HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2002-088 - Canby-Hilltop-Cypress RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 8r
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDDING
ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSES TO WRITTEN
COMMENTS OR OBJECTIONS RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH
CONSIDERATION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE CANBY-HILLTOP-CYPRESS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY
CODE SECTION 33363
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Redding (the "Agency") has
prepared and submitted to the City Council of the City of Redding (the "City Council"), for the
City Council's consideration, the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Canby-Hilltop-
Cypress Redevelopment Project(the "Amendment"); and
WHEREAS, in connection with consideration of the Amendment, the City Council and
the Agency conducted and completed a duly noticed public hearing on May 21, 2002, pursuant
to the requirements of Health and Safety Code Sections 33355; and
WHEREAS, at or prior to the joint public hearing, the City Council and the Agency
received certain written comments or objections to the Amendment, which written comments or
objections are set forth in Part II of that certain document entitled "Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Canby-Hilltop-Cypress Redevelopment Project: Written Findings
and Responses Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33363," which document is attached
to this Resolution as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by this reference, and hereinafter referred to
as the "Findings"; and
WHEREAS, Part III of the Findings contains the City Council's and Agency's written
findings and responses to the above-described written comments or objections, which written
findings and responses have been prepared and considered by the City Council in connection
with consideration of adoption of the Amendment, all in accordance with the provisions of
Health and Safety Code Section 33363.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Redding:
1. That the City Council hereby finds and certifies that the Findings have been prepared in
compliance with the provisions of Health and Safety Code Section 33363; that the
Findings adequately address the written comments or objections received by the City
Council and the Agency in connection with the Amendment; and that the City Council
has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Findings prior to approving
the Amendment.
2. That the Findings set forth in the attached Exhibit A are hereby approved and adopted as,
and shall constitute, the written findings and responses of the City Council with respect to
)L1
pt
920\041157895.1 1 M
the written objections to the Plan Amendment required by Health and Safety Code
Section 33363.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was introduced, read, and adopted
at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 4`'' day of June 2002 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Cibula, McGeorge, Pohlmeyer, Stegall and Kight
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
A)•
Pat Kight, Mayo
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PA 4
1.-22,2,-rw,/;kr•
Connie Strohmayer, City er- eonard Wingate, rney
920\04\157895.1 2
EXHIBIT A
AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
CANBY-HILLTOP-CYPRESS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WRITTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSES PURSUANT
TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33363
City Council of the City of Redding
June 4, 2002
920104\157896.1
I. PURPOSE
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Redding (the "Agency") has prepared, and the
City Council of the City of Redding (the "City Council") is considering for adoption an
Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Canby-Hilltop-Cypress Redevelopment Project
(the "Amendment"). On May 21, 2002, the Agency and the City Council conducted a duly
noticed joint public hearing on the Amendment in accordance with the requirements of Health
and Safety Code Sections 33355 and 33361. At or prior to the joint public hearing, the Agency
and the City Council received certain written comments or objections to the Amendment. Those
written comments or objections are listed in Part II and set forth in full in Appendix 1 of this
document.
Health and Safety Code Section 33363 states:
"At the hour set in the notice required by Section 33361 for hearing objections,
the legislative body shall proceed to hear all written and oral objections. Before
adopting the redevelopment plan, the legislative body shall evaluate the report of
the Agency, the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission, and all
evidence and testimony for and against the adoption of the Amendment and shall
make written findings in response to each written objection of an affected
property owner or taxing entity. The legislative body shall respond in writing to
the written objections received before or at the noticed hearing, including any
extensions thereof; and may additionally respond to written objections that are
received after the hearing. The written responses shall 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."
This document constitutes the written findings and responses of the City Council, as the
legislative body of the City of Redding, prepared and adopted in accordance with the
requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33363. Specifically, Part III and Appendix 2
below contain the City Council's written findings and responses to the written comments or
objections set forth in Part II and Appendix 1. Appendix 2 contains the letter the City has
written in response to the comment letter.
These findings incorporate other documents which are part of the record of adoption of
the Amendment. These documents are listed below and are incorporated within these findings as
supporting evidence by this and subsequent references:
A. The Amendment;
B. The Report to the City Council of the City of Redding on the Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for the Canby-Hilltop-Cypress Redevelopment Project,
dated May 15, 2002 (the "Report to Council");
920\041157896.1 A-1
C. The Notice of Exemption prepared for the Amendment;
D. Documentary and oral evidence received by the City of Redding Planning
Commission, the Agency, and the City Council during public hearings and
meetings on the Amendment including, without limitation, staff reports submitted
to the City Council and Agency at the May 21, 2002,joint public hearing on the
Amendment; and
E. Matters of common knowledge to the City Council and the Agency which they
have considered, such as the City of Redding General Plan, and prior resolutions
and ordinances of the Agency and the City.
II. WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS
Written comments or objections to the Amendment were received directly by the City or
Agency from the following persons:
1. Letter from Raymond O. Johnson, dated May 21, 2002.
The above letter is set forth in its entirety in Appendix 1 to this Exhibit A.
III. WRITTEN FINDINGS AND RESPONSE OF CITY COUNCIL
1. Letter from Raymond O. Johnson, dated May 21, 2002
Comment: The commenter objects to the Agency's right to use eminent domain for
redevelopment purposes, and, therefore, requests that the Amendment not be adopted.
Response: The Report on the Amendment documents that there is remaining blight in the
Project Area that may require the acquisition of property to alleviate. The Agency currently has
no plans to acquire any properties, but recognizes that it can be an important tool in revitalizing
neighborhoods, especially neighborhoods that exist in the Project Area where there are
incompatible uses, where lots are irregular in shape and small by modern commercial standards,
and where there is a lack of parking as documented in Part II of the Report to Council.
Furthermore, as set forth in Part V of the Report to Council, the Agency and the City have
adopted policies that require that the Agency's activities be carried out in a manner which
minimizes relocation and hardship. In the event of acquisition of any property, the Agency will
follow all state and local laws regarding acquisition of property and will pay fair market value
for any properties acquired. In addition, the Agency is required by state law to pay relocation
benefits to any displaced person or business. While the Agency has developed and implemented
successful programs to promote redevelopment of blighted properties and alleviate blighting
conditions that remain in the Project Area, the use of eminent domain remains necessary as a last
resort to deal with those blighting conditions that remain in the Project Area.
920\041157896.1 A-2
Findings: Based on the above, the City Council finds and determines that it is necessary
to maintain the right of eminent domain in the redevelopment plan as an important and
necessary, although limited, tool to be used as a last resort to alleviate blighting conditions in the
Project Area. On this basis and to the extent the above comment is an objection to Amendment,
the City Council respectfully overrules the objection to the Amendment in the Raymond O.
Johnson letter.
920\041157896.1 A-3
APPENDIX 1
LETTER OF COMMENT
920\041157896.1 A-4
rlC-ly
5-2172002 1 :33PM FROM JOHNSON/JOHNSON 408 7351457 �; �:�� �-lq►- _�P 2E_ Cct.ir 1
04-61 C Ltd
eat(
4+4- _ u L.
CITY COUNCIL MAY 2 2002AGENDA u fctx
ITEM No. Co-t. 495 S.Taaffe Street BY:
MEETING DATE 5-1-1432" Sunnyvale, CA 94086
May 21, 2002
Members of the Redding City Council
C/o Kurt Starman, Executive Director
Redding Redevelopment Agency
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA 96001
Dear Council Members:
You may have been pleased to send it, but as a property owner in this area I wasn't at all
pleased to receive the"packet of information etc.", brief as it was, that you recently sent
with the letter dated April 17, 2002 to justify extending the deadline for commencement
of eminent domain proceedings for 12 years.
Frankly, I can't see any reason the City in whatever form should have the right to forcibly
take one's property away. Redevelopment agencies were theoretically established to
restore blighted areas. Obviously the extensive area on the diagram you sent out is far
from blighted. Therefore, to use the police power of government to allow the taking of
private property because some bureaucratic agency believes it is in the agency's best
interest to do so is obviously a morally bankrupt position to advocate. It may technically
be legal, but it is clearly immoral and anyone who approves such action should
reexamine their beliefs.
From the information you provided me there is absolutely no justification for the
extension of the power of eminent domain in this instance.
The original intent of the eminent domain concept was to provide a tool to use in a very
few select situations to acquire property for"public" use. It was never intended to be
used as a social planning bludgeon to threaten private property owners into cooperating
with another private party so that in the opinion of some bureaucrat or bureaucratic body
a more desirable use of one's property could be made by the second individual. Liberty
is based upon the foundation of"Private Property" and once you abridge that concept in
favor of State control you end up with tyranny. If you are interested in Liberty, as many
now talk about after 9/11, you will not only rescind this amendment, but you will also
state in unequivocal terms that eminent domain will not be used to implement any change
from the present condition from this point forward. Instead you will use your
bureaucratic efforts to encourage cooperation between parties to attain whatever social
engineering effect you desire, and be prepared to be disappointed if that can't be achieved
and drop the matter.
5-21-2002 1 :33PM FRCr" JOHNSON/JOHNSON 408 7351457 P.3
To use police state tactics to go about change is wrong—just plain wrong—and that's
what the power of eminent domain provides. If agreement cannot be reached between a
willing buyer and a willing seller then that is that. In a free country both parties must be
satisfied the deal is beneficial to them. This is, as you all know, the"economic law of
exchange" and it should not be abrogated in any fashion by the police power of the state,
which in this case would be the use of eminent domain.
In a free country one should not have to live under threat of their property being taken
away from them at any time to suit the purpose of someone else. Just think how you
would feel if your home could be taken over by your neighbor because he wanted to
expand his house, was well connected and therefore allowed to do so.
In case you have missed my point (a)do not ratify this amendment, (b) offer and pass an
amendment clearly rejecting the use of eminent domain in any instance by this agency.
Sincerely,
Ray V, O. J. on
APPENDIX 2
RESPONSE LETTER TO COMMENT LETTER
920\041157896.1 A-5
r .•
CITY OF REDDING,
• M �; ,
• OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
s P- 777 Cypress Avenue,Redding,CA 96001
/JcoA?;• P.O. Box 496071, Redding, CA 96049-6071
530.225.4447 FAX 530.225.4463
Pat Kight,Mayor
Mark H.Cibula,Vice Mayor
David L.McGeorge,Council Member June 4, 2002
Michael J.Pohlmeyer,Council Member
Mary Leas Stegall,Council Member
Raymond 0. Johnson
495 S. Taaffe Street
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Thank you for your letter dated May 21, 2002, regarding the extension of the Redding
Redevelopment Agency's (Agency) authority to utilize eminent domain in the Canby-Hilltop-
Cypress Redevelopment Project an additional 12 years. A copy of your letter was provided to the
Members of the Redding City Council and the Agency's Board of Directors and was entered into the
record at the joint public hearing. We understand your philosophical objection to eminent domain.
However,we have determined that there is remaining blight in the project area that may require the
acquisition of property to alleviate, and, therefore, we believe it is in the City's best interest to
proceed with the plan amendment.
If you have any questions regarding this matter,please feel free to contact Deputy City Manager Kurt
Starman at (530) 225-4083 or Senior Redevelopment Project Coordinator Sue Thompson at
(530)225-4423.
Sincerely,
Pat Kight
Mayor
N:Yucl:inienl Ilouid}.11-02 hYwnn N.yM:,yJ
920\03\157893.1