Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-09-1987 Adjourned Meeting Public Hearing CC/RDA 356 MINUTES ADJOURNED MEETING CONTINUED JOINT PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE 130 SOUTH MAIN STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA ~,,' \'v' THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1987 - ***************************************************************** CALL TO ORDER The Adjourned Meeting of the City Council was called to order by Mayor/Boardmember Strigotte and the Adjourned Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency was called to order by Councilman/Chairman Matson at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE O~ ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman/Boardmember Winkler. CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: DOMINGUEZ, MATSON, VERMILLION, WINKLER, STRIGOTTE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: DOMINGUEZ, STRIGOTTE, VERMILLION, WINKLER, MATSON ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Also present were: City Manager/Executive Director Molendyk, Assistant City Manager Gilbert, City Attorney/Agency Counsel Harper, Community Development Director Miller, Administrative Services Director Barrick, Public Services Director Kirchner, City Clerk/Clerk of the Board Kasad. PRESENTATION Wayne Wedin, Economic Development Consultant, gave an overview of the Redevelopment Agency, formation of Redevelopment Project Areas, the occasional need for eminent domain proceedings, the function of tax increment financing and limitations on use of Redevelopment Agency funds. He also highlighted specific projects which have been completed in the City through use of Redevelopment funding, such as the Main Street Storm Drain, Sidewalks, Yarborough Park and Lakepoint Park. Mayor/Boardmember strigotte further clarified. the eminent domain process and advised that there had been only two such proceedings in the City. One, was in the interest of public safety to allow for the traffic signal at Four Corners and the other involved the outflow channel and was a friendly condemna- tion. - - I"- LD C\I W al <t: - - 357 "- Page 2 - city Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - July 9, 1987 Mayor/Boardmember Strigotte also explained that areas are required to be in the Redevelopment Project Area befoFe the City can expend Redevelopment Agency funds on them. PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE THIS WAS A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING THE FOLLOWING IS EXCERPTED FROM THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23, 1987, TO PROVIDE COMPLETE PROCEDURAL PROCESS. City Attorney/Agency Counsel Harper entered the following documents into the record: Exhibit A - Affidavit of publication of notice of the Public Hearing Exhibit B - certificate of mailing of notice of public hearing to each property owner in the project area as shown on the last equalized assessment roll. Exhibit C - certificate of mailing of notice of public hearing to the governing bodies of each taxing agency within the project area. City Attorney/Agency Counsel Harper set forth the following findings for adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. 1. The project area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the Community Redevelopment Law. 2. The Redevelopment Plan would redevelop the area in con- formity with the community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. 3. The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. 4. The Redevelop~ent Plan conforms to the general plan of the City. 5. The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan would promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare and would effectuate the purposes and policy of the Community Redevelopment Law. 6. The condemnation of real property may be necessary to the execution of the redevelopment plan and adequate provisions have been made for paYment for property to be acquired as provided by law. The Agency has a feasible method or plan for the reloca- tion of families and persons displaced from the project area. 7. ~~ 8. There are, or are being provided in the Project Area and/or in other areas, not generally less desirable with regard to public utilities and/or public and commercial facilities, dwelling units for persons and families displaced by Agency activity in the project Area. Those units are available at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons displaced from the Project Area. 358 Page 3 - City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - July 9, 1987 -:;: 10. 9. All noncontiguous areas of the project area are either blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment and are not included for the purpose of obtaining an allo- cation of taxes from such area without other su~stantial justification for their inclusion. . The inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare is necessary for effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part. Any such area included is necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of obtaining an allo- cation of tax increment revenues from such area without other substantial justification for its inclusion. - 11. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the project area could not be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. 12. The effect of tax increment financing will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment on any taxing agency deriving revenues from the project area. END OF EXCERPT. COUNCILMAN/BOARDMEMBER WINKLER ADVISED THAT PURSUANT TO ADVICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY/AGENCY COUNSEL HARPER) HE WOULD BE ABSTAINING FROM VOTE AND PROCEEDINGS ON THIS MATTER DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST ASSOCIATED WITH PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. HE LEFT THE MEETING AT 7:30 P.M. . MOVED BY STRIGOTTE, SECONDED BY DOMINGUEZ AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4 TO 0 WITH WINKLER ABSTAINING TO EXCLUDE ANY OWNER OCCUPIED DWELLINGS WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA III FROM THESE PROCEEDINGS. - City AttorneY/Agency Counsel Harper clarified that this would eliminate the owner ~cupied dwellings from any condemnation proceedings. . Mayor/Boardmember Strigotte made introductory comments on the procedure to be followed and the role of the City Council/ Redevelopment Agency and offered to answer questions from the audience relating to this public hearing process. City Attorney/Agency Counsel Harper highlighted changes in the Redevelopment Plan including expansion of the proposed list of projects to allow additional options within the area; changes in the dollar cap amounts for financing; and a legal descrip- tion change based on input from the State of California which makes the boundaries co-terminus with those of Redevelopment Project Area I. City Attorney/Agency Counsel Harper also advised that because the fiscal review report has not yet been received by the Council, it would be necessary to postpone adoption of Ordinance No. 815 at the end of this hearing to the first meeting in August, after Council Officially receives that report. ;~-'): - Roy Evans, Consultant for Municipal Services Inc., explained the main reason for consideration of this proposed project area is that the last two plans adopted have been so successful in recapturing tax dollars that would have gone to other locations instead of the City of Lake Elsinore. He summarized the - ['- Ln C\I W (D <t - 959 Page 4 - City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - July 9, 1987 contents of the Report of the Agency to the city Council and advised that the total cost for the currently proposed projects is about $120,000,000. This projection includes a low and moderate income housing loan program for rehabilitation of existing structures, a revised figure for the dyke ac~oss the . . .;J.., lake, possible projects needed by the school d~str~cts, water district and the flood control district, however the major\/ focus would be on circulation, the infrastructure, variable lot sizes and drainage. He also clarified the meaning of blight and how it can be alleviated. City Attorney/Agency Counsel Harper entered the following documents into the record: Exhibit D - Report of the Agency to the city Council. Exhibit E - Report of the City Planning Commission. Mr. Evans then summarized the Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan, and explained how it was developed, including correspondence with the affected taxing agencies, and alleviation of concerns received from the Planning commission. David Shie, Consultant for Municipal Services Inc., explained the initial study, including a notice of preparation which was sent to all responsible agencies and their returned comment~ were incorporated in the draft E.I.R., and finally the E.I.R: was transmitted to the taxing agencies for their comments. He also explained that since the plan is oriented toward implemen- tation of the City's General Plan rather than the development or changing of that General Plan the impacts that result are primarily oriented toward rapid development as opposed to long term development. Specific comments received in this regard were from the Planning commission and he introduced them and provided responses as follows: 1. The E.I.R. should consider the impacts of acceleration of the implementation of the General Plan as a result of redevelopment activities. Response - Because the rate of acceleration cannot be determined, it is impossible to assess the impact that this acceleration will have. Such determination needs to be deferred to time of review on individual projects. 2. Mitigation measures should not include words like consider, analyze or encourage because they do not indicate a commitment to implementation of the measures. Response - The Agency as a separate legal entity cannot require the City to implement policies toward development. The Agency can, however, adopt policies on the parameters under which the Agency will participate in a project. The E.I.R. can be amended to require the incorporation of all mitigation measures recommended for consideration or encouraged to be incorporated or adopted for any project that is proposed to be partici- pated in by the Agency and for which such impacts associated with these mitigation measures are present. Where mitigation measures recommend some sort of analysis, it is assumed that these analyses, be they traffic, circulation, or market viability etc., will be done as a normal part of the projects environmental review. 360 Page 5 - city Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - July 9, 1987 3. Timing of mitigation measures should require that all measures be in place or concurrent with new construc- tion. Response - Mitigation required by this E.I.R. ~hal1 be implemented prior to or concurrent with projects' undertaken by or participated in by the Agency. \v' 4. Rehabilitation efforts represent more beneficial mitiga- tion than new construction in the removal of classically __ defined blight. Response - statement that rehabilitation projects are inherently more beneficial than new construction in addressing blight. Issue of beneficial impact must be aSsessed based on the significance of the impact. The significance of a given project must be reviewed in light of existing potential uses of the building. The particular site's potential for alternative uses or parcel configurations. The viability and advisability of rehabilitating a given building must be assessed in light of the conditions existing at the time of the review. 5. Facilities and financing methods should be approved prior to or concurrently with any new construction. Response - Most mitigation measures relate to availability of adequate infrastructure and other facilities. It is clear that in order to provide these infrastructure improvements and facilities, services a method of financing must be found. To the extent necessary to eliminate blighting conditions the Redevelopment Agency is able to and should utilize tax increment financing to provide or assist in providing these facilities and services. -- 6. Mitigation of traffic issues and lack of paved and upgraded roads are a critical problem in the project area. Response - These deficiencies in the circulation system have been identified in the Redevelopment Plan as a blighting condition and part of the stated purpose of this plan is to eliminate this condition. The agency shall address the issue and implement solutions as conditions and timing dictate. The improvement in the circulation system is critical to the mitigation of traffic impacts. 7. Monies should be earmarked specifically for infrastruc- ture and upgrading of police services. Response - Redevelopment Law dictates that Redevelopment funds cannot be used for operations however the funds, based on this comment would be set aside for facilities as appropriate. -- Correspondence was also received from the state Office of Planning and Research with comments from three state agencies including Caltrans District #8, the Caltrans Aeronautics Department and the Food & Agricultural Agency. In each case comments related to impacts being calculated in conjunction with approval on individual projects. I"- LD C\I W CD <t: - - 361 -- Page 6 - City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - July 9, 1987 City Attorney/Agency Counsel Harper entered the following documents into the record: Exhibit F - Environmental Impact Report Exhibit G - Letters, comments and reports used in formulation of the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Evans then summarized the Redevelopment Plan, subject to one change to encompass the motion made by Mayor strigotte at the beginning of the public hearing. section 301 - Acquisition of Real Property was changed to read "Such"acquisition includes the emploYment of eminent domain proceedings pursuant to section 33391.b of the California Health and safety Code which allows the agency to acquire any real property which is necessary for the execution of this plan, however, no owner occupied residential unit shall be subject to such eminent domain proceedings under said section of the California Health and Safety Code. Mr. Evans also explained the types of uses for which Redevelopment funds can be used such as public improvements which includes streets and sewers, public health and safety facilities such as pOlice substations, fire department buildings, development of parks and recreation facilities, circulation improvements, acquisition of property, and reparcelization in the hillside areas. He advised that in general the proposed plan provides mechanisms and programs by which the Council and Agency may enter into joint power agreements, acquire property, develop relocation methods, prepare owner participation and re-entry preference guidelines, and encourage economic development in the area. City Attorney/Agency Counsel Harper entered the following documents into the record: Exhibit H - Redevelopment Plan Exhibit I - Rules governing Participation and Reentry Preferences for Property Owners, Operation of Business and Tenants Exhibit J - Relocation Method City Attorney/Agency Counsel Harper advised that there were 8 written comments received 7 of which were already provided to the Council/Agency and made a part of the record. Of those, 3 expressed favorable comments, and 3 were critical of the size of the documents and their complexity, and the eminent domain proceedings with regard to residences; and 1 was opposed to Redevelopment Agencies on philosophical grounds. Mr. Evans advised that in addition, the Consultant received 13 comments, 6 in favor and 7 advising changes of address. City Attorney/Agency Counsel Harper read a letter from Mr. William A. Couch received on July 8, 1987 in opposition to the plan with his major concerns relating to the need for an E.l.R. and with the rights of property owners. Mr. Harper advised that the suggested E.I.R. had been done. City Attorney/Agency Counsel Harper entered the following documents into the record: '~j 362 Page 7 - City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - July 9, 1987 Exhibit K - Written comments in three categories: 1. citizens comments 2. Taxing Agencies response to Plan 3. Communications concerning E.I.R. Mayor/Boardmember Strigotte asked those in favor~of the proposed Redevelopment Plan or the Environmental Impact Report to address the Council. The following people spoke. Burt McCullom, 33127 Dowman street, in favor, owns property and is associated with the Gonzales Corporation. He expressed confidence that residents and property own~rs will receive an accrued value added to their investments including higher property values, overall improvements to the area and added conveniences which the City could not provide without these measures. - Allen Baldwin, 16496 Lash, expressed belief that property in the area would be more saleable with sewers, street lights and street improvements that could be provided through these efforts. He felt that this would improve the ability to develop now vacant land, provide additional parks and eventually additional public safety services. He also referred to specific areas in Orange County where redevelopment has been utilized to improve the appearance as well as the economic growth of the area. Clyde Key, owner of property at 15561 Marshall Avenue, was in favor of this Redevelopment Plan because he felt it would be a means to gain street improvements and sewers in his area. Arta Valenzuela, 412 E. Hill street expressed support for the Redevelopment Project and the Redevelopment Agency. She _ emphasized the need for the City to recapture funds that would otherwise be lost to higher governmental agencies if this Redevelopment Plan is not implemented. John Gonzales, 16755 Hunt Avenue commented that his house has been on the market for quite some..time and feels it would be more saleable if streets and overall appearance of the area were improved through use of Redevelopment funding. Myrna Lascuager, owner of two vacant lots on Hill street, supported redevelopment as a means to develop her property she has owned for a number of years in this area. Mike Spillane, 17153 Mc Bride, advised that he has no paved streets, sewers, lights, curbs or gutters and would hope that Redevelopment could provide some of these facilities. Gary Easley, 18481 Tereticornis Ave. questioned implications of the Plan on builders who have already gotten approvals to build. He expressed concern that he would need to request a second approval due to adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. Mayor strigotte clarified that the adoption of this plan has no impact on building and zoning laws. Norma Henson, property owner on Franklin Street, questioned the impact of this plan on a public alleyway in her area and how much of it would be taken away by Redevelopment. She also requested that her area be improved and the drainage problem corrected. ;;"-~7q - Margie Bartell, 3220 Mott st., Riverside, owner of a lot in Country Club Heights, questioned why property between Lakeshore - I"- LD C\.I W CD <( - 3S3 Page 8 - city Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - July 9, 1987 Drive and Ryan Avenue had not been included in the Plan. Mr. Evans advised that that area had already been included in Project Area I and it would be redundant to include it in another Plan. She also requested information on how to apply for Redevelopment Agency funds. Mr. Evans clarified ~ax increment financing and how the additional taxes woulctbe assessed to compensate the Redevelopment Agency for its wo~k. Bill Gray, 1115 17th st., Hermosa Beach, owner of property in Country Club Heights, requested that there be no moratorium on building in the proposed area, because he is ready to begin construction. Richard Bullard, 359 Avenue 2, spoke in support of the proposed Redevelopment Plan and suggested that work begin as soon as possible. Mayor/Boardmember Strigotte asked those in opposition of the Redevelopment Plan and Environmental Impact Report to address the council/Agency. The following people spoke: Larry Pettit, resident of Lookout Street, questioned displacement of residents and compensation for relocation costs: City Attorney/Agency Counsel Harper advised that at present no such displacements were proposed by the Plan. Gloria Askew, 1509 W. Sumner Avenue, questioned the effect of the Redevelopment Plan on her area, and what types of buildings would be condemned. She felt that redevelopment in her area should consist of street repaving and related improvements. - A gentlemen who is a resident of Poe Street related his attempt to obtain permits to install curbs and sidewalks which was denied because he was told the city was going to do it. Mayor Strigotte advised that this is a separate issue and the man should speak with him after this pUblic hearing. stuart Miller, 32321 Corydon, requested verification that he was in the Redevelopment area and questioned the zoning of his property. Mayor Strigotte referred Mr. Miller to City staff and the Consultant for clarification. Gary Arnold, P. o. Box 1573, Placentia, questioned what percentage of land in the Project Area was undeveloped and what percentage is considered blighted. Mr. Evans advised that the undeveloped portion of the Project Area is 7.7% or approximately 273 acres of vacant land. He also advised that the areas considered to be blighted are deficient in public improvements or meet on of the other 11 criteria defined under state Law as a condition of blight. This area is approximately 3541 total acres. Lois Irvin, 314 N. Poe street stated that she is neutral on the issue of redevelopment, but questioned the time frame for work to begin. councilman/chairman Matson explained the timing on Redevelopment Project Area I as an example, started in 1980-81 and approximately 3 years later the first bonds were issued and the city began receiving the benefits within about 2-1/2 to 3 years, and the timing on this area should be similar. Mark Segedy, 803 W. Field st., questioned who the final review body is for a Redevelopment project, the State or the City council. Mayor Strigotte clarified that the approvals for projects would be at city level once the Project Area designation is finalized. Mr. Segedy also questioned the low 364 Page 9 - City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - July 9, 1987 bid process on public works projects such as slurry seal and parks projects. City Manager/Exe~ltive Director Molendyk explained the slurry seal program and the bid process. Dick Nab, questioned first bond issuance based on increments. Mr. Evans explained that would be a policy decision of-the agency board which can not be made yet, because the projec~<, technically does not exist. He projected that it could occur in approximately 3 years with a possibility of a maximum issuance in the amount of $1,000,000 based on 100% pass through of funds. ..- Herman Taube, 5285 Charing Cross Road, Westminster, property owner in the proposed Redevelopment Area, asked how to obtain copies of the plan and other documents referenced in this public hearing. Mayor Strigotte referred him to the City Clerk for copies. Raul Garcia, 307 Campus Way, questioned whether approval of the Redevelopment Plan would allow for paving of non-paved roads of if it would be limited to existing paved roads. A lady from the audience who owns property on Elm street, questibned whether her area in the floodplain would be considered blighted properties with approval of this plan, and whether the zoning would be changed. Mayor Strigotte clarified that this would not effect the zoning of her property. -- Larry Pettit, Lookout street reappeared before the Council and questioned the publication process following adoption of the plan. MOVED BY DOMINGUEZ, SECONDED BY MATSON AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 1 WITH VERMILLION CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE AND WINKLER ABSTAINING TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. CRA 87-9. .... RESOLUTION NO. CRA 87-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LAKE ELSINORE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. MOVED BY DOMINGUEZ, SECONDED BY MATSON AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 1 WITH VERMILLION CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE AND WINKLER ABSTAINING TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. CRA 87-10. RESOLUTION NO. 87-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LAKE ELSINORE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF SAID REDEVELOPMENT PLAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL. .... MOVED BY DOMINGUEZ, SECONDED BY MATSON AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 1 WITH VERMILLION CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE AND WINKLER ABSTAINING TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 87-43 . - I"- Ul C\I W en <t - - Page 10 - City Council/Redevelopment Agency Minutes - July 9, 1987 365 ~,i;.. RESOLUTION NO. 87-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ^ ELSINORE ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ACCOMPANYING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LAKE ELSINORE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. ~ MOVED BY DOMINGUEZ, SECONDED BY MATSON AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO 1 WITH VERMILLION CASTING THE DISSENTING VOTE AND WINKLER ABSTAINING TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 87-44 RESOLUTION NO. 87-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE LAKE ELSINORE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA III WAS ADJOURNED AT 9:24 P.M., WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED TO AUGUST 11, 1987 FOR RECEIPT OF THE FISCAL REVIEW REPORT AND ADOPTI~~~OR CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ~ATT~ST-: ' ':T ~- U' '. .... ~J ~.~,~ ~ / ~~~ . CKI t.Y1ir~' , s'ii.fr; CITY cl CITY OF ~~E~SINORE ~lt';B'I'EST': . .~> . .. - \ (\J .~ - ',- .~. ~ V--eu~~~~) ~~NNE ~ -CLERK OF THE cARD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY c::lL----:n, 6<fuN-'~SON, =:: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE .~:,