Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 03-C07311 RESOLUTION NO, 03-C73 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AZUSA OVERRULING WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED FROM AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS AND TAXING ENTITIES AND OVERRULING SUCH WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE WEST END REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Azusa ("City") approved and adopted a redevelopment plan for the Central Business District Redevelopment Project Area ("CBD Project Area") on September 18, 1978, by Ordinance No. 2062; and approved and adopted a separate redevelopment plan for the West End Redevelopment Project Area ("West End Project Area") on November 28, 1983, by Ordinance No. 2196; and WHEREAS, on November 7, 1988, by Ordinance No. 2382, the City Council adopted the sixth amendment to the redevelopment plan for the CBD Project Area and the first amendment to the West End Project Area which, among other things, merged the CBD Project Area with the West End Project Area creating one merged project area ("Merged Project Area"); and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City ("Agency") has proposed and prepared an eighth amendment to the redevelopment plan for the CBD Project Area and a third amendment to the West End Project Area (together "Amendments") which, among other things, (i) add territory to the Merged Project Area ("Added Territory"); (ii) reinstate the Agency's right to use eminent domain within certain non-residential portions of the Merged Project Area; (iii) redefine the method by which the tax increment limit is calculated and measured for the Merged Project Area; (iv) combine the bond indebtedness limits of the Merged Project Area and the Added Territory; (v) replace the separate redevelopment plans for the CBD Project Area and the West End Project Area with one amended and restated redevelopment plan ("Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan") applicable to the Merged Project Area; and WHEREAS, on June 30, 2003, a duly noticed joint public hearing on the proposed Amendments was conducted by the City Council of the City and the Governing Board of Agency, after which a joint meeting was continued to July 8, 2003 and continued again to September 2, 2003; and WHEREAS, any and all persons having any objections to the proposed Amendments, or the regularity of the prior proceedings, were given an opportunity to submit written statements prior to the commencement of or at the joint public hearing, or to give oral comments at the joint public hearing, and show cause why the proposed Amendments should not be adopted; and WHEREAS, the City Council has directed Agency staff to respond to written objections received from affected property owners and taxing entities in detail, giving reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions, and the City Council has reviewed ad considered such responses; and WHEREAS, the City Council has heard and considered all evidence, both written and oral, presented in support of and in opposition to the adoption of the proposed Amendments. 0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Azusa as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby finds that all persons have had the opportunity to be heard or to file written objections to the Amendments to the Merged Project Area or to the regularity of the proceedings with respect to the proposed Amendments. Section 2. Having heard and reviewed such oral and written objections, the City Council hereby makes certain findings in response to each written objection as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto. Section 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines that there are compelling reasons to justify adoption of the Amendments as proposed, notwithstanding such written and oral objections. Section 4. The City Council hereby finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence contained in the report ("Report")to the City Council submitted by the Agency and other substantial evidence in the record that written and oral evidence in opposition received prior to or at the joint public hearing is not persuasive. Section 5. The City Council hereby find and determines that the City and the Agency have duly complied with all the provisions, requirements and procedures of CRL relating to the preparation and adoption of the Amendments. Section 6. The City Council hereby overrules any and all objections to the adoption of the Amendments. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this I5'h day rvieyuc City of Azusa 0 CERTIFICATION I, Vera Mendoza, City Clerk of the City of Azusa, and Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa, do hereby certify that the foregoing joint Resolution No. 03-C73 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Azusa and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 15"' day of September, 2003 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: OUNCILMEMBERS: Vera City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Sonia R. Carvalho City Attorney HARDISON, STANFORD, ROCHA, MADRID NONE CHAGNON NONE �2 Secretary Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa 0 0 Exhibit "A" Redevelopment Agency of the City of Azusa Responses to Written Comments Pursuant to California Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code Section 33000 et seg.) ("CRL"), the City Council of the City of Azusa ("City") approved and adopted a redevelopment plan for the Central Business District Redevelopment Project Area ("CBD Project Area") on September 18, 1978, by Ordinance No. 2062; and approved and adopted a separate redevelopment plan for the West End Redevelopment Project Area ("West End Project Area") on November 7, 1988, by Ordinance No. 2382. On November 7, 1988, by Ordinance No. 2382, the City Council adopted the sixth amendment to the redevelopment plan for the CBD Project Area and the first amendment to the West End Project Area which, among other things, merged the CBD Project Area with the West End Project Area creating one merged project area ("Merged Project Area"). The Redevelopment Agency of the City ("Agency") has proposed and prepared an eighth amendment to the redevelopment plan for the CBD Project Area and a third amendment to the West End Project Area (together "Amendments") which, among other things, (i) add territory to the Merged Project Area ("Added Territory"); (it) reinstate the Agency's right to use eminent domain within certain non-residential portions of the Merged Project Area; (iii) redefine the method by which the tax increment limit is calculated and measured for the Merged Project Area; (iv) combine the bond indebtedness limits of the Merged Project Area and the Added Territory; (v) replace the separate redevelopment plans for the CBD Project Area and the West End Project Area with one amended and restated redevelopment plan ("Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan") applicable to the Merged Project Area. The following are the Agency's responses to written comments received on July 8, 2003 and September 2, 2003 during the continued joint public hearing on the proposed Amendments. The responses: (i) identify the person(s) commenting on the Amendments: (ii) summarize the comments (which are attached hereto in their entirety); and (iii) set forth the Agency's response. NVPU9\KCS'h58470 0 0 Robyn A. Deppe Attorney representing Mr. James D. Yenyo and Ms. Sharon Yenyo Espinoza (Business Owners) and Mr. Wayne Fletcher and Ms. Velda Fletcher (Property Owners) Letter received by the Redevelopment Agency June 30, 2003 Ms. Deppe represents the business and property owners of Wimpy's, located at 650 North Azusa Avenue. In her letter, Ms. Deppe states: "[T]he business and the area in which it is situated does not meet the requirements necessary to be constituted a 'blighted area' under [CRL] Section 33031." Ms. Deppe also states that her clients have indicated that "they are prepared to make any changes of any sort, necessary to accommodate the City's [redevelopment plan for the Merged Project Area]" solely at the cost of the business and property owners. As provided in Part 11 of the Report to City Council on the Amendments, the area in which the Wimpy's is located within the Merged Project Area is blighted because: (i) the area contains small parcels of irregular form or shape for development; and (it) the area contains many vacant buildings and structurally unsound and unsafe buildings. As stated in Section 308 of the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan, the Agency does not intend to acquire property from owners of property within the Merged Project Area who have entered into an owner .participation agreement with the Agency. Pursuant to certain rules, the Agency has adopted ("Owner Participation Rules"), if the Amendments are adopted, as owners of property within the Merged Project Area, the property owners would be entitled to submit a proposal to participate in the development of the Merged Project Area. This process will allow the property owners to express any desires they may have to participate in the Agency's development efforts. RVPUMKCV\658470 0 0 Joan Singleton Azusa Pacific University 901 East Alosta Avenue Azusa, CA 91702 Letters received by the Agency June 30, 2003 Ms. Singleton prepared two letters, one dated June 26"' and the other June 27"'. The June 26`n letter asks that the City's Specific Plan, which governs the development of certain property owned by Azusa Pacific University ("APU"), supersede the requirements of the redevelopment plan for the CBD Project Area. In addition, Ms. Singleton requests that Section 323 of the redevelopment plan for the CBD Project Area be revised due to certain housing policies of APU. The second letter requests the removal of three (3) specific properties from the CBD Project Area. To avoid the potential for duplicative review processes involving City staff and Agency staff, the Agency will amend the redevelopment plan for the CBD Project Area to allow the City's Specific Plan to supersede the redevelopment plan for the CBD Project Area, as it pertains to APU. Also, Section 323 will be revised to insert the word "illegal" before the word "discrimination." To remove APU's requested properties from the CBD Project Area, the Agency must undergo an amendment to the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan. Such amendment would cost the Agency significant time and expense. At this time the Agency does not have the financial or staffing means and resources to carryout such amendment and still carry out the Agency's existing projects. Because APU has not demonstrate a compelling reason to remove such properties from the CBD Project Area, the Agency does not have any intentions of removing such properties from the CBD Project Area. RVPUB\KCV\058470 Dr. Martin Habern 826 North Azusa Avenue Azusa, CA 91702 Letter faxed to Agency on June 25, 2003 Dr Habern informed the Agency that he would not be able to attend the meeting, but would like to discuss with Agency staff the impact of the Amendments to his business. On July 14, 2003, Mr. Amador discussed with Dr. Habern the potential impact of the Amendments on Dr. Habern's business and explained to Dr. Habern that his particular property will not be subject to eminent domain as a result of the Amendments. Dr. Habern indicated that he was not opposed to redevelopment in the Merged Project Area. RVPUB\KCV\058470 0 0 Ms. Jane -Ping Chen and Mr. Ching -Ching Ying Ying's Coin Laundry 130 West 91h Street Azusa, CA 91702 Letter received by the Agency June 16, 2003 Ms. Chen and Mr. Ying are opposed to the Amendments because they believe that the Amendments will not "raise up" occupation in the commercial center where Ying s Coin Laundry is located, because said center is already fully occupied. Ms. Chen and Mr. Ying also note that the Amendments will not increase their business. A change in the number of tenants within a commercial center is determined by the owner of the center, not by any Agency or City action. The Amendments do not change the number of occupants within a commercial center. The principal goal of the Amendments is to eliminate all remaining blight and complete all Agency -assisted redevelopment activities within the Merged Project Area, including the property upon which the commercial center is located. The Amendments accomplish this goal by: (i) addressing the presence of physically obsolete and unsafe buildings; (ii) improving business climate and increasing property values; and (iii) developing long- range plans to promote compatible land uses and construct public improvements. RVP(JIM V65847a 0 0 Mr. John A. Lambrecht, Jr. Cardinal Church Furniture 401 South Irwindale Avenue Azusa, CA 91702 Letter received by the City Clerk Judy 8, 2003 Mr. Lambrecht is opposed to the use of eminent domain. According to his letter, the City has tried to acquire his property through the use of eminent domain on three (3) occasions. Mr. Lambrecht's first experience with eminent domain was when Cal -Trans widened Irwindale Avenue. The second was when the Raiders were proposing to move to Irwindale. The third time was in 1995, when the Agency attempted to reinstate eminent domain on the Merged Project Area. He states that eminent domain maybe abused by future members of the City Council. In addition, Mr. Lambrecht believes that he will not be properly compensated if his property is acquired, therefore, he provides a list of how he should be compensated. Mr. Lambrecht also stated that the public was not advised that any challenge to the Amendments is limited to issues raised at the public hearing. Property owners and tenants that have their properties acquired through eminent domain are entitled to compensation according to California law. Owners are paid the fair market value for their property, moving expense, and, for businesses, any loss of goodwill. In this case, the Agency has not indicated in the Amendment that it intends to acquire Mr. Lambrecht's property by eminent domain. The Agency has, in fact, made no determination to condemn Mr. Lambrecht's property. If, in the future, the Agency was interested in acquiring any property within the project area through eminent domain procedures, the Agency would follow the specific provisions of Government Code Section 7260, el seq. On the second page of the notice of the joint public hearing, it states: "If you challenge the Amendments, including the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan, in court after (and if) it is adopted by the City Council, the issues you raise in your challenge may be limited to only those issues you or someone else raise at the June 30, 2003, joint public hearing." This statement was designed to advise challengers of the Amendment that any challenges raised in court may be limited to the challenges raised at the joint public hearing on the Amendments. The notice ofjoint public hearing complies with CRL Sections 333450, et seq. and 33360 et seq. RVPUn\KCV\658470 0 David E. Janssen Chief Administrative Officer County of Los Angels 713 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration Los Angeles, CA 90012 Electronic correspondence received by Agency staff on June 13, 2003 Letter dated September 2, 2003 - received by City In his correspondence, Mr. Janssen expresses a concern regarding whether or not the Amendments will increase the combined tax increment limit applicable to the CBD Project Area and the West End Project Area. Mr. Janssen also notes that the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors must approve the Amendments, which add three (3) unincorporated parcels of property to the Merged Project Area. In addition, Mr. Janssen expresses concern that Proposed Areas 1 and 10 of the Amendments may not exhibit blighting conditions consistent with CRL. Specifically, Mr. Janssen asserts that Proposed Area 1: (i) fails to meet the blightingconditions set forth under CRL Sections 33030 and 33031, (ii) is not necessary for effective redevelopment pursuant to CRL Section 33321. The Agency is not proposing to increase the tax increment limits in the CBD Project Area or the West End Project Area. Pursuant to the Amendments, the combined tax increment limit for the Merged Project Area, including the Added Territory is the sum of the following data: • The existing tax increment limit for the CBD Project Area, which is $28.9 million. The maximum possible amount remaining in the life of the West End Project Area. This amount is determined by multiplying the West End Project Area's existing $3 million annual tax increment limit by the 20 years remaining in the life of the project. The amount of tax increment the Agency has received to date from the West End Project Area. This amount, according to the latest Remittance Advice from the County of Los Angeles Auditor -Controller Tax Division, is $26,031,075 and is exclusive of amounts paid to County taxing entities through August of 2003, the final disbursement of 2002-03 revenues. CBD West End (remaining) West End (received to date) Total $28,900,000 .I 111 111 26,031,075 $114,931,075 Per the above information, the proposed tax increment limit for the Merged Project Area is $114,930,000. Thus, the Agency is not increasing the tax increment limit in the Merged Project Area. Moreover, the Agency intends to enter into an Agreement for the Reimbursement of Tax Increment Funds with the County of Los Angeles, which will further address the County of Los Angeles's concerns about the aforementioned tax increment limit. The Agency has complied with CRL Section 33354.6. RVPUB\KCV\658470 0 0 Proposed Area 10 is blighted because: (i) numerous buildings within the Proposed Area 10 are dilapidated and/or vacant, and (ii) many areas within Proposed Area 10 are poorly planned for modem retailing. At this time, the Agency does not have any intention of removing Proposed Area 10 from the Merged Project Area because significant blight remains in that area. Proposed Area 1 is blighted because that area is predominantly urbanized and is not properly utilized to such an extent that Proposed Area 1 poses a serious physical and economic burden on the community. In addition, the CBD Project Area suffers from a lack of necessary commercial facilities, including grocery stores. Project Area 1 is the only potential area within the City upon which a full service grocery store may be developed. Thus, Proposed Area 1 is essential for the effective development of the CBD Project Area. Redevelopment of Proposed Area 1 furthers the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City. At this time, the Agency does not have any intention of removing Proposed Area 1 from the Merged Project Area. RVPUBAKCVA65$470