The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReso 2004-124 RESOLUTION NO. 2004-124 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE 2004 AMENDMENT, IN THE FORM OF THE AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, TO THE MERGED CHULA VISTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, on August 15, 1978, the City Council of the City of Chu1a Vista ("City Council") adopted Ordinance No. 1827 approving a redevelopment plan for the Town Centre II Redevelopment Project and has subsequently amended said redevelopment plan on May 19, 1987 by Ordinance No. 2207, on July 19, 1988 by Ordinance No. 2274, on November 8, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2610, and on August 22, 2000 by Ordinance No. 2817 ("Town Centre II Plan"); and WHEREAS, on December 29, 1983, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2059 approving a redevelopment plan for the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Project and has subsequently amended said redevelopment plan on November 8, 1994 by Ordinance No. 2611 and on August 22, 2000 by Ordinance No. 2818 ("Otay Valley Plan"); and WHEREAS, on November 27, 1990, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2420 approving a redevelopment plan for the Southwest Redevelopment Project and has subsequently amended said redevelopment plan on July 9,1991 by Ordinance No. 2467, on November 8,1994 by Ordinance No. 2612, and on August 22,2000 by Ordinance No. 2819 ("Southwest Plan"); and WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 2819, the Town Centre II Plan, Otay Valley Plan, and Southwest Plan (collectively, the "Plans") were merged to establish the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project to facilitate the sharing of financial resources pursuant to Sections 33485 through 33489 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. ("Law"); and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2947 amending the Plans to eliminate the time limit on incurring indebtedness, pursuant to Senate Bill 211 codified in Health and Safety Code Section 33333.6( e )(2)(B); and WHEREAS, on February 3, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2949 amending the Plans to extend the duration of the plan's effectiveness and time limit to collect tax increment revenue by one year, pursuant to Senate Bill 1045 codified in Health and Safety Code Section 33333.6(e)(2)(C); and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") is proposing to amend the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project to consolidate the constituent Plans into a single redevelopment plan document, add property to the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project boundaries ("Added Area"), and, subject to certain limitations, extend eminent domain authority in the Town Centre II and Otay Valley constituent project areas, which amendment as generally described above is in the form of an Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area ("2004 Amendment") and Resolution 2004-124 Page 2 WHEREAS, on March 23, 2004, the Agency and City Council held a joint public hearing, duly noticed and held in accordance with applicable law, on the proposed 2004 Amendment; and WHEREAS, at or prior to the time of the joint public hearing, the City Council received two written objections to the adoption of the 2004 Amendment, which written objections were contained in: (1) a letter dated September 30, 2003 from Angela J. Maidment, Director of Real Estate and Economic Development for Estes Express Lines, an owner of property located in the Added Area at 120 Press Lane, and (2) a letter received on November 11,2003 from Kent and Alicia Thompson, owners of property located in the Added Area at 507 Jefferson A venue; and WHEREAS, the Law requires that prior to the adoption of a redevelopment plan amendment that the City Council respond in writing to any written objections received by adopting written responses to the written objections; and WHEREAS, following the closure of the March 23, 2004 joint public hearing of the Agency and City Council, the proposed certification of the Final Program Environmental Impact Report prepared in connection with the 2004 Amendment and the proposed adoption of the 2004 Amendment, were continued to the April 20, 2004 Agency and City Council meetings, to permit the preparation of written responses to the written objections and to allow the City Council to first consider and evaluate the written objections and to consider the adoption of written responses to the written objections; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed, evaluated, and fully considered the report to City Council prepared by the Agency in connection with the 2004 Amendment and submitted to the City Council and all other oral and written staff reports and information presented, all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the 2004 Amendment, and all objections to the adoption ofthe 2004 Amendment, including the two written objections; and WHEREAS, written responses to the two written objections received to the 2004 Amendment have been prepared and have been fully reviewed, evaluated, and considered by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista has reviewed, evaluated, and fully considered the two written objections to the 2004 Amendment received at or prior to the joint public hearing, which objections are set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto, and the City Council hereby finds and determines that such objections are without merit and are hereby overruled for the reasons set forth in the written responses to these two written objections also set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto. The written responses included in Exhibit "A" are hereby adopted as the written findings of the City Council in response to the two written objections received. All oral and written objections to the 2004 Amendment received at or prior to the joint public hearing are hereby overruled. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit, by prepaid first class mail, a certified copy of this resolution, including Exhibit "A", to Angela J. Maidment and to Kent and Alicia Thompson, at their respective addresses. Resolution 2004-124 Page 3 Presented by Approved as to form by rÁ~ Ann Moore City Attorney PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista, California, this 20th day of April, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Salas and Padilla NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: ATTEST: ~lLLf:3.\~ D>--' Susan Bigelow, CMC, City lerk 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. 2004-124 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 20th day of April, 2004. Executed this 20th day of April, 2004. ~L~~~~ Susan Bigelow, CMC, City C erk EXHIBIT "A" 2004 Amendment to the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Written Objections and Responses to Written Objections April 20, 2004.^.pril 8, 2004 City of Chula VIsta 276 Fourth Sbæt 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 Written Objections and Responses to Written Objections 2004 Amendment to the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Table of Contents Introduction............... .................................. ...... ................. ....... 1 Written Objections and Responses ...........................................1 Angela J. Maidment, Estes Express Lines.................................................. 2 Kent and Alicia Thompson """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'" 4 J:\COMMDEVlRESOS\04-2~IEXHBITS TO RESO_WRTN RSPWRTN OBJ.DOC Written Objections and Responses to Written Objections 2004 Amendment to the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Introduction On March 23, 2004, the City of Chula Vista City Council ("City Council") and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista ("Agency") held a joint public hearing on the proposed 2004 Amendment to the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project ("Amendmenf'). During the hearing, two written objections were presented on the Amendment. The Califomia 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 written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity. Further, the legislative body is to respond in writing to the written objections received before or at the noticed public hearing and that these responses shall describe the disposition of the issues raised, and address in detail the reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions. This document is the written response of the City Council to the written objections submitted at the public hearing ("Response"). Written Objections and Responses Two written objections were filed at the public hearing: 1. Letter dated September 30, 2003 from Angela J. Maidment, Director of Real Estate and Economic Development for Estes Express Lines, an owner of property located at 120 Press Lane in the proposed Added Area to the Merged Chula Vista Redevelopment Project Area. 2. Letter received on November 11, 2003 from Kent and Alicia Thompson, owners of property located at 507 Jefferson Avenue in the proposed Added Area. This Response addresses these two written objections separately on the following pages. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 1 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS 2004 AMENDMENT TO THE MERGED CHULA VSITA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Angela J. Maidment, Estes Express Unes ~"",,,"""'\ðß~ ,. ' '. . 1\ ' OCT £ """ i' .01.. LII'" L/ I"""""""""" ~ --'Tho"""""""S"""CPod'o II I ,I, i ",,~,c;~"'c"'o. v... U-ovlJ ;::./ /I (I ~<I1i .,_....... i g.:,~~:~ '1'10 --- _.,~~ i..,..",..¡-projod -- I Jk....,..p"ml. "~~,, i ""~'","'~"I""""'-""=i"'._"'M"""""_~""'jod I """Ci'y,fCh,'.V"'.."~",........,,p"". A..._.,Ò....j~'." ~_.~., I ".""i",...._....Ò",ç_~i<y","_,ff....-"',,""""..~ ¡ ...-.r-'. "O_""",,,,""'j"~."""""M.....j~ : ~~~i"""""'_'~,,;"""""U"""""'ò,""-",P"¡~';f'" _......"m i -......A""'Y,_mÒm""".""""" r"F""",,'~"J. ,.~~-' ! Tro""""'"i<y...~....s~n...- w._......._.;,-"".._"...""".."""""~..."",..,,o- ....---- . """",,_..Mw. w._,.",,_."'~"I_'.;'p"'WJlJ""M w,..."-""""_........."""""",~."w,,... Whl"_,~_" ""C"',......._",li.""""",;",_..,.....,.....""""""..... A"""""......",.,~i"""""""',~"""'_i,.wyd...-w_.f_' l>y"'C~"yo."",=,o._,....~.....""""",....."",....- .,-""'"". ."Q,""","""'"_.I"""""'~6'(_""""'",,,,",M'""""'" .~i""""'I_",w,"u.,-,.-.,..""",,,,_...;ly"""- ~"",f""'lk""""). W.fw""'."w,"ld""..""';~"""u_",,"","" ""'ld.."",__",""""",,,~,,.=."lIy.IT""'ò.oo""-- ,'~,.< w,_.",.."""..".""",~"_;.I~i.""",~,,,",- ~""""""_"',r.,;"".iU,""""",.,i"',..",..,-~;.",,w.,".. ~'~"'j.¡"i<""""",. .,~"",_""';_f~........,.",,,u_". ""","..y""""-.,fi",,"""~~i""""__,fCh"Vi- ¡ """w,.,"V",;,;,..~"",,","....",",II,I"'M,""""'I"'" i N"~""II."~"'I"";"""y~"'""""".U.""""'~<h..~""",,,,,, ; oo""pro,"'~"~"'" W,~I'.....ly"_.....',i,,.~ """""",.",. , q"""""I~",.........'04-"'.i"'...""'. J ."""-'M",,,,", i~.- : ",-""""",U=~"",""",..., "'. O_lIm_,,", P"" 11"" C",,"m_'" """ M<C- """""'m.,"'J~""",," C,"~i""""""";""u I .~)t¡¡.!r-.~_J Response 1) The author of the letter is correct that eminent domain can be extended for redevelopment purposes as a public benefit under State law. But the author also implies that use of eminent domain for certain redevelopment purposes such as a private development undertaken in concert with the Agency pursuant to the redevelopment plan, is not a public benefrt, or would not be for a public purpose. To the extent that is the author's point, the author is incorrect. The United States Supreme Court in at least two cases, Berman v. Parker (1954) 348 U.S. 26, and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) 467 U.S. 229, has held that the taking of private property for redevelopment purposes, including for transition to another private property owner, is a public use under the United States Constitution. The Califomia courts in a number of cases, also extending back fifty years to Redevelopment Agency v. Hayes (1954), has held the same under the California constitution. Moreover, inclusion of eminent domain authority in a redevelopment plan does not prevent a property owner or business operator to continue to occupy and operate a business in the Added Area. It is important to understand that the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan proposed for the Added Area conforms to and incorporates all City General Plan and other applicable community development standards and policies, Even owners of noncompatible uses are afforded the same rights under the redevelopment plan as they enjoy today, and noncompatible uses may continue to exist unfettered if the 2004 Amendment is adopted. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 2 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS 2004 AMENDMENT TO THE MERGED CHULA VSITA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT The Agency concurs with the author's perspective that industrial development is a vital part of the City's economy, and in fact has included in the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan goals that adhere to this policy. Section 400 of the Redevelopment Plan includes goals such as the providing for the enhancement and renovation of businesses with the Project Area and encouraging cooperation and participation by property owners in the revitalization of the area. Finding Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the City Council hereby finds that the foregoing objection is without merit and is hereby overruled. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 3 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS 2004 AMENDMENT TO THE MERGED CHULA VSITA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Kent and Alicia Thompson K~,A.TI""",,~, AJi<,Ü.1b=..... 507 I""'.... A,. Chw. v"", CA 91910-51" 1'ho~("9)"'-N" F.. (0191"'-006' No_"",1200) CM~,i~"""""~,""",. "'Foo"h""Ch"'V~,C" 91910. "on" ......_ioood"~,","',~I..K~" Th"mp~,""m""",~ '(46"="h"Ll1"'mp~Wo'~""p"""","'07""'W"A,,.lli" 1omo"'.._""-19" 1...¡""'Yomsw,',~iœ"~"'~'(~"""""my...~AJJ"""",,, ",mJCP"""",C, ""~ """" ""'p""",y.""""~.'do'fJ,"'o~A"md~"'o""'Am""P""",,ppJ, ".."",..."",....rthi_'~"fkß"~"""".'~ Wo"",y,"",""""",""i"'","oft"""-~"'*""¡;,p'",,y """do,,...""""""" So'~"""""'_d~""'o.""_""""d ,""'Ç"om"_""i",."""",~""""~w"""""~""",,",,,,,, ,"~d"p_' .~. 00,1m"" ¡" ""¡",,,,~. th, """" ",40 "",wdlkq< ..'"",""'d.....".."",.,"'dOOhl,."fJd'"",""" "..""""""", cl"'~M'p"""",>""""""""""""¡_"'W,p...""iog"",.Ih"",œ,pf"",h,,. W,.Iik""'y,("""fulh¡""',,"'~d"........~."""do,.""'__"" "f~ W,..i""..lili_",w"yoo'p""'"""","",Erni...., """',A""'.,y YMfurt""",,"mfu"pModpfl2,..,.why"'y~,,7,by,oo, "¡,fM""~"OO_',"o,y,...~yoo""""'P""""""¡"prop"'"'"~""¡"'" Don.i,.. 'hi, tin, C..",.¡,¡~",."..f"',"'I-ing.12,~E"""""¡¡n...¡'>ImoJd""'~~,""_.1 If"""",p¡~"'¡oo¡><ny""""f",._pl""'""""~",.",-,""""'"¡,,,, "=_y_wooId""",""""",¡,.W,.ooW"""""o~,,""""<'~" W,w'~'""",""'fio...~.....tioJ.....""""""_d"'m".""'"",p"'" .~ ~ ",.. 00 E"""" ¡¡"".... '" ~ ,",blk"" T"""yoo""'m"""""'_""~~~'~-~.~ W'~""""'o .""""""",i"",.......Im<'di""" E""""",",.p"",'..ofo,,,~¡""~...."_..¡urtpf"'bIi¡¡h"'_.a' "","f("""Yt.,u_F"L.Jœ""'."",-"..~...""" ,\0 roo ~ =by 00,1o<I<,..~..., 00_. ~ ~~ '....... Co o",.~~ I 2 3 ~~ 1Ð. ~.- ,(;~ t:". T"""_~ Response 2) The Amendment does not alter any land use designations of Added Area properties. Land use designations in the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan will be those set forth in the City's General Plan and other applicable codes and standards, as they exist today or are hereafter amended. As such, if the authors wish to change the land use designation of their property, they would need to go through the City's General Plan Amendment process rather than object to the Amendment. 3) As has been documented in the Report to the City Council, eminent domain authority is necessary to enable the Agency the ability to assemble property for redevelopment of Project Area properties. Without this ability, the Agency would be severely handicapped from implementing projects to reconstruct obsolete buildings, consolidate lots to improve the supply of off-street parking, and eliminate hazardous conditions along busy Project Area roadways. While the Agency has no plans to use this authority today, eminent domain can be a critical, even if rarely used, tool to facilitating projects to assemble and consolidate property. The authors also suggest that any amendment to authorize eminent domain should do so only for a two year period rather than a twelve year period. The Community Redevelopment Law authorizes the Agency and City Council to consider an amendment to extend eminent domain authority for a period of up to 12 years. A shorter time period, such as two years as the authors suggest, would be insufficient in light of the time period normally required to bring a project of any size (one where eminent domain would likely even be considered) ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 4 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS 2004 AMENDMENT TO THE MERGED CHULA VSITA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT from the initial planning stages through to property acquisition and development. The 12-year period is thus appropriate, as recognized by the Community Redevelopment Law, and avoids the necessity of having to the Agency and City Council incur the significant expense of repeated plan amendments every two years. Finding Based on the infonnation contained in the above response, the testimony received at the public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the City Council hereby finds that the objection is without merit and is hereby ovemJled. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. PAGE 5