Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Reso No 2009-13RESOLUTION NO. 2009-13 Fl RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ADOPTING FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR RANCHO LAGUNA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS NO. I, II AND III WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore ("Agency') is a community redevelopment agency duly created, established and authorized to transact business and exercise its powers, all under and pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1 of Division 24, commencing with Section 33000, of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California ("CRL")); and WHEREAS, the Agency is engaged in activities necessary and appropriate to carry out the Redevelopment Plans ("Redevelopment Plans") for the Lake Elsinore Rancho Laguna Redevelopment Project Areas No. I, No. II and No. III ("Project Areas") which were adopted by the Agency's legislative body, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore ("City Council"), by Ordinance No. 607 on September 23, 1980 and thereafter amended by Ordinance No. 624 on July 20, 1981, Ordinance No. 987 on November 22, 1994 and Ordinance No. 1249 on February 26, 2008 (Project Area No. I), by Ordinance 671 on July 18, 1983 and thereafter amended by Ordinance No. 987 on Fl November 8, 1994 and Ordinance No. 1249 on February 26, 2008 (Project Area No. II), and by Ordinance No. 815 on September 8, 1987 and thereafter amended by Ordinance No. 987 on November 8, 1994 and Ordinance No. 1249 on February 26, 2008 (Project Area No. III); and WHEREAS, the Agency desires to amend the Redevelopment Plans for Project Areas No. I("Fourth AmendmenY'), No. {I ("Third AmendmenY') and No. III ("Third AmendmenY'), collectively referred to herein as the "Amendments", pursuant to CRL Sections 33450-33458 to incorporate into a single Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for each Project Area No. I, No. II and No. III all prior amendments, update the provisions of each Redevelopment Plan to reflect current CRL provisions, clarify and restate the time limits and financial limits of each Redevelopment Plan, update the land use designations for consistency with the City's General Plan as may be amended from time to time, and improve the format and presentation of the Redevelopment Plans (the "Amended and Restated Plans"); and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2009, the City Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing to consider adoption of the Amended and Restated Plans; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard and has considered all written comments received and all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Amended and Restated Plans; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2009-13 PAGE2of3 WHEREAS, Section 33363 of the Community Redevelopment Law provides that, before adopting the Amended and Restated Plans, the City Council shall make written findings in response to each written objection received before or at the noticed public ~ hearing from an affected property owner or taxing entity; and WHEREAS, the City Council and Agency received written comments and objections to the Amended and Restated Plans from three (3) affected property owners before or at the joint public hearing on adoption of the Amended and Restated Plans; the written comments and objections are attached hereto as Attachments A, B, and C to Exhibit "A" and are incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt written findings in response to the written objections received before or at the joint public hearing prior to acting on adoption of the Amended and Restated Plans. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts the "Written Findings in Response to Written Objections Received Before or at the Joint Public Hearing Concerning Adoption of the Proposed Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plans for Rancho Laguna Redevelopment Project Areas No. I, II and I II" as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. F SECTION 2. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 14th day o ril 20 . ER MAGEE. MAti ATTEST: DEBORA THOMSEN, CITY CLERK ~ . APP OVED-AS TO FO , - ~/2~~ i BA,RBARA LEI80LD, CITY ATTORNEY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2009-13 PAGE 3 of 3 F STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE ) I, Debora Thomsen, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Lake Elsinore, California, hereby certify that Resolution No. 2009-13 was adopted by the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of April 2009, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mayor Robert Magee, Mayor Pro Tem Melissa Melendez, Councilwoman Amy Bhutta, Councilman Thomas Buckley, Councilman Daryl Hickman NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None , • • ' J I:.f,*/G✓G!/ DEBORA THOMSEN, CIV1C - - CITY CLERK EXHIBIT "A" ~I WRITTEN FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED BEFORE OR AT THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDED AND RESTATED REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR RANCHO LAGUNA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS NO. I, 11 AND III Section 33363 of the Communiry Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) imposes upon a legislative body contemplating the adoption (or amendment) of a redevelopment plan the obligation to consider any written objections received from an affected property owner or taxing entity before or at the noticed public hearing on said plan and to adopt written findings in response to each such written objection. On March 24, 2009, the City Council of the City of Lake Elsinore (the "City Council") and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Lake Elsinore (the "Agency") held a noticed joint public hearing to consider the proposed fourth amendment to Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. I("Fourth Amendment"), the proposed third amendment to Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Plan for Project No. II ('Third Amendment") and the proposed third amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Lake Fl Elsinore Project No. III ("Third AmendmenY'), collectively the "Amended and Restated Plans" and "Project Areas". Written comments and objections to the proposed adoption of the Amended and Restated Plans were received by the City Council and Agency from affected property owners, before the noticed joint public hearing. Copies of the written comments and objections are attached to this Exhibit "A" as follows: Attachment No. 1- Email correspondence dated March 12, 2009, from Kevin and Janice Campion (property owners in Project Area No. III). Attachment No. 2- Letter dated March 11, 2009, from Derill C. Ferguson (property owner in Project Area No. I). Attachment No. 3- Letter dated March 10, 2009, from George J. Koliber (property owner in Project Area No. I). Fil EXHIBIT "A" 1 The following provides a summary of each of those comments and objections, together with the findings of the City Council in response thereto. Fi A. Attachment No. 1- Email corresoondence dated March 12. 2009. from Kevin The authors state that redevelopment is not necessary and is another method to collect fees and impose land use controls. Also, that redevelopment discriminates against small property owners and favors developers. The authors suggest that owners wishing to participate in a redevelopment project be allowed to be an equity partner in the project without having to participate in some other form of project financing. Findinqs of the Citv Council in Resaonse: The proposed Amended and Restated Plans are technical in nature and do not include any properties in a redevelopment project that are not already included. All of the boundaries of the Redevelopment Project Areas were established in the 1980s. Land uses within the Redevelopment Project Areas mirror the General Plan land use designations as exist today or as may be amended. The Agency does not exercise independent land use control nor does the Agency process land use entitlements. The process for development approval is the same inside of a Redevelopment Project Area as elsewhere in the City. Also, redevelopment does not impose any fees or controls that are different from other areas of the City that are not in a Redevelopment Project Area. All owners, regardless of size, are given equal opportunities to participate in with the Agency in the redevelopment of their property. This could take the form on an equity participation as suggested by the authors. As stated in the adopted "Rules Governing Participation by Property Owners and the Extension of Reasonable Preferences to Business Occupants" (Rules) owners of real property within the Project Areas shall be extended reasonable opportunities to participate in the redevelopment of property in the Project Areas in conformity with the Amended and Restated Plans and the Rules. Similarly, business occupants engaged in business in the Project Areas shall be extended reasonable preferences to re- enter in business within the redeveloped area if they otherwise meet the requirements prescribed by the Amended and Restated Plans and the Rules. EXHIBIT "A" 2 ~j B. ~ C Attachment No. 2- Letter dated March 11. 2009, from Derill C. Ferquson: The author objects to the proposed Amended and Restated Plans and the Amended and Restated Implementation Plan as it pertains to assessor parcel number 377281001. Findinqs of the Citv Council The author does not state a reason for the objection. The proposed Amended and Restated Plans do not add territory or change any authority or limits of the Redevelopment Plans: The purpose of the amendments is to consolidate and update the original plans with previously adopted amendments into a more "user- friendly" single document and to eliminate ambiguities and inconsistencies. The Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plans: (i) reflect changes in the California Redevelopment Law (CRL) that impose additional requirements and restrictions not reflected in the original text; (ii) incorporate all prior amendments; (iii) update the land use provisions; (iv) clarify and restate the time limits and financial limits; and (v) improve the format and presentation of the text and the Project Areas Maps. Attachment No 3- Letter dated March 10. 2009, from Georae J. Koliber: The author suggests creating a"live, work, play" mixed-use zone to be facilitated by extending Baker Street and completion of the new Nichols Road. The new zone would have the benefit of creating jobs and increasing the tax base for the City. The author offers to cooperate with the Redevelopment Agency. Findinas of the Citv Council The area to which the author is referring is generally zoned "Limited Industrial" with the area immediately adjacent to Interstate 15 zoned "General Commercial" (location of Lake Elsinore Outlet Center). The Agency shares the same goals and objectives as the author. As defined in the current Redevelopment and Housing Implementation Plan 2005-2009, one of the Agency's goals is to: "Identify locations within the project areas with the greatest opportunity for economic development and encourage the development and revitalization of commercial and industrial projects/programs that will expand the area's economic base and provide new job opportunities for all segments of the community". EXHIBIT "A" 3 Also, a goal of the Agency is to: "Identify and prioritize necessary public works improvements or facilities, which will promote the development of land uses, as appropriate, and eliminate unhealthy and dangerous conditions". Agency funding of the proposed extension of Baker Street and Nichols Road is not currently available and, consequently, it is not one of the near term proposed improvements. The Agency will be adopting a new Implementation Plan at the end of 2009 at which time the Agency can evaluate prioritization of public improvement projects to be implemented in the Redevelopment Project Areas. EXHIBIT "A" 4 Fl 17~~ D , March 11, 2009 Dear Steven McCarty, I wish to sent you this letter with my objections to theproposed Amendments, Amended and Restated Implementation Plan as it pertains to assessor's parcel number 377281001 with regards to applicable California and federal laws in response to your letter dated February 18, 2009:signedby the City Clerk, Carol Cowley. Sincerely, Derill C. Ferguson ~ MAR 1 1 2009 L1 BYC/~~~~ From: Kevin and Janice Campion [cdrealty@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, Mazch 12, 2009 620 PM To: Thomas Buckley - Subjec[: rda plan upcoming re the general plan , I will not be able to attend [he Mazch meeting discussuing the new RDA coverage re the general plan I have read a bit of it and want to have my opinions presen[ed. FirsUy it does not appear to be necessary as the GP is what it is - this RDA overlap or res[atement is no[ necessary and appears as a way ro get additional fees and conhol and limiting rights Secondily it discriminates against owners wan[ing to participate with RDA projects [hat may.go azound and include their property-cities give land terms,funding [o the bigger project around [he parcel ro non developer property owners -not [he regulaz citizens who pay taxes to Elsinore ..Neither [he ciry nor the developer wan[ the properly owners to participate-who aze you kidding Typically the city Imows these type owners do not have the expertise, contacts,or extra cah not city help to do a whole project.Even though the writeup hies to show the owners can participatet it is contigent on them being able to do a whole project-which is impossible in most if not all cases.Therefore the participation clause is shallow words Owners in your city and o[hers do no[ ge[ to participate nor does the RDA"s want them and tries to prevent them from doing so just as the restrictions in you proposal accomplish for you..l suggest [hat the write up on owner participation be the the owners can put in their equity for a% of the project -giving them a chance to really participate without and additional requirement especially requiring them to raise money and financing for the projects costs. Sorry to say RDA's write up appears very sneaky and insincere to the taxpayezs and I hope they bring that up [o you.This wri[e up is custom made for developers not the citizens.-Elsinore Taxpayer -Kevin C GeorgeJ. Koliber 5555 Heron Point Drive-501 Naples, Florida 34108 (239) 566-7320 xnjknpls@vahoo.com March 10, 2009 Fil Fl Mr. Robert A. Brady Ciry Manager/Executive Director City of Lake Elsinore Redevelopment Agency 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, Califbrnia 92530 Re: Heaiing for Rancho Laguna Redevelopment ~Lt= u W l5 MA' 13 20;~9 CITY MAfu:'.I.: , QFFICE Thank you for inviting me to the meating. Since I cannot attend I am taking the liberty of offering some comments andsuggestions. Lake Elsinore is a unique city for "live; work, play". Unfortunately, there are not many jobs in the azea and residents mustdrive long distances for the jobs that do exist. With the economic sumulus plan thete might be an opportanity to create a`9ive, work, play zone" (mixed use) by moving ahead with the Baker Street extension. With the eventual completionof the new Nichols Road, the City could create many new jobs in this area and increase the tax base of the City. This area is very visible From 115 and would be very attractive for bringing newindustry and high income persons to your City. My representadve has met with Ken Seumalo regarding access ttu•ough my property. P(ease be assiLred that we will cooperate with your organization as necessary. Best of luck at your rneeting. Sincerely f Geor eHer b