Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-299 . ' . (See Companion Resolution CDC/2001-35) .- I RESOLUTION NO. 2001-299 2 RESOLUTION OFTHE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OFTHE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO APPROVING AND ADOPTING A RESPONSE TO 3 ORAL OBJECTIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO OR AT THE SEPTEMBER 4, 2001, JOINT PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE PROPOSED 2001 4 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MT. VERNON CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 WHEREAS, the City of San Bernardino ("City") is a charter city organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Bernardino ("Agency") is a public body corporate and politic, organized and existing under the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Sections 33000, et seq. ("CRL"); and WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission ofthe City of San Bernardino (the "Commission") is the governing board of the Agency; and 14 15 WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council ofthe City ("Common Council"), by adoption of Ordinance No. MC-733, approved and adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project ("Original Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Common Council, by adoption of Ordinance No. MC-928 on December 20, 1994, approved and adopted the First Amendment to the Original Plan ("First Amendment"); and 16 17 18 19 WHEREAS, the Original Plan, as amended by the First Amendment, is hereinafter referred 20 21 22 23 to as the Redevelopment Plan; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan delineates the redevelopment project area for the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project (the "Project Area"); and WHEREAS, the Agency and Common Council have initiated proceedings for the adoption of a further amendment to the Redevelopment Plan entitled "200 I Eminent Domain Amendment to 24 the Redevelopment 25 Amendment"); and 26 27 28 S82001 :25264.1 Plan for the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project" (the "2001 1 ." .'...., 2001-299 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 2001 Amendment shall reinstate the Agency's eminent domain authority with respect to all non-residentially used or occupied property in the Project Area for a twelve (12) year period, commencing on the effective date of the Ordinance approving the 2001 Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Common Council consented to hold ajoint public hearing with the Commission with respect to the 2001 Amendment, at which hearing all persons having any objection to the 2001 Amendment, the proposed Addendum to the 1990 Environmentallmpact Report for the Redevelopment Plan for the Original Plan (the "Addendum to the 1990 ElR"), or the regularity of any prior proceedings concerning the 2001 Amendment, were allowed to appear before the Common Council and show cause why the 2001 Amendment should not be adopted; and WHEREAS, notice ofthe joint public hearing ofthe Commission and Common Council with respect to the 2001 Amendment and the Addendum to the 1990 ElR was prepared, published and served by United States Mail in accordance with applicable law and a copy of the affidavit of publication of such public notice and a declaration of service by United States Mail of such public notice is on file in the Office ofthe City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the joint public hearing ofthe Commission and Common Council was duly held on August 20, and September 4, 2001 at which time the Commission and the Common Council received three (3) oral objections to the adoption of the 2001 Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Law requires that prior to the adoption of an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project that the Common Council respond in writing to written objection received by adopting a written response to the written obj ection; and WHEREAS, following the closure of the joint public hearing at the September 4,2001, consideration of the proposed adoption ofthe 2001 Amendment was continued to the September 17, 2001, meeting of the Commission and the Common Council to permit the Common Council to SB2001:25264.1 2 2001-299 I 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 consider a written response to the oral objections as submitted at the meeting at which this Resolution is adopted; and WHEREAS, all objections to the adoption ofthe 2001 Amendment, including the three oral objections received as of September 4,2001 have been fully considered by the Common Council; and WHEREAS, a written response to the three oral objections 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 I. The Common Council has thoroughly reviewed the three oral objections to the 2001 Amendment received at the joint public hearings, which oral objections have been summarized and are presented in Exhibit "A", under the heading "Response to Oral Objections". The Common Council hereby finds and determines that the oral objections are without merit for the reasons set forth in the written response to such oral objections presented in Exhibit "A" hereto. The written response attached hereto as Exhibit "A" under the heading "Response to Oral Objections" is hereby adopted as the written findings of the Common Council in response to the three oral obj ections received. Section 2. All oral objections to the 2001 Amendment received at or prior to the joint public hearing conducted on September 4,2001, are hereby overruled. Section 3. 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 "A", to each person who has submitted an oral objection to the 2001 Amendment as of the September 4,2001, joint public hearing. Section 4. This Resoltuion shall take effect upon adoption. IIII IIII SB2001 :25264.1 3 2001-299 I RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO APPROVING AND ADOPTING A RESPONSE TO WRITTEN AND ORAL 2 OBJECTIONS RECEIVED PRIOR TO OR AT THE AUGUST 20, 2001, JOINT PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THE PROPOSED 2001 EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT 3 TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL CITY SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 4 5 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and 6 Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a ioint regular meeting thereof, held 7 on the 17th day of Council Members AYES 9 ESTRADA LIEN X 10 McGINNIS X SCHNETZ 11 SUAREZ X ANDERSON X 12 McCAMMACK 13 8 14 15 16 17 September ,2001, by the following vote, to wit: NAYS ABSTAIN ABSENT X X X S4a:~~~ /JPp~ The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved thO 'd I'" day of September, 2001. 18 19 By: 20 se. ftG&; ity Attorney 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SB200L25264.1 4 ',' 2001-299 I STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO) ss 2 CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) 3 1, City Clerk of the City of San Bernardino, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing and attached copy of Mayor and Common Council of the 4 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 official 6 seal of the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino this day of ,2001. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 City Clerk 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SB2001:25264.1 5 " '. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SB200U5264.1 2001-299 EXHillIT "A" WRITTEN RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO TO ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE 2001 AMENDMENT (Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project) 6 , . 2001-299 EXHIBIT "A" Response to Oral Objections Mt. Vernon Corridor Redevelopment Project Area Objection #1 Robert Gogo (Never stated address out loud, but gave it to Rachel) I'm Robert Gogo. I live here in the City of San Bernardino. I do have property on "I" Street, backside of freeway. About two and a half acres. And. ..1 am against this...proposed amendment mainly because it does expire next year, less than a year from now. Ah.. .you have boarded up homes on Rialto A venue and I would assume many other places in this particular zone. And the only people that you're.. . affecting are tax-paying people that are running businesses here. I have a total of ten stores in Southern California and I run them all from San Bernardino. We use my property there as a distribution. So.. . right now I've got the State that says they want to take part of my property and now I'm going to have a rock over my head that says well, maybe eminent domain is going to come in here and take the rest of it. If any of it at all. I don't know, maybe the State's going to take it all. But I've been in the same location now for about thirty years and I've been within two blocks of this area for over forty. Founded the company in 1958 and the areas been very good to me. No question about that. 1...I cannot see where extending the eminent domain for another ten years should go through because it puts us in a heck of a spot. It puts everybody here that has property that's going to be, could be taken. Whether it is taken or not, we don't know we have to sweat it off for another ten years. And 1 think that's wrong. It's ah...I think you're asking too much of tax paying people that have property along that area. That's all I have to say, thank you. Response to Obiection # 1 We do not believe that by extending the power of eminent domain for 12 additional years it places you or your business in an unfavorable position. Actually, as pointed out in your testimony any number of other public agencies including CALTRANS has the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain if your property is needed for a public project. It is important to note that the Agency has no plans to acquire or relocate any individuals or businesses in the Project Area at this time. This is especially true of viable business within the Project Area. The Agency's objectives are to address blighting conditions by cooperating with owners and business tenants. However, staff feels that it is very important to preserve this power because it is a necessary component to completing future redevelopment activities. The power of eminent domain is especially necessary for those projects that require consolidation of lots for new development or to provide mitigation between incompatible uses. As noted in the presentation by Mr. Sabo, the Agency cannot condemn any property with out undertaking a lengthy process that is prescribed by law. First, the Agency would have to ensure that owners were given the opportunity to exercise their owner participation rights by proposing an upgrade or redevelopment of their properties in conformance with the Redevelopment Plan. Only after the Agency determined that . 2001-299 acquisition was necessary would a property be appraised to determine its fair market value. The Agency by law is required to pay fair market value for property acquired, and if the Agency's purchase required the relocation of any individuals or businesses, the Agency would need to comply with all Federal and State relocation guidelines. As a business owner you should be aware that if a business were acquired, relocation benefits for businesses would include suitable referrals, moving expenses, re- establishment expenses, and compensation for loss of goodwill. Further, relocation benefits are not subject to income tax and any property owner would have 2 to 3 years to reinvest those benefits for federal tax purposes (IRS tax code section 1033). Under State law the 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. Objection #2 Francine Wixon 799 East Avery San Bernardino, California Um.. . Mayor and City Council, I have a problem with eminent domain. And I don't believe that ah, it has been explained to the public here exactly how the values are arrived at. There really has not been a lot of sales comparables in these areas that you are speaking about. So the citizens are going to get lower values because you have nothing to go by. Yet our market is starting to finally turn around in the City of San Bernardino and our properties are starting to be worth a little bit more. And I think our City Councilman Frank Schnetz should address this on how you would obtain those values if you allow this to go through. But if you don't let it go through and you let the market fall, not fall, but... go to the level. . . some of these people should be able to obtain higher values for their property by independent developers coming in and wanting to do these projects, rather than the developer coming to you and as Benny you tell them we will take the property by eminent domain. I am very familiar with eminent domain and it can hurt the citizens of San Bernardino and I would like Councilman Schnetz to give us a better explanation on how the values will be arrived at. Response to Objection #2 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. 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 use 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 pr9perty, less any physical . , , 2001-299 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 appraisers 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 used 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 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. Objection #3 Gil Navarro 1440 West Sixth Street San Bernardino, 92411 1 live on the Westside I'm also a candidate for Ward I, I'm also here representing MAPA, the Mexican American Political Association, PO Box 1396, San Bernardino, 92402. First of all, I'm against the approval of this amendment, for several reasons, I don't think there's been sufficient time for the public to be involved in commenting their concerns, since we just started here last July. Secondly, I think these hearings should be over in the area that is affected. We need to make it convenient for those residents to come to these kinds of hearings. Third, I did look at the back-up material referenced on August 20th, which 1 was out of town that day, for R-38 and I noticed that all the documents are in English, we have a lot of Spanish speaking families over there and I feel that's a violation of law, that those documents were not provided bilingually. The concern 1 see here is I heard comments from one of the people with the firm giving testimony all these negative things, and what she described was the Westside. They may appear to be negative only because when you don't support with services, sure, things become blighted, look at the area that we're addressing for the Lakes & Streams. If you allow it be that way, it will become that way. My concern is that these buildings that are uninhabited the City over a number years could have given support to make them, their appearance in a more workable place in the community. Our concern also is that fact that once we start going after empty buildings we may go after empty houses and that people will be displaced in the Westside. I think this is a . , ., ..-, , 2001-299 bad thing the way this is written up. I don't think there's been enough time for input from the community I feel that once we start going after non-residential property we'll have our foot in the door on the Westside and then will start going after homes that don't look, their appearance are not acceptable to certain people in the City of San Bernardino. I think this is bad. If you want help blighted areas, you want to help the corridor, the Westside, help the residents with fixing their homes, lets help the businesses with micro loans. Those businesses help support the tax base of this city for quite a number of years. Give them the support; make the storefronts look presentable, I think that's what we should be concentrating on. Not taking away the homes and the buildings of these property owners that have supported the City of San Bernardino for a number of years. Thank you. ResDonse to Obiection #3 We believe that sufficient notice was given to the public. Legal ads were published in the Sun three times and once each in the Precinct Reporter and the EI Chicano. Further, a public information workshop was given on June 27th and notice of that workshop and a description of this proposed amendment was given in both Spanish and English. Agency staff fielded several phone calls from Spanish-speaking citizens and were able to answer their questions in Spanish. It is important to note that no residentially use properties are affected by the proposed amendment. Further, it is also important to note that the Agency has no plans to acquire or relocate any individuals or businesses in the Project Area at this time. This is especially true of viable business within the Project Area. The Agency's objectives are to address blighting conditions by cooperating with owners and business tenants. However, staff feels that it is very important to preserve this power because it is a necessary component to completing future redevelopment activities. The power of eminent domain is especially necessary for those projects that require consolidation of lots for new development or to proVide mitigation between incompatible uses. Mr. Navarro states that the area has buildings that are uninhabited over many years that would not be blighted if the City would support the area. With this amendment the Agency is trying to provide all the necessary tools at its disposal to remedy the problems of the area. It is not the Agency's intent, nor does the amendment allow the Agency to condemn and displace residents of the area. No residentially occupied dwellings will be condemned; therefore no residents will be displaced. With regard to the businesses in the area, the Agency's goal is to provide existing businesses with as much help as possible. Where necessary, the Agency can assist by providing the means to expand, deal with incompatible uses and eliminate vacant and decrepit structures.