Renewal Zones Expanded to Cover Nearly a Third of City : Redevelopment: Council removes threat of condemning private homes, which had stirred many residents to protest expansion.

The City Council has voted to double the size of Pico Rivera’s redevelopment zones despite the objections of nearly 200 residents who fear that efforts to reshape the city could cost them their homes.

The council approved the economic development plan 4 to 0 Monday. Mayor Garth G. Gardner abstained from voting because he owns property in the area. The city’s redevelopment zones now include about 30% of this 8.5-square-mile town. The new area has an estimated 7,165 residents, or more than 12% of the city’s population of about 59,000.

The project area is a patchwork of eyesores, unused parcels and unfinished improvement projects, as well as thriving businesses and well-tended homes. It includes the Pico Rivera municipal golf course, five city parks and an abandoned elementary school property. It takes in streets that begin and end in illogical places or ones that lack sidewalks, gutters and curbs. And it encompasses neighborhoods where businesses and houses have sprung up side by side, streets where residents have started to bar their windows to keep out crime, and blocks where homeowners have failed to clear trash or derelict automobiles from yards.

Although no one denies the need for improvements, residents say they fear losing their homes through the city’s power of eminent domain, which allows officials to condemn and buy property without the consent of owners. An estimated 900 residents turned out at a previous meeting to protest the possible use of eminent domain in their neighborhoods.

In response to public concern, the council on June 24 amended its plan to forbid the use of eminent domain on single-family homes in the new redevelopment zones.

“We’ve listened to the people that came before us and removed the threat of eminent domain,” John Chavez told Monday’s sometimes-hostile, capacity crowd. More than 100 residents filled every seat in the council chamber as well as temporary seats unfolded in the back. Another 70 people waited outside, forbidden by the fire marshal to enter.

Council and staff reassurances placated very few of them.

“If they knock down the houses, we would have to look for another one,” resident Angelica Orozco said before the meeting. “It’s going to be hard to find another one we could afford.” Her nine-member family has lived for five years in their two-bedroom home, after years of renting.

Amalia and Eleno Hernandez have resided in their home for 35 years.

“We’re retired,” Eleno Hernandez said. “How do they expect us to start over again?”

Since the mid-1980s, the Pico Rivera Redevelopment Agency has used eminent domain proceedings to acquire parcels that once contained between 45 and 50 homes, officials said. But that process could not happen under the just-approved plan “at the whim of the council,” City Atty. Samuel Siegel said. The right to revive condemnation proceedings would have to survive the crucible of public hearings and notification to all property owners.

During the meeting, protest organizer Ofelia Rodriguez acted as an unofficial spokeswoman for the residents and business owners.

“Can’t you see the faces in the auditorium here?” she asked the council. “Are you telling me they accept your law?”

Attorney Christopher Sutton followed Rodriguez to the podium with a stack of blank petitions. He said that if the council approved the redevelopment plan, volunteers would immediately begin gathering signatures to put the redevelopment plan on the ballot.

“I urge you to avoid in Pico Rivera what other cities have foolishly gone through because cities would not listen to their citizens,” Sutton said, predicting that the redevelopment plan would be overwhelmingly rejected in a voter referendum.

Sutton, a Pasadena-based attorney who specializes in redevelopment issues, said Pico Rivera’s plan has not provided adequate protection to homeowners.

Sutton said the city could go back on its pledge by adopting an ordinance reversing the eminent domain prohibition.

The only real safeguard would be to establish an elected citizens committee to oversee redevelopment, as provided for by law, Sutton said. The citizens committee could recommend approval or denial of amendments to the redevelopment plan but could be overruled by the City Council, he said. Such committees can choose their own attorney, paid for by the city.

Such a plan has worked well in other cities, allowing for redevelopment while protecting the rights of property owners, he said.

City officials say they have complied with all legal requirements in developing their plan, including establishing a citizens committee. However, the Pico Rivera committee is an appointed one, rather than the elected body preferred by Sutton.

Sutton also wants the city to extend the ban on using eminent domain so that it applies to commercial properties.

Such an extension, however, could cripple redevelopment entirely, Councilman James M. Patronite said.

“I could be a hero with the roomful of people and say I oppose the redevelopment plan, but my conscience wouldn’t let me do that,” said Patronite, a 17-year council member who recently announced he would not run for reelection.

“We need it for us, for our children, for our future,” Patronite said of the redevelopment proposal. The plan would provide the city with 28% of the property tax proceeds that result from redevelopment. Without the plan, the city would get none of that property tax revenue, he said.

Under state law, cities are entitled to a larger share of property taxes from their redevelopment areas, money that would otherwise go to the county. Cities can use these tax funds, as well as a variety of financing methods, to resuscitate the run-down areas and provide incentives to developers.

Pico Rivera has benefited greatly from past redevelopment efforts, City Manager Dennis Courtemarche said. Previous projects included a 223-house residential development, a 144-unit condominium project, two shopping centers and several smaller shopping areas.

Sales tax revenue has more than doubled from $2.5 million to $5.5 million since 1983. “Most of that is attributable to redevelopment,” Courtemarche said. “More people who live in our town are spending their money in town, and we are attracting people from out of town as well.”

In an interview, the city manager noted regretfully that the new redevelopment plan has created a distrust of city officials. “And that’s too bad,” he said.

Even before the council meeting ended, neighborhood organizers were handing out blank petitions to gather signatures for a referendum on the plan, which has generated more uproar than any other city proposal in years.

“We’ve awakened them,” Courtemarche said. “This furor is about people reacting to what they feel was a threat to them.”