Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RESO 2005 - 133NOT ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-133 A "RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING THE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO THE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED ON THE PROPOSED 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN." This Resolution was not adopted at the City Council Meeting of June 21, 2005. DATE: June 29, 2005 A Miael R. Dall City Clerk of the City of National City CMC iVo4- A dopFod RESOLUTION 2005 —133 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING THE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO THE WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED ON THE PROPOSED 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of National City and the Community Development Commission of the City of National City (CDC) did duly pass and adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the National City Redevelopment Project ("Plan"); and WHEREAS, the CDC has formulated an amendment to the Plan ("2005 Amendment") which would permit the CDC to use eminent domain to acquire all commercial and industrial zoned properties, and all vacant and abandoned properties and buildings, regardless of their zoning designation, within in the Commercial and Industrial Corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area for a period of ten (10) years from the date of approval, until 2015; and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2005, the CDC and City Council held a Joint Public Hearing on the proposed 2005 Amendment and received and considered all evidence and testimony pertaining thereto; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33363 of the California Health and Safety Code ("Community Redevelopment Law"), before adopting the proposed 2005 Amendment the City Council shall evaluate all evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the amendment and shall make written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law, the CDC has prepared written responses to the written objections received on the proposed 2005 Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of National City hereby finds and determines, as follows: Section 1. That the written responses prepared by the CDC as attached hereto as Exhibit "A" adequately address the written objections submitted on the proposed 2005 Amendment. Section 2. The City Council hereby approves Exhibit "A" as the City's written responses to the written objections submitted on the proposed 2005 Amendment. -- Signature Page to Follow -- Resolution No. 2005 —133 June 21, 2005 Page 2 PASSED and ADOPTED this 21st day of June, 2005. Nick lnzunza, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Dalla, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, Ill City Attorney NATIONAL CITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 2005 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY REVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS Six letters were received objecting to the proposed 2005 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan ("2005 Amendment"). The 2005 Amendment would revise Section 603 of the existing National City Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") to permit the National City Community Development Commission ("CDC") to acquire, through eminent domain, certain properties that are zoned for commercial and industrial use along with vacant and abandoned properties (abandoned properties are those as defined by the National City Municipal Code), regardless of their zoning designation, within the commercial and industrial corridors of the National City Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"). Specifically excluded from eminent domain are properties that are used for residential purposes. The CDC's authority to use eminent domain to acquire property shall run for 10 years from the effective date of the 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan, until 2015. The following presents a summary of the written objections (attached) and a corresponding response. These responses were prepared to address the requirements set forth in Section 33363 of the California Community Redevelopment Law ("Law"). 1. Marion Julius — Requests clarification that residential uses are exclude from the 2005 Amendment. CDC staff sent the attached letter, confirming that residential uses while included in the area of the 2005 Amendment are in -fact excluded from eminent domain authority. 2. Kile Morgan — Is concerned that more employees will be needed to administer the Project Area increasing the costs to the National City employees pension fund. Other concerns include schools being under funded and the 2005 Amendment not being placed on the ballot for a general vote. Currently the CDC funds its administrative positions from its own (non -general fund) revenue, including all employee benefits. While there may be intermittent staffing needs from time to time to develop specific projects, the CDC has agreements with private vendors to assist in the administration of these specific one-time projects. These private vendors are not eligible for CDC employee benefits, therefore no increase in employee costs are expected from the 2005 Amendment. Prior to the establishment of National City's seven individual project areas, financial agreements were negotiated with the school districts to protect the school districts from loss of revenue. The only exception is the Harbor District Project Area, where the specific amount of payments to the affected school districts was mandated by a recent change to the Law, at the time the Harbor District was adopted. The 2005 Amendment does not change or modify the existing payment structure to the school districts, as the boundaries of the seven individual projects areas themselves are not changed by the 2005 Amendment. 1 EXHIBIT "A" The Project Area and existing eminent domain authority was established in 1995 after public discussion and a public hearing. Also, all property owners, residential and business tenants were notified of the public hearing for the 2005 Amendment. If the 2005 Amendment is not adopted, the properties currently included in the Project Area would remain and the CDC would have the authority to implement redevelopment initiatives. However, the CDC would not have the enhanced authority to acquire the commercial, industrial, vacant and abandoned properties as proposed by the 2005 Amendment and this has hampered efforts to reverse the blighting conditions on these properties. 3. Art Flaming — States that his property (National City Self Storage), while adjacent to blighted properties is not blighted and should be excluded from the 2005 Amendment area. In some instances non -blighted properties are needed to facilitate the effective redevelopment of surrounding blighted properties. There are no specific projects being considered at this time that would be implemented by the 2005 Amendment. Given that, staff is recommending that the eminent domain authority be granted for the 10-year period to allow greater flexibility for the community to implement future redevelopment projects. It is important to note that just because a redevelopment agency/commission has eminent domain authority it is not required to use the authority. 4. Jeffrey Silverman — Writes that his property is currently being redeveloped and requests exclusion for the 2005 Amendment. Since the 2005 Amendment proposes eminent domain authority for a 10-year period, it is impossible to predict future development trends with respect to surrounding properties. As stated in the previous response, just because a redevelopment agency/commission has eminent domain authority it is not required to use the authority. 5. Michael Kennedy — Believes a facade improvement program should be used in place of the authority granted by the 2005 Amendment. The CDC has attempted many programs including facade improvements to facilitate redevelopment in the Project Area. Unfortunately these efforts alone have not been successful in the elimination of blight from the Project Area. In -fact, the CDC's overall efforts have been limited, due to the inability to negotiate land purchase transactions with private property owners. While the CDC has pursued land acquisition and consolidation through open market transactions and limited eminent domain actions, the lack of eminent domain in many commercial and industrial corridors has constrained redevelopment efforts. Because the CDC cannot forcefully encourage property owners to either redevelop or sell abandoned and dilapidated properties, many of the properties continue to be neglected. 5. Ernest Peterson — States the eminent domain authority proposed by the 2005 Amendment is beyond the authority granted by the law. He states that eminent domain authority is restricted for use on public building/infrastructure projects and not to be used for economic development purposes. Section 33333.2(a)(4) of the Law allows redevelopment agencies/commissions to establish and extend eminent domain authority for periods of up to 12 years, for the purpose of exercising this authority in achieving economic redevelopment. The authority to use eminent domain to facilitate economic redevelopment as granted by section 33333.2(a)(4) of the Law has been upheld by the courts. 2 EXHIBIT "A"