HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RESO 2007-166RESOLUTION NO. 2007 — 166
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
ADOPTING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION'S
WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED FROM
AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES AND PROPERTY OWNERS ON
THE PROPOSED 2007 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE NATIONAL CITY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Community Redevelopment Law
("CRL") (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et. seq.), the Community Development
Commission of the City of National City ("CDC") prepared and submitted to the City Council of
the City of National City ("City Council") a proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for
the National. City Redevelopment Project ("2007 Amendment"); and
WHEREAS, on June 19, 2007, the City Council and the CDC held a joint public
hearing to consider adoption of the 2007 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2007-163, adopted on July 10, 2007, the
City Council approved the Negative Declaration for the 2007 Amendment to the National City
Redevelopment Plan. A copy of said Negative Declaration is on file in the office of the City
Clerk, and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has provided an opportunity for all persons to be
heard, and has considered all written comments received and all evidence and testimony
presented for or against any and all aspects of the 2007 Amendment; and
WHEREAS, CRL Section 33363 provides that, before adopting a redevelopment
plan, the City Council, who is the legislative body, shall make written responses to each written
objection received from an affected taxing agency or property owner received before or at the
noticed public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby adopts as
its findings the written responses to the written objections received from affected taxing
agencies and property owners as set forth in Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by reference.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 12th day of July,
ATTEST:
A
Miael R. Dalla, ity Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
George H. Kiser, III
City Attorney
on Morrison, Mayor
Exhibit A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
2007 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS FROM THE
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
(LETTER SIGNED BY MS. BERLINER)
Pursuant to California Redevelopment Law ("CRL") Section 33363 the National City
Community Development Commission ("CDC") shall respond in writing to the written
objections received prior or at the public hearing on the National City Redevelopment
Plan Amendment ("2007 Amendment.") The written responses must describe the
disposition of the issues raised. The legislative body shall address the written objections
in detail, giving reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions. The
legislative body shall include a good -faith, reasoned analysis in its response and, for this
purpose; conclusionary statements unsupported by factual information shall not suffice.
In the following responses, the Report to the City Council on the National City
Redevelopment Plan Amendment is referred to as the ("RTC") and the response to the
written objections are referred to as the ("Response.")
There are three relevant CRL requirements that deal with redevelopment plan
amendments.
1. Section 33354.6 describes the type of amendments that require a long -
form plan amendment including identification of remaining blight and
which portions of the project area are no longer blighted. The 2007
Amendment does NOT include any of these types of amendments (such
as increase in the limit on tax increment or increase in the bonded
indebtedness limit).
2. CRL Section 33333.2(a)(4) provides that time limitations for eminent
domain authority may be extended by amendment of the redevelopment
plan after the agency finds, based on substantial evidence, both that
significant blight remains within the project area, and that this blight
cannot be eliminated without use of eminent domain. This section is
pertinent to the 2007 Amendment that will extend eminent domain
authority.
3. CRL Article 12 commencing with Section 33450 outlines the "short -form"
amendment process that may be used for most plan amendments which
is pertinent to the 2007 Amendment in combination with Section
33333.2(a)(4). CRL Section 33451.5 describes amendments that require
a specific Report on Blight to be sent to the Department of Finance and
Department of Housing and Community Development and none of the
2007 Amendments fall within these categories.
1
OBJECTION 1: FAILURE TO PROVIDE REPORT AND REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN AMENDMENT IN TIMELY MANNER.
Ms. Berliner's Objection 1 contains five separate subparts, generally objecting to
the amount of time the CYAC had to review the Report to the City Council, the
Ordinance, and other relevant documents. The Response to the Objection
addresses each subpart, by referencing the subpart and specific title of the
objection.
A. Multiple findings, each supported by documented evidence, are required
for a valid finding of blight and a valid approval of the 2007 Amendment.
Ms. Berliner's objection lists the requirements for physical and economic blight. Ms.
Berliner states that "[aJll this information and documentation should be included in the
Proposed Ordinance under §33367 and the Report to the City Council prepared by the
CDC under §33352 [hereinafter "Report'], neither of which was available to the CYAC or
anyone else until June 14, 2007." Ms. Berliner comments that the Report and Ordinance
were available on June 14, 2007. This appears to be a procedural argument, as
opposed to a substantive objection to the 2007 Redevelopment Plan Amendment.
The 2007 Redevelopment Plan Amendment includes an extension of the eminent
domain authority. Pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 33333.2(a)(4), time
limitations for eminent domain authority may be extended by amendment after the
agency finds, based on substantial evidence, both that significant blight remains within
the project area, and this blight cannot be eliminated without the use of eminent domain.
Health & Safety Code section 33031 describes the physical and economic conditions
that cause blight. All the appropriate findings and required documentation are included in
the Ordinance and Report to the City Council. While Ms. Berliner comments on the
timing of the Report and Ordinance's availability, it should be noted Section 33457.1
requires the reports and information required by Section 33352 for a proposed
amendment "shall be ... made available to the public prior to the hearing on such
amendment." There is no time requirement under the statute specifying how long before
the hearing the materials must be made available to the public. The Report was released
to the public when it was released to the City Council, five days prior to the hearing.
Thus, the City has complied with the procedural requirements.
B. The CYAC and other members of the public must see the evidence
supporting the blight finding and other findings in order to review and
challenge them.
Ms. Berliner's objection is focused on receiving the Report five days before the City
Council hearing. This appears to be a procedural argument, as opposed to a substantive
objection to the 2007 Redevelopment Plan Amendment.
As stated above, the Report was released to the public when it was released to the City
Council, five days prior to the hearing. Thus, the City has complied with the procedural
requirements. It should be noted that while Ms. Berliner argues that the CYAC did not
have sufficient time to object to the 2007 Redevelopment Plan Amendment, voluminous
objections, comprised of two large stacks of documents and approximately six three-inch
binders, were submitted to the City Council. These objections contained Ms. Berliner's
2
thirty-four (34) page objection letter, Attorney Jeff Rowes' objection letter, and numerous
(approximately 28) letters and "statements" of objections by others affiliated with the
CYAC or hired as experts by CYAC's counsel. Thus, Ms. Berliner and her client did
receive the information needed to make their objections. While Ms. Berliner and her
client may have been inconvenienced, they were not denied the opportunity to present
objections both in writing and orally.
C. The CYAC has been trying to obtain the necessary documents since May
15, 2007, but the draft Report and limited other evidence did not become
available to the public until June 14, 2007.
Ms. Berliner's objection describes the steps taken by the CYAC and the Institute for
Justice in obtaining the draft 2007 Redevelopment Plan Amendment, the Report, and
"other relevant documents" Ms. Berliner's objection is to when the Report and other
documents were made available to the public. This objection is not a substantive
objection to the 2007 Redevelopment Plan Amendment, but rather a procedural issue.
On April 17, 2007, the draft 2007 Redevelopment Plan Amendment was on the agenda
before City Council, and was available to the public. On this date, the City Council
approved a resolution to open the public comment period for the Draft 2007 Amendment
to the Redevelopment Plan. To the extent Ms. Berliner argues she could not obtain the
Draft Redevelopment Plan Amendment until June 14, 2007, such argument is
erroneous. To the extent Ms. Berliner objects to the timing of the release of the
documents to the public which was done on the same day the documents were made
available to the City Council, please see the responses to the two objections above.
D. No one- not lawyers, not experts, not the CYAC, and not ordinary
citizens- could possibly review, analyze, and evaluate a study of 600
properties in five days.
Ms. Berliner's objection focuses on the five days between the time the Report was made
available and the public hearing. Ms. Berliner argues that this is an insufficient amount of
time to evaluate "a study covering more than 600 properties in an overall project area
that is over 2,000 acres." In addition, Ms. Berliner refers to statements and letters
included as part of the Institute for Justice's written objection to the City Council.
The Draft 2007 Redevelopment Plan Amendment was made available in April, 2007. At
that time, it was clear that part of the Amendment included an extension of the existing
eminent domain authority and an expansion of the properties excluded from such
authority (from single-family to both single-family and multi -family residences). Moreover,
the area subject to the eminent domain authority is significantly smaller than the overall
project area. The area subject to eminent domain authority is very limited, as illustrated
on Exhibit A to the 2007 Redevelopment Plan Amendment (available since April, 2007),
as opposed to the 2000 acres Ms. Berliner describes. Accordingly, any independent
investigation that either CYAC or the Institute for Justice desired to undertake could
have commenced in April, 2007. Lastly, independent investigation parcel -by -parcel is not
necessary for objecting to or challenging the findings related to continued blight. The law
does not require a parcel -by -parcel determination of blight, but rather looks to the project
area as a whole. "A project area need not be restricted to buildings, improvements, or
lands which are detrimental or inimical to the public health, safety or welfare, but may
consist of an area in which such conditions predominate and injuriously affect the entire
3
area. A project area may include lands, buildings, or improvements which are not
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but whose inclusion is found
necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part.... "
Health & Safety Code § 33321. To the extent Ms. Berliner's objections include those
already made by their experts or clients, those objections have already been responded
to in the Responses to Written Objections.
E. The lack of time afforded to review the blight study violates California
statutes and Due Process under the California and United States
Constitutions.
Ms. Berliner argues that providing the `Report and other supposed documentation of
blighting conditions less than a week before the public hearing" amounts to a violation of
California statutes and both state and federal constitutional law.
As responded to in the objections above, the statutory requirements require that the
Report be made available prior to the hearing. In this instance, the Report was made
available to the public and the City Council on June 14, 2007, five days before the
hearing. The Draft 2007 Redevelopment Plan Amendment was made available April 17,
2007. As evidenced by the voluminous objections, both written and oral, there was no
denial of due process, statutory violation, or constitutional violation, based on making the
Report and other materials available on June 14, 2007.
OBJECTION 2: THE PROCESS DECLARING THE EMINENT DOMAIN AREA
"BLIGHTED" IS A SHAM IN WHICH THE "BLIGHT"
DETERMINATION WAS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION AND
ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP'S SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE WAS
TO SUPPLY NATIONAL CITY WITH A "BLIGHT" PRETEXT
FOR THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN FOR PRIVATE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
Ms. Berliner argues that the City's finding of blight is a foregone conclusion because it
has contracted with consultant RSG to study whether there is continued blight for the
purposes of a plan amendment. Specifically, Ms. Berliner argues "that contrary to law
and procedural due process, the entire series of events leading up to the impending
blight declaration and re -authorization of eminent domain have been a deliberate fraud
in which the finding of blight was a foregone conclusion."
This objection is not a substantive objection to the 2007 Redevelopment Plan
Amendment, but rather an inflammatory allegation without evidentiary support. The City
Council retains its complete discretion in deciding whether to approve the ordinance
approving the 2007 Redevelopment Plan Amendment which includes extending the
eminent domain authority and findings that significant blight remains within the project
area. While Ms. Berliner accuses the City of having made a decision in advance of the
public hearing, there is no evidence to support such allegation. The fact that RSG was
directed to document the conditions of blight does not negate the fact that the City
Council is the legislative body that makes the final decision whether to accept or reject
both the evidence contained in the Report and the 2007 Redevelopment Plan
Amendment. An e-mail to a consultant asking them to begin research to "substantiate
blight" does not negate the evidence of blight. Conditions of blight exist, regardless of
4
whether they are looking for blighting conditions or conducting an "independent and
objective evaluation of property conditions." Ms. Berliner's argument that somehow
asking about code violations is an inappropriate manner in which to determine whether
there is blight is nonsensical considering code violations are listed in the conditions that
cause blight, pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 33031. There is no evidence that
the blight does not exist, nor is there any evidence that RSG conducted their evaluation
inappropriately. Ms. Berliner's argument that "it is difficult to imagine that National City
and RSG now understand their relationship as anything but cash for blight" is a
sensational, inflammatory, speculative, and unsubstantiated argument, unsupported by
any evidence. A consultant's reputation is built upon its ability to produce quality work
that will withstand challenge —a consultant that merely arrives at unsupported
conclusions in exchange for money will have a short lived professional life. Ms. Berliner
also argues that "there is no way that the City Council can have had time to engage in
the focused consideration and evaluation required by California Statutes."
Nothwithstanding the insulting nature of the comment, there is no evidence to support
the allegation that the City Council has failed to comply with its duties in hearing this
matter. While most of this objection is a philosophical disagreement with how the State
of California defines blight and the reality that consultants conduct the studies, the
balance of the objection contains unsubstantiated allegations.
OBJECTION 3: ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED
IN REVIEWING THE CYAC'S OBJECTIONS OR THOSE OF
ANY OTHER PROPERTY OWNER
Ms. Berliner objects to RSG preparing responses to written comments and asks that
RSG be removed from such duties.
There is no legal requirement precluding a consultant from drafting responses to
comments. This objection is a philosophical disagreement with the reality that
consultants are paid to work on redevelopment plan documents.
OBJECTION 4: INSUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION UNDER CAL. HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE §§ 33352 AND 33367, STATUTORY AND/OR
DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS
Ms. Berliner argues that "the underlying data behind the blight `study' prepared by RSG"
was required to be produced under Sections 33352 and 33367. In the alternative, Ms.
Berliner argues that if the "underlying data" was not statutorily required to be produced,
then the hearing procedure itself violates procedural due process.
The City complied with Sections 33352 and 33367. It is unclear exactly what particular
documentation Ms. Berliner seeks, however, it appears to be what could be best
described as the raw data. Such data is not required to be independently produced by
the statutes cited, nor was this information requested by Ms. Berliner or CYAC. While
the raw data may be referenced, relied upon, and used to arrive at the information that is
included in the Report, the raw data itself need not be separately attached to the Report.
Ms. Berliner has not cited any case law requiring this raw data be produced pursuant to
Sections 33352 or 33367. The cases cited by Ms. Berliner do not stand for her argument
that raw data must be produced per the statutes. Due process does not compel a
5
different conclusion. Ms. Berliner and CYAC had sufficient time to produce voluminous
comments, appear and object orally, coordinate speakers to object to the amendment,
and submit at least six volumes of materials as part of their objection. Ms. Berliner and
CYAC were afforded due process.
OBJECTION 5: FINANCIAL INCENTIVES IN REDEVELOPMENT LAW VIOLATE
DUE PROCESS.
Ms. Berliner objects that the "structure of redevelopment activities in California diverts
huge amounts of money from actual public services like fire and police and into
redevelopment agencies and redevelopment activities. Redevelopment decision -making
is fatally biased by the enormous financial incentives toward massive Tax Increment
Financing area designations."
Ms. Berliner's objection is a political one. The objection is to the Redevelopment Law,
not to this particular plan amendment. Ms. Berliner's has a political disagreement with
the State Legislature and the laws it has adopted. To the extent Ms. Berliner argues that
Redevelopment Law violates due process, such argument is not supported by case law.
Moreover, there is no evidence that the Redevelopment Law statutes that permit state
action in economic affairs are arbitrary or without reason, thus there is no due process
violation. While Ms. Berliner alleges that "the amount of money the CDC is able to divert
through tax increment financing creates a powerful incentive for National City to
systematically exaggerate the incidence of blight", this is merely an unsubstantiated
allegation based upon conjecture.
OBJECTION 6: NATIONAL CITY IS MISUSING ITS EMINENT DOMAIN AND
REDEVELOPMENT POWERS SIMPLY TO REPLACE EXISTING
VIABLE USES WITH OTHER ONES.
Ms. Berliner argues that the City is misusing ifs eminent domain authority to "make a
better use of some of the commercial areas of National City than the current, viable
businesses. The area that the city wishes to re -designate as blighted is a vibrant area
including both businesses and residences."
Substantial evidence supports finding that significant blight remains within the project
area. This objection does not object to any of the evidence documenting the blight, but
instead focuses on one particular parcel, the CYAC parcel. As stated earlier in these
responses, the law does not require a parcel -by -parcel determination of blight, but rather
looks to the project area as a whole. "A project area need not be restricted to buildings,
improvements, or lands which are detrimental or inimical to the public health, safety or
welfare, but may consist of an area in which such conditions predominate and injuriously
affect the entire area. A project area may include lands, buildings, or improvements
which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but whose inclusion is
found necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part... .
" Health & Safety Code § 33321. The City has been redeveloping the project area
steadily over the years, however much work remains. The redevelopment is for the
purpose of eliminating blight. Ms. Berliner's argument is not supported by the facts or the
law.
6
rr
OBJECTION 7: Overwhelming majority of the area included only for the
purpose of TIF Financing
The boundaries of the National City Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") and
the area currently subject to eminent domain authority have been established for more
than fourteen years. The CDC proposes to extend its existing eminent domain authority
in the areas that are currently subject to eminent domain. The CDC is not proposing to
add property to the Project Area, expand the area that is currently subject to eminent
domain authority, nor is it proposing to amend provisions of the Redevelopment Plan
pertaining to tax increment revenue. The 2007 Amendment does not need to reevaluate
past findings substantiating the boundaries of the Project Area or the boundaries of the
area currently subject to eminent domain authority. CRL Section 33333.2(a)(4) provides
that time limitations for eminent domain authority may be extended by amendment of the
redevelopment plan after the agency finds, based on substantial evidence, both that
significant blight remains within the project area, and that this blight cannot be eliminated
without use of eminent domain.
Though the proposed 2007 Amendment specifically excludes any use of eminent
domain against residential property, residential properties are not excluded from the
possibilities of redevelopment. The CDC would maintain the option to pursue the
acquisition and consolidation of residential properties demonstrating conditions of blight
through open market transactions, the CDC could offer to owners of residential
properties that have been identified as having blighting conditions home improvement
loans through the CDC or in those cases where there is a willing seller of residential
properties located within the Project Area there may be assistance/benefit packages
available to the residential property owner under redevelopment law.
OBJECTION 8: No showing that significant blight remains or that the specific
remaining blight can not be eliminated without eminent
domain
The National City Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") has been established for
a number of years. Issues and conditions used to establish the Project Area have been
documented in the original Preliminary Report and Report to Council used in adopting
the Project Area, later documented in the Preliminary Reports and Reports to Council
prepared in 1995, and 2001 which were used to amend the National City
Redevelopment Plan ("the Plan"), as well as in the Report to Council prepared for the
2005 Amendment which was subsequently withdrawn. Based on the 2007 windshield
survey, many of the issues and conditions are still present. Review of the previous
reports, which are available through the CDC and the city clerk's, office is a reliable
method of identifying the basis of the blight designation. Under Article 12 Section
33451.5 (c)(2) of the CRL the CDC is required to provide a description of the remaining
blight and is not required to re-establish the Project Area as blighted. CRL Section
33333.2(a)(4) provides that time limitations for eminent domain authority may be
extended by amendment of the redevelopment plan after the agency finds, based on
substantial evidence, both that significant blight remains within the project area, and that
this blight cannot be eliminated without use of eminent domain.
7
RSG has served as a redevelopment consultant to the City of National City for several
years and has completed amendments to the National City Redevelopment Plan in 2001
and 2003. RSG was the consultant for the proposed 2005 Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan at which time a parcel by parcel survey was also completed over a
two month process. As such, RSG has a substantial working knowledge of the Project
Area and an in-house database of properties in the Project Area. In addition to
reviewing previous documents such as the 1995, 2001 and 2005 Reports to Council that
record blighting conditions in the Project Area the needed to be verified, the existing
database was queried and property conditions for properties with the proposed 2007
Amendment area were verified in the April 2007 windshield survey. Furthermore,
discussions with city code compliance staff, city fire and police department officials as
well as local real estate professionals was used to verify conditions of blight that remain
in the Project Area. The RTC for the 2007 Amendment documents the presence of
significant remaining blight and why eminent domain authority is needed to assist with
the elimination of blighting conditions.
As stated in the RTC for the 2007 Amendment, 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 these properties continue to be
neglected 12 years later. Adopting the 2007 Amendment will extend the Redevelopment
Plan's eminent domain authority and afford the CDC one additional tool to eliminate
blight in the Project Area, through the facilitation of land assemblage activities or the
purchase of dilapidated properties within the areas.
OBJECTION 9: No Explanation or documentation why inclusion of CYAC or
other non -blighted property is necessary for redevelopment
A. Neither the proposed 2007 Amendment nor the draft report provide any evidence
or explanation of why the inclusion of non -blighted property is necessary for
redevelopment.
As previously noted, there are three relevant CRL requirements that deal with
redevelopment plan amendments.
1. Section 33354.6 describes the type of amendments that require a long -form
plan amendment including identification of remaining blight and which
portions of the project area are no longer blighted. The 2007 Amendment
does NOT include any of these types of amendments (such as increase in
the limit on tax increment or increase in the bonded indebtedness limit).
2. CRL Section 33333.2(a)(4) provides that time limitations for eminent domain
authority may be extended by amendment of the redevelopment plan after
the agency finds, based on substantial evidence, both that significant blight
remains within the project area, and that this blight cannot be eliminated
without use of eminent domain. This section is pertinent to the 2007
Amendment that will extend eminent domain authority.
8
3. CRL Article 12 commencing with Section 33450 outlines the "short -form"
amendment process that may be used for most plan amendments which is
pertinent to the 2007 Amendment in combination with Section 33333.2(a)(4).
CRL Section 33451.5 describes amendments that require a specific Report
on Blight to be sent to the Department of Finance and Department of Housing
and Community Development and none of the 2007 Amendments fall within
these categories.
Evidence of the presence of blight was provided in 1995 when the Project Area was
established. The purpose of the Report to Council for the 2007 Amendment was to
describe the fact that substantial blight remains. CRL Section 33333.2(a)(4) provides
that time limitations for eminent domain authority may be extended by amendment of the
redevelopment plan after the agency finds, based on substantial evidence, both that
significant blight remains within the project area, and that this blight cannot be eliminated
without use of eminent domain. The RTC for the 2007 Amendment documents the
presence of significant remaining blight and why eminent domain authority is needed to
assist with the elimination of blighting conditions.
B. Removal of the CYAC is unnecessary and will increase, not decrease blight in
the project area
The 2007 Amendment does not target the CYAC property located at 1030 National City
Blvd, or any other specific property. The Redevelopment Plan for the 2007 Amendment
is not a specific plan for the redevelopment of the Project Area; instead, it establishes a
process and framework for implementation.
The 2007 Amendment will extend the CDC's existing authority to acquire property, as a
last resort, through eminent domain to vacant property, and all commercial and industrial
zoned properties in those areas which are currently subject to eminent domain authority
within the Project Area. The 2007 Amendment does not constitute a specific plan
authorizing the acquisition of any property (by eminent domain or other legal means),
nor does it call for the closing or removal of any business or enterprise in the Project
Area. Furthermore, if the City Council approves the 2007 Amendment it does not imply
that the CDC will automatically go forth to acquire businesses in the Project Area. If
approved, the 2007 Amendment would allow the CDC to acquire property through
eminent domain only:
• After the CDC first elects to pursue a redevelopment proposal;
• After property owner and business tenants are given the first right to submit
proposals to participate in the redevelopment proposal;
• After the CDC determines (during a public meeting) that property owners and
business tenants located within the site specific redevelopment area do not have
the capacity to participate in the redevelopment proposal;
• After MAI (an appraiser who is a Member Appraisal Institute member) appraisals
are prepared for all properties (by State law, the CDC must value properties
based upon the current fair market value for similarly zoned and developed
property in the market area) that must be purchased in order to facilitate the
redevelopment proposal;
9
• After a relocation plan is prepared and adopted by the City Council (after
property and business owner, tenant and public review) that details how the
specific relocation needs will be accommodated;
• After the CDC approves MAI appraisals and directs staff to submit property
purchase offers and to initiate property acquisition negotiations;
• After appraisals are prepared to identify the leasehold interest value of each
tenant's lease;
• After property acquisition negotiations do not result in a negotiated property
purchase and the CDC determines that it must proceed with property acquisition
using eminent domain;
• After the CDC holds a public hearing to consider the property owner's testimony
as to why their property should not be purchased through eminent domain;
• After four of the five CDC governing board members vote to proceed with
property acquisition through eminent domain; and
• After the CDC files a Superior Court action to acquire the property through
eminent domain.
This is a long and expensive process, and historically, the CDC has not used its existing
eminent domain authority to acquire property unless it is implementing a site specific
redevelopment project that is both economically feasible and will benefit the greater
Project Area.
OBJECTION 10: No showing that redevelopment is necessary because private
enterprise is unlikely to accomplish the curing of blight
See response to comment 9A.
OBJECTION 11: Use of federal funds for eminent domain in National City
Redevelopment Plan Area is prohibited by federal law
Comment noted. The CDC does not nor does it intend to use federal government funds
for any eminent domain actions should eminent domain as a method to acquire property
within the Project Area become necessary.
OBJECTION 12: The proposed 2007 Amendment and supporting draft report
lack a provision for relocating the CYAC
The CDC has previously approved the Relocation of Persons Displaced ("Method of
Relocation"), which was amended on July 18, 1995. The Method of Relocation meets
the requirements of CRL Section 33411and State Law, and is incorporated into the RTC
by reference and is on file with the Secretary of the CDC.
The 2007 Amendment will extend the CDC's existing authority to acquire property, as a
last resort, through eminent domain to vacant property, and all commercial and industrial
zoned properties in those areas which are currently subject to eminent domain authority
10
within the Project Area. The 2007 Amendment does not, however, constitute a specific
plan authorizing the acquisition of the CYAC or any property (by eminent domain or
other legal means), nor does it call for the closing or removal of the CYAC or any other
business or enterprise in the Project Area. No legal action to acquire the CYAC property
has occurred. Furthermore, if the City Council approves the 2007 Amendment it does
not imply that the CDC will automatically go forth to acquire businesses in the Project
Area. If approved, the 2007 Amendment would allow the CDC to acquire property
through eminent domain only:
• After the CDC first elects to pursue a redevelopment proposal;
• After property owner and business tenants are given the first right to submit
proposals to participate in the redevelopment proposal;
• After the CDC determines (during a public meeting) that property owners and
business tenants located within the site specific redevelopment area do not have
the capacity to participate in the redevelopment proposal;
• After MAI (an appraiser who is a Member Appraisal Institute member) appraisals
are prepared for all properties (by State law, the CDC must value properties
based upon the current fair market value for similarly zoned and developed
property in the market area) that must be purchased in order to facilitate the
redevelopment proposal;
• After a relocation plan is prepared and adopted by the City Council (after
property and business owner, tenant and public review) that details how the
specific relocation needs will be accommodated;
• After the CDC approves MAI appraisals and directs staff to submit property
purchase offers and to initiate property acquisition negotiations;
• After appraisals are prepared to identify the leasehold interest value of each
tenant's lease;
• After property acquisition negotiations do not result in a negotiated property
purchase and the CDC determines that it must proceed with property acquisition
using eminent domain;
• After the CDC holds a public hearing to consider the property owner's testimony
as to why their property should not be purchased through eminent domain;
• After four of the five CDC governing board members vote to proceed with
property acquisition through eminent domain; and
• After the CDC files a Superior Court action to acquire the property through
eminent domain.
This is a long and expensive process, and historically, the CDC has not used its existing
eminent domain authority to acquire property unless it is implementing a site specific
redevelopment project that is both economically feasible and will benefit the greater
Project Area.
11
OBJECTION 13: Redevelopment Project Area does not meet blight criteria
Ms. Berliner's statements/comments in Objection 13 are primarily grounded by the
premises that 1) the draft RTC was made available to the public only five days prior to
the public hearing and that this time period was not adequate for CYAC, its counsel, and
its experts to conduct a "real review" of the claims made in the draft RTC; and 2) the
draft RTC did not provide the underlying data used to determine that blighting conditions
exist and that this made it difficult to evaluate the blighting conditions discussed by the
draft RTC.
Both comments described in the preceding paragraph were previously responded to in
detail by the CDC in response to other letters submitted on behalf of CYAC. In response
to premise number 1, stated above, please refer to the CDC's responses titled, Letter 1-
Comments from Institute for Justice (Jeff Rowes, Staff Attorney) and Letter 2- Affidavit of
David A. Philips (refer to comment/response #27). In response to premise number 2,
stated above, please see the introductory comments of this document and response to
Letter 2- Affidavit of David A. Philips (refer to comment/response #29).
A. Impossible to tell how many properties were evaluated, which were found lighted,
and why
RSG, consultant to the CDC, acknowledges that the map required by CRL Section
33352(b) was erroneously left out of the Appendices to the RTC, and inadvertently in its
place was attached the Project Area Map depicting the area subject to eminent domain
authority as proposed by the 2007 Amendment. Four maps which indicate where in the
Project Area physical blighting conditions exist are included here by reference and are
attached to the CDC's Responses to Written Objections on the 2007 Amendment. Each
of the said four maps shows the location where physical blighting conditions were
observed to exist in the Project Area. The physical blighting conditions depicted in the
maps are 1) defective design, 2) structural obsolescence, 3) incompatible adjacent uses,
and 4) deterioration and dilapidation. It should be further noted that these four maps will
be included as attachments to the final draft of the RTC.
Furthermore, Ms. Berliner's statement that the RTC does not provide any information
about how, by whom, or of what property the study was conducted is a
misrepresentation of the RTC. The study's methodology, who conducted the study, and
a description of what property was included in the study are clearly stated in the RTC.
Please see Section B of the RTC under the subheading "Study Approach and
Methodology" for a detailed description.
Ms. Berliner is correct in pointing out that the report inaccurately states that there are
692 blighted parcels in the Project Area when in fact there are not. The statement in the
RTC which Ms. Berliner is referring to currently says, "Of the 692 parcels identified as
being blighted, there were 493 occurrences of dilapidation and deterioration in the 2007
Amendment Area (71.2%)". In this statement of the RTC, "as being blighted" is a
typographical error. The statement should have indicated that "Of the 692 parcels
identified, there were 493 occurrences of dilapidation and deterioration in the 2007
Amendment Area (71.2%)".
12
Ms. Berliner states that the RTC uses photos from the 2005 RTC and that it is possible
that portions of the study may not have been conducted recently. Please see response
to Letter 2- Affidavit of David A. Phillips (refer to comment/response #1 &# 2).
For a response to Ms. Berliner's reiteration of Michael Pallamary's doubts that a cursory
examination of the Project Area could be conducted in a single month, please see the
CDC's response to Letter 4- Pallamary & Associates Land Use Consultants (refer to
comment/response #2)
B. Impossible to tell if the identified conditions are so substantial and prevalent that
they satisfy Cal. Health & Safety Code Section 33030(b) & 33352(b)(2) and whether they
predominate the area, as required by Cal. Health & Safety Code Section 33321,
because the draft RTC does not identify the location of the supposed blighting conditions
The comments which follow in response to part "B" of Objection 13 have been previously
discussed in the written responses addressing written objections made by other
individuals and representatives of the CYAC. The following comments have been
reiterated again in an attempt to underscore the true facts of the matter with regards to
objections made over the adequacy of the RTC's documentation of blighting conditions.
It should first be noted that the blight findings required to extend existing eminent domain
authority are not the same as the blight findings required to prove blight as a prerequisite
to adopt a new redevelopment project area or adoption of new eminent domain authority
for existing redevelopment project areas. Since the boundaries of the Project Area are
not being changed, the detailed blight findings required by CRL Section 33031 for
adoption of a new redevelopment project area is not required for the 2007 Amendment.
Page 2 of the RTC acknowledges that said document supplements the documentation
and evidence contained in previous Reports to the City Council ("Original Reports") and
that, "Much of the information normally required that pertains to adopting a
redevelopment plan was previously documented and presented in the Original Reports".
There are three relevant CRL requirements that deal with redevelopment plan
amendments.
Section 33354.6 describes the type of amendments that require a long -form plan
amendment including identification of remaining blight and which portions of the
project area are no longer blighted (such as increase in the limit on tax increment
or increase in the bonded indebtedness limit). The 2007 Amendment does NOT
include any of these types of amendments
2. CRL Section 33333.2(a)(4) provides that time limitations for eminent
domain authority may be extended by amendment of the redevelopment
plan after the agency finds, based on substantial evidence, both that
significant blight remains within the project area, and that this blight
cannot be eliminated without use of eminent domain. This section is
pertinent to the 2007 Amendment that will extend eminent domain
authority.
13
3. CRL Article 12 commencing with Section 33450 outlines the "short -form"
amendment process that may be used for most plan amendments which
is pertinent to the 2007 Amendment in combination with Section
33333.2(a)(4).
CRL Section 33451.5 describes amendments that require a specific
Report on Blight to be sent to the Department of Finance and Department
of Housing and Community Development and none of the 2007
Amendment fall within these categories.
Therefore CRL Section 33457.1 (in combination with Section 33333.2(a)(4)) is most
relevant to the level of documentation required for the 2007 Amendment. Section
33457.1 states "To the extent warranted by a proposed amendment...(1) the ordinance
adopting an amendment...shall contain the findings required by Section 33367, and (2)
the reports and information required by Section 33352 shall be prepared and made
available to the public prior to the hearing on such amendment. The Report to the City
Council for the 2007 Amendment documents the presence of significant remaining blight
and why eminent domain authority must be extended to assist with the elimination of
blighting conditions.
Furthermore, it is important to highlight that blight findings were made when each of the
seven constituent project areas were originally adopted. These findings were reaffirmed
in the 1995 RTC when the Project Area was established. The 1995 RTC was approved
by the CDC and supported findings for the ordinance that adopted the Project Area.
This ordinance was not contested. Pursuant to CRL Section 33368, these findings are
considered to be final and conclusive.
In response to the statement that the RTC does not identify the location of the supposed
blighting conditions please see the CDC's response to part A of Objection 13.
C. Impossible to tell if physical blight exists in the proposed eminent domain area.
Impossible to tell if supposed serious building code violations in the
proposed eminent domain area are serious, prevalent, or even violations
of the building code
This comment is similar to those made by David A. Phillips and Michael J. Pallamary on
behalf of CYAC. Please see responses to Letter 2- Affidavit of David A. Phillips (refer to
comment/response #5 & #6) and Letter 4- Pallamary & Associates Land Use
Consultants (refer to comment/response #3).
ii. Impossible to tell if there is serious dilapidation or deterioration in the
proposed eminent domain area
Please see responses to Letter 2- Affidavit of David A. Phillips (refer to
comment/response #7, #8, #9, #10, and #11) and response to part B of Objection 13.
Furthermore, comments made by Ms. Berliner with regards to the following caselaws
pertain to the original adoption of a redevelopment plan or adoption of new eminent
domain authority for existing redevelopment project areas and therefore do not relate to
the 2007 Amendment; Bunker Hill, County of Riverside v. City of Murrieta, Mammoth,
14
Diamond Bar, Graber v. City of Upland, Gonzalez v. City of Santa Ana. Again, the blight
findings required to extend existing eminent domain authority are not the same as the
blight findings required prior to project area adoption and/or adoption of new eminent
domain authority for existing redevelopment project areas. Since the boundaries of the
Project Area are not being changed, the detailed blight findings required by CRL Section
33031 for plan adoptions of new redevelopment project areas are not required for the
2007 Amendment
In addition, please see response to Letter 2- Affidavit of David A. Phillips (refer to
comment/response #2 & #8) for a response to Ms. Berliner's comment regarding
multiple photos of the same building and the inclusion of photos from the draft 2005
Report to City Council, and please see response to comment/response #9 of same letter
regarding her reiteration of comments made by Mr. Phillips with regards to exposed
wiring.
mpossible to tell if claimed "serious dilapidation or deterioration" causes
buildings to be "unsafe or unhealthy" to live or work in
Please see responses to Section B & C(ii) of Objection 13.
iv.
mpossible to tell the prevalence of the "physical factors" that prevent or
substantially hinder the economically viable use of buildings or lots
Please see response to Section B of Objection 13.
v. Impossible to tell if there are adjacent or nearby incompatible uses
Please see response to Section B of Objection 13.
vi. Impossible to determine if conditions prevent or substantially hinder
economically viable use
Please see responses to Section B of Objection 13. Furthermore, it should be noted that
the CDC is aware that the CRL does not permit the condemnation of private property for
the purpose of transferring ownership under the same or similar use and that the new
uses must be in compliance with the Redevelopment Plan and work towards the
betterment of the community, which includes the removal of blighting conditions. The
CDC will operate all eminent domain actions in accordance with the CRL and all other
applicable laws.
vii. Impossible to tell if catch-all provision is supported by evidence
Please see response to Section B of Objection 13. Furthermore, comment noted that
the RTC does state, that even if all code enforcement violations were corrected, the
blighting factors such as... unsafe traffic conditions would still remain in the Project Area.
However, the RTC does not rely on unsafe traffic conditions as a blighting condition, as
Ms. Berliner suggest, and is a misrepresentation of the facts. The RTC identifies three
physical blighting conditions and three economic blighting conditions that currently
remain within the Project Area. The physical blighting conditions identified within the
15
Project Area and discussed in the RTC are 1) buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy
for persons to live or work, 2) conditions that prevent of substantially hinder the viable
use or capacity of buildings or lots, and 3) adjacent or nearby incompatible land uses
that prevent the development of those parcels or other portions of the Project Area.
Economic blighting conditions identified within the Project Area and discussed in the
RTC include 1) impaired property values, due in significant part, to hazardous wastes, 2)
abnormally low lease rates, and 3) a high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to
public safety and welfare.
D. Impossible to tell if there is any economic blight in the proposed eminent domain
area.
i. There are no depreciated or stagnant property values
Please see response to part B of Objection 13. It should be further noted that
depreciating or stagnant property values is just one economic condition indicating blight,
and that CRL Section 33030 does not require that all blighting conditions described in
CRL Section 33031 be present in a project area determined to be blighted; rather CRL
Section 33030(b)(2) requires that one or more physical condition of blight and one or
more economic conditions of blight, as set forth in CRL Section 33031, characterize a
blighted area.. The RTC identifies the following three physical blighting conditions in the
Project Area; 1) buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work, 2)
conditions that prevent of substantially hinder the viable use or capacity of buildings or
lots, and 3) adjacent or nearby incompatible land uses that prevent the development of
those parcels or other portions of the Project Area. In addition, the following economic
blighting conditions are identified in the Project Area and discussed in the RTC; 1)
impaired property values, due in significant part, to hazardous wastes, 2) abnormally low
lease rates, and 3) a high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to public safety and
welfare. Since the RTC, identifies three physical and three economic blighting
conditions still remaining in the Project Area, it is not necessary that property values be
depreciating or stagnant in order to render a Project Area blighted.
ii. Impossible to tell if there are property values impaired due to hazardous
waste
Comment noted. The section referencing Impaired Property Values Due in Significant
Part to Hazardous Waste indicates the existence of contaminated sites within the
proposed 2007 Amendment Area. The section also cites the Brownfield's Grant Study
Project ("Study") undertaken by the CDC and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency which determined the extent of pollution in the Harbor District. The
RTC indicates that based on the Study there were sites with soil and groundwater
contamination. The RTC further indicates that according to environmental attorneys
involved with the Study Project and the creation of the City's Brownfield Redevelopment
Information System, sites located within the 2007 Amendment Area that have already
undergone remedial action are not necessarily presumed suitable for all uses. The
existence of hazardous waste and property contamination is well documented. The
presence of such waste and contamination becomes a clean-up cost, which can exceed
the value of the land. The presence of hazardous waste and contamination lower the
value of property because of the remediation cost, and it also lowers the value of
surrounding properties due to their proximity to hazardous waste and contamination, and
the concern of possible contamination migration.
16
iii. Impossible to tell if the proposed eminent domain area has abnormally low
lease rates.
Please see response to Section B of Objection 13. In addition, see Letter 2- Affidavit of
David A. Phillips (refer to comment/response #25) for additional responses related to low
lease rates.
iv. Impossible to tell if there is disproportionate amount of crime in the proposed
eminent domain area.
Ms. Berliner suggests that comparing city-wide crime rates for National City and other
comparable cities is an improper comparison but does not indicate why such a
comparison is improper. The CDC would like to note that a prevalently high crime rate in
National City when compared to other comparable cities is a clear indication of the
conditions plaguing the City when compared with neighboring areas. As discussed in
the RTC, for 2006, National City had a higher rate of robbery, aggravated assault,
burglary, and motor vehicle theft than the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego, and the
San Diego County average. The RTC further discusses how the 2006 National City
crime rate is 39% higher than the San Diego County average and 32% and 20% higher
than the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego, respectively. Moreover, providing
information on the city-wide high crime rate in National City coupled with factual
evidence provided by the National City Police Department, which shows that 12.6% of
the City's total reported crimes occurred in the Project Area, further validates the claim
that a high crime rate occurs in the Project Area.
OBJECTION 14: No evidence that specific planned projects will alleviate
identified blighting conditions
See Response to comment 9A.
17
Exhibit A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
2007 AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL CITY
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE,
AND FROM PROPERTY OWNERS AND AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES
Pursuant to California Redevelopment Law ("CRL") Section 33363 the National City Community
Development Commission ("CDC") shall respond in writing to the written objections received
prior or at the public hearing on the National City Redevelopment Plan Amendment ("2007
Amendment.") The written responses must describe the disposition of the issues raised. The
legislative body shall address the written objections in detail, giving reasons for not accepting
specified objections and suggestions. The legislative body shall include a good -faith, reasoned
analysis in its response and, for this purpose; conclusionary statements unsupported by factual
information shall not suffice. In the following responses, the Report to the City Council on the
National City Redevelopment Plan Amendment is referred to as the ("RTC") and the response
to the written objections are referred to as the ("Response.")
There are three relevant CRL requirements that deal with redevelopment plan amendments.
1. Section 33354.6 describes the type of amendments that require a long -form plan
amendment including identification of remaining blight and which portions of the project
area are no longer blighted. The 2007 Amendment does NOT include any of these
types of amendments (such as increase in the limit on tax increment or increase in the
bonded indebtedness limit).
2. CRL Section 33333.2(a)(4) provides that time limitations for eminent domain authority
may be extended by amendment of the redevelopment plan after the agency finds,
based on substantial evidence, both that significant blight remains within the project
area, and that this blight cannot be eliminated without use of eminent domain. This
section is pertinent to the 2007 Amendment that will extend eminent domain authority.
3. CRL Article 12 commencing with Section 33450 outlines the "short -form" amendment
process that may be used for most plan amendments which is pertinent to the 2007
Amendment in combination with Section 33333.2(a)(4). CRL Section 33451.5 describes
amendments that require a specific Report on Blight to be sent to the Department of
Finance and Department of Housing and Community Development and none of the 2007
Amendments fall within these categories.
1
LETTER 1 -
COMMENTS FROM INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE (JEFF ROWES, STAFF ATTORNEY)
Mr. Rowes represents the Community Youth Athletic Center ("CYAC") of 1018 National City
Boulevard in its objection to the proposed 2007 Amendment. Mr. Rowes does not present
specified objections or suggestions to the 2007 Amendment. Mr. Rowes writes for the specific
purpose of stating the steps he took to acquire information and documentation relevant to the
proposed 2007 Amendment documentation.
1. In summary Mr. Rowes' letter comments on the availability of and difficulties in obtaining the
documentation associated with the 2007 Amendment. Additionally, he states that there was no
ability for a citizen to prepare an objection to the blight designation and the re -authorization of
eminent domain without knowing what the basis of the blight designation would be.
The RTC and all other documentation associated with the 2007 Amendment were made
available to the public at the same time as it was available to the City Council. The National
City Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") has been established for a number of years.
Issues and conditions used to establish the Project Area have been documented in previous
reports and many of the issues and conditions are still present. As a point of departure, review
of previous reports is a reliable method of identifying the basis of the blight designation. Under
Article 12 Section 33451.5 (c)(2) of the CRL the CDC is required to provide a description of the
remaining blight and is not required to re-establish the Project Area as blighted. CRL Section
33333.2(a)(4) provides that time limitations for eminent domain authority may be extended by
amendment of the redevelopment plan after the agency finds, based on substantial evidence,
both that significant blight remains within the project area, and that this blight cannot be
eliminated without use of eminent domain. The RTC for the 2007 Amendment documents the
presence of significant remaining blight and why eminent domain authority is needed to assist
with the elimination of blighting conditions.
2
LETTER 2 —
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID A. PHILLIPS
Mr. David A. Phillips was hired by the CYAC to review and comment on the alleged conditions
of blight as noted in the RTC for the 2007 Amendment. Mr. Phillips' submittal is summarized by
the following 29 objections. This response is organized to address each objection (shown in
italics) on an individual basis. Responses follow summary of each objection.
1. Mr. Phillips indicates that the statement in the report that the survey was completed in April
of 2007 is an inconsistency compared to the time he estimates as being sufficient to complete a
parcel by parcel field survey.
RSG has served as a redevelopment consultant to the City of National City for several years
and has completed amendments to the National City Redevelopment Plan in 2001 and 2003.
As noted by Mr. Phillips RSG was the consultant for the proposed 2005 Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan at which time a parcel by parcel survey was also completed over a two
month process. As such, RSG has a substantial working knowledge of the Project Area and an
in-house database of properties in the Project Area. The existing database was queried and
property conditions were verified in the April 2007 windshield survey. It is acknowledged that
the survey did not include building -by -building interior inspections. Given the number of
buildings it was not feasible to take this approach because of the significant cost. City code
enforcement personnel were interviewed to ascertain their opinion of the conditions in the
Project Area.
2. The Report to City Council states that the survey was completed in April of 2007, however,
photos numbered 8, 11, and 15 are from the 2005 Report to City Council. (paragraph 21)
Photo 8 depicts a residential building between two industrial uses which underscores the
incompatibility for both residential occupants and industrial uses. Although this photo was taken
in 2005 the uses at this site have not changed. Furthermore, photos 11 and 15 depict a forklift
driver transporting goods to a nearby site using a public road shared by other motorists, and a
loading area that is inadequate for the size of delivery being made which has resulted in a
blocked access way. These conditions are a direct result of inadequate lots sizes that have
resulted in unsafe conditions for the forklift driver and a lack of loading and vehicle access.
These conditions still exist in the Harbor District area of the Project Area regardless of the fact
that these two photos were originally taken in 2005.
3. "The RSG Draft Report to the City Council appears to use language in Section 33030(b)(1)
of the California Health and Safety Code in the report on page 24 under the heading
'PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC BURDEN ON THE COMMUNITY' to find blight." (paragraph 22)
California Health and Safety Code Section ("H&SC") 33000 et. seq. sets the legal standard for
determining blight. It should be expected that any analysis of the physical and economic
conditions in the Project Area would include language from the H&SC.
4. "Section B of the RSG Draft Report lists those Physical and Economic Blighting Conditions
RSG relied on to justify a determination of blight in the conclusions on page 24. Each of the
RSG items is reviewed in part together with my time estimate for a reasonable review process in
the following paragraphs". (paragraph 23)
This does not appear to be an objection so no response is warranted.
3
5. The Report to City Council does not provide specifics or addresses for code enforcement
violations and it is Mr. Phillips' experience that when an inspector identifies a violation which is
then cleared after one or more follow up inspections, the violation was not serious and no longer
exists. (paragraph 24)
Due to the high volume of code enforcement violations it would be unwarranted to list the
addresses and specifics of all code enforcement violations in the RTC. As discussed in the
RTC, even if all code enforcement violations were corrected in the properties affected by the
2007 Amendment, blighting factors such as environmental contamination, flooding, inadequately
sized parcels and unsafe traffic conditions would still remain and the 2007 Amendment would
still be justified and beneficial for the Project Area.
6. The RSG Draft Report does not list serious building code violations and instead lists mostly
parking, loading and storage issues, extension cords, canvas, and plastic tarps. Further, Mr.
Phillips states that because there is not quantifiable evidence it is impossible to review these
statements. (paragraph 25)
The following quotes were taken from the RTC. These statements from the RTC are provided
as affirmation that the RTC does identify serious building code violations:
"Canvass or plastic tarps were often observed being used as long-term roof
covering or to creating an unsafe building addition as well as permanent outdoor
work areas" pg. 18 (emphasis added)
"Residential structures converted to non-residential uses without proper permits.
Without proper permitting/inspections residential structures cannot be properly
evaluated if they are suitable for industrial conversion. For example, multiple
residential structures that were being used for commercial/industrial uses were
observed to have excessive storage facilities (over 120 square feet of area) in
the dedicated setback area, creating a fire hazard" pg. 19
Mr. Phillips' states that there is a lack of quantifiable evidence for which it is impossible to
review statements regarding code enforcement violations. As mentioned in the previous
Response, a list of the specific code enforcement violations is unwarranted due to the high
volume of infractions. It is important to further note that the code enforcement violations listed in
the Project Area are mostly observable from the public right-of-way. Therefore, anyone wishing
to make a review of the statements pertaining to code enforcement violations could reasonably
do so by performing a "walk-through" examination of the commercial and industrial corridors of
the Project Area. By so doing, one could observe and determine if the statements are true or
false. It is possible that since Mr. Phillips' business address is located in Minneapolis, MN he
may not have visited the Project Area nor taken time to personally observe code violations.
Even if the RTC had provided quantifiable data that Mr. Phillips believes is necessary he would
not have been able to determine the data's credibility without visiting the Project Area and
confirming that the code violations do or do not continue to exist. That there is a need for
significant code enforcement activity in the areas speaks to the fact that the area includes
properties that are dilapidated. This dilapidation contributed to the presence of blight
documented at the time the Project Area was established and the fact that these conditions
have not yet been remedied.
4
7. The Report to City Council does not identify a single address or specific instance of
dilapidation and deterioration. (paragraph 26)
The RTC states that there were 493 occurrences of dilapidation and deterioration in the Project
Area. This fact is derived from a parcel by parcel survey conducted by the CDC's consultant,
RSG. Furthermore, the RTC describes how structures were determined to be dilapidated or
deteriorated; if they were suffering from deteriorating roofing or eaves, peeling paint, damaged
exterior building material, exposed wiring or plumbing, and/or if the buildings were constructed
with substandard building materials. To identify all 493 observed occurrences of dilapidation
and deterioration would prove repetitive and unwarranted for the RTC. However, in contrast to
Mr. Phillips statement that specific instances of dilapidation and deterioration were not identified,
pages 9 and 10 of the RTC include sample photos of dilapidated and deteriorated buildings,
captions explaining the conditions being observed in the photos, and street names for where the
structures are located.
8. "With the claim of 493 instances of dilapidation and deterioration it would be reasonable to
expect numerous photographs of the conditions and problems. Instead there are just four
photos. Two of those photos are of the same building." (paragraph 27)
Mr. Phillips is correct that two photos (photo 1 and 2 on page 9) in the RTC are of the same
building which is located along Civic Center Drive. However, the two photos provide different
angles of the building for better viewing of multiple conditions. Photo 1 depicts a rusting metal
roof which indicates the lack of weather proofing materials and Photo 2 is a closer shot
revealing the building's damaged exterior building materials. It is noteworthy to mention that
structures exhibiting multiple signs of deterioration and dilapidation further support findings that
serious dilapidation and deterioration exist. Please see the preceding Response to paragraph
26 of Mr. Phillips' submittal for additional comments pertaining to the RTC's limited site specific
documentation of deteriorated and dilapidated structures.
9. Evidence of dilapidation includes peeling paint, exposed wiring and plumbing and
substandard building materials for which it is impossible to determine from the Report to City
Council if the exposed wiring is electrical service from the power company or if the plumbing is
rain leaders and downspouts. Mr. Phillips further states that five days is not sufficient time for
an effective review of these items. (paragraph 28)
Substantiation of blight in the Project Area was documented twelve years ago when the Project
Area was initially established. Those blight documents have been available since that time.
The RTC for the 2007 Amendment is focused on substantiating that the previously documented
conditions continue to exist in a substantial number of instances. It should be noted that the
RTC for the 2007 Amendment and other pertinent documents were available per the City's
typical review time. Furthermore, since business owners, tenants, and residential property
owners affected by the proposed 2007 Amendment were notified more than three (3) weeks in
advance of the joint public hearing all interested parties had ample time to meet with staff and
consultants to discuss the proposal and potential impact on their property.
10. The "conditions" listed do not appear to be serious and in a coastal region it is not
unusual/unexpected to find rust on metal roofs. The Report to City Council does "not even
claim a leaking roof" and without specific, quantifiable evidence the claims in the Report to City
Council cannot be evaluated. (paragraph 29)
5
Mr. Phillips is correct in that the RTC does not make claims of leaking roofs. The survey did not
include building -by -building interior inspections. Given the number of buildings, and the
difficulty in gaining access to building interiors, it was not feasible to take this approach because
of the significant cost. However, the presence of rusted roofs visible from the right-of-way was
identified as a condition of blight possibly resulting from lack of proper weather proofing. While
Mr. Phillips suggest that this is not unexpected in a coastal region these conditions were
exhibited during the 2001 analysis as well as the 2005 analysis. Allowing metal roofs to
continue to rust could lead to a leaking roof if in fact leaks do not already exist.
11. The Report to City Council does not identify seismic or geologic hazards or
faulty/inadequate water or sewer utilities. (paragraph 30)
Although the CRL provides that dilapidation and deterioration caused by construction that is
vulnerable to serious damage from seismic or geological standards is a physical blighting
condition it is not a requirement that the Project Area suffer from said condition in order to be
designated blighted.
12. Canvas and plastic tarps are counted for a second time under the subheading
"Substandard or Defective Design" of the Report to City Council and said report does not
identify specific addresses or instances of this condition. (paragraph 31)
See the Response to Item number 5 of this letter.
13. The Report to City Council uses former wood frame residential structures that have been
converted to industrial use as an example of substandard design or defective design even
though Section 18.76.010 of the City code states in part;
"A structure or building intended or designed to be used as a dwelling unit may
be used in the commercial and industrial zones for a permitted commercial or
industrial use, subject to the provisions of this chapter." (paragraph 32)
Mr. Phillips is correct in that Section 18.76.010 of the City zoning code states that "A structure or
building intended or designed to be used as a dwelling unit may be used in the commercial and
industrial zones for a permitted commercial or industrial use, subject to the provisions of this
chapter." Though this practice allowable under the current City zoning code, the zoning code
section also indicates that such conversion are subject to the provisions of the chapter.
Interviews with city staff indicates that often times these conversions are made without proper
permitting.
14. The Report to City Council lists corrugated metal panels on existing buildings as a blighting
condition and that such material is not permitted according to City code even though Section
18.18.240 of the National City Land Use Code ("NCLUC") allows metal buildings in the industrial
zones and Section 18.108.020 of the City Code allows the materials to continue.
Mr. Phillips is correct in that Section 18.18.240 of the National City Land Use Code ("NCLUC")
allows metal buildings in the industrial zones and Section 18.108.020 of the City Code allows
the materials to continue. However, in full Section 18.18.240 states that all metal buildings shall
have the architectural appearance of conventionally built structures and an exterior surface that
includes either stucco, plaster, glass, stone, wood, brick, decorative masonry or wood
6
sheathing. The buildings referred to in the RTC are older metal buildings that do not include the
use of either stucco, plaster, glass, stone, wood, brick, decorative masonry or wood sheathing
on the exterior surface. The existing buildings as constructed could not currently be duplicated
under this code.
Section 18.108.020 allows any lawful nonconforming use existing at the time of adoption of the
National City Land Use Code to be continued, provided such use is continually maintained and
occupied. However, a nonconforming use in either a conforming building or a nonconforming
building, structure, or portion of either shall neither be extended to any portion of the building or
structure not so used nor be enlarged or extended to any other portion of the lot not actually so
occupied at the time said use became nonconforming, except as otherwise provided in this
chapter. Under these conditions if is an operation outgrows its space it would not be able to
expand its facilities to accommodate the growth, thus, possibly resulting in outdoor
manufacturing and the storage of materials out of doors.
15. Parking, loading and storage are considered blighting factors for a second time under the
subheading "Structural Obsolescence" on page 12 of the Report to City Council and such claims
are impossible to review without specific, quantifiable evidence. (paragraph 34)
See the Response to Item number 5 of this letter.
16. The Report to City Council states that there are 87 instances where residential property is
located adjacent to commercial andlor industrial property and that review time is needed in
order to determine if these are the adjacencies contemplated in Section 18.18.021 of the
NCLUC, which allows in the light manufacturing/residential ("MLR") zone, the continuation...in
the area...which contains a mix of residential along with industrial, commercial and institutional
uses". Mr. Phillips states that more time is also needed to determine if the 87 adjacencies are
caretaker residences allowed in all manufacturing zones as shown in Table X of NCLUC
Section 18.18.070 and to compare the `NCLUC- Zone Matrix", which shows that single family
homes are permitted in all tourist, limited, general, medium, and heavy commercial districts.
Furthermore, Mr. Phillips states that Photo 9 on page 13 of the Report to City Council shows a
residential use along 22nd Street adjacent to an industrial use and that the MLR district is
bounded on the south by 22nd Street. (paragraph 35)
This does not appear to be a specified objection. Mr. Phillips appears to indicate that he needs
more time to make findings. As such, no response is needed.
17. The Report to City Council's statement that, `neighborhood commercial development
generally require at least a two -acre site and a four acre site for light industrial development"
without citing any authority. Mr. Phillips sites Section 18.16.290 of the NCLUC which provides
for a minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. for most commercial development, and 15,000 sq. ft. for
automobile service stations ("Section 18.18.190 for Industrial uses lists the same five thousand
sq. ft. and fifteen thousand square feet minimums and adds a seven thousand five hundred
square feet foot minimum for truck repair'). Plus, he states that he has "built many commercial
uses on sites of less than one acre instead of two acres and industrial uses on sites much less
than four acres". (paragraph 36)
Each of the provisions of the NCLUC need to be reviewed together to determine the appropriate
site size for development. For example, when determining the appropriate size for a
7
development site, it is essential to also review the parking and setback requirements to insure
that all the land use provisions are met under the NCLUC. In many instances under today's
market conditions, a site size that is larger than the minimum acceptable lot size is required.
Moreover, the Report to City Council documents conditions within the Project Area that would
indicate that current lot sizes are not adequate enough given the types of businesses operating
within the Project Area. Those observed conditions include, 1) improper loading areas which
result in sidewalk and/or street loading due to the lack of adequate on -site space, 2) use of the
public rights -of -way for the storage of commercial trucks, and 3) forklifts using public right-of-
ways for transporting goods and materials to nearby lots when companies are unable to find
consolidated sites demanded by their type of operations.
18. Many small industrial parcels are protected by the City's Light Manufacturing/Residential
Zone and the mix of smaller parcels appears to be ordinary and typical for this area and
encouraged by the NCLUC. (paragraph 37)
This does not appear to be a specified objection. As such, no response is needed.
19. The Report to City Council generally discusses parking and loading issues relating to lot
size and "incredibly canvas tarps are now triple counted as a blighting factor for lot size".
(paragraph 38)
See the Response to Item number 5 of this letter.
20. The Report to City Council does not identify subdivided lots that are under multiple
ownership and whose physical development has been impaired by their irregular shapes or
inadequate sizes. (paragraph 39)
Staff agrees with Mr. Phillips' statement that the Report to City Council does not identify
subdivided lots that are under multiple ownership and whose physical development has been
impaired by their irregular shapes or inadequate sizes, and nor has staff attempted to identify
said condition as a blighting condition in the Project Area. It should be noted, however, that the
CRL does not require that every blighting condition described in CRL Section 33031 be present
within a project area in order for it to be designated as blighted.
21. The Report to City Council does not identify 'Depreciated or stagnant property values" and
the City's website shows that the median home value has increased 235% and the median
condominium value has increased 260% between 2000 and 2004. (paragraph 40)
It should first be noted that the RTC, which describes the physical and economic conditions in
the Project Area and serves as the factual basis for the 2007 Amendment, only pertains to the
Project Area. The CDC has not made blight findings on any area outside of the Project Area.
Depreciating or stagnant property values is just one economic condition indicating blight.
According to CRL Section 33030, a blighted area, in addition to being predominantly urbanized,
is one that contains one or more physical blighting condition and one or more economic
blighting condition. Therefore, property values do not necessarily need to be depreciating or
stagnant to render a project area as blighted. The RTC, which summarizes the existing physical
and economic conditions within the Project Area, identifies low lease rates, impaired property
8
values due in part to hazardous wastes, and a high crime rate as the primary economic blighting
conditions noted in the Project Area.
22. The Report to City Council does not document or provide evidence of impaired property
values dues to hazardous waste. (paragraph 41)
With the above three comments, Mr. Phillips seems to suggest that every condition described in
CRL Section 33031 must be present in the area and discussed in the RTC. To extend eminent
domain authority, the Agency must only show that significant blight remains in the area. CRL
Section 33030(b) (2) indicates that blight is present if an area is characterized by one or more
conditions set forth in Section 33031 (a) and one or more in Section 33031 (b). Not every
condition must be present, only one or more.
23. The Report to City Council does not indicate where the 343 Haz-Mat permits are issued nor
how many are in the Project Area. Mr. Phillips further argues that because there were 15 Haz-
Mat related or hazardous release calls to locations within the Project Area that it appears users
in the City are following the established law and practices with regard to hazardous materials
and that compliance is not a blighting condition. (paragraph 42)
A specific inventory of the precise location of the 343 hazardous material use permits was not
available from a reliable source. This information was included in the Report to City Council as
an attempt to provide an indication of the large quantity of businesses handling hazardous
materials that operate within the City. In preparing the Report to City Council, RSG, consultant
to the CDC, collected this data from the County of San Diego Department of Environmental
Health. An attempt was made to acquire information from the County as to how many Haz-Mat
permits were specifically issued in the Project Area, however, the County responded by stating
that they could only provide such data at a Citywide/zip code level. However, since hazardous
material use permits are almost exclusively associated with commercial and industrial land
uses, and given the fact that virtually all of the commercial and industrial properties in the City
lie within the boundaries of the Project Area, one can deduct that the majority of the hazardous
material use permits involve property within the Project Area.
Moreover, staff does not believe that the 15 Haz-Mat related or hazardous release calls made to
the National City Fire Department are evidence that businesses and property owners within the
Project Area are fully in compliance with regards to Haz-Mat regulations and State Law.
Frequently, the Fire Department finds that these calls for service are a result of improper
release, storage or handling of toxic materials that is in conflict with local laws and practices.
Further, based on the experience of Fire Department officials most familiar with Project Area
properties and environmental regulations, it is the City's position that their claim that the number
of permits is less than the number of actual users suggests that many Project Area users may
be operating outside of laws and procedures.
24. The Report to City Council has several instances where counting of blighting factors are
double, triple, and more; including canvas tarps which are quadruple counted as "a blighting
factor of Impaired Property Values Due in Significant Part to Hazardous Waste. (paragraph 43)
An area is not determined blighted by the types of conditions that cause blight but whether it has
one or more physical condition of blight and one or more economic condition of blight. It is true
that canvas and plastic tarps were used to indicate several blighting conditions in the Report to
City Council; however, canvas and plastic tarps were not the sole causes of the blighting
conditions identified within the Project Area.
9
The Report to City Council identifies three physical blighting conditions and three economic
blighting conditions that currently remain within the Project Area. The physical blighting
conditions identified within the Project Area and discussed in the Report to City Council are 1)
buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work, 2) conditions that prevent
of substantially hinder the viable use or capacity of buildings or lots, and 3) adjacent or nearby
incompatible land uses that prevent the development of those parcels or other portions of the
Project Area. Economic blighting conditions identified within the Project Area and discussed in
the Report to City Council include 1) impaired property values, due in significant part, to
hazardous wastes, 2) abnormally low lease rates, and 3) a high crime rate that constitutes a
serious threat to public safety and welfare.
25. The Report to City Council does not identify abnormally high business vacancies or
abandoned buildings as a blighting condition and office and retail lease rates are sourced by
Grubb & Ellis but do not include a time frame for the lease rates. In addition, the Report to City
Council does not make the claim that lease rates are abnormally low. (paragraph 44)
According to Grub and Ellis market research publications, San Diego's retail and industrial
markets recorded low vacancy rates for the second half of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007,
and are even among the lowest vacancy rates nationwide. The County's overall low lease rates
are in large part due to the limited supply of available retail space for -lease. Accordingly, when
available options for leasing space are limited businesses may be forced to occupy less
desirable buildings by the fact that few alternative options exist. Although older centers in less
desirable locations are likely to have higher vacancy rates it is difficult to surmise accurate
vacancy rate specific to the Project Area; the reason being that real estate publications reporting
on market trends typically do not report on submarkets smaller than the city.
Furthermore, RSG regrets not indicating the time -frame for which the office and retail lease
rates represent; however, we assure you that office and retail lease rates used in the RTC for
National City, Chula Vista, and the County were taken from first quarter 2007 market trends as
published by Grubb and Ellis.
Although, the RTC does not use language which specifically states that lease rates are
abnormally low, statistics mentioned in this section of the RTC are indicative of the fact. As
reported in the RTC, retail lease rates in National City are $0.88 (70%) per square foot lower
than surrounding markets and office lease rates are $0.35-$0.44 (18%-22%) per square foot
lower than surrounding markets.
26. The Report to City Council does not identify a lack of necessary commercial facilities,
serious residential overcrowding, or an excess of bars, liquor stores and adult business.
(paragraph 45)
Although the CRL provides that dilapidation and deterioration caused by a lack of necessary
commercial facilities, serious residential overcrowding, or an excess of bars, liquor stores and
adult business a blighting condition it is not a requirement that the project area suffer from said
conditions in order to be designated blighted.
27. It is Mr. Phillips' opinion that five days is a grossly inadequate time period to review a blight
report involving 692 parcels and that a reasonable time would be 4-6 months for comment and
review. (paragraph 46)
10
The RTC and other pertinent documents were available to the public at the same time they were
available to the City Council. Furthermore, since business owners, tenants, and residential
property owners affected by the proposed 2007 Amendment were notified more than three (3)
weeks in advance of the joint public hearing all interested parties had ample time to meet with
staff and consultants to discuss the proposal and potential impact on their property. The
documentation that substantiated the area as blighted was initially prepared in 1995 and was
available at that time.
28. The Report to City Council does not contain the map required by CRL Section 33352(b).
Omission of said map, which is to show where in the Project Area conditions exist, makes a
review of factual accuracy of the conditions impossible. (paragraph 47)
RSG, the consultant to the CDC, acknowledges that the map required by CRL Section 33352(b)
was erroneously left out of the Appendices to the RTC, and inadvertently in its place was
attached the Project Area Map depicting the area subject to eminent domain authority as
proposed by the 2007 Amendment. Four maps which indicate where in the Project Area
physical blighting conditions exist are attached for reference.
29. The Report to City Council completely lacks the necessary descriptions which contain
"specific, quantifiable evidence" required by CRL Section 33352 (b). (paragraph 48)
There are three relevant CRL requirements that deal with redevelopment plan amendments.
1. Section 33354.6 describes the type of amendments that require a long -form plan
amendment including identification of remaining blight and which portions of the project area
are no longer blighted. The 2007 Amendment does NOT include any of these types of
amendments (such as increase in the limit on tax increment or increase in the bonded
indebtedness limit).
2. CRL Section 33333.2(a)(4) provides that time limitations for eminent domain authority
may be extended by amendment of the redevelopment plan after the agency finds, based
on substantial evidence, both that significant blight remains within the project area, and that
this blight cannot be eliminated without use of eminent domain. This section is pertinent to
the 2007 Amendment that will extend eminent domain authority.
3. CRL Article 12 commencing with Section 33450 outlines the "short -form" amendment
process that may be used for most plan amendments which is pertinent to the 2007
Amendment in combination with Section 33333.2(a)(4). CRL Section 33451.5 describes
amendments that require a specific Report on Blight to be sent to the Department of
Finance and Department of Housing and Community Development and none of the 2007
Amendments fall within these categories.
Therefore CRL Section 33457.1 (in combination with Section 33333.2(a)(4)) is most relevant to
the level of documentation required for the 2007 Amendment. Section 33457.1 states "To the
extent warranted by a proposed amendment...(1) the ordinance adopting an amendment...shall
contain the findings required by Section 33367, and (2) the reports and information required by
Section 33352 shall be prepared and made available to the public prior to the hearing on such
amendment. The Report to the City Council for the 2007 Amendment documents the presence
of significant remaining blight and why eminent domain authority is needed to assist with the
elimination of blighting conditions.
11
30. It is Mr. Phillips' opinion that there is no substantial evidence or any real evidence that
physical and economic blight is prevalent in the Project Area as present by the Report to City
Council.
Evidence of the presence of blight was provided in 1995 when the Project Area was
established. The purpose of the Report to Council for the 2007 Amendment was to described
the fact that substantial blight remains.
12
LETTER 3 —
SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
The San Diego Office of Education (SDCOE) states that the SDCOE provides services
throughout the County and is affected by new development wherever it occurs in the County.
SDCOE's letter lists SDCOE programs that could be affected by development. The SDCOE
expresses it's support for the use of redevelopment and offers to work with the
CDC to reduce the impacts of new development.
This is not an objection letter. Furthermore, the project is an amendment to the National City
Redevelopment Plan and does not involve the direct development of a specific land use project.
As such no Response is needed.
13
LETTER 4 —
PALLAMARY & ASSOCIATES LAND USE CONSULTANTS
1. Michael J. Pallamary states the Report to City Council is based on a very limited
investigation of the Project Area and that because the Report to City Council is based on a
narrow investigation there is ample reason to question the validity of the RTC and the accuracy.
He uses as example a statement on page 7 of the Report to City Council:
An important data source was a field survey conducted by RSG, consultants to the CDC,
in April of 2007. The Survey encompassed those areas of the Project Area currently
subject to eminent domain. Existing physical and economic conditions of each parcel,
as observed from the public right-of-way, were documented. (Emphasis added)
Mr. Pallamary is suggesting that because RSG's investigation of the Project Area was
conducted from the public right-of-way that it is an inadequate investigation of the Project Area.
Neither the CDC nor RSG have the authority to trespass onto private property and, therefore, an
internal survey of the structures located within the Project Area was not feasible. Furthermore,
a field survey conducted from the public right-of-way does not mean it was a limited
investigation. RSG also used and discussed other sources used in the evaluation. Additionally,
RSG has served as a redevelopment consultant to the City of National City for several years
and has completed amendments to the National City Redevelopment Plan in 2001 and 2003.
RSG was the consultant for the proposed 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan at
which time a parcel by parcel survey was also completed over a two month process. As such,
RSG has a substantial working knowledge of the Project Area and an in-house database of
properties in the Project Area.
2. Mr. Pallamary indicates that an inspection from the public right-of-way of 692 parcels in such
a short amount of time is inadequate and insufficient and the absence of an inspection of the
balance of the properties inferior, roof, rear, sides and ancillary areas along with interviews of
the property owners to determine rehabilitation or improvement plans supports the inadequacy
of a drive -by inspection.
RSG has served as a redevelopment consultant to the City of National City for several years
and has completed amendments to the National City Redevelopment Plan in 2001 and 2003.
RSG was also the consultant for the proposed 2005 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan at
which time a parcel by parcel survey was also completed over a two month process. As such,
RSG has a substantial working knowledge of the Project Area and an in-house database of
properties in the Project Area. The existing database was queried and property conditions were
verified in the April 2007 windshield survey. It is acknowledged that the survey did not include
building -by -building interior inspections. Given the number of buildings it was not feasible to
take this approach because of the significant cost. City code enforcement personnel were
interviewed to ascertain their opinion of the conditions in the Project Area.
3. Mr. Pallamary indicates that the RTC is silent as to the history and nature of the the code
violations as well as the basis for these findings. He states that it is important to determine if the
affected properties were ever cited and if so, did the owners refuse to comply with the corrective
orders or was the city simply lax I its enforcement efforts, solely to advance its redevelopment
agenda.
A list of the specific code enforcement violations is unwarranted due to the high volume of
infractions. It is important to further note that the code enforcement violations listed in the
14
Project Area are mostly observable from the public right-of-way. Therefore, anyone wishing to
make a review of the statements pertaining to code enforcement violations could reasonably do
so by performing a "walk-through" examination of the commercial and industrial corridors of the
Project Area. By so doing, one could observe and determine if the statements are true or false.
4. Mr. Pallamary indicates that in his opinion, the issuance of a Negative Declaration is
premature and suspect. He indicates that it is probable that a more thorough study would
disclose more significant issues than those discussed in the report.
The 2007 Amendment would not have any substantial adverse environmental effects because
development is not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the 2007 Amendment.
The 2007 Amendment 1) extends the authority of the CDC to use eminent domain until 2019, 2)
amends the current exclusion of eminent domain on single-family homes (Exhibit D) to include
all residential land uses, 3) updates the Transportation Center section governing the Mile of
Cars and 4) revises Exhibit C — "Public Facilities/Infrastructure Improvement Projects. The 2007
Amendment does not propose any public or private development projects that could have
substantial adverse environmental effects.
5. Mr. Pallamary indicates that he is unable to comment on arguments associated with
"economic blight."
This does not appear to be a specified objection or suggestion. As such, no Response is
needed.
6. Mr. Pallamary indicates his concern that the references and source documents selected
were "cherry picked" by the city and handed to the consultant and those that were not favorable,
were either not considered or rejected in total.
To support the 2007 Amendment, the Agency must substantiate that significant blight remains
that warrants the 2007 Amendment. The fact that the redevelopment tools have been available
and used in the Project Area for the last twelve years has resulted in some improvements to the
conditions of blight. The purpose of the RTC for the 2007 Amendment is to describe the
remaining conditions of blight, and therefore, the focus of the document is to describe the
remaining problem conditions.
7. Mr. Pallamary comments on the adequacy of the environmental findings and suggest that an
underlying report must be completed. Assuming that the report is based on some contrary
information or more substantial documentation, it would influence the tone of the resultant
environmental documentation.
See Response number 3 of letter number 4.
8. Mr. Pallamary notes that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) necessitates an
analysis of historical buildings. He indicates that because the RTC asserts that older buildings
are one of the causes of blight, it may mean older buildings are historic. He also indicates that
according to section 15064.5 of CEQA the significance of impacts to archeological and historic
resources must be determined.
In May of 2007 an Environmental Initial Study checklist was completed and the underlying
explanations were prepared. It was concluded that the 2007 Amendment would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource because development is
15
not directly proposed in conjunction with the adoption of the 2007 Amendment. The 2007
Amendment 1) extends the authority of the CDC to use eminent domain until 2019, 2) amends
the current exclusion of eminent domain on single-family homes (Exhibit D) to include all
residential land uses, 3) updates the Transportation Center section governing the Mile of Cars
and 4) revises Exhibit C — "Public Facilities/Infrastructure Improvement Projects. The 2007
Amendment does not propose public or private development projects that would adversely
impact a historical resource.
Indirectly, the 2007 Amendment could result in development in the Project Area if eminent
domain is used to acquire property and buildings are either historical or candidates as historical
buildings. The CDC and/or city would evaluate all projects for potential historical resource
impacts at the time development plans are submitted for approval. If it is determined that a
historical resource could be impacted, the CDC and/or city would require measures to ensure
the protection of the resource in compliance with the law. If resources suspected of being
historically significant were uncovered during construction the city would evaluate the resources
and protect it in compliance with CEQA Guideline §15064.5, as applicable.
9. Mr. Pallamary indicates that it is opinion that given the recent ruling in Neilson vs. City of
California City, (146 Cal. App. 4th 633 — Cal. Rptr. 3d) [No. F049143. Fifth Dist. Jan. 9th 20071,
the notion of substandard lots must be examined more diligently. Moreover the RTC does not
identify the location of the lots. It is possible these could be more usable through minor
manipulation, assuming they are in fact defective.
RSG, the consultant to the CDC, acknowledges that the map required by CRL Section 33352(b)
was erroneously left out of the Appendices to the RTC, and inadvertently in its place was
attached the Project Area Map depicting the area subject to eminent domain authority as
proposed by the 2007 Amendment. Four maps which indicate where in the Project Area
physical blighting conditions exist are attached for reference.
16
LETTER 5 —
THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(Representing property owners of 1401 Cleveland)
1. The law firm of Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire ("TBM') represents the owners of 1401
Cleveland, located in the Project Area, and asserts that the 2007 Amendment is improper and
legally unjustified in extending the time -limit for eminent domain authority, because the Report
to City Council fails to demonstrate the findings required by California Community
Redevelopment Law ("CRL") Section 33367.
CRL Section 33367 identifies the required contents/findings of an ordinance adopting a
redevelopment plan; not for a redevelopment plan amendment. By referring to the findings that
are required by Section 33367, it seems that TBM implies that the blight findings required to
extend existing eminent domain authority are the same as the blight findings required prior to
project area adoption and/or adoption of new eminent domain authority for existing
redevelopment project areas. Since the boundaries of the Project Area are not being changed,
the same detailed blight findings required by CRL Section 33031 for plan adoptions of new
redevelopment project areas are not required for the 2007 Amendment. Page 2 of the RTC
acknowledges that said document supplements the documentation and evidence contained in
previous Reports to the City Council ("Original Reports") and that, "Much of the information
normally required that pertains to adopting a redevelopment plan was previously documented
and presented in the Original Reports".
Blight findings were made when each of the seven constituent project areas were originally
adopted. These findings were reaffirmed in the 1995 RTC when the Project Area was
established. The 1995 RTC was approved by the CDC and supported findings for the
ordinance that adopted the Project Area. This ordinance was not contested. Pursuant to CRL
Section 33368, these findings are considered to be final and conclusive.
CRL Section 33333.2(a)(4) provides that time limitations for eminent domain authority may be
extended by amendment of the redevelopment plan after the agency finds, based on substantial
evidence, both that significant blight remains within the project area, and that this blight cannot
be eliminated without use of eminent domain. The Report to the City Council for the 2007
Amendment documents the presence of significant remaining blight and why eminent domain
authority is needed to assist with the elimination of blighting conditions.
2. TBM also argues that the property located at 1401 Cleveland is not blighted and that the
Project Area may only include non -blighted property where there have been specific findings
that their inclusion is necessary for redevelopment, which has not been proven in the Report to
City Council.
CRL does not require that every property within a redevelopment project area be blighted. CRL
Section 33321 provides that a project area need not be restricted to buildings, improvements, or
lands which are detrimental or inimical to the public health, safety, or welfare, but may consist of
an area in which such conditions predominate and injuriously affect the entire area. As such, a
nonblighted property may be included in the Project Area if it is found necessary for the effective
redevelopment of the area of which it is a part. Again, the CDC is not adding property to the
Project Area and as such, it does not need to evaluate past findings as to why non -blighted
property was included in the Project Area when it was established in 1995. In fact the Agency
has implemented blight remediation activities since the Project Area was adopted in 1995 and
17
some areas have been improved. However, not all blighting conditions have been addressed
over the last twelve years as documented in the Report to Council for the 2007 Amendment.
3. It is stated by TBM in their objection letter that the Report to City Council does not contain an
explanation as to why eminent domain is necessary to effect change.
Contrary to TBM's statement, all of the following information is provided on Page 4 of the RTC -
The CDC's overall efforts to eliminate blight in the Project Area 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. The CDC is undertaking the 2007 Amendment
in order to expand its ability to assemble sites, thereby facilitating commercial and industrial
redevelopment projects in the Project Area.
4. TBM claims that eminent domain has stagnated properties within the Project Area and that
by removing eminent domain authority, property owners could move forward with development
plans.
Eminent domain is an affective tool for facilitating redevelopment projects and active
redevelopment projects help stimulate private investment which enhances value. Since TBM
does not provide supporting facts or evidence for their claim that eminent domain has stagnated
properties within the Project Area, and because no property owner has proposed alternative
development plans prior to or during the joint public hearing, no further Response is required. In
fact CRL Section 33399 makes provision for property owners to take action to have the Agency
either purchase their property or exempt it from eminent domain authority. Property owners that
believe eminent domain authority is somehow stagnating their property may seek to remove the
potential use of eminent domain authority on their property.
5. TBM asserts that the Report to City Council provides general information without discussing
information required by CRL Section 33367(d)(7) and that families and persons shall not be
displaced prior to the adoption of a relocation plan.
The CDC has previously approved the Relocation of Persons Displaced ("Method of
Relocation"), which was amended on July 18, 1995. The Method of Relocation meets the
requirements of CRL Section 33411and State Law, and is incorporated into the RTC by
reference and is on file with the Secretary of the CDC.
6. TBM feels that there is no evidence or justification for imposing involuntary property seizures
in place of private market transactions.
As mentioned earlier, the CDC's overall efforts to eliminate blighting conditions have been
limited due in part to the inability to negotiate land purchase transactions with private property
owners. As a result, many abandoned and dilapidated properties continue to be neglected 12
years later because the CDC has been unable to forcefully encourage property owners to
redevelop or sell their properties. It is important to note, however, that extending the time -limit
on the CDC's eminent domain authority does not imply that the CDC must use its authority to
condemn property or that it will. With the ability to acquire property through eminent domain, as
a last resort, the CDC will be better able to assemble lots for redevelopment projects which may
greatly further redevelopment efforts in the Project Area.
18
7. The Report to City Council does not provide any information on what projects will be
completed or what projects that have been accomplished in the previous 12 years as a
demonstration of the viability of continuance as related. This comment was made by TBM
directly following an excerpt from CRL Section 33367(13), which in summary says that the time
limitation and limitation on the number of dollars that are allocated to the CDC should be
reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the project area.
The CDC is not adopting a redevelopment plan, adding property to the Project Area, or
amending provisions of the Redevelopment Plan pertaining to tax increment revenue and as
such, it does not need to reevaluate past findings that substantiated limitations set on the
collection of tax increment revenue which were determined for the Project Area when it was
established in 1995. The 2007 Amendment does not deal with proposed or past projects in
detail or because it is not required by the CRL.
19
LETTER 6 —
THORSNES BARTOLOTTA MCGUIRE, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(Representing property owners of 1720,2205,22051/2 , and 2207 Cleveland, and 2220, 228
Mckinley)
The law firm of Thorsnes Bartolotta McGuire ("TBM") representing the property owners of 1720,
2205, 2205 1/2, and 2207 Cleveland, and 2220, 228 McKinley, located in the Project Area, has
submitted a letter that is almost identical to the letter sent by TBM on behalf of the property
owner of 1401 Cleveland. Responses that were provided in connection with the letter submitted
by TBM on behalf of the property owner at 1401 Cleveland are incorporated herein by reference
and serve in part as a Response to this letter. Since this letter includes additional
comments/concerns which were not expressed in TBM's objection on behalf of 1401 Cleveland,
Responses to said comments/concerns follow:
1. According to TBM, the property owners that he is representing have low lease rates because
the threat of eminent domain forces properties to be leased from month to month rather than
long-term basis and that generally properties in the Project Area have lower assessed values
too as a result of eminent domain.
The Harbor District Redevelopment Project Area ("Harbor District") has satisfied all legal
requirements for blight findings required at the time of its adoption in 1995; this adoption
included eminent domain authority over all properties, except properties occupied for residential
use, in the Harbor District. Since the Harbor District was included in the Project Area, property
values have increased and there is evidence that tenants have been able to obtain long term
leases.
2. TBM claims that the Report to City Council is misleading because the crime statistics
reported in said report groups low crime areas together with high crime areas which include City
Hall, the Police Station, and Fire Department Headquarters. For crime prevention purposes,
TMB indicates that it would be more "productive" to condemn City Hall than "our property"
It is possible that within the Project Area there exist certain areas where a higher concentration
of crimes occur and areas where crimes occur Tess frequently. However, reporting crime
statistics for the Project Area is not misleading based on presumptions that crimes are not
occurring evenly throughout the Project Area. It seems that TBM is implying that the properties
owned by his clients should not be included in the Project Area because reported crimes occur
less frequently in the area surrounding their properties than they do at other locations within the
Project Area. It is important to note that a high crime rate is only one of several blighting
conditions observed within the Project Area and that blight findings for the Project Area, were
made when each of the seven constituent project areas were originally adopted and then later
reaffirmed by the 1995 RTC. Pursuant to CRL Section 33368, the findings made by the 1995
RTC are considered to be final and conclusive. The Report to the City Council for the 2007
Amendment documents the presence of significant remaining blight and why eminent domain
authority is needed to assist with the elimination of blighting conditions.
3. TBM claims that National City's demographics would indicate that the City's population would
be unable to negotiate with developers or afford legal services to help with negotiations.
It is the CDC's intent to work with existing property owners and tenants to effectuate
redevelopment whenever and wherever possible. In accordance with the CDC adopted Owner
Participation Rules, in the event that the CDC decides to move forward with a redevelopment
20
project, the property owner and business tenants are given the first right to submit proposals to
participate in the redevelopment proposal. In addition, it should be noted, that under the 2007
Amendment all residential uses will be excluded from eminent domain.
4. TBM argues that through tax increment financing funds will be diverted away from the City's
General Fund.
The CDC funds redevelopment through tax increment revenue. When a redevelopment project
area is established, the current value of all property in the project area is added up. This is
called the Base Year value. All taxing agencies who receive revenue from a project area
continue to receive property tax revenue generated from the Base Year value. As property
values in a project area increase above the Base Year value, due to public and private
investment, a redevelopment agency receives a portion of the property tax revenue generated
from the incremental increase in property values.
Through redevelopment the CDC receives 80% of the property tax revenue generated in the
Project Area. If redevelopment was eliminated, the City would receive only 18% of the property
tax revenue generated in the Project Area, with the rest allocated to other non -City
governmental agencies. The 2007 Amendment does not deal with whether or not the CDC's
redevelopment program should continue. If the 2007 Amendment is not approved, the existing
redevelopment program would remain in place until 2040, however, implementation activities
could be stymied if the Agency loses the authority to use eminent domain.
21
LETTER 7 —
APPENDIX VOLUMES I -VI OF COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE
(ON BEHALF OF CYAC)
On behalf of the Community Youth Athletic Center ("CYAC"), the Institute for Justice has
submitted written objections to the 2007 Amendment in the form of a six volume document.
Volume I is composed of a series of 27 statement letters authored by various board members,
volunteers, and other advocates of CYAC which state their support of CYAC and objection to
the 2007 Amendment. In addition to said statement letters, Volume I contains other documents
such as generic anti -eminent domain publications, public records request letters, newspaper
articles on CYAC, and a list of CYAC Board Members.
Volume II includes a compilation of photos taken in the 2007 Amendment Project Area,
however, there is no context or reference to suggest how to interpret these photos within any of
the volumes submitted by the Institute for Justice. In Casillas Statement No. 2 of Volume III, Mr.
Casillas states that he spent time photographing every property in the Project Area and that his
photographs are included in the CYAC-Appendix. It is presumed, but not confirmed, that these
photos are the photos taken by Mr. Casillas.
Volume III is primarily composed of National City public documents, such as the FY '06-'07
Budgetary Summary and previously adopted CDC resolutions. Volume III also includes a
written objection by Mr. Casillas.
Volume IV includes the1995, 2001, and 2005 Reports to City Council on proposed
Redevelopment Plan amendments and other supporting documents from the 1995 Amendment.
Volume V encompasses additional National City documents, such as the National City General
Plan and National City Downtown Specific Plan. Also included in Volume V are U.S. Census
Bureau data downloads for National City dating from 1997-2004.
Volume VI includes miscellaneous City documents for National City and miscellaneous
documents regarding the Home Depot redevelopment project, Park Village website information,
and tentative decision for Gross & Holmes, LLC v. All Interested Persons. In addition, said
Volume contains 4 statement letters from various individuals.
Written responses to written objections to the 2007 Amendment as provided in Volumes I -VI of
CYAC Objection to Proposed 2007 Amendment to the National City Redevelopment Plan and
Re -Authorization of Eminent Domain ("CYAC Objection') are provided in the following pages.
The documents contained within Volumes I -VI of CYAC Objection, which do not present
comments or objections regarding the 2007 Amendment or are otherwise incorporated into a
written objection by reference, such as newspaper articles about the CYAC or the City's
Budgetary Summary, have no basis for which to form a response and, therefore, were not
responded to. Written responses follow for each of the 32 statement letters objecting to the
2007 Amendment that were included among Volumes I -VI of CYAC Objection.
Overall, in response to the materials submitted on behalf of CYAC, it is the CDC's position that
the proposed 2007 Amendment does not necessarily pose a specific threat to the continued
operation of the center, as the Amendment does not authorize the acquisition of any property
(by eminent domain or other legal means), nor does it call for the closing or removal of this or
any other business or enterprise in the Project Area. Such allegations are misrepresentations of
22
the facts of the scope of the Amendment, as well as the circumstances involving property
acquisition and relocation should site acquisition be necessary. The language contained in the
proposed 2007 Amendment is part of the record and clearly does not state any specific use of
eminent domain, business closure or any other redevelopment proposal.
Should redevelopment ultimately lead to the potential displacement of this or any other
enterprise or occupant, the CDC is subject to the requirements of the Health and Safety Code
which in part mandate the extension of relocation assistance to affected occupants, and does
not necessarily result in the automatic closure of any such enterprise.
VOLUME I
Response to Nunez Statement No. 1
Nunez Statement No. 1 states Mr. Nunez's support of CYAC and that the City Council of the
City of National City ("City Council') desires to replace the CYAC with an expensive
condominium complex. The letter further requests that CYAC remain in its current building and
that the City Council not approve the time -limit extension on the City's eminent domain
authority.
The 2007 Amendment will extend the CDC's existing authority to acquire property, as a last
resort, through eminent domain to vacant property, and all commercial and industrial zoned
properties in those areas which are currently subject to eminent domain authority within the
Project Area. The 2007 Amendment does not, however, constitute a specific plan authorizing
the acquisition of any property (by eminent domain or other legal means), nor does it call for the
closing or removal of this or any other business or enterprise in the Project Area. Furthermore,
if the City Council approves the 2007 Amendment it does not imply that the CDC will
automatically go forth to acquire businesses in the Project Area. If approved, the 2007
Amendment would allow the CDC to acquire property through eminent domain only:
• After the CDC first elects to pursue a redevelopment proposal;
• After property owner and business tenants are given the first right to submit proposals to
participate in the redevelopment proposal;
• After the CDC determines (during a public meeting) that property owners and business
tenants located within the site specific redevelopment area do not have the capacity to
participate in the redevelopment proposal;
• After MAI (an appraiser who is a Member Appraisal Institute member) appraisals are
prepared for all properties (by State law, the CDC must value properties based upon the
current fair market value for similarly zoned and developed property in the market area)
that must be purchased in order to facilitate the redevelopment proposal;
• After a relocation plan is prepared and adopted by the City Council (after property and
business owner, tenant and public review) that details how the specific relocation needs
will be accommodated;
• After the CDC approves MAI appraisals and directs staff to submit property purchase
offers and to initiate property acquisition negotiations;
• After appraisals are prepared to identify the leasehold interest value of each tenant's
lease;
• After property acquisition negotiations do not result in a negotiated property purchase
and the CDC determines that it must proceed with property acquisition using eminent
domain;
• After the CDC holds a public hearing to consider the property owner's testimony as to
why their property should not be purchased through eminent domain;
23
• After four of the five CDC governing board members vote to proceed with property
acquisition through eminent domain; and
• After the CDC files a Superior Court action to acquire the property through eminent
domain.
This is a long and expensive process, and historically, the CDC has not used its existing
eminent domain authority to acquire property unless it is implementing a site specific
redevelopment project that is both economically feasible and will benefit the greater Project
Area.
The CDC did approve the Park Village development proposal on February 22, 2005 to build a
condominium complex at the current CYAC property. Such action, which may require that the
CYAC relocate (and not necessarily close), is not related to the 2007 Amendment. It is
important to emphasize, however, that the City has a history of working with the CYAC, which
includes financial assistance in the amount of $210,000. If the City did not value CYAC's
services, or intended to force CYAC out of National City, such assistance would never have
been granted to begin with. In the event that the CYAC is forced to relocate, the CDC will be
required to assist with relocation of the CYAC program to another facility of comparable
amenities in accordance with State Law.
Response to Nunez Statement No. 2
Mr. Nunez does riot present specified objections or suggestions to the 2007 Amendment. It
appears that Mr. Nunez has written for the specific purpose of stating the steps he took to
acquire information and documentation relevant to the proposed 2007 Amendment
documentation.
1. In summary Mr. Nufiez's letter comments on the availability of and difficulties in obtaining the
documentation associated with the 2007 Amendment.
The RTC and all other documentation associated with the 2007 Amendment were made
available to the public at the same time as it was available to the City Council. The Project Area
has been established for a number of years. Issues and conditions used to establish the Project
Area have been documented in previous reports and many of the issues and conditions are still
present. As a point of departure, review of previous reports is a reliable method of identifying
the basis of the blight designation. Under Article 12 Section 33451.5 (c)(2) of the CRL the CDC
is required to provide a description of the remaining blight and is not required to re-establish the
Project Area as blighted. CRL Section 33333.2(a)(4) provides that time limitations for eminent
domain authority may be extended by amendment of the redevelopment plan after the agency
finds, based on substantial evidence, both that significant blight remains within the project area,
and that this blight cannot be eliminated without use of eminent domain. The Report to the City
Council for the 2007 Amendment documents the presence of significant remaining blight and
why eminent domain authority is needed to assist with the elimination of blighting conditions.
Response to Casillas Statement No. 1
In Casillas Statement No. 1 the author supports CYAC's "objection to the renewal of the city's
urban renewal plan and renewal of eminent domain authority". Mr. Casillas does not consider
the Project Area to be blighted but does not provide facts or evidence to contradict the Report to
City Council. He further states that over the last couple of years the CDC and a developer, Jim
Beauchamp. have been threatening to acquire the CYAC property through the power of eminent
domain.
24
The 2007 Amendment and all supporting documents were prepared in accordance with the
California Community Redevelopment Law ("CRL") (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et.
sea.). The CRL sets the legal standard for determining whether an area is blighted and
describes the conditions that cause blight. According to the CRL, an area is blighted if the area
is; 1) predominantly urbanized and contains a combination of the conditions set forth in CRL
Section 33031 that it be so prevalent and so substantial that it causes a reduction of, or lack of,
proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and
economic burden on the community that cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or
alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment, and 2)
characterized by one or more physical blighting condition and one or more economic blighting
condition.
There are three relevant CRL requirements that deal with redevelopment plan amendments.
1. Section 33354.6 describes the type of amendments that require a long -form plan
amendment including identification of remaining blight and which portions of the project
area are no longer blighted. The 2007 Amendment does NOT include any of these
types of amendments (such as increase in the limit on tax increment or increase in the
bonded indebtedness limit).
2. CRL Section 33333.2(a)(4) provides that time limitations for eminent domain authority
may be extended by amendment of the redevelopment plan after the agency finds,
based on substantial evidence, both that significant blight remains within the project
area, and that this blight cannot be eliminated without use of eminent domain. This
section is pertinent to the 2007 Amendment that will extend eminent domain authority.
3. CRL Article 12 commencing with Section 33450 outlines the "short -form" amendment
process that may be used for most plan amendments which is pertinent to the 2007
Amendment in combination with Section 33333.2(a)(4). CRL Section 33451.5 describes
amendments that require a specific Report on Blight to be sent to the Department of
Finance and Department of Housing and Community Development and none of the 2007
Amendments fall within these categories.
Therefore CRL Section 33457.1 (in combination with Section 33333.2(a)(4)) is most relevant to
the level of documentation required for the 2007 Amendment. Section 33457.1 states "To the
extent warranted by a proposed amendment...(1) the ordinance adopting an amendment...shall
contain the findings required by Section 33367, and (2) the reports and information required by
Section 33352 shall be prepared and made available to the public prior to the hearing on such
amendment. The Report to the City Council for the 2007 Amendment documents the presence
of significant remaining blight and why eminent domain authority is needed to assist with the
elimination of blighting conditions.
The Report to the City Council for the 2007 Amendment was made available to the public for
review prior to the City Council and CDC joint public hearing. The RTC serves as the factual
basis for the 2007 Amendment and Section B of the RTC includes a description of the physical
and economic blighting conditions that currently exist in the Project Area.
In preparing the RTC, several data sources were utilized to quantify the existing blighting
conditions of the properties within the Project Area. An important data source was a field survey
of the parcels encompassing the Project Area conducted by Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
("RSG"), consultant to the CDC, in April of 2007. Physical and economic blighting conditions
observed in the project area included deterioration and dilapidation, structural obsolescence,
incompatible adjacent land uses, defective/substandard design and inadequate parcel size.
25
Survey results show that 71% of the Project Area exhibits signs of deterioration and dilapidation
and 55% of the Project Area exhibits signs of substandard or defective design. Furthermore,
information from Grubb and Ellis indicates that retail and office lease rates are generally $0.88
and $0.35-$0.44 per square foot lower than surrounding markets, respectively. For additional
information on the blighting conditions present in the Project Area please see Section B of the
RTC.
With regards to the comments made about condemnation threats, it should be noted that only
the CDC can condemn property for redevelopment purposes. Any other threats over the use of
eminent domain could not have been carried out without formal consent by the CDC Board.
The CDC has retained eminent domain authority in the Project Area, which includes hundreds
of other properties similarly subject to eminent domain, since its adoption in 1995. Moreover, in
the last 12 years the CDC has exercised this authority in only a limited number of
circumstances.
Response to Barragan, Sr. Statement
Barragan, Sr. Statement claims that the CYAC youth program has made tremendous
contributions to the City and concludes that, "After reading the numerous support letters from
National City residents, Educators, Law Enforcement and kids that pursue their dreams in our
center's four walls, it demonstrates that our neighborhoods our not blighted, but rather vibrant
and thriving".
Mr. Barragan claims that the Project Area is not blighted, based on evidence that numerous
letters supporting CYAC were received. This is not sufficient evidence to contradict evidence
presented in the RTC which describes the existing blighting conditions of the Project Area.
Similar to Casillas Statement No. 1, Mr. Barragan, Sr.'s claim that the Project Area is not
blighted neglects to provide any facts or evidence to support his claim. Since Mr. Barragan,
Sr.'s letter of objection would require similar comments and Responses to those provided in
Response to Mr. Casillas, please refer to Response to Casillas Statement No. 1. for additional
information.
Response to Barragan, Jr. Statement
Barragan, Jr. Statement discusses the current CYAC programs available and indicates that
CYAC has had to move twice before and that every time they move kids get lost along the way
and they have to recruit kids again. They do not want to move or close their doors for even a
few months. Furthermore, the letter states that, "The area that National City is calling blighted is
not blighted. It's home to many long-time residents and many thriving businesses, businesses
that in the past have supported our program and made our youth center a reality".
As previously explained in preceding comments, it is the CDC's position that the proposed 2007
Amendment does not necessarily pose a specific threat to the continued operation of the center,
as the Amendment does not authorize the acquisition of any property (by eminent domain or
other legal means), nor does it call for the closing or removal of this or any other business or
enterprise in the Project Area. Such allegations are misrepresentations of the facts of the scope
of the Amendment, as well as the circumstances involving property acquisition and relocation
should site acquisition be necessary. The language contained in the proposed 2007
Amendment is part of the record and clearly does not state any specific use of eminent domain,
business closure or any other redevelopment proposal. Moreover, it is the CDC's intent to work
with existing property owners and tenants to effectuate redevelopment whenever and wherever
possible. In accordance with the CDC adopted Owner Participation Rules, in the event that the
CDC decides to move forward with a redevelopment project, the property owner and business
26
tenants are given the first right to submit proposals to participate in the redevelopment proposal.
As previously noted in Response to Nunez Statement No. 1, the CDC's approval of the Park
Village development proposal was a separate action voted on by the CDC Board and is not
related to the 2007 Amendment.
As in some of the other letters incorporated in CYAC Objections, Mr. Barragan, Jr. does not
provide facts or evidence, warranted by the CRL, to support his claim that the Project Area is
not blighted. Therefore, please refer to Response to Casillas Statement No. 1 which adequately
responds to Mr. Barragan's claim that the Project Area is nonblighted.
Response to Farrow Statement
Farrow Statement voices support for CYAC and the program's objection to the renewal of
eminent domain authority and the city's urban renewal plan. According to Dr. Farrow, the CYAC
building could serve different functions, is located in a nicely kept business area with easy
access to transportation and safe parks, and the adjoining businesses are efficiently running
and neat in appearance; not blighted structures. Furthermore, he suggests that the City has
threatened CYAC with `forcible eviction through eminent domain" and that they, "have
repeatedly told the City that other locations offered would not work".
CRL Section 33030 and 33031 outline the criteria for determining that an area is blighted.
These criteria are based on area -wide findings and do not require a parcel -by -parcel
determination of blight. CRL Section 33321 provides that the Project Area need not be
restricted to buildings, improvements, or lands that are detrimental or inimical to the public
health, safety, or welfare, but many consist of an area in which such conditions predominate
and injuriously affect the entire area. In accordance with the CRL, the RTC describes and
substantiates that blighting conditions are prevalent in the Project Area and prevent or
substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots.
Since Dr. Farrow does not present evidence nor describe instances of condemnation threats
made by the City it is difficult for staff to provide a direct response. With regards to the
comments made about condemnation threats, it should be noted that only the CDC can
condemn property for redevelopment purposes. Any other threats over the use of eminent
domain could not have been carried out without formal consent by the CDC Board. The CDC
has retained eminent domain authority in the Project Area, which includes hundreds of other
properties similarly subject to eminent domain, since its adoption in 1995. Moreover, in the last
12 years the CDC has exercised this authority in only a limited number of circumstances.
It should be noted, however, that the CDC seeks to work with existing property owners and
tenants to effectuate redevelopment whenever and wherever possible. Should the CDC decide
to move forward with a redevelopment project, it is the CDC's policy, as mentioned in the Owner
Participation Rules, that the property owner and business tenants are given the first right to
submit proposals to participate in the redevelopment proposal.
Response to Lopez Statement
Lopez Statement voices support for CYAC and states that City Council has devised a scheme
to terminate CYAC and that the City Council and CDC have broken relocation promises.
The 2007 Amendment does not target the CYAC property located at 1030 National City Blvd, or
any other specific property. The Redevelopment Plan for the 2007 Amendment is not a specific
plan for the redevelopment of the Project Area; instead, it establishes a process and framework
for implementation. Since Mr. Lopez does not indicate how the CDC has broken relocation
27
promises it is impossible to give a direct response. The Redevelopment Plan includes a
description of the City's relocation program, however, the 2007 Amendment does not include
agreements between the CDC and any private party. Therefore, any statement with regards to
broken relocation promises is not relevant to the 2007 Amendment.
Response to Thompson Statement
Thomas Statement voices support for CYAC, states that closing the CYAC would be a detriment
to the community, and requests that CYAC be permitted to remain in its current location.
The 2007 Amendment is not a specific plan for the redevelopment of the Project Area and does
not include specific plans to acquire the CYAC property. Instead, the 2007 Amendment
provides a framework for the implementation of redevelopment activities in the Project Area. By
adopting the 2007 Amendment, the CDC will not automatically go forth to acquire real property
in the Project Area and will only do so when implementing a site specific redevelopment project
that is both economically feasible and will benefit the greater Project Area. The
2007Amendment does not authorize the acquisition of any property (by eminent domain or other
legal means), nor does it call for the closing or removal of this or any other business or
enterprise in the Project Area. It should be noted that the CDC's approval of the Park Village
development proposal is a separate action, unrelated to the 2007 Amendment. Therefore,
concerns that the CYAC will be forced to relocate, as a result of the CDC approving the Park
Village development proposal, are not relevant. Such allegations are misrepresentations of the
facts of the scope of the Amendment, as well as the circumstances involving property
acquisition and relocation should site acquisition be necessary.
Response to Rivera Statement
Rivera Statement voices support for CYAC and objects to reauthorizing the CDC's eminent
domain authority because of concerns that the CYAC will be forced to relocate.
The concerns raised by Mr. Rivera are nearly identical to those in Thomas Statement. Please
refer to Response to Thompson Statement for a Response to this objection.
Response to Russell Statement
Russell Statement voices support for CYAC.
The letter is a general statement proclaiming support for the CYAC. Since the letter makes no
objections to the 2007 Amendment no Response is required.
Response to Carrillo Statement
Carrillo Statement voices support for CYAC and states that once the program is removed it will
be unable to start over again due to financial reasons.
It has been previously mentioned that by adopting the 2007 Amendment, the CDC will not
automatically go forth to acquire real property in the Project Area and will only do so when
implementing a site specific redevelopment project that is both economically feasible and will
benefit the greater Project Area. The 2007 Amendment does not authorize the acquisition of
any property (by eminent domain or other legal means), nor does it call for the closing or
removal of this or any other business or enterprise in the Project Area.
It is acknowledged, however, that the CYAC property is currently subject to condemnation and
would continue to be so if the 2007 Amendment is adopted. Should redevelopment ultimately
lead to the potential displacement of this or any other enterprise or occupant, the CDC is subject
28
to the requirements of the Health and Safety Code which in part mandate the extension of
relocation assistance to affected occupants, and does not necessarily result in the automatic
closure of any such enterprise.
Response to Varela Statement
Varela Statement voices support for CYAC and objects, "to the city's urban renewal plan and
renewal of eminent domain authority". The letter urges City Council to, put an end to these
proceedings" and concludes with a statement that City Council can send a positive message to
the community that they choose children over a condominium complex.
Since Mr. Varela's letter does not provide reasons for objecting, it is unclear as to why he
objects to the 2007 Amendment. However, it appears that Mr.Varela's opposition to the 2007
Amendment stems from his belief that by adopting the 2007 Amendment, the City Council would
be choosing a condominium complex over children. It should be noted, however, that the 2007
Amendment only provides the authority to acquire property by one of many legal means, and
even without eminent domain, the fate of the center cannot be guaranteed. Through adopting
the 2007 Amendment City Council is not authorizing the development or redevelopment of any
specific site. Before any new development can occur within the Project Area, the project
proposal will have to undergo the proper approval process which includes a public hearing.
Response to Diamond Statement
Diamond Statement voices support for CYAC.
The letter is a general statement proclaiming support for the CYAC. Since the letter makes no
objections to the 2007 Amendment no Response is required.
Response to Talaro Statement
Talaro Statement is written on behalf of Turning the Hearts Center, Inc. In addition to voicing
support for CYAC, the letter states that the Turning the Hearts Center, Inc. wishes to continue
partnering with CYAC.
The letter is a general statement proclaiming support for the CYAC. Since the letter makes no
objection to the 2007 Amendment no Response is required.
Response to Silva Statement
Silva Statement affirms that the South Bay Technology Academy desires to collaborate with
CYAC to establish a partnership that will utilize boxing as a delinquency deterrent.
The letter is a general statement proclaiming support for the CYAC and the South Bay
Technology Academy's desire to partner with CYAC. Since the letter makes no objections to
the 2007 Amendment no Response is required.
Response to Flores Statement
Flores Statement is a personal testimony of his experience and involvement with CYAC.
Since the letter makes no objections to the 2007 Amendment no Response is required.
Response to Vargas Statement
Vargas Statement voices support for CYAC and provides a personal testimony.
Since the letter makes no objections to the 2007 Amendment no Response is required.
29
Response to Vallejo Statement
Vallejo Statement voices support of the, " CYAC's objections to the renewal of the city's urban
renewal plan and renewal of eminent domain authority" and states that, " moving the gym will
jeopardize the valuable history that draws the community's youth and family's to the gym".
Furthermore, Mr. Vallejo objects to the "blight designation renewal", arguing that he does not
believe the area is blighted because it is, "full of youth with hard working families that need a
safe place to go"
The letter does not explicitly reveal why Mr. Vallejo objects to the 2007 Amendment. Based on
additional statements in his letter, it appears that his objection stems from fear that the 2007
Amendment is forcing CYAC to move locations. The 2007 Amendment, however, is not a
specific plan for the redevelopment of the Project Area and does not include specific plans to
acquire the CYAC property. Instead, the 2007 Amendment provides a framework for the
implementation of redevelopment activities in the Project Area. By adopting the 2007
Amendment, the CDC will not automatically go forth to acquire real property in the Project Area
and will only do so when implementing a site specific redevelopment project that is both
economically feasible and will benefit the greater Project Area. It should be noted that the
CDC's approval of the Park Village development proposal is a separate action, unrelated to the
2007 Amendment. Concerns that the CYAC will be forced to relocate, as a result of the CDC
approving the Park Village development proposal, are not relevant.
Response to Juarez Statement
Juarez Statement asks for assistance in keeping CYAC open.
The letter makes no objection to the 2007 Amendment but requests assistance for keeping
CYAC open without specifying what type of assistance is being requested. Without additional
information as to the type of assistance desired it is difficult for staff to respond. It should be
noted, however, that any concerns that CYAC may be closed as a result of the CDC's approval
of the Park Village development proposal are not related to the 2007 Amendment.
Response to Tanner Statement
Tanner statement voices support for CYAC, provides personal testimony, and requests that the
gym's closure be reconsidered.
The 2007 Amendment does not target CYAC or any other property for closure or condemnation.
The 2007 Amendment is not a specific plan and only provides a framework for implementation
of redevelopment activity. Furthermore, should the CDC exercise its power of eminent domain
in the Project Area, State Law would require that the CDC provide business relocation
assistance which includes relocation advisory assistance and payments for actual moving and
related expenses. On July 18, 1995, the CDC approved the Relocation of Persons Displaced,
which details the method or relocation plan when nonprofit local community institutions are to be
temporarily or permanently displaced. A copy of the Relocation of Persons Displaced may be
obtained from the Secretary of the CDC.
Furthermore, if adopted, eminent domain can only be used after existing property owners and
business tenants are offered the first right to participate in the redevelopment proposal, MAI
appraisal are prepared to determine the fair market value of each property, acquisition
negotiations take place, relocation needs are determined, and the CDC determines after a
public hearing and four of the five members vote yes, that the property is needed for a
redevelopment purpose and it must seek acquisition through eminent domain.
30
Response to Sifuentes Statement (Sifuentes Statement was written in Spanish and translated
into English by Noreen Johnson. Our response is therefore provided in Spanish and followed
by an English translation.)
-La declaracion por Sifuentes habla de su apoya para CYAC.
- Sifuentes Statement voices support for CYAC.
- Como la carta no hace objeciones a la Enminda 2007 no se requiere respuesta.
- Since the letter makes no objections to the 2007 Amendment no Response is required.
Response to Jurado Statement
Jurado Statement voices support for CYAC.
Since the letter makes no objections to the 2007 Amendment no Response is required.
VOLUME III
Response to Casillas Statement No. 2 on National City Real Estate Price Trends
In Casillas Statement No. 2 the author states his disbelief that the City of National City is
blighted. In his letter, Mr. Casillas presents a blight definition according to the American
Heritage College Dictionary and makes the statement that residential and commercial property
values have increased substantially over the last six years; he uses research obtained from
Sandicor, a San Diego County Regional Multiple Listing Service, and personal experience to
back his belief.
It should first be noted that the RTC, which describes the physical and economic conditions in
the Project Area and serves as the factual basis for the 2007 Amendment, only pertains to the
Project Area. The CDC has not made blight findings on any area outside of the Project Area.
The 2007 version of the CRL is the State of California's adopted doctrine under which the CDC
exists as a public body, both corporate and politic, and it is the CRL that sets the legal standard
for determining whether an area is blighted. Any attempt to prove or disprove blight in an area
is subject to the standards set in CRL Sections 33030 & 33031. Therefore, Mr. Casillas' use of
the American Heritage College Dictionary's definition of blight as, "Something that frustrates
hope or impedes progress and prosperity" is not a valid determinate of what is and is not
blighted.
In his letter, Mr. Casillas argues that real estate prices have not depreciated and nor are they
stagnant. His methodology, however, for arriving at this point is faulty. Based on an increasing
average yearly home price from 2000 through 2006, he concludes that property values within
the Project Area are not stagnant. A review of Mr. Casillas data, however, shows that his data
is based on all properties sold Citywide; it is unclear whether his statements hold true for the
Project Area. In addition, Mr. Casillas arrives at the yearly average sale price by performing an
"apples to oranges" comparison of the multiple listing services. Anyone involved in the real
estate industry, as Mr. Casillas is, knows that comparable sales analysis require comparison of
"like" properties.
Moreover, depreciating or stagnant property values is just one economic condition indicating
blight. According to CRL Section 33030, a blighted area, in addition to being predominantly
31
urbanized, is one that contains one or more physical blighting condition and one or more
economic blighting condition. Therefore, property values do not necessarily need to be
depreciating or stagnant to render a project area as blighted. The RTC, which summarizes the
existing physical and economic conditions within the Project Area, identifies low lease rates,
impaired property values due in part to hazardous wastes, and a high crime rate as the primary
economic blighting conditions noted in the Project Area.
VOLUME VI
Response to Hamaguchi Statement
Hamaguchi Statement voices support for CYAC, states that the authors, `have just become
aware of the plan to destroy and dissolve the National City Youth Organization" and that they
have seen the high-rise hotels and condos around CYAC as well as, the "cutting of programs for
the National City children".
The 2007 Amendment does not target CYAC or any other property for closure or condemnation.
The 2007 Amendment is not a specific plan and only provides a framework for implementation
of redevelopment activity. Statements that the City Council and/or the City are devising a "plan
to destroy and dissolve the National City Youth Organization" are erroneous and furthermore
unsupported by any evidence from Mr. & Mrs. Hamaguchi. It should be noted, however, that
the CDC's approval of the Park Village development proposal is not related to the 2007
Amendment. Therefore, any concern that the CYAC will be forced to relocate as a result of the
CDC's approval of the Park Village development proposal is not relevant to the 2007
Amendment. If the CDC were to move forward with condemning the CYAC property, under
State Law, the CDC would be required to provide business relocation assistance which includes
relocation advisory assistance and payments for actual moving and related expenses. On July
18, 1995, the CDC approved the Relocation of Persons Displaced, which details the method or
relocation plan when nonprofit local community institutions are to be temporarily or permanently
displaced.
Response to Reynoso Statement
Reynoso Statement voices support for the CYAC program and states opposition to the
redevelopment plan; acknowledging that redevelopment would bring financial rewards to the
City, but it would serve detrimental to the development of the youth participating at CYAC.
Ms. Reynoso is opposed to the redevelopment plan because, to her, the Redevelopment Plan
will be harmful to youth development. Since the letter does not provide supporting evidence of
Ms. Reynoso's belief that the Redevelopment Plan will be a detriment to the City's youth, nor
does it suggest any other reason for believing this, staff is unable to respond.
Response to Alba Statement
Alba Statement voices support for CYAC and opposition to the National City Redevelopment
Plan because it would affect CYAC.
Mr. Alba is opposed to the Redevelopment Plan because it would affect the CYAC. In his letter,
Mr. Alba does not explain why the Redevelopment Plan would affect CYAC and he does not
provide other concerns with regards to the 2007 Amendment, therefore, it is difficult for staff to
respond.
32
It should be noted, however, that the 2007 Amendment is not a specific plan; instead it provides
a framework for implementation of redevelopment activities. Although the CDC approved the
Park Village development proposal on February 22, 2005 to build a condominium complex at
the current CYAC property, said action is not related to the 2007 Amendment.
Response to Decker Statement
Decker Statements says that it is wonderful to have CYAC and that it keeps children out of
trouble.
Since the letter is general in nature and does not make any objections to the 2007 Amendment
no response is required.
33
LETTER 8 —
COMMENTS FROM SUZANNE AND ROBERT C. LEIF (Properties located at 1720, 2205,
2205 1/2, 2207 Cleveland and 2220, 2228 McKinley)
Mr. and Ms. Leif owns property located at 1720 Cleveland Avenue and is filing an objection to
the proposed 2007 Amendment. They present specified objections or suggestions to the 2007
Amendment. They have also incorporated substantiating documents to support objections.
They have previously had property condemned using eminent domain and feel it was taken
because the City had an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with another party.
1. Ms. Leif's letter comments on the misconception that her property located at 1720 Cleveland
Avenue has been cited for code violations related to outdoor storage of lumber. She states that
they have never been cited for code violations and their tenants repair hydraulic systems and
maintain and immaculate yard.
The Report to Council for the 2007 Amendment is part of the record and does not include
information that specifically identifies 1720 Cleveland as having a code violation. Code violation
information included in the Report to Council is a list of code violations observed by City staff in
the commercial and industrial corridors of the properties affected by the 2007 Amendment.
Pictures were taken of properties in the 2007 Amendment Area to show examples of blighting
conditions including outdoor storage. A picture of this property was not included in RTC.
2. Ms. Leif's letter comments on the fact that the City entered into an exclusive Negotiation
Agreement with Pacific Steel and Home Depot and subsequently solicited their interest in
participating in the development. They question how the CDC could legally accept participation
by another entity if the CDC is committed to an ENA.
The Exclusive Negotiation Agreement is a separate action from the proposed 2007 Amendment.
The 2007 Amendment , if adopted, would only extend the authority for the CDC to use eminent
domain. The 2007 Amendment does not approve any specific acquisition of property, and does
not affect the CDC's existing or future use of an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement. The 2007
Amendment does not approve any specific property for development or any other
redevelopment proposal. Questions about existing or future Exclusive Negotiation Agreements
should be separately addressed to the CDC.
3. Mr. Leif's letter comments on the lack of notification and availability of the documentation
associated with the 2007 Amendment. He claims that he and his family were not notified nor
provided documentation relating to the proposed 2007 Amendment.
The RTC and all other documentation associated with the 2007 Amendment were made
available to the public at the same time as it was available to the City Council. In compliance
with Section 33452 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, notices of the proposed
2007 Amendment were sent to last known assesses of each property as it appears on the
County of San Diego Equalized Assessment Roll. Notices were mailed by first class mail and
were also published in the San Diego Union -Tribune and the National City Star News for three
consecutive weeks prior to the joint public hearing.
4. Mr. Leif states that the proposed 2007 Amendment Report to Council is "worthless" because
it was not compared to data from "control areas" such as the "Old" part of La Jolla or Mission
Beach. Furthermore, he states that only lease rates were compared to control areas and were
not adjusted for ethnic composition.
34
Chula Vista is the nearest neighboring city to National City and it is the opinion of RSG that
adjoining cities are more comparable than cities more than 10 miles away. Comparison to
areas such as La Jolla and Mission Beach are more than 10 miles away and generally would
have higher property values and lease rates. Use of these as comparable areas would likely
cause many reviewers to criticize the analysis for purposefully selecting as comparable areas
locations where values were known to be higher and therefore not similar to National City.
Wither regard to not making adjustment for ethnic composition, blighting conditions are typically
not analyzed based upon ethnic data. Ethnicity is not a factor when identifying physical and
economic blight accordingly to CRL.
5. Mr. Leif states that the City is rewarding the Pacific Steel Incorporation (PSI) by allowing
them to participate in a redevelopment project. He also states that PSI is under court order to
cleanup their site and partnership with the City allows them to slow this process down and be
relieved of some of their cleanup responsibilities. He feels that if they were required to cleanup
their site without the help of the City it would speed up the process and eliminate the need for
eminent domain use. He states that the neighboring properties are being held guilty by
association with PSI.
The Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between the City and Home Depot is a separate
unrelated action from the proposed 2007 Amendment. Mr. Leifs comment that he feels the site
would be cleaned up more quickly if the CDC was not involved, is no founded in fact. In fact, as
the Pacific Steel Incorporation (PSI) Project Status Update report dated 1/11/07 indicates,
unless the CDC staff can persuade the DTSC to used their new EOA for RDAs process (which
will speed up the process), it may take in excess of 12 years for the site to be cleaned up. Thus
this existing blight in the Project Area would continue for a longer period of time unless
redevelopment tools can be utilized.
6. Mr. Leif states that the CDC is using the presence of pollution as an excuse to use eminent
domain and transfer land from one private party to another. He feels that the real reason is to
promote economic development.
Section 33031 of the California Community Redevelopment Law defines a condition of
economic blight as impaired property values due to hazardous waste on property where an
agency may be eligible to use its authority as specified under the Polanco Redevelopment Act.
The Polanco Redevelopment Act allows an agency to take any actions determined necessary to
and that are consistent with state and federal laws to remedy or remove hazardous waste.
Property owners can use their own means to clean up hazardous materials or, if within a
redevelopment project area, may partner with the Agency to effectuate clean-up. The CDC
seeks to promote economic development and to the extent that property owners do no privately
clean up hazardous waste, the CDC is interested in working with owners and developers who
are willing to work with the CDC.
35
LETTER 9 -
COMMENTS FROM TED GODSHALK (Property located at 2142 Cleveland Avenue)
Mr. Godshalk owns property located at 2142 Cleveland Avenue.
1. Mr. Godshalk feels that property owner should be allowed to reinvest in their own properties
and expand their business without the interference by the CDC. He doesn't believe that public
funds should be diverted from public services to private development. He also adopts the
objections of all those submitting them even if they are withdrawn.
The CDC encourages all property owners to reinvest in their property, expand their business
and to the extent property owners are willing to undertake such activity, the CDC does not
interfere with such activity. Use of tax increment to carry out redevelopment is frequently the
only way to fund the extraordinary cost of clean-up, replacement of outdated public
infrastructure, demolition of dilapidated buildings, and other activities typically associated with
reuse of older properties.
2. Mr. Godshalk states that the proposed 2007 Amendment Area is not blighted.
The proposed 2007 Amendment required substantiation of both physical and economic blighting
conditions. The Report to Council on the proposed 2007 Amendment details the remaining
blighting conditions found in the Project Area.
36
LETTER 10- COMMENTS FROM TONY BEDFORD
Comments were submitted through Suzanne Leif and it is unclear what his comments are. We
received page 15 of an unspecified document with Mr. Bedford's name on it. No comments
were identifiable on the document.
37
LETTER 11-
STEPHANIE LEIF (Property owner of 4052 Gros Ventre Ave, San Diego, CA 92117)
1. The properties referenced in the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement ("ENA) must be declared
blighted in order for the ENA to hold; however, before the Report to City Council was even
drafted, the CDC adopted Resolution No. 2006-244 at their meeting of November 21, 2006. Ms.
Leif claims that if the Report to City Council were not blighted than the CDC would not have the
power to enforce the ENA. Furthermore, she .states that the CDC would receive direct financial
benefit if these properties were found to be blighted and that "the CDC planned redevelopment
based on the blight designation even though there is no blight on the parcels not occupied by
PSI."
According to Ms. Leif, of the parcels in the following list, only those parcels owned by PSI are
blighted and "do have a problem":
- 559-051-09 -559-076-02
- 559-051-11 -559-076-09
- 559-051-12 -559-076-10
- 559-056-03 -559-076-11
- 559-071-04 -559-076-04
- 559-076-01 -559-076-15
Furthermore, she contends that these parcels are designated blighted so that the CDC "can use
the power of eminent domain in order to achieve the Redevelopment Plan as outlined in the
ENA".
Based on discussion with city staff this statement is directed towards an Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement and does not pertain, and is not a specified objection to the 2007 Amendment. As
such no response is required.
38
LETTER 12-
CHUCH DICKERHOFF (Property owner of 1513 Roosevelt Avenue)
1. Mr. Dickerhoff indicates that the City shall not take private property
subsequently turn it over to developers. And that this language
resolution.
This letter does not appear to make any specified objections to the
response is required.
by eminent domain and
should be adopted by
2007 Amendment. No
39
LETTER 13-
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP- ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(Representing property owner of 1145 National City Boulevard)
Rutan & Tucker's ("R&T") letter on behalf of the property owner of 1145 National City Boulevard
was dated July 3, 2007 (though it shows July 2, 2007 on the second page) and received by the
City Clerk on July 3, 2007 at 3:33 pm. The letter represents that their client objects to the
proposed 2007 Amendment and approval of the negative declaration. Pursuant to the notice of
public hearing, any written objections to the 2007 Amendment were due not later than the hour
set for the joint public hearing, which occurred on June 19, 2007, and closed that same
evening. Because the R&T objection to the 2007 Amendment was received 14 days after the
published deadline for objections, no response is necessary. However, in that the objection
largely "incorporates by reference any and all comments submitted by any public or private
entity...", staff refers to these objections elsewhere in this Response.
With respect to the Negative Declaration objection, staff notes that the public review period on
the negative declaration closed on June 28, 2007, 20 days following the date the notice of intent
published in San Diego Union Tribune on June 8, 2007, and that the July 3, 2007
correspondence came in after this review period concluded. Further, the R&T letter states that
"the negative declaration has failed to adequately address all of the environmental impacts
attendant to the redevelopment plan..." but provides no further detail to substantiate this
position.
40
AN DIFGO ++ �; ' is Utz
-.-iL w II11 _ 11 ^1 IPunrl�lr a!u-1111111111'J IL°�I•�I�I
11111 III.11I.'. 111111•11■1111.1; 111U1111.0"11In1' u14 •-513♦1♦0�
1 ul_ :111111■ ■U O.1 ,I111 'l�`ilU IIII.-�' !1:0, l/i�
1 m:. nrml, 111Lu1. .Irani It u....1
�u Iplllq nll 11. -1111 ■1111'11Nni. 1 _
❑Ili :n 111 •••.�- IIIII■■-
11 II; 11111111
1.:.TI :IIII IIII 1111
mat .'IIII Y.'11 =
I16'1Irii11 i
111..
plifroliti 11.;- 30th St/Sweetwater „r
:1111111i1111_
I.11.1111111I!
=1■111! .. n1111t
;:■III . IIU�1■i j..
National City Redevelopment Project
Project Area Boundary - 2007 Amendment
Munidpal Boundary - Incompatible Adjacent Uses
N
I el
s
Source' National City Planning
if
tia
2 � 'in til uu
1111 111.111 .-.
•",3
�� •., I rr�
--i14-�IJ111'— IIU _miff ine r7 `. r�•r._.br�
11 1 11Innlrulr _i'iiiiiiil jll� nu i.r .
mid 1'IIm1111•JI= 1n II l'1111111f ur r1,.�'.
. I IIIII1� L rj
■�I u. • 111 i 11 rgir I1.. IIIIn .• .nl� �i
•dlllll IL II ual bll��r� o .J
op '1II■0111111111111h
1111 IIII: G n 111 �� IIIII.� IIVII'� .�
: 1■ ■c ii [1� Z10I;l!II1L1L11P' • lip
1 - !, I II II 11■
1111: IIII IIII'
u..n .lunn�
nln lunil�
:IIII :'llll -l'I'
11111 -
IIIIIII .-
IG®®11®11
JLYM �•�
'l■rim
Eiji; 11,
SEMI 1�I�1��11
i - vli
- IIIIII
s I_
p �1"
�
■ T I N L i u 11 • � n , I I
® 1...... _Intl . : ! .._: i% �\ T_N_1B1-_I�'ll llll-- �.'� r .. ��T=ill= auull=.l� al :Il:iu' 1� 1 J
. , , U.!!!1I
r .r T Illt I Ilrlii 7
a girR
a■rlOril �ii
•�r 3oth SUSweetwater �tii
�
4.111111 ]111ZIT
<IIII
aumlii
mi -unnn Z111
National City Redevelopment Project
OProject Area Boundary I. 2007 Amendment
Municipal Boundary - Deterioration & Dilapidation
1111111�
-""'I I".I'1111
��I�S11I111'
Source: National City Planning
Defective Design
Without Parking
• •ILF WI a '..I:Ilrlllr
nluu.lu NI;
III_ nil m In •Ilan :
�111, Inlarl. .Irllel
d.l I II II I I■r .!I
National City Redevelopment Project
QProject Area Boundary - 2007 Amendment
Mur c pat Boundary MI Detective Design Without Parking
h7..,_,L,Tht
1•I •' iiiiiiiiirlInPtZi ino!;7umnnnrn%r.
ii !�Ilnln..bd.
•',I g$111111,111111na�1Y1111111. 1r
IIII I1.1! •1
. IIIII'1( _�
I. 7c un :; __1.dIIIUWI11=
nv.111111UL
ull'. QIIfL117 i. ■1� UA:♦
■1,,, _1IiT� 11 -111
.11.
III;i/1•1 - -
.MI11111111 ill+-_
!LI I�IIIIIII' 11illl
j Illll
_II 1 .1 IP
Source:: National City Planning
National City
Environmental Sites By
Lead Agency
•
•
•
San Diego County
Dept. Environmental
Health
California Regional Water
Oval ity Control Board
California Dept of Toxic
Substances Control
COr no, Morn.... It low am,
sviloveution
Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of National City, California, on July 12,
2007 by the following vote, to -wit:
Ayes: Councilmembers Morrison, Natividad, Ungab.
Nays: None.
Absent: Councilmembers Parra, Zarate.
Abstain: None.
AUTHENTICATED BY: RON MORRISON
Mayor of the City of National City, California
City Clerk of the City of NHtional City, California
By:
Deputy
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-166 of the City of National City, Califomia, passed and
adopted by the Council of said City on July 12, 2007.
City Clerk of the City of National City, California
By:
Deputy