Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2002-459 RESOLUTION 2002-459 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING WRITTEN RESPONSES TO VO, ITrEN OBJECTIONS TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE SOIJFHWEST REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND HOLDING THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN IN ABEYANCE ON CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF JACQUA STREET FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS WHILE TIIE PROPER ZON1NG FOR JACQUA STREET IS DETERMINED WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista ("City Council") adopted Ordinance No. 2420 on November 27, 1990, approving and establishing the Redevelopment Plan for the Southwest Redevelopmem Project, and the City Council has since amended said Redevelopmem Plan on July 9, 1991 by Ordinance No. 2467, on November 6, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2612, and on August 22, 2000 by Ordinance No. 2819 ("Plan"); and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 33333.2 of the California Community Redevelopmem Law, Health and S~fety Code Section 33000 et seq. ("Law"), the use of eminent domain powers can only occur within twelve (12) years from the date of adoption of the Fourth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan ("Fourth Amendment"); and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") has requested that the City Council consider the Fourth Amendment in order to extend the authority to use eminent domain for property acquisition purposes in the Southwest Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"); and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2002 and September 10, 2002, the City Council and Agency held a joint public hearing ("Joint Public Hearing") on the proposed Fourth Amendment; and WHEREAS, at the Joint Public Hearing, the Mayor, as the presiding officer, called for public testimony, and all persons present were afforded the opportunity to testify and submit materials; and WHEREAS, written objections were presented at or prior to the Joint Public Hearing; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2002 a petition was submitted by the property owners of the 100 Block of Jacqua Street requesting that said block be re-zoned from M-54 to a residential zoning ("Jacqua Street Rezone Petition"); and WHEREAS, Section 33363 of the Health and Safety Code provides that, where written objections are received at or prior to the hearing concerning the adoption or amendment of a redevelopment plan, the legislative body: " ... shall ... respond in writing to the written objections ...The written responses shall describe the disposition of the issues raised. The legislative body shall address the written objections in detail, giving reasons for not accepting the specified objections and suggestions. The legislative body shall include a good-faith, reasoned analysis in its response"; and Resolution 2002-459 Page 2 WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the written objections presented at the Joint Public Hearing, and has participated in the preParation of responses to said objections ("Res onses". the form submitted herewith as Exhibit "A"; and P )' in WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed in detail the objections presented at the Joint Public Hearing and the Responses, together with all testimony and reports presented at the Joint Public Hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby: 1. Approves and adopts the responses attached hereto as Exhibit "A" as its findings and response to the written objections presented at or prior to the Joint Public Hearing. 2. Overrules ail objections to the Fourth Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. 3. Directs the City's General Plan Update Team to consider the Jacqua Street Rezone Petition and to study and determine the most appropriate zoning for the area. 4. Holds in abeyance the use of eminent domain with respect to those certain properties fronting on Main Street, Jacqua Street, and Faivre Street, as shown cross-hatched in the map attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Presented by Approved as to form by Chris Salomone Joh2n~. Kaheny Community Development Director C~fAttomey ~ Resolution 2002-459 Page 3 - PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Counc'fl of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 12th day of November, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Counc'flmembers: Davis, Padilla, Rindone, Salas and Horton NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Counc'flmembers: None A'ITISST: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk '~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2002-459 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 12th day of November, 2002. Executed this 12th day of November, 2002. Susan Bigelow, City Clerk EXHIBIT A Fourlh Amendment to the Soulhwest Redevelopment Plan Responses to Written Objections September 11, 2002 City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 217 North Main Street, Suite 300 Santa Ana, California 92701 Phone: (714) 541-4585 Fax: (714) 836-1748 E-Mail: info(~webrsg,com R;:I it=es~W,;~ Objec'dons Fourth Amendment to ~he Southwest Redevelopment Plan Introduction ............................................................... ~ ............ 1 Written Objections and Responses ......................... .~. ........... 1 Dr. Jagpal S. Deo and Gurdarshan Deo- Letter 1 .............................. 2 Jack L. Stanley, behalf of Standard Auto Recycling ........................ 4 Yih-Ruey and Chan-Yung Chang ......................................................... 7 Martha Griffith .......................................................................................... 8 Gary Stovall and Phyllis Welch-Stovall ............................................... 9 Jacqueline Lassman ............................................................................. 17 Wayne H. Craycroff ............................................................................... 18 Dr. Jagpal S. Deo and Gurdarshan Deo- Letter 2 ............................ 19 Fourth Amendment to Southwest Redevelopment Plan On August 6, 2002, the City Council of the City of Chuta Vista ("City Council") and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency'~ held a joint public headng on the proposed Fourth Amendment to the Southwest Redevelopment Plan ("Amendment"). The public hearing was continued to September 10, 2002 and closed that same date. During and after the public headng, certain wdtten objections were presented on the Amendment. The California Community Redevelopment Law ("Redevelopment Law") requires that before considering an amendment to a redevelopment plan, the legislative body (City Council) shall evaluate all evidence and testimony, both for and against the adoption of the amendment, and make written findings in response to each wdtten objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity. Fur[her, the legislative body is to respond in writing to the wdtten objections received before or at the noticed public hearing and that these responses shall descdbe the disposition of the issues raised, and addresses in detail the reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions. This document is the written response of the City Council to the wdtten objections submitted at the public headng ("Response"). Eight wdtten objections were filed at the public headng. This Response addresses these written objections separately. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 1 0 To: The City of Chula Vista Redeveloping Agency of Chula Vista Subject: The amendment proposes to extent the date of November 27, 2002 by Redevelopment Agency to acquire property by Eminent Domain. Dear Miguel Z. Tapia, It is our request to the city to not extend the date November 27, 2002 to September of 2014 to authorize the Redevelopment Agency/City of Chula Vista to take over property at 1038 Broadway Chula Vista, CA 91911 by Eminent Domain. We own and run a very successful animal hospital, which was established over twenty seven years ago, at that location. Moving our practice to another location will be a permanent loss of our business. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Dr. J ag~a~ S. Deo 77/4' z_ Gurdarshan K. Deo £OMMUNIT¥ DEVELOPMENI July 24, 2002 City Council of the City of Chula Vista ("City Council" Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Joint Public Hearing Scheduled: August 6, 2002 Ladies and Gentlemen: This letter is formal opposition to the proposed Fourth Amendment and Negative Declaration concerning the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. Respectfully, the opinion of the undersigned is that the proposed Fourth Amendment and the Negative Declaration should not be adopted. The reasons for this position are as follows: 1. The history of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan shows that it has been in operation since November 1990. From information available, eminent domain has not been used dur'mg the existence of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan. The likelihood of use during the next twelve-year period would appear to be either quite limited or nonexistent. An approach similar to the use of "sunset laws" by other legislative bodies would appear to be in order and the eminent domain provisions should not be carried forward solely for the purpose of carrying them forward. 2. Proposals for the Fourth Amendment note that there is a prohibition against the Agency using eminent domain on residential property in a residential zone. This would appear to remove the areas on the eastern most portions of the Plan from the purposes of this Amendment. Simply put, this means that the areas involving Walnut, Lotus, Maple, Otay Valley, Date, Palm, and Rios would not be subject to eminent domain. Further, areas surrounding Naples, Oxford and Third Street would again be excluded from the purposes of the Amendment. Further, the westem most areas involving Walnut, Aida and areas immediately east of Pacific would be excluded from eminent domain action in any event. Such a large percentage to be excluded from eminent domain activity would appear to weaken the overall objectives. For purposes of not allowing a waiver of questions or rights, it is respectfully noted that no physical or economic blight has been determined in this matter. Rather, there has been a pronouncement of statutory language not based on factual or accurate findings. Standard Auto/City of Chula Vista City Council of the City of Chula Vista July 24, 2002 Page 2 4. The General Plan of the City of Chula Vista is currently undergoing proposed amendments and changes. It is therefore impossible to determine if the Southwest Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the General Plan. 5. It is respectfully noted that statutory requirements for notification have not been met in proceedings concerning the proposed Fourth Amendment and Negative Declaration. In conclusion, it is respectfully contended that the better approach in this matter would be to not adopt the proposed Fourth Amendment or Negative Declaration. The time which has passed since the adoption of the Southwest Redevelopment Plan has demonstrated, by what has actually taken place, that changes in the area which coincide with objectives of the Plan have been met by the concerted efforts of owners and government. It is respectfully noted that redevelopment activities, in a pure sense, have never taken place. At such future time that redevelopment may be desired in the area, conditions should be examined as they might exist at that time. · dest p~a~ reg s - ~/ President, Standard Auto Recycling 150 Reed Ct. Chula Vista, CA 91911 JLS:mjc Standard Auto/City of Chula Vista August 6, 2002 City Council of the City of Chula Vista City Council Chambers 27/; Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Re: ~urth Am~4rn~nt to the Retl~veiopm~nt Plan for the ~outhwe~t Retim~loDm~nt Project_ Dear Sir or Madam: Please be advised that my wife and myself are the owners of the Moana Court Motel, 772 Broadway, Chula Vista, California, which is located in the above-referenced redevelopment project, By this leRer we wish to voice our objection to the proposed amendment to the redevelopment project and request that the any amendment to the plan include, in addition to any compensation provided by the State Property Acquisition Law and State Relocation Guidelines, all economic damages suffered by a property owner ns a result of the taking of property through the eminent domain process contemplated by this proposed fourth amendment to the redevelopment plan, Your consid~ation et'our request is appreciated. CY-i~Rue y Chang/ Chan-Yung Chang Martha Gdffith 31132 Flying Cloud Laguna Niguel, Ca. 92677 949-443-9999 City Of Chula Vista City Council City Of Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency City Of Chula Vista City Manager 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca. 91910 August 5, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council: Please let the record show that as Trustee of.the Caroline Bransztet Trust, I am opposed to the extension of eminent dominion on APN #618~010-17 for an additional twelve years. We are in the process Of developing the lot on the comer of Broadway and Moss at groat expense to the trust. This development will greatly enhance the appearance of the area as well as bring increased revenue to the City. With the threat of eminent domain in the background I suspect many quality tenants will look outside the aroa where their investments in the community will be moro secure. Sincerely Martha Gdffith August 6, 2002 Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council and Planning Commission, My name is Gary Stovall and I live at 790 Ada St. Chula Vista, CA. My wife and I are opposed to extending the eminent domain law. Our property falls in the area designated for eminent domain/redevelopment. We have spent at least 100,000 dollars over a period of 12 years upgrading and improving our property. We have done extensive repairs on the smaller house covering new walls, roof, electrical, and plumbing. We bought the property so that we could have an income property and a home as well since the property has two houses. When we bought our property we removed two construction dumpsters oft-rash plus several old cars. We paid over eighteen hundred dollars in taxes last year. We have a four-car parking pad on our property and maintain our property,, which we have landscaped to make as beautiful as any park. We are retired and depend on income fi.om the second house. The eminent domain law stipulates that we would receive fair market value for the property. I don't think there are many other properties in the area that has two houses and the amount of land we have. Our property value has doubled in the last five years. We recently had an offer fi.om Flock & Avoyer, Commercial Real Estate, for an option to buy our property. We responded favorably to them but their response to us was they only wanted to purchase the "Pumpkin Patch" and were not interested in our property. We looked all over Chula Vista for something comparable. We did not £md property with two houses for sale so we looked at properties with comparable land. The prices ranged fi.om 400,000 thousand to 750,000 dollars. I do not believe the city would be prepared to pay that sum of money in the event of using the eminent domain law. ls fair market value what someone from the city decides? Who in the city makes that decision? Our neighbors, some, who recently purchased their property, are all upgrading their properties. They are making repairs-- landscaping and doing a very good job of removing any blight. Every one has off street parking and the only people who are parking on the street are fi:om the new low income housing the city built two years ago. My personal belief is that the blight is the heavy traffic and 10 strip malls in the area. My wife and I retired from teaching this past year. We both taught a number of years with the Sweetwater Union High school District and work in the community as volunteers in the arts, our church and for other community projects~ We believe we should be allowed to live in peace without the threat of an eminent domain law hanging over our head. We also request that our property be removed from the designated area. Thank you. 0  3131 Carnino Del Rio Norlh · Suite 190 San Diego, Califomia 92108 (619) 280-2600 · FAX (619) 280-3311 Commercial Reel E~;i~, ' website: www. flockeavoyer, c~m William R. Thaxton, CCIM Senior Yice Pr~ident June 18, 2002 Gary Stovall and Phyllis Welch-Stovall 790 Ada Street Chula Vista, CA 91911 RE: 790 ADA STREET CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Dear Gary and Phyllis: A very good client of mine, Jeff Sterk of GMS Realty, has expressed an interest in purchasing your property as part of a redevelopment of a number of properties in the area. He has an interest in entedng into an option to purchase agreement at a price that would be acceptable to all parties for two periods of six months. He would be willing to pay you $5,000 for each six-month period, which would be non- refundable and not applicable to the purchase price. Additionally, you would be able to live on the property or rent out the property until the Buyer exercises his option and closes escrow. Please call me at (6t9) 398-4675 when you receive this letter. I look forward to discussing this with you. Sincerely, FLOCKE ~VO¥~ COMMERCU~L ESTATE William R. Thaxton, CClM Senior Vice President WRT/mc cc: Jeff Sterk / GMS Realty Stephen E. Avoyer / Flocke & Avoyer Commercial Real Estate 790 Ada Street Chula Vista CA 91911-2604 Phone: (619) 575-7811 e-mail.' quilisi(~-thlink.m~t July 2, 2002 Mr. William R. Thaxton, Senior Vice Presidem Flocke & Avoyer Commercial Real Estate 3131 Camino Del Rio Horth, Ste. 190 SanDiego, CA 92108 Dear Mr. Thaxton: This letter is to follow up our telephone conversation of July 2"d. As per the letter we received fi'om you dated June 1 g*, you stated your client, Jeff Sterk of GMS Realty, was interested in purchasing our property as part of a redevelopment of a number of properties in the area, at a price that would be acceptable to all parties. We look forward to hearing from you the week of July 22nd after you have consulted with your client so we may meet and discuss this matter more fully. Sincerely, Gary and Phyllis Stovall 0 "o ~' oz .o 0 Z P 88/86/2882 18:21 6194981438 LASSMAN USBO)< PAGE 02 ~-. ,~ 471 Z&~i,JrD& (619) 425-6800 August 6, 2002 'V'J:A FAX=' 476-5310 Mr. Miguel Tapia Principal Community Development Speulalist city of Chula vista Community Development Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Cal~fornia 91910 Proposed Fourth Amendment to the Sotithwest Redevelopment Plan Dear Mr. Tapia, ! am a commercial property owner of property located at 3~21 Main Street, Chula Vista. Let this letter serve as my formal objection to the proposed Fourth Amendment to the Southvest Redevelopment Thank you for the oppor~unity to express my objecti?n. Jacqueline Lassman, Trus tee, LASSMAN FAMILY TRUST Wayne H, Cra¥crofc ~.0. Box Rancho Mirage, ~lifornia 93870 (760) 346-0533 August 29, 2002 Miguel Z. Tap~a City of Chula Vista Co.unity Development Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista,-CA. 91910 Dear Miguel: I own the commercial property located at 1251 Third Avenue, Chula Vista, CA., which is comprised of 8 office suites. When I purchased this property in 19911 was not told of the Redevelopment Agency & the Southwest Redevelopment Plan which included the agency's authority to use eminent domain on my property,, which is located in this plan, I am very much opposed to the extension of the Amendment for an additional 12 years, to September 2014. I feel that this right to use eminent domain puts a cloud over my property, restricting any future sale, lease and the value is impacted due to this amendment. Last night I attended your Community Workshop meeting at the Otay Recreation Center, which was very informative, but it certainly did not change my view that the right of eminent domain is restricting my rights as the property owner. A vote of hand raising was taken at the meeting, and all attending were in agreement that this ammendment should not be passed. I would appreciate your passing this letter on to the City Council so that they might see my opposition to this a~endment as well as the opposition of those in attendance last evening~. Thank you for you consideration. Sincerely, c.c. City Council, City of Chula Vista To: The City Council SarUebaJ?Ct: Extension of eminent domain, ~ t project Property: 1038 Broadway Chula Vista, CA. 91911. Dear City Mayor and Council Members, It is our request to the city that our property should be exempted fi.om eminent domain. We own and run a very successful veterinary hospital at 1038 Broadway, Chula Vista. This business has been at the same location for more than twenty seven years. It is a very'beautiful facility. We remodeled the front face of the building in 1999. We also removed the old business sign and put a new, mom beautiful one. In the backside of the building, we have a parking lot for clients, and next to it is a big yard to walk the dogs. It is impossible to find another commercial property with this size lot so that we can exercise and walk the dogs, which is one of the main reasons clients come to our practice. If we have to move our business from this location, there will be permanent loss of income to us. We have a client bond in this area. We already have made this property look modem. We oppose the extension of eminent domain. We want to run a business in peace, not in the fear of the eminent domain. It does not make any sense to relocate our business. This business is our life's struggle and investment. This business is also our retirement and future of our two growing young children. The eminent domain on my property will be injustice with us and our children. This will put our retirement and children's future in danger. So, we are strongly against the extension of eminent domain on my property. We are thinking to expand our hospital as it is growing, but in the fear of the eminent domain it is hard to do any investment. As successful business owners, we paid lots of taxes and will continue to pay in the future. We strongly urge the city not to do this injustice with us. Your consideration to exempt our property from eminent domain will be appreciated. Sincerely, Dr. Jagpal S. Deo & Gurdarshan K. Deo _EXHIBIT B Jacqua Street/Paula Gardens Neighborhood Main Street _ Faivre Street Iq Jacqua Street/Paula Gardens Neighborhood Residential Subdivision recorded in 1963 _ 20 Lots - Approx. 8,000 sq. ft. in area 17 SFR; 2 office bldgs; 1 auto repair shop Most SFRs Owner-occupied S