Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 99-087RESOLUTION N0.99-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ADOPTING WRITTEN RESPONSES TO .WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE 1999 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT The Tustin City Council does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: 1. That on October 4, 1999, the City Council, of the City of Tustin ("City Council") and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin ("Agency") held a joint public hearing ("Joint Public Hearing") on the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South Central Redevelopment Project ("1999 Amendment"). 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~a total of two written objections ("Objections") were presented before or at the Joint Public Hearing and five oral objections were made; and, 2. 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 agood-faith, reasoned analysis in its response". II. City staff has prepared written responses to the Objections presented at the Joint Public Hearing ("Response"), in the form submitted herewith as Exhibit "A"; and the City Council has reviewed in detail the Objections and Response, together with all testimony and reports presented at the Joint Public Hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed the objections and responses thereto as presented in Exhibit "A" attached and hereby approves and adopts the Response, in the form submitted herewith, as their findings and response to the Objections presented at the Joint Public Hearing. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby overrules the Objections to the 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South Central Redevelopment Project. Passed, approved, and adopted this 18th day of October, 1999. ~U~ K/ TRACY LS WORLEY, M o ATTEST: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss. CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 99-87 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Resolution No 99-87 was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council of the City of Tustin held on the 18th day of October, 1999. COUNCILMEMBERS AYES: WORLEY, THOMAS, DOYLE, POTTS, SALTARELLI COUNCII.MEMBERS NOES: NONE COUNCILMEMBERS ABSTAINED: NONE COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: NONE PAMELA STOKER City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS RECEIVED AT THE OCTOBER 4,1999 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 1999 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WRITTEN OBJECTIONS: September 11,1999 Dr. Robert Chick Letter Objections: 1. Opposed to their property being included in the redevelopment plan. 2. While in favor of tearing down older buildings (in excess of 30 years old), Dr. Chick believes their 9-yeaz-old building should be exempted from the proposed Redevelopment Plan. Response: 1. The subject property is already located in the South Central Area Redevelopment Project, which was adopted on August 1, 1983. 2. The fact that the property was developed in 1990 indicates that the development was in conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and approved by the Redevelopment Agency. Completed development projects within a redevelopment project area are not eliminated from a redevelopment project area after development since it is the increased property tax increment created by such development that is used to fund redevelopment activities in the project area. October 4, 1999 Palmieri, Tyler, et.al.. Letter on behalf of property owners of a 34-acre parcel Obiections: 1. The "1983 Report" is 16 years old, out of date and inapplicable at this time. The Report does not accurately portray the area in its current state. 2. The subject 34-acre property and nearby neighborhood are not blighted and are improved by and surrounded by relatively new construction. 3. The 1999 Amendment and supporting documents make no showing of blight and the conditions mentioned on p.2 of the Report to City Council do not apply in any way to the 34-acre parcel. 4. There is no reason for assemblage of a 34-acre parcel, as it is large enough for significant development. 5. The statement in Section F that project area will not be enlarged is not true, as the subject 34-acre parcel was not previously included in the redevelopment plan. 6. The statement that the 1999 Amendment will not enlarge the project area is false since the subject 34-acre parcel was not previously included in the redevelopment plan. Responses to V~Iritten and Oral Objections Page 2 7. The Environmental Documentation for the project (1999 Amendment) thus far is inadequate. 8. The owners of the parcel object to the 1999 Amendment as an attempt by the City to take further control of the 34-acre parcel and an improper usurpation of eminent domain power based on outdated data on the project area, specifically the 34-acre parcel. Res o~nse: 1. An updated finding of blight is not required by law when adding or extending the authority of eminent domain. Pursuant to Section 33368 of the Redevelopment Law, the ' .. decision of the City Council on July 15, 1985, extending the Project Area to include the 34 acres was final and conclusive, and "it shall thereafter be conclusively presumed that the Project Area is a blighted area ..." 2. See response Number 1 above. Additionally, Sections 33321 and 33368 of the Redevelopment Law provide that such findings need not be applied to each individual parcel in the Project Area. 3. See responses Number 1 and Number 2 above. 4. Section 441.9 of the First Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South Central Redevelopment Project adopted July 15, 1985, identifies potential transportation improvements in the Project Area, including the relocation of the northbound State Route 55 freeway ramps and other roadway improvements in the Amended Area. The Agency's Five Year Implementation Plan for fiscal years 1995-96 through 1999-00 also identifies the State Route 55 ramp project: The subject 34-acre parcel is located in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan area of the City of Tustin, adopted on February 19, 1991 (Ordinance No. 1057). The Specific Plan and the Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan identifies the redesign of the freeway ramps and the redesign of roadways in the Specific Plan area, as well as the design guidelines and conditions under which parcels located within the Specific Plan boundaries may be developed. The 1999 Amendment does not affect the development potential of the property. Additionally, we do not understand the comment on assemblage. The 1999 Amendment does not assemble property. 5. The project area will not be enlarged and the subject 34-acre parcel was previously included in the First Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, adopted on July 15, 1985 expanding the boundaries of the South Central Redevelopment Project. 6. The Preliminary Plan anticipated eminent domain authority. The 1999 Amendment that merely extends this authority for 12 years does not change the Preliminary Plan. 7. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the 1999 Amendment in compliance with CEQA and state guidelines and has been distributed for public review. No comments were received during the public review period that closed on September 28, 1999: The comment is late, but, in any event, does not specify the nature of the alleged inadequacy. Responses to Written and Oral Objections Page 3 8. The 1999 Amendment applies to the entire Project Area and is not directed at the 34 acres. See Response Number 1 above. ORAL OBJECTIONS: Dean Karels,17191 Corla, Tustin Objections: 1. Mr. Karels stated that he understood that PAC was the committee to vote on Plan Amendment and asked clarification as to why the PAC was not voting. 2. Mr. Karels asked why does Redevelopment Agency need authority for eminent domain if City already has the authority. 3. Mr. Karels stated that the prior public notices and mailing did not identify the eminent domain proceedings otherwise there would have been far greater public turnouts at July 15 and August 12 PAC meetings. Response: 1. The September 23, 1999 PAC /Public Information Meeting identified the plan amendment process, including the election, role and responsibility of the PAC. The PAC has no authority to adopt any element of the Redevelopment Plan. The PAC is solely an advisory committee and recommending body to the Redevelopment Agency and City Council. Only the elected City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board can adopt a Plan and any amendment to the Plan. The PAC at the September 23 meeting took action voting to recommend to City Council approval of the 1999 Amendment: 2. The Redevelopment Agency is a separate governmental agency under State Law and acts on distinctly separate property development issues under State Community Redevelopment Law. Having the eminent domain authority in-place provides: a. flexibility to the Agency and eliminates potential legal exposure that could result if the Agency needed to take 8 to 12 months to re-establish the authority after identifying a specific project for eminent domain; and b. an additional economic incentive in the Agency's negotiations with property owners by giving the Agency the ability to offer favorable tax consideration through what is commonly referred to as a "friendly condemnation". 3. All public notices and mailings (printed in English and Spanish) commencing on March 19, 1999 with the notifications for the public hearing on Apri15, 1999 to adopt the Procedure for the Formation and Election of the Project Area Committee clearly stated that the proposed 1999 Amendment would extend the Redevelopment Agency's authority to acquire property by eminent domain within the South Central Redevelopment Project Area. Copies of all notices are on file at the City for review. John Landolfi, 15611 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin Objections: ~ 1. Mr. Landolfi stated his opposition to the Agency having eminent domain authority over his property. Response: 1. So noted. Responses to Written and Oral Objections Page 4 Steve Moore, 1001 E. Edinger Avenue, Tustin Objections: 1. Mr. Moore indicated that he was a member of the PAC and that the PAC voted against the will of the people at September 23 meeting. He stated that approximately 100 people attended the 23rd meeting and the overwhelming sentiment was in opposition to eminent domain. 2. Mr. Moore stated that he sees no evidence of blight in the area thus eminent domain is unnecessary. Response: 1. Each PAC member may represent his or her own view since there are over 3,600 ,. constituent in the Project Area. Individual PAC members have full discretion to act based on their own review of the issues and are not required to reflect only the sentiment of those persons in attendance at any given public meeting. 2. Staff referenced the Report to City Council at the joint public hearing and evidence of continued blight in the area as identified in the 1983 and 1985 Reports is documented in the 1999 Report to City Council with photographs. Todd Neilson 1822 Pasadena Avenue. Tustin Objections: 1. Mr. Neilson indicated that he was also a PAC member and that at every public meeting held by the PAC, the public in attendance was overwhelmingly opposed eminent domain in the area and on this basis he does not understand how six members of the PAC voted to recommend to the City Council approval for re-establishing eminent domain authority. 2. He stated that he opposed eminent domain because he does not want to see changes to the area's demographics or density as it would negatively affect his business located in the area. 3. He believes that free enterprise by the business owners and landlords in the project area will make changes as necessary and will take care of itself. Responses: 1. See previous response number 1 to Steve Moore objection. 2. .The continued revitalization of area businesses and rehabilitation of residential properties in the project area does not target demograhic segments of the population or densities identified in the Redevelopment Plan for the South/Central Redevelopment Project adopted in 1983 and amended in 1985. 3. It was conclusively determined with the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan that private enterprise operating alone could not adequately address the issues contributing to blighting conditions in the area. Responses to Written and Oral Objections Page 5 Tim Manahan Objections: 1. Mr. Manahan stated his opposition to eminent domain based on his concern about possibility of losing his property, as well as not being able to replace it with a similar property. ~. Response: 1. If the Redevelopment Agency sought to acquire the property through a negotiated transaction or eminent domain, the property owner is protected by State law. He would be required to receive adequate notice, the full fair market value for the property and relocation assistance payments. Fair market value is established by an independent appraisal, which relies on the principle that comparable properties located in the area having a similar condition and being in a similar neighborhood are available and may be purchased for the amount of the value of the property appraised. In addition to paying property owners fair market value, State Redevelopment law also requires relocation payments to businesses and persons displaced by a Redevelopment Agency activity to mitigate the expense of the move, as well as other costs to owners and/or occupants resulting from displacement. Copies of the written objections received at the October 4, 1999 joint public hearing are attached hereto. ~EDEIVED Community Redevelopment Agency ScP 1 5 1999 City of Tustin 30o Centennial way REDEVELOPMENI~AGENCY Tustin, Ca. 92780 Sept. 11, 1999 Subject: Opposed to the Redevelopment Plan Dated August 27, 1999 Dear Sirs: Please accept this written response for comments regarding the proposed Tustin redevelopment plan. We will nor be able to attend the public hearing as we will be out of the country. Please have a representative read this letter at the public hearing. As the owner of the Wherehouse Plaza Shopping Mall located at 13662 Newport Ave and speaking for the 10 store proprietors ~ located at the Plaza, we are all very much opposed to including the ' Plaza in the redevelopment plan as distributed for comment on 2 7 August 1999. Generally, we are in favor of tearing down the old, buildings in excess of 30 to 40 years of age, and making way for the new -this keeps a city alive and viable. The Wherehouse Shopping Plaza received its occupancy permit in 1990, it is only 9 years old, it should be eliminated from the 2 . proposed redevelopment plan. The Plaza has the equivalent of ~0 full time employees. We pay in excess of $50,000 in property taxes annually. The shop owners pay many thousands in sales tax and city permits annually. Truly a thriving business center. If the criteria for redevelopment designation is property 9 years of age or older then most of Tustin would be appropriately declared in the redevelopment zone. This would include the Plazas across Newport Ave and Main Street. In fact it would include all of the south along Newport Ave. S 16811 Baruna Lane Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2603 MAIN STREET ANGELO :1 PALMIERI (1926-19961 EAST TOWER-SUITE 1300 R O. BOX 19712 ROBERT F. WALDRON (1927.1998) IRVINE, CA 9 2 623-9 712 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614-6228 ALAN H. WIENER' GARY C. WETS BERG (949) 851-9400 ROBERT C. IHRKE' MICHAEL H. LEIFER JAMES E. WILHELM' SCOTT R CARPENTER DENNIS G. TYLER' RICHARD A. SALUS MICHAEL J. GREEN E' NORMAN J. RODICH FRANK C. ROTHROCK' D. SUSAN WIENS DENNIS W. GHAN° RONALD M. COLE DAVID D. PARR' LUCEE S. KIRKA CHARLES H. KANTER' LORI K. DAMES GEORGE'J. WALL - PAUL B. LA SCALA October 4 , 19 9 9 L RICHARD RAWLS MICHAEL L. DANGELO PATRICK A. HENNESSEY MARIA A. RIC HLEY DON FISHER CHARLES 5. KROLIKOWSKI GREGORY N. WEILER MICHAEL J. SARRAO WARREN A. WILLIAMS TROY THOMAS JOHN R. LISTER JAMES R. McCOY JR. 6RUCE W. DANNEMEVER ELIZABETH J. DAMS CYNTHIA M. WOLC OTT DAROLYN Y, HAMADA JOEL P. KEW RAYMOND W. SAKAI MICHELLE M. FUJIM OTO ~ wworessio..A STEPHEN A. SCHECK a cow.owArioN Community Redevelopment Agency of Tustin City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMBER TELE COPIER 1949) 851-1554 1949) 851-3844 1949) 757-1225 (949) 851-2351 REFER TO FILE NO. In response to the notice cf the meeting tonight at the Tustin City Council Chambers regarding the 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project ("1999 Amendment") (which was received at 5:00 p.m. this evening, two hours. before the meeting), the owners of the 34 acres at Edinger, Del Amo, Valencia and the Costa Mesa Freeway wish to make the following objections to the 1999 Amendment: • The information on which the 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan ("1999 Amendment") is based is out- of-date and inapplicable at this time. The "19E3 ~ Report" was prepared nearly 16 years ago, and does not accurately portray the area in its current state. • The above-mentioned property and nearby neighborhood is not blighted. The area is improved with relatively new construction, and is surrounded by relatively new construction, including the Orange County Teachers' 2, Federal Credit Union, industrial and commercial buildings. - • The 1999 Amendment and supporting documents make no showing of blight of the 34 acres in their current state. All improvements on the 34 acres are in operation, recently renovated and painted. This, of , course, will not be evident in a report from 1983. The conditions mentioned on p. 2 of the October 1999 Report to the City of Tustin do not apply in any way to the 34 Acre parcel. PALTIIERI. TYLER. WIENER. ~~'ILHELNI & WALDRON LLP October 4, 1999 .~ Page ; ~ ~ L r„~~ii-vyu.~ l tu~ ~ j • Absent the City/Freeway/Caltrans project, the property is available for development. The above-mentioned ~~{{~~ property is vacant, and is 34 acres in total. There is `7. no reason for assemblage of a 34-acre parcel, as it is large enough for significant development. • Section F states that the project area will not be enlarged under the 1999 Amendment, but this is not true, as the 34 Acre parcel mentioned above was not previously included in the redevelopment plan. • Section G states that the Preliminary Plan is not affected by the 1999 Amendment, but the 1999 Amendment increases the powers of the Redevelopment Agency, and therefor does change the character of the Preliminary Plan. • The Environmental Documentation for the project thus ~ 7 far is inadequate. ' In general, the 1999 Amendment is an attempt by the City of Tustin, through the Redevelopment Agency, to take further control of the 34 Acre parcel. The extent to which the Redevelopment Agency states that the 1999 Amendment does not change the Redevelopment Plan is false. The 1999 Amendment gives the Redevelopment Agency greater control to use the power of eminent domain to take property for the purposes of the plan. This is a wholly improper usurpation of that power based on outdated data on the project area, specifically the 34 Acre parcel mentioned above. The owners of this parcel object to the City's attempt to take over a parcel which is not blighted, is currently in active ' use or has good development potential in its current state. very truly yours, ~~ Andrew H. Fesler AHF