Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-1983 Joint Public Hearing - CC/RDA 135 ~n NUTES CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MACHADO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 15150 JOY STREET LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA MONDAY, JULY 11,1983 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CALL TO ORDER The Joint Public Hearing of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:42 p.m. by Mayor John Unsworth. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: KNIGHT, TORN, VALENZUELA, UNSWORTH ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: MAC MURRAY PRESENT: BOARDMEMBERS: KNIGHT, TORN, VALENZUELA, UNSWORTH ABSENT: BOARDMEMBERS: MAC MURRAY (X) r-. l"- '-::> Q o Also present were: City Manager Robert Trevino, Agency Counsel Gene Nazarek and Recording Secretary Jo Ann Money. RANCHO LAGUNA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. II Mayor Unsworth stated that the purpose of this meeting was to consider and act upon: 1) The Redevelopment Plan 2) Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan Gene Nazarek stated that he has reviewed the Statements of Economic Interest filed by each member of the Council, Redevelopment Agency and appropriate staff members and, in his opinion, no member of the Redevelopment Agency, City Councilor staff ~ has any conflict of interest which in any way would prohibit them from acting on the matters before them tonight or in otherwise participating in these proceedings. Counsel introduced three documents into evidence: Exhibit A - Affidavit of Publication of the Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit B - Certificate of Mailing of Notice of Public Hearing to each Property Owner in the Proposed Project Area Exhibit C - Certificate of Mailing of Notice of Public Hearing to each Effected Taxing Agency These documents were entered into and made a part of the record. Mayor Unsworth explained the requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law by which these proceedings are governed. The order of procedure was described as fa 11 ows : 1) Staff presentation of Redevelopment Plan, Environmental Impact Report and other evidence and testimony in support of the Plan, 2) Receive any written comments, and 3) Receive any evidence and oral testimony from those present. STAFF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - A. Agency Counsel Report ~1r. Nazarek explained that during these proceedings, testimony would be pre- sented regarding the certification of the Environmental Impact Report and the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. At the conclusion of the hearing, if the City Council wishes to proceed with the project, it will be necessary for Council to act, by Ordinance, which must include very specific findings: 1) That the Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes set forth in the Community Redevelopment Law, '136 Page two Joint Public Hearing July 11, 1983 A. Agency Counsel Report. - Continued. 2) That the Redevelopment Plan would redevelop the area in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interest of the public peace, health, safety and welfare, 3) That the adoption and carrying-out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible, 4) That the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City, 5) That the carrying-out of the Redevelopment Plan would promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare, 6) That the condemnation of real property is necessary to the implementation of ... the Redevelopment Plan and adequate provisions have been made for payment for any property to be acquired. The Plan restricts use of eminent domain. No property residentially zoned, of one (1) acre or less, may be acquired by eminent domain, 7) That the Agency has a feasible method for the relocation of any persons dis- placed from the Project Area, if such displacement should occur, 8) If there are any non-contiguous areas within the project area, these areas are either blighted or necessary for the effect of redevelopment and are not included for the purpose of obtaining an allocation of taxes from such areas, without other substantial justification, 9) The inclusion of any lands, buildings or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, is necessary for the effective re- development of the area of which they are a part. Any such area included is necessary for the effect of redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of obtaining an allocation of tax increment without other substantial justification, 10) Elimination of blight in the Project Area cannot be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone, without the aid and assistance of the Redevelopment Agency. B. MSI Consultant Report Dick Hill, MSI Project Manager, summarized a number of documents which the Agency, the City Council and the Planning Commission have acted upon during this .approximate six month process. These documents have been on file and made available to the public and were identified as such in the notice of public bearing. - The Redevelopment Plan is a very general document that identifies the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Agency in accordance with the General Plan of the City. It provides for participation by owners and tenants within the Project Area, provides for a method of relocation, if necessary, provides for the Agency to acquire land to clear the site and to convey that land. It gives the Agency obligations with regard to low and moderate income housing and pro- vides for restrictions as to the amount of tax increment revenue which is the primary source of revenue allowed by Redevelopment Law to accrue to the agency. There are limitations as to the length of time and the amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness which the agency can incur. This is not an indebtedness of the City but strictly an indebtedness of the Redevelopment Agency. It charges the Redevelopment Agency with the obligation to carry out the Redevelopment Plan should it be adopted, and provides for a forty (40) year term in the plan, should bonded indebtedness become necessary through that time, to carry out the objectives. The Project Area was broken up into Areas A, B, C, and D simply for ease of discussion in the documents and the fact that each one' of the areas has a some- what different characteristic. They do not have any difference as far as the impact of the plan. Redevelopment Project Area No. I, adopted some time ago, has just recently begun to receive tax increment revenues to assist in carrying out the goals and objectives of that plan. The primary purpose of the plan is to provide for new development and rehabilitation of residential, commercial and industrial uses in an attempt to add additional employment opportunities to the City, provide for an upgrading of certain areas within the designated area, including public improvements, and, assistance to developers and property owners and developing properties within these areas. .-, Page three Joint Public Hearing July 11, 1983 t31 B. MSI Consultant Report - Continued The following exhibits were entered into and made a part of the record: Exhibit D - Report of the Agency to the City Council including the Assessment of Conditions Report Exhibit E - Report of the Planning Commission of the City of Lake Elsinore OC; l"- r-.. ,""':) ~. o Joanne Grudgen of MSI reported that the Agency has before it the Environmental Impact Report on the proposed Rancho Laguna Redevelopment Project No. II, along with any comments and responses that have been received on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Report. The EIR was made available for public review and comment on May 2 through June 16, 1983, and a notice of that availability was published in the Sun Tribune Newspaper and copies were available in City Hall and the Lake Elsinore Public Library for anyone to read and comment on the report. The draft ErR will be considered the final ErR after all input is received tonight and all questions have been answered. The Agency will then consider the final Environmental Impact Report for certification, which is their recogni- tion that they have been provided with an environmental informational document and they are satisfied that it is legal and adequate. The Draft EIR addresses those environmental issues which were checked in the initial study which staff prepared in February, 1983, as possibly causing sig- nificant adverse impact if the Redevelopment Project were to be implemented. At that time, much consideration was given to identifying potential environ- mental impacts in the City of Lake Elsinore which could occur as a result of the Agency implementing goals and objectives and mitigation measures which have been identified in the City's General Plan and the Master EIR which were completed in late.1982. Some positive environmental impacts resulting from the Project would be assistance in financing street and storm drain improve- ments to sewer and water systems. ,.-- Because the Agency is proposing to implement projects which have already been approved by the Council, this draft ErR relies upon the City's master Environ- mental Assessment to identify critical environmental issues in the Project Area. These are the issues which the Agency will face immediately when the Project is implemented. These include hydrology and related lake stabilization problems, soils which present development constraints, seismic safety issues, sewage treatment, circulation and biological resources. The EIR does not contain specific detailed analysis of environmental issues because there are no specific detailed projects for which to complete such a study. What the Report does do is inform the Agency of the consequences, at a general 1 eve 1, of acti ve ly pursuing growth in the Project Area. If the mitigation measures which are recommended in the draft EIR, the Master Environmental Assessment and the General Plan are implemented, significant environmental impacts will be eliminated, or at least, mitigated. Fortunately, the Agency has the financial ability to assist in implementing some of these measures. ,..-. Ms. Grudgen stated there was additional input which was not added to the list of tbose respond i ng. Correspondence was recei ved from the El s i nore Valley Municipal Water District, State Department of Transportation-Aeronautics Div- ision, Metropolitan Water District, Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Association of Governments, State Department of Historic Preserva- tion and the State Department of Health. The following exhibits were entered into and made a part of the record: Exhibit F - Environmental Impact Report Exhibit G - Letters, Comments and Responses received during the period for review and comment on the Draft EIR. Dick Hill introduced a report to City Council on the Redevelopment Plan which summarizes all the actions that were taken, including: 1) The Preliminary Plan, including those conditions which were found with regard to the State definition of blight, including physical, social and economic blighting conditions within the Project Area. 138 Page four Joint Public Hearing July 11, 1983 B. MSI Consultant Reports - Continued 2) The methods for financing the Project Area, 3) The method of relocation of families and persons should they be displaced, 4) An analysis of the preliminary plan which was initially adopted by the Planning Commission, along with the boundaries which are to be considered tonight, 5) The reports and recommendations submitted by the Planning Commission with regard to the Redevelopment Plan and EIR, 6) Documents which have been submitted by the County and the various taxing Agencies which form the Fiscal Review Committee, 7} An analysis of that report of the Fiscal Review Committee. ... The following documents were entered into and made a part of the record: Exhibit H - The Preliminary Plan Exhibit I - The Redevelopment Plan Exhibit J - Owner Participation Rules and Re-Entry Preferences Exhibit K - Relocation Method Th~ Clerk sltated that the CltYClerk's Office had received correspondence from: l} Mr. Richard Slyker in opposition to the Plan. 2) Mr. Gerald Whipple in opposition to the Plan. 3) Ms. Danyta S. Moray requesting information on the Project. The above documents were entered into and made a part of the record as Exhibit L. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Unsworth opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. asking those in favor of the Redevelopment Plan or the Environmental Impact Report to speak. Mr. Howard D. Stephens, Riverside County Auditor-Controller and Chairman of the Fiscal Review Committee for the Rancho laguna Redevelopment Project Area II, asked to make a report at this time. On July 7, the Committee mailed to the lake Elsinore Redevelopment Agency, a report prepared by the Fiscal Review Committee and asked that this report be made a part of the record. Mr. Stephens summarized by stating that the Fiscal Review Committee is made up of all affected taxing entities such as school districts, special districts, County of Riverside and others who are affected by the Redevelopment Project and the tax increment financing which attri- butes to the project. The report includes and lists all these affected agencies and includes recommendations from four different agencies; the County of Riverside, the County Flood Control District, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District and the - Elsinore Valley Cemetery District. Mr. Stephens recommended studying the Fiscal Review Committee findings and, where appropriate, consideration should be given to mitigating any adverse fiscal impact which might conceivably occur. ... The report of the Fiscal Review Committee was entered into the record and made a part of Exhibit D. Jack Bresson, 10159 Victoria, Riverside, owns property in Area A of the Redevelop- ment Project Area and stated that he is in favor of the Plan. Verne Tendell, Deputy County Counsel, spoke in favor of the Redevelopment Project, stating that the County had an agreement with the RDA for Project I and hopes there will be an agreement for Project II. He urged working with the County Flood Control District soon in order to come to a mutual agreement for maintenance and operation of flood facilities. The County, as well as other agencies, lookS to community development in growing areas for increased tax revenue to help provide many public services such as court services, probation and recreational facilities ... to County residents. Mr. Tendell requested that the written comments submitted by the County Counsel's Office, be made a part of the record. These written com- ments were entered into the record and made a part of Exhibit L. ~ r-- r-- '~ ~ o ,...-. - 139 Page five Joint Public Hearing July 11, 1983 Mayor Unsworth asked those in opposition to the Redevelopment Plan or Environmental Impact Report to speak. The following persons spoke in opposition to the Plan: 1) Mr. Adam Natalie, 16899 Bell, and Chairman of the Board of the Elsinore Water District 2) Frances Boothe, 4651 Brownden, Rolling Hills Estates and part-owner of Select Nursury land 3) Deanna Elliano, 1131 Monroe, lake Elsinore 4) Richard Hackett, 3643 Raven Drive, lake Elsinore 5) Ronald Campbell, General Manager of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Dick Hill from MSI requested that time be reserved later in the meeting for response to Mr. Campbell's comments. 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12 ) 13) 14) 15) 16 ) 17) 18 ) 19 ) Charles D1Amore, 16729 Joy Street, lake Elsinore Bob Hoyt, 16720 Joy Street, lake Elsinore Frank N. Tomlinson, Fallbrook, part-owner of Select Nursury property Richard G. Courson, 22010 Alameda Del Monte, Wildomar, owner of 5 acres located within the Project Area Gene W. Harmon, 36221 Agape Lane, Wildomar, owner of property on Lakeshore Drive Dick Knapp, 29690 Dwan Drive, lake Elsinore Marilyn l. Greever, 23370 Corydon Road, representing Lake Elsinore Valley Cemetery District Mrs. Perry Beck, local property owner Harold Greenberg, local property owner Clarissa Fuller, 17424 Ryan, lake Elsinore Oma Slavick, 1944 N. Tustin, Orange, local property owner Theresa Christus, local resident Mrs. Earl Frazier, owner of 2~ acres in Area A of the Redevelopment Project Area Richard Mullinax, a local realtor All of the above comments and questions were responded to by appropriate Staff, Agency Counsel and/or Agency Consultants. Joanne Grudgen from MSI responded to comments made earlier in the meeting by Ron Campbell of the Elsinore Valley Municipal \~ater District. (Exhibit l) MOVED BY KNIGHT, SECONDED BY VALENZUELA AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:23 P.M~ Mr. Nazarek stated that he felt all comments and inquiries presented tonight had been answered or explained to the best of staff's ability. He reviewed a proposed resolution certifying the adequacy of the final EIR. Counsel also recommended con- sideration of a second resolution recommending adoption of the Redevelopment Project by the City Council. RESOLUTION NO. 83-43 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO LAGUNA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. II. MOVED BY UNSWORTH, SECONDED BY KNIGHT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 83-43 CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR RANCHO LAGUNA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. II. 140 Page six Joint Public Hearing July 11, 1983 CRA RESOLUTION NO. 83-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RANCHO LAGUNA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. II AND RECOMMEN- DING ADOPTION OF SAID REDEVELOPMENT PLAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL. MOVED BY UNSWORTH, SECONDED BY VALENZUELA AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADOPT CRA RESOLUTION NO. 83-17 APPROVING THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RANCHO ... LAGUNA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. II AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF SAID REDEVELOP- MENT PLAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL. ADJOURNMENT - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MOVED BY UNSWORTH, SECONDED BY VALENZUELA AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADJOURN THE MEETING OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AT 10:40 P.M. MOVED BY VALENZUELA, SECONDED BY TORN AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO OVERRULE ALL WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN. Mr. Nazarek recommended that Council now consider a proposed ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan. This ordinance contains all the findings which were summarized at the commencement of this hearing and all the findings necessary under Community Redevelopment Law. As a result of this public hearing, sufficient evidence has been presented to support each and everyone of these findings. ORDINANCE NO. 671 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RANCHO LAGUNA REDE- VELOPMENT PROJECT NO. II. - MOVED BY TORN, SECONDED BY KNIGHT AND CARRIED TO APPROVE THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 671 BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: KNIGHT, TORN, VA~ENZUELA, UNSWORTH NOES: NONE ABSENT: MAC MURRAY Mr. Nazarek commented that it would be desireable to have the second reading of Ordinance No. 671 be considered by the City Council at the meeting of July 18, 1 983. ADJOURN~1ENT MOVED BY VALENZUELA, SECONDED BY KNIGHT AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY TO ADJOURN THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AT 10:47 P.M. ..... ATTEST: i)' ~.. /~ ZIJ. ~?t2fel-C.t . f /' /~ DEBORAH A. HA I , ci~ CLERK Respectfully Submitted, Jo Ann Money, Recording Secretary