HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-279
I
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-279
2 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO APPROVING AND ADOPTING A RESPONSE
3 TO WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO OR AT
THE AUGUST 20, 2001, JOINT PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE
4 PROPOSED 2001 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL CITY SOUTH
5 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
6
7 WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino ("City") is a charter city organized and existing
8 under the Constitution and laws of the State of California; and
9 WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino ("Agency") is a
10 public body corporate and politic, organized and existing under the California Community
11 Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Sections 33000, et seq. ("CRL"); and
12 WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino (the
13 "Commission") is the governing board of the Agency; and
14 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council ofthe City ("Common Council"), by adoption
15 of Ordinance No. 3572 on May 3,1976, approved and adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the
16 Central City South Redevelopment Project ("Original Plan"); and
17 WHEREAS, the Common Council, by adoption of Ordinance No. MC-564 on December 8,
18 1986, approved and adopted the First Amendment to the Original Plan ("First Amendment"); and
19 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council, by adoption of Ordinance No. MC-724 on
20 April 2, 1990, approved and adopted the Second Amendment to the Original Plan, as amended
21 ("Second Amendment"); and
22 WHEREAS, the Common Council, by adoption of Ordinance No. MC-919 on December 20,
23 1994, approved and adopted the Third Amendment to the Original Plan, as amended ("Third
24 Amendment"); and
25 WHEREAS, the Original Plan, as amended by the First Amendment, Second Amendment,
26 and Third Amendment is hereinafter referred to as the Redevelopment Plan; and
27
28
SB2001:25264.1
I
,-
,
2001-279
I WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan delineates the redevelopment project area for the
2 Central City South Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area"); and
3 WHEREAS, the Agency and Common Council have initiated proceedings for the adoption
4 of a further amendment to the Redevelopment Plan entitled "2001 Eminent Domain Amendment to
5 the Redevelopment Plan for the Central City South Redevelopment Project" (the "2001
6 Amendment"); and
7 WHEREAS, the 2001 Amendment shall reinstate the Agency's eminent domain authority
8 with respect to all non-residentially used or occupied property in the Project Area for a twelve (12)
9 year period, commencing on the effective date of the Ordinance approving the 2001 Amendment;
10 and
11 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council consented to hold a joint public hearing with
12 the Commission with respect to the 2001 Amendment, at which hearing all persons having any
13 objection to the 2001 Amendment, the proposed Addendum to the 1976 Environmental Impact
14 Report for the Redevelopment Plan for the Original Plan (the "Addendum to the 1975 EIR"), or the
15 regularity of any prior proceedings concerning the 2001 Amendment, were allowed to appear before
16 the Common Council and show cause why the 200 I Amendment should not be adopted; and
17 WHEREAS, notice of the joint public hearing ofthe Commission and Common Council with
18 respect to the 2001 Amendment and the Addendum to the 1976 EIR was prepared, published and
19 served by United States Mail in accordance with applicable law and a copy of the affidavit of
20 publication of such public notice and a declaration of service by United States Mail of such public
21 notice is on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and
22 WHEREAS, the joint public hearing ofthe Commission and Common Council was duly held
23 on August 20, 2001 at which time the Commission and the Common Council received one (I)
24 written objection to the adoption ofthe 2001 Amendment and one (1) oral objection to the adoption
25 of the 2001 Amendment; and
26
27
28
SB2001:25264.1
2
2001-279
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Law requires that prior to the adoption of an
amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Central City South Redevelopment Project that the
Common Council respond in writing to written objection received by adopting a written response
to the written objection; and
WHEREAS, following the closure of the joint public hearing at the August 20, 2001,
consideration of the proposed adoption of the 2001 Amendment was continued to the September 4,
2001, meeting of the Commission and the Common Council to permit the Common Council to
consider a written response to the written objection and to the oral objection as submitted at the
meeting at which this Resolution is adopted; and
WHEREAS, all objections to the adoption ofthe 2001 Amendment, including the one written
objection and the one oral objection received as of August 20, 2001 have been fully considered by
the Common Council; and
WHEREAS, a written response to the one written objection and the one oral objection
received to the 2001 Amendment has been prepared and have been fully reviewed and considered
by the Common Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Common Council has thoroughly reviewed and considered the one
written objection to the 2001 Amendment received at or prior to the joint public hearing, which
objection is set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto. The Common Council hereby finds and determines that
the written objection is without merit for the reasons set forth in the written response to such written
objection presented in Exhibit "B" hereto. The written response attached hereto as Exhibit "B"
under the hearing "Response to Written Objection" is hereby adopted as the written findings of the
Common Council in response to the one written objection received.
SI3200U5264.1
3
2001-279
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Section 2. The Common Council has thoroughly reviewed the one oral objection to the
2001 Amendment received at the joint public hearing which oral objection has been summarized and
is presented in Exhibit "B", under the heading "Oral Objection". The Common Council hereby finds
and determines that the oral objection is without merit for the reasons set forth in the written
response to such oral objection presented in Exhibit "B" hereto. The written response attached
hereto as Exhibit "B" under the heading "Response to Oral Objection" is hereby adopted as the
written findings of the Common Council in response to the one oral objection received.
Section 3. All oral and written objections to the 2001 Amendment received at or prior
to the joint public hearing conducted on August 20,2001, are hereby overruled.
Section 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit, by prepaid first class mail, a
certified copy of this Resolution, including the written objection set forth as Exhibit "A" and the
written response to objections set forth as Exhibit "B", to each person who has submitted a written
or oral objection to the 2001 Amendment as of the August 15, 2001, joint public hearing.
Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption.
SB200L25264.1
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
2001-279
1 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO APPROVING AND ADOPTING A RESPONSE TO
2 WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO OR AT THE
AUGUST 20, 2001, JOINT PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE PROPOSED
3 2001 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE CENTRAL CITY SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
4
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor
5
and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a joint regular meeting
thereof, held on the 4th day of September
,2001, by the following vote, to
wit:
Council
ESTRADA
LIEN
McGINNIS
SCHNETZ
SUAREZ
ANDERSON
McCAMMACK
AYES
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NAYS
ABSTAIN ABSENT
~};J.~ML
The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this k day of September, 2001.
't:t( ~~
alles, Mayor
Approved as to form
19 and legal content:
20 By: ~~ 9.~
// City Attorney
21 U
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 SB200L25264.1
5
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) ss
2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
3 I, City Clerk of the City of San Bernardino, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing and attached copy of Mayor and Common Council of
4 the City of San Bernardino Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy of that
now on file in this office.
5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
6 official seal ofthe Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino this
day of ,2001.
7
8
9
10
City Clerk
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SB2001 :25264.1
6
2001-279
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 SB2001:25264.1
EXHIBIT" A"
COPY OF WRITTEN OBJECTION
TO 2001 AMENDMENT
(Central City South Redevelopment Project)
7
\
. .
, .
2001-279
EXHIBIT "A"
"
i
0.. ~;~~. ~..;~;:........
:J 4463 RainbOW VIsta Dr.
Fallbrook, CA 92028
.
2001-279
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
EXHIBIT "B"
WRITTEN RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
TO WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE 2001 AMENDMENT
(Central City South Redevelopment Project)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 SB200L25264.1
8
2001-279
EXHIBIT "B"
Response to Written and Oral Objections
Obiection #1 (Written Objection)
Letter from Henry J. Thys
4463 Rainbow Vista Drive
195 West Bennett Street
San Bernardino, CA
His ten year lease was just signed in 2000 would like to be informed of information.
Response to Objection # 1
The Agency has no plans to acquire or relocate any individuals or businesses in the
Project Area at this time. However, if the Agency were to consider the acquisition of the
Thys Property and then relocation of the business on it, the Agency shall comply with all
Federal and State property acquisition and relocation procedures. These procedures
include written notice of intention of the Agency to prepare an appraisal of their
property before any final decision is made about acquisition of the property. The Thys
letter states that the property owner has just signed a ten-year lease in 2000. If the
Thys property ever becomes a candidate for acquisition by the Agency, a series of
notices would be provided to both the owner and any tenant. Notice of intent to
appraise along with written offers would be presented in person and by mail. For
tenants, relocation benefits are required by law and would include suitable referrals,
moving expenses, re-establishment expenses, and compensation for loss of goodwill.
These benefits are not subject to income tax. The property owner will have 2 to 3
years to reinvest for federal tax purposes (IRS tax code section 1033), assessed value
of the property can be transferred to new (like) property in any county in the State
(purchase price within 120% of compensation paid by agency for property purchase),
and the Agency must pay for all escrow and title costs. Attached is a "Summary of
Business Relocation Benefits" that highlights the benefits and process the Agency must
follow if a business were to be relocated.
Finally, before the Agency will consider the acquisition of the Thys Property or that
matter, any other non-residentially zoned or used property in the Project Area, the
Agency will solicit the interest of owners and business tenants on that property in
becoming "owner participants" under a specific redevelopment agreement with the
Agency. Mr. Thys and the new tenant are both encouraged to contact the Agency to
investigate whether the Agency may be of assistance in the expansion of the business
currently being conducted on the property.
The Agency believes that the reinstatement of the power of eminent domain in the
Project Area will prove to be an important resource in assisting existing owners and
businesses to grow and expand in the Project Area. Without this resource, the capacity
2001-279
of the Agency to assist owners and businesses to remain in the Project Area and to
improve and redevelop their property, and neighboring properties is reduced. Land
assembly considerations are often times a crucial part of the decision of any business to
remain in an area and expand or move to another location. The ability of the Agency to
support the efforts of current owners and existing businesses to expand and grow in
the Project Area is a central focus of the Agency's efforts to prevent and eliminate the
spread of blight.
In view of the foregoing factors, this objection is overruled.
Obiection #2 (Oral Obiection)
Mr. Keller had to leave for a medical appointment and because he was not able to get the
answers to his questions, he opposes.
Response to Objection #2
No response provided as no specific oral objection presented.
Obiection #3 (Oral Obiection)
Ms. Francine Wixon
799 East Avery Street
San Bernardino, CA
I own in a partnership 7 Yz acres in the CCS area. A family member owns an adjacent 2-Yz acres.
So I am speaking for 10 acres and a third of my parcel. I am asking that the proposal be denied
for several reasons. Mr. Schnetz gave us a discussion on how appraisers will go ahead and
appraise the value and if they cannot find any sales comparables going back a year or two that
they will go outside of the area and then they have the ability to adjust down. San Bernardino
will probably be adjusted down because we have not had very good economic conditions here in
the last few years. We have a high crime rate. We have school problems and these are the issues
that would be taken into consideration. Probably the most important reason I'm asking you to
deny it is because for the last ten to fifteen years you have controlled my life on this property. I
purchased the property because the City of San Bernardino asked me to buy the property. Mrs.
Estrada and I have discussed this for years, she has been very, very helpful. She knows our
story. We had a business on E Street, we were told they were going to take us by eminent
domain and they would allow us to buy or they suggested that we buy this property on G Street
to move our business. In the process of doing this, you changed the zoning rules. So when we
went to get a zoning permit you made so many requirements that it became unfeasible for us to
build on our property. And my husband put his business some place else. We have tried to sell
the property for the last ten or fifteen years and you keep changing it. And what you're doing is
you're putting my value down. Now we are recreational. Your ballpark is there, which you're
losing money on and nobody wants to put anything else there. So you are controlling my life. I
want to be able to control it myself. Somebody comes to me and offers me XYZ for it and I
don't like it, I want to be able to say no. And if you have the power for the next twelve years to
take it by eminent domain, I don't have that power, you do. If they offer you XYZ and you want
to put a deal together you can say yes and you can take my property. I am too old to start
fighting in the court oflaw, but if it were necessary we would do that. I just heard a conversation
2001-279
when I was waiting for you to reconvene that this morning that you were talking about possibly
putting a high school there and you didn't think it was compatible. Everything we have come to
the City for has not been compatible to your current zoning. Please do not allow this to go
through and then think about re-zoning this area to what would be more suitable to freeway
traffic and allow the people that are there to live their lives and go on with their lives. So please,
I'm asking you to deny this amendment.
Response to Obiection #3
It is important to note that since the Project Area's inception the Agency has not utilized
eminent domain to acquire property. In addition, the Agency has no plans to acquire or
relocate any individuals or businesses in the Project Area at this time. However, staff
believes that it is very important to reinstate this power because it is essential in
addressing the remaining conditions of blight in the Project Area.
If the Agency determined it needed to acquire a property to further redevelopment
efforts in the Project Area, the Agency would need to determine fair market value for
the subject property. As indicated in the response to the Written objection above, a
number of specific procedures would need to be followed before the Agency would
consider acquisition of any property on either a negotiated basis or by condemnation.
The Agency is required to pay at least fair market value for any property it acquires. To
accomplish this the Agency would seek an appraisal from an independent appraiser that
is a member of the Appraisal Institute. Appraisers utilize three methods for determining
the fair market value of the subject property (depending on the land use of the subject
property). The three common approaches, all derived from the market, are as follows:
. The Cost Approach is determined by obtaining land value of the property and the
cost to replace or reproduce the improvements on the property, less any physical
deterioration, functional obsolescence or economic obsolescence found on the
property .
. The Comparison Approach utilizes properties of similar size, quality and location
that have been recently sold to determine value. Often in a slow market it is
necessary for the appraiser to enlarge their area of search for comparable
properties. This is especially true for unique properties where there may only be
a few such properties in a county. It is the appralser's responsibility to ensure
that like properties are review to ensure a viable appraisal.
. The Income Approach provides an objective estimate of what an investor would
pay based upon the net income the property produces to determine value. This
approach is of more importance in ascertaining the value of income producing
properties and is utilized less for determining value in residential type properties.
For some properties all three methods are employed by assessing the proportional
relevance of each approach. This evaluation leads to the determination of the property's
fair market appraised value. The owner of the subject property has the right to
negotiate market value presented by the Agency and can obtain their own appraisal or
2001-279
appraisals to support their opinion of value. The Agency must negotiate in good faith
with property owners, providing them with the pertinent data use by its appraiser to
determine value. In reality, most acquisitions by public agencies are accomplished
through negotiation and never lead to condemnation or a hearing at the court level. If
the Agency were to initiate relocation proceedings after acquiring a property, the
Agency would need to comply with all Federal and State relocation guidelines.
Concerning the zoning issues mentioned in the oral objection, the Redevelopment Plan
of the Central City South Redevelopment Project is subordinate to the General Plan and
zoning codes established by the City Council and the Planning Commission. The
Redevelopment Plan must be in conformance with the General Plan and cannot change
the City's zoning codes. Land use designations and zoning codes are established by the
City Council with input from property owners and the Planning Commission. Concerns
about the zoning classification of property, specific development standards which may
be applicable to particular commercial or industrial uses of property and any change to
the City's land use designations or zoning may be processed through the Planning
Commission and City Council upon the request and application of a property owner.
For the foregoing reasons, as well as the reasons set forth in the response to the
written objection, above, this oral objection is hereby overruled.
