: Any more comments or questions? Do I hear a motion? MOTION BY AGENCYMEMBER VASQUEZ, SECOND BY AGENCYMEMBER CLARK that the Agency approve the proposed contract with BVH for architectural and engineering services and extend, on a time and material basis, the project management contract of GRC. Vote taken from voting slip: RRA:10-27-98 Page 17 Aye: Vasquez, Clark, Bruesch, Imperial No: Taylor Absent: None Abstain: None The Chairman declared said motion duly carried and so ordered. TAYLOR: I would like to record to show that I'm afraid that this will turn into a County housing project because the Rosemead resident's cannot have the priority of filling it. IMPERIAL: I want the record to show also that I voted for because I think it's long overdue. Also, I'm very disappointed in the amount of time it's taking. I'm not talking about wanting any shortcuts, because that's not going to do us any good. I'm just talking about the amount of time it's taking. That's a long time on this project. I would also like to, as Gary has said, to take a look at the way we're doing this. I've talked to people that have not been able to get into the housing unit at Angelus even if they lived here for a long time, because after that six month criteria, then they go in the hat and they go into the lottery, got some people that were left out. That's possibly what he might be trying to say. I'd like to take a look at that too. WAGNER: Just as an ending comment. The way it works is on a first-come-first-served. You're name is on the list. If there's a vacancy, somebody moves out, the management company goes to that person, they do a background, make sure that they make the income, the current income requirements. And, make sure that they've been a resident for six months and so on and so forth. If that person doesn't qualify, then they move to the next person on the list. IMPERIAL: I guess what I'm trying to say in reality is this. I think our prime concern should be those people that live in this City and have lived here for a long time. It's like our government giving away funds to help poor people, we've got a lot of them here. That's what I'm trying to say. We've got people that need help in this community. I have a little a problem understanding why it's the lottery or whatever you want to call it, why some of these people will go without while we have people moving in with just a six month period. CLARK: Maybe we should look into requiring longer than six months. Let them challenge it. WAGNER: Legal counsel, David Kroot, Goldfarb and Lippman, told us six months. ROBERT KRESS, CITY ATTORNEY: That was that project and that time. Certainly we can have them take another look at this project and its funding and whether or not... TAYLOR: We may as well go one step further. That project, we couldn't ask citizenship for the occupants that are down there. A lot of them...they don't have to be U.S. citizens. They came into the country, they weren't long time residents, either of the county or the City. Now I understand the new law that took place can ask for citizenship. Is that correct? COPENHAVER: I believe that's correct. TAYLOR: So, I think there's a lot of things that happened down there that this Board didn't realize were going to end up that way. COPENHAVER: We will let...it's been a long time since I've looked at that issue. I'd like to go back to it and look at that. The six month thing, if the Board remembers, we had over 20 meetings arriving at the standards that were going to be applied to the tenants. TAYLOR: That's because we kept getting whittled down, Steve. They started long-time residents, then it started at six months. We had to compromise on that. Then it went on down and we couldn't get the occupants. RR/A:10-27-98 Page 08 COPENHAVER: I can assure you everybody in this room is in favor of a long a residency requirement as we can get. We all understand it's local money and we want to have it benefit the local residents to the degree that we stay out of legal problems. IMPERIAL: I think that we ought to look at what we are contending with, I think we ought to look at all of this and if it takes getting our feet wet to prove a point, I think we owe that to the people in this community that have been here a long time. CLARK: How did it happen that we had a six month, I mean I know how we arrived at that. How did it happen that we whittled it down to one month, or something. Because there weren't enough people? And then now there's people that can't get in even though they've been here for six months? KRESS: There's very little turnover in this project. You're adding to the waiting list without really taking off significant numbers. CLARK: But, I mean originally we didn't have enough people applying because they didn't see the units? COPENHAVER: This time in...what I would suggest is that we don't initiate marketing efforts long before the construction period. At one time we had a series of community meetings. We got a lot of residents all excited about potentially living there. It was so far between that point in time and the completion of the project. People had moved, they had found other places to live, lots of changes. This time if we arrive at a program that everyone believes in, that this Board adopts, and we do it in proximity to the occupation date, we should be much better. TAYLOR: That's a bad decision if we go that way because it's going to be management by crisis. We're going to get that project almost done, then we're going to put out the guidelines and we're going to end up exactly or even worse than what we had last time because we couldn't fill it after trying two years. We started sending out literature. You'll see the information if Don will dig it up. Pm afraid that we'll get it built, then management by crisis...we've got to get this thing occupied. That's what happened when we had the opening date scheduled two to three months ahead of time, we still didn't have that building occupied. I'm just afraid that we're going to do a repeat of this situation. As I say, then we start taking the County residents into it. That money, a lot of it is coming out of Rosemead, and it should be for Rosemead residents. CLARK: I'd like to know how many are there now that were not Rosemead residents. TAYLOR: It's on that list. It's all broken down. WAGNER: I'll look at it again, Margaret. TAYLOR: As far as not Rosemead residents, they all ended up being Rosemead residents. But, it was just cut down to, I believe the shortest one was one month and a half or two months. But, there are several of them that ended up just to get it occupied. So, I don't want to get caught in that "catch 22" situation - fill it with anybody. BRUESCH: I also know that there were, not numerous, a few people that went in that were Rosemead residents at one time because, whatever reason they moved for a year or two, and then in order to get back in, they moved in with a son or daughter. WAGNER: The requirement was at the time of their application that they had been a Rosemead resident for six months. I'll go back and check the file. Steve is right in the fact that we did market it early and people, I'm sure, knew this was coming down the road and they moved into the community so they could get that six months residency before they came in. RRA:10-27-9g Page#9 TAYLOR: And we still couldn't fill it with out residents that were here. That's the point I'm trying to make. What you're saying is we, even with that forewarning, people moved in ahead of time to qualify, but we still didn't get enough. And, in the last few months we filled up 20 to 25% because we had the opening scheduled. WAGNER: I think everybody was on board by...the Grand Opening was in April, and I think by the end of June everybody was...all 50 units were occupied. I'll get you that information. BRUESCH: On the Grand Opening you only had maybe four or five that weren't. COPENHAVER: I still think that we have some lessons to learn from that. I would not suggest, I'm not suggesting that we do it right at the end. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't do it a year in advance. There has to be a middle ground there that would work best. TAYLOR: I don't know what it would be, Steve, because we started two years ahead of time. With the advance notice and even in two years we couldn't get it filled with residents from Rosemead. If we cut it down to six months, I don't know what's going to happen, to tell you the truth. Even if what Bob says where people move their parents into the City to qualify and probably a lot that are occupying it now did that. But, even considering those people that moved in, it's still wasn't enough to fill 50 units. COPENHAVER: We are willing to work on a system that is acceptable to the Board. We are planning on having lots of discussions again on arranging the priorities and the processes, similar to Angelus, hopefully, not quite as many meetings because everybody is more familiar with the issue. I think some of the policies that the Board adopted, for instance with respect to the handicapped units and things of that nature, maybe we can leave alone. We don't have to reinvent that. TAYLOR: That's fine. That didn't take much time that I recall. That was just a requirement that we had to have some. COPENHAVER: We had a lot of discussion in terms of what type of handicaps, how many units we were going to convert. Then on the rental rates, we had many, many discussion on what would be an ap ropriate rental rate because we invented a rent scale that is different from what anybody else that was very favorable to the residents. BRUESCH: We had allot of discussions about the high end and the low end. COPENHAVER: In this case, we have assumed, until the Board tells us differently, that the rental rate structure would be similar to the Angelus one. Now, this could possibly be one policy decision that the Board will face in the future. This one could be a little bit higher. We have a few options there, but I think it's going to be much easier to get those rental rates discussions than we had last time. The other time is that...the other thing that we spent a tremendous amount of time was the mobile home occupants. In all honesty, it didn't result in anything, it didn't work. We hand delivered all these notices to all of the people... BRUESCH: I think three, to my knowledge. I think three people moved out of their trailers to live in there. That was it, out of all that effort. COPENHAVER: I think we can take the best elements of Angelus and focus in on what is the best marketing way...to get the maximum number of Rosemead residents in there. We hear what you're saying, we want to get the Rosemead residents in. BRUESCH: I want to go on record on this, with the idea that this meets two great needs that we have in the City, governmentally. One is we do use our housing set-aside that we have to use within the time that we're given. And, secondly, every City is going to be under the aegis of the RRA IO-27-98 Page p10 new housing element and we have a big fight on our hands right now. The State is trying to tell us what numbers we should use. Our local COG trying to say No, we're going to use our numbers. Whatever numbers we do use, there is a certain number of moderate to low-income housing units that we are going to be required to have in our housing unit and this satisfies that. We should be very strong in our housing element, at least for the next update, which is five years, and probably even in the second update, which would be ten years from now. It does meet some of the requirements the City has under the State and Federal law. VERBATIM DIALOGUE ENDS. 3. MATTERS FROM OFFICIALS -None 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MATTERS -None 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further action to be taken at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for November 10, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted: APPROVED: Agency Secretary CHAIRMAN RRA:10-27-98 Page#11