Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 89-26RESOLUTION NO. 89-26 10 11 12 13 14 15 1(; 17 18 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN OVERRULING WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED FROM AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS AND TAXING ENTITIES AND OVERRULING SUCH WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT Pt,AN FOR THE TUST1N TOWN CENTER AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, a proposed Second Ame. ndnmnt to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the TusLin Redevelopment, Project' has been prepared by the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency; and WHEREAS, on February 21, 1989, a duly noticed joint publ'[c hearing on the proposed Second Amendmen'~ Lo the Amended Redevelopment Plan was conducted by the City Council and L.he Tus'~in Community Redevelopment Agency; and WHEREAS, any arid all persons having any objections to the proposed Second Amendmen'L Lo 'the Amended Redevelopment Plan, or the. regularity of the proceedings, were given an opportunity Lo submit written commertLs prior to the commencement of or a'{. 'the join~ public hearing, or to give oral £estimony at the join£ public hearing, and show cause why the proposed Second Amendmen~ ~o the Amended Redevelopmen~ Plan should not be adopted; and WHEREAS, the City Council has directed Agency staff to respond to written objections received from affected property owners and 'taxing entities in detail, giving reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions; and the City Council has reviewed such responses; and WHEREAS, the City Coun.cil has heard and ¢:onsidered all evidence, both 'written and oral, presented in support and 'i.n opposition £o the adoption of [.he Second Amendmen£ Lo the Amended Redevelopment Plan for £he Project NOW, THEREFORE, BE IfF RESOI, VED by the City Council of the City of Tus'Lin as follows: 1. The City Council finds .£ha[ all persons have [Lad the oppor[,uni'ty i,o be heard or to file wri'ti, en objection ~o 'the proposed Second Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Town Center Area Redevelopment, Project arid 'to the regularity of the proceedings wi'th respect ~,o the proposed Second AmerLdment and having heard and reviewed such oral and written, objections, 'the Ci.~y Count.t1 he.ceby makes findings in response to each written objection as set-for'th in Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by 'th. is reference, and determines tha't there are compelling reasons Lo jus'Lify aclopl, i.on of the Second Amendment as proposed, not wi'ths'tanding written and oral objections. 2. The City Council and the Tus'Lin Communii, y Redevelopment Agency have duly complied with all the provisions, requirements and procedures of ~he Califor,'da Communi'Ly Redevel.opmer, t Law (Health and Safe£y , 6 10 ]] 12 13 14 ]G 17 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89-26 Page 2 Code, Section 33000 ..e....t...s....e....q.?.) relating to the preparation and adoption of an amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for' the Town Center Area Redevelopment Project. The City Council, accordingly, overrules any and all objections to · the adoption of the Second Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Town Center Area Redevelopment Projec£. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 6th day of March, 1989. ATTEST' STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE )SS. CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, Mary Wynn, Ci.£y Clerk of 'the City of Tustin, California, hereby certify that Resolution 89-26 'was adopted by the City of Tustin at a regular meeting he].d on. the _6_t~ day of __~_c_h_. , 1989, .and that the same was adopted by the following vo~e' · AYES' Kennedy, F_dgar, Hoesterey, Kelly NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Prescott MARY WYNN,(~ITY CLEt~K ....................... CITY OF TUSTIN [ATTACH WRITTEN OBJECTIONS AND WRITTEN RES.PONSES TO THIS RESOLUTION] EXHIBIT A WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN' FOR THE TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Resolution No. 89-26 BACKGROUND Section 33363 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that prior to adopting a redevelopment project, the City Council must make written findings in response to written objections of affected property owners or taxing entities received on the Plan. The City' Council must also respond in writing to the written objections received describing the disposition of the issues raised and addressing the objections in detail, giving reasons for not accepting certain specified objections and suggestions. The following is a list of written objections received by the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency concerning the Second Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Town Center Redevelopment Project Area' 1. Elizabeth M. Dreher (Mrs. M.M. Dreher), dated February 7, 1989 -property owner at 332 Prospect Park North 2. Dennis D. Hayden, Esq. on behalf of Shirley A. Griset and Virginia Stevens, dated February 16, 1989- property owner of Assessor Parcel No. 500-101-01 through 05 and 500-102-01 Attached is a summary of each of the above written objections and written responses and findings on each objection. The two written objection letters follow staff written responses. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES ............ ~...~ ..~., ~ : :_ 1. Written Objections' Received from Elizabeth Dreher _S_u~m~_ry___o~f_~O b_jje c___ti or) While Mrs..Dreher does not have a specific objection to the proposed Second Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment for the Town Center Area Redevelopment Project, she indicates her concern about the Agency's potential condemnation of her home. Written Response/Findl_'~n9 The Town Center Area Redevelopment Plan was originally adopted in November, 1976. The original Plan, pursuant to Section 33391 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, authorized the Redevelopment Agency to acquire property In the Redevelopment Project Area through voluntary acquisition throughout the life of the Plan, or eminent domain for twelve years from the date of adoption. Over the last twelve years, the Agency has used its eminent domain authority only once and has never acquired a residential property in this manner. The Second Amendment to the Exhibit A Resolution No. 89-26 Page two original redevelopment plan extends this existing eminent domain authority for an additional twelve years. Eminent domain has not been and would not be used as a method of wholesale property acquisition, but rather it would be used selectively when there are significant obstacles to achieving the goals and objectives of the Agency in its efforts to facilitate improvement within the Project Area. However, for those property owners who are desirous of developing or selling their properties for private development, there would be significant tax advantages lost if they were unable to obtain a "friendly" condemnation letter from the Agency, thereby potentially inhibiting voluntary improvement efforts in the Project Area. The Agency fully intends to continue to exercise its authority prudently and has no plans or schedule to purchase the subject property or any other property at this time. For your information, Section 406 of the Amended Redevelopment Plan provides for an owner of a property within the Project Area to apply for a Certificate of Conformance in accordance with the Amended Redevelopment Plan. The issuance of this Certificate by the Agency would permanently ensure that property would not be subject to eminent domain under the Redevelopment Plan. If a request is received from the Prospect Park Homeowner's Assocation, Agency staff is recommending approval of a Certificate of Conformance for Ms. Dreher's property. For the reasons set forth in the foregoing responses to written objections to the adoption of the Second Amendment, the Tustin Redevelopment Agency and City Council of the City of Tustin affirm that adoption of the Second Amendment remains in the best interest of the Project Area and the City at large. 2. Written Objection' Received from Dennis Hayden, Esqo on behalf of Shirley Grtset and Vtrgtnta Stevens Sum_mary _of Objectl on Mr. Hayden states in his letter that Ms. Griset and Ms. Stevens wish to be excluded from the plan area and object to the following four provisions of the Second Amendment: 1) extension of the Agency's authority to acquire property for an additional 12 years by eminent domain; 2) increasing the limit on the amount of bonded indebtedness that can be outstanding at any one time; 3) restating the tax increment limit; and 4) any action which would authorize condemnation of their property and deprive them of their right to continue to own and develop the property. W_ri tten_m ResPonse/Finding Responses to each of the above objections are outlined below° 1. As authorized under Section 33391 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, the original Redevelopment Plan for the Town Center Area Project Provided for the Agency to acquire property by eminent domain. Pursuant to Section 33333.2 (3) the time limit for commencement of eminent domain proceedings was originally limited to 12 years and is proposed to be extended an additional 12 'xhibl t A Resolution No. >age three 89-26 0 years in the Second Amendment. The Agency has determined that retention and extension of this provision is necessary to continue to effectuate redevelopment of the Project Area. This determination is based on the fact that the legislature recognized in providing the power of eminent domain to redevelopment agencies that properties cannot always be ac'quired by negotiated purchases and therefore, a property owner or group of property owners can frustrate the achievement of the Agency's public purposes' Eminent domain has not been and would not be used as a method of wholesale Property acquisition, but rather it would be used selectively when there are significant obstacles to achieving the goals and objectives of the Agency in its efforts to facilitate improvements within the Project Area. However', for those property owners who are desirous of developing or selling their properties for private development, there would be significant tax advantages lost if they were unable to obtain a "friendly" condemnation letter from the Agency, thereby potentially inhibiting voluntary improvement efforts in the Project Area. However, it is important that Ms. Griset and Ms. Stevens be aware that over the last 12 years the Tustin Redevelopme'nt Agency has never acquired real property by eminent domain in the Town Center Area Redevelopment Project. The Agency fully intends to continue to exercise its authority prudently and has no plans or schedule to purchase the subject property or any other property at this time. In addition to the extension of the Agency's eminent domain authority, the Second Amendment also proposes to add a section to the Plan (Section 406) which provides for a property owner to apply for a Certificate of Conformance. The issuance of this Certificate by the Agency would, subject to the provisions of Section 406 of the Amended Plan, permanently ensure that the subject property would not be acquired by the Agency through eminent domain proceedings. Ms. Griset and Ms. Stevens would have the right to apply for a Certificate of Conformance. The Redevelopment Agency at its meeting on February 6, 1989 also adopted rules governing participation and preferences by property owners and busine, ss occupants in the Town Center Project Area. A complete financial analysis of the Second Amendment is contained in the Agency's Report to City Council, a copy of which is available for public inspection at the office of the Tustin City Clerk. The Agency has determined that additional public improvements to those contained in the original redevelopment plan are needed in the Project Area in order to achieve the revitalization goals and objectives contained in the Plan. Toward this end, the Agency proposes to add approximately $12 million of additional public improvements. Some of these improvements include' the construction of the Tustin Area Senior Center; street, traffic and water improvements; expansion/renovation of the Civic Center; renovation of Peppertree Park; and Exhibit A Resolution No. 89-26 Page four additional improvements to Columbus-Tusttn Park. A complete list of specific projects is provided in the proposed Amendment and Report to City Council. In order to finance existing and future Project costs, the Agency has determined . that the bonded indebtedness limit must be increased 'from $20 million to $35 million to insure that all existing and future debts can be financed within the parameters of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. If the limit is not increased, the Agency will be severely hampered in its ability to contribute to certain public improvements within the Town Center Redevelopment Project,Area, as existing bond debts would have to be paid off prior to issuance of more bonds. It is important to note that bonds are paid off with tax increment revenues from within the Town Center Redevelopment Project Area and are not an obligation on the residents of the City or on the City' s General Fun d. 3. The Redevelopment Plan as amended by the First Amendment currently limits the total tax increment revenue that may be allocated to the Agency over the life of the project to an average of $3 million per year. Wi th a Project life ' limited to 30 years, the Agency's intended tax increment limit was $90 million. As discussed in detail in the Agency's Report to City Council, the , Agency does not propose to increase the tax increment limit, only to restate_ the tax increment limit to provide maximum flexibility to retire outstanding debts and future debts that may be incurred to complete the Project within the existing {re-stated) tax increment limit and the 30 year time frame of the plan. 4. Objection number four is interpreted to be the same as objection number one, therefore, response number one above is applicable to both comments. , For the reasons set forth in the foregoing responses to written objections to the adoption of the Second Amendment, the Tustin Redevelopment Agency and City Council of the City of Tustin affirm that adoption of the Second Amendment remains in the best interest of the Project Area and the City at large. 7 February 1989 Ms. Christine Shingleton Director of Community Development TUSTIN COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 300 Centennial Way Tustin, Ca. 92680 Dear Ms. Shingleton: I received your letter of 3 February 1989, via Certified yesterday and I must say I read it with shock and disbelief. My husband and I purchased our home in Prospect Park in Oct- ober of 1968 as a place to spend our last days and now you have the unmiti§ated ~all 'to advise me that if I do not sell my house to you throu§h a negotiated price, you will have it condemned and take it anyway. What has Tustin turned into ? It sounds more like the Soviet Union I love my small home in Prospect Park not only because it is a very nice place to live, but it holds many happy memories of my life with my now deceased husband, who passed away about six years a§o. What do you intend to do with all this land you HOPE to acquire ? Are you §°oinc3 to sell it to developers who in turn will build hi§h-rise buildings on it, in your §reedy hope that these build- in~s will ~enerate more tax dollars that you can squander on more high-rise buildin§s ? Ms. Shingleton, THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN IN MY LIFETIME, of that you may be sure and I am sure the other 39 Homeowners in Prospect Park feel the same way I do. Ail I can say to you is, that you and your ~reedy cohorts had better~.§et a §ood attorney because you are ~oin~ to need him in this misbegotten scheme to take my home away from me. Most sincerely Elizabeth M. Dreher (Mrs. M.M. Dreher) 332 Prospect Park North Tustin, Ca. 92680 cc: Mr. M. Cibellis President, Prospect Park H.O. Asso. DENNIS Do HAYDEN ATTORNF'Y AT LAW ~OI4. NORTH BROADWAY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA c3270-~ TELEPHONE (714) 542-3OO3 February 16~ 1989 RECEIVED .r;-,. :] _ 7989 COM~'aui~lT¥ D~'ELO?MENi": Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency 3Q0 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 , City Council City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92680 Re: Town Center Area Redevelopment Project Property Owners: Shirley Ao Griset and Virginia Stevens Property Located at- Newport Boulevard, Irvine Boulevard and Fourth Street Assessor's Parcel Numbers- 500-101-01 through 05 and 500-102-01 Gentlemen- I am writing on behalf of Shirley Griset and Virginia Stevens the fee owners of the above-described real property which is located in the Northeast corner of the Tustin Town Center Redevelopment Plan 'Map. ' ........ The property has been in the family of the current owners for well over 30 years and is improved with commercial davelopments under lease to various tenants. ~' The owners learned that a public hearing is scheduled regarding an amendment to the redevelopment plan on Tuesday~ February 21, 1989, although they did not receive ~ny notice from the City or the Redevelopment Ag~.ncy of the hearing. This letter is to advise you that the owners have no desire to sell the property and object to the inclusion of the property within the redevelopment plan area. The owners fully intend to continue ownership cf the property and the improvements and management of the same and. object strenuously to any plan which would include the possible ac~tuisition of the property by condemnation. DENNIS D. HAYDEN ATTORN £Y AT LAW Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency and City Council., City of Tustin February 16,. 1989 Page Two' Re: Town Center Area Redevelopment Project Property Owners- · . Property Located at- Shirley A. Griset and Virginia Stevens Newport Boulevard, Irvine Boulevard and Fourth Street Assessor' s Parcel Numbers- 500-101-01 through 05 and 500-102-01 The property is a vital source of support for the owners and in the' event of improvement of property in the area in close proximity to theirs, they wish to' improve their own property as owners in an appropriate manner which will be beneficial to the neighborhood. In summary, they wish to be excluded from the plan area;"they' - - object to any extension of the Agency's authority to acquire property for an additional 12 years; they object to increasing the limit on bonded indebtedness that can be outstanding at any one time; they object to restating the tax increment limit and they particularly and strenuously object to any action which would authorize condemnation of their property and deprive them of their right to continue to own and develop the same. Please°'make the objections of ..the above owners to the proposed second amendment known to the City Council and the Tustin Redevelopment Age~cy. DDH/e Very truly yours DENNIS D . HAYDEN