HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA MINUTES 1989 02 21 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 21, 1989
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Kennedy at 7:17 p.m.
in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin,
California.
2. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Ursula E. Kennedy, Chairperson
Richard B. Edgar, Chairperson Pro Tem
Ronald B. Hoesterey
John Kelly
Earl J. Prescott
Members Absent: None
Others Present: William A. Huston, Executive Director/City Manager
James G. Rourke, City Attorney
Mary E. Wynn, Recording Secretary/City Clerk
Christins Shingleton, Director/Comm. Development
Fred Wakefield, Acting Chief of Police
Robert Ledendecker, Director of Public Works
Susan Jones, Recreation Superintendent
Lloyd Dick, Building Official
Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner
Steve Rubin, Senior Planner
Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner
Court Reporter for Item No. 3
Approximately 140 in the audience
3. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TOWN
CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Mayor Kennedy stated this Public Hearing, in order to meet legal
~'~ requirements, would be formally conducted and read from a script.
~ ~ She reminded the audience that everyone, at the appropriate time,
! would have an opportunity to speak. She encouraged them to do so
and to complete the necessary forms prior to addressing the
Council/Agency.
At 7:17 p.m., Mayor Kennedy called to order the joint session of
the Tustin Redevelopment Agency and the City Council of the City of
Tustin. The City Clerk recalled the roll of the City Council and
called the roll of the Tustin Redevelopment Agency. All members of
the City Council/Agency were present.
Councilman Prescott stated he would abstain regarding this subject
matter.
Mayor Kennedy opened the Public Hearing at 7:19 p.m. and read the
Statement of Procedures.
Christins Shingleton, Director of Community Development, summarized
for the audience that the Proposed Amendment was not expected to
directly effect private property and there were no proposed changes
in boundaries or additional uses in the Town Center Redevelopment
Plan. The Proposed Amendment would not increase taxes on property
within the project area. She then highlighted the critical aspects
of the Proposed Second Amendment: (1) addition of certain public
improvements, (2) increased limit on the principal amount of bonded
indebtedness that can be outstanding, (3) restate the tax increment
limit, (4) extend Agency's powers of eminent domain and (5) revise
and update portions of the Town Center Redevelopment Plan's language
and clarify the roles of the Agency, property owners and businesses.
Martha Nessel, representing Katz Hollis Coren & Associates,
Redevelopment Agency consultant, reviewed the twelve parts of the
Plan Amendment's record.
James Rourke, City Attorney, read the major evidentiary findings of
the proposed ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
Page 2, 2-21-89
Mayor Kennedy requested written comments on the Second Amendment to
the Amended Redevelopment Plan be submitted for the record.
The City Clerk read opposing written comments from the following:
Dennis D. Hayden, 2014 N. Broadway, Santa Ana
ElizabethM. Dreher, 332 Prospect Pk. North, Tustin
The City Clerk read neutral written comments from the following:
Robert P. Gotelli, 1901 Harrison St., Oakland
Gary Streed, County Sanitation Districts
The following members of the community spoke or asked questions
reflecting a neutral position on the Amendment:
Joe Martin, #1 Rimrock, Irvine
Len Miller, 501 W. Edgewater, Newport Beach
Gordon Lawrence, 17421 Laurie Lane, Tustin
William Coles, 401 E. First Street, Tustin
Charlotte Pratt, 423 E. First Street, Tustin
Richard M. Vining, 400 W. Main Street, Tustin
Louise Doyle, 1101 Packers Cir. #14, Tustin
Alan Zeitlin, 2038 Gillilan Street, Placentia
Joseph Casasanta, 2213 Arden Street, Santa Ana
Robert LaBarge, 2218 E. Parkside, Orange
Michael Go Cibellis, 392 Prospect Pk. North, Tustin
Mayor Kennedy requested input from those in favor of the Amendment
and there were no speakers.
The following members of the community spoke or asked questions
reflecting an opposing position on the Amendment:
'A1 Potenza, 1742 Greenmeadow, Tustin
Shirley Griset, 27245 Aurora Drive, Hemet
Pat Lester, 219 Albert Place, Tustin
Sharon Roadman, 6 Cool Brook, Irvine
James A. Olson, 1101 Packers Cir. #2, Tustin
Mike Gallas, 17952 Irvine Blvd., Tustin
Ken Tichy, 1914 N. Mabury Street, Santa Ana
Andrea Haynes, 1101 Packers Cir. #7, Tustin
Anne McCaffrey, 17978 Irvine Blvd., Tustin
At 8:09 p.m., the meeting was recessed for twenty minutes.
Diane Hadland, Katz Hollis Coren & Associates, Redevelopment Agency
consultant, responded to questions asked previously regarding tax
increment revenues.
James Rourke clarified that the Redevelopment Agency does not in
itself increase taxes, but the Agency would receive a portion of
regular property taxes.
Christine Shingleton responded to questions asked previously
regarding the Certificate of Compliance process; the potential
impact of resale of property and property values; potential projects
in the area and condemnations; property appraisal procedures;
business owner participation; environmental impact reports; and
blighted areas. She specifically stated that the Agency had no
plans for condemnation of any properties within the community.
A question-and-answer period followed between staff and members of
the audience who had previously spoken.
The following members of the audience spoke in opposition to the
subject matter:
Carole Bryant, 15500 Tustin Village Way, Tustin
Charles C. Jones, 1101 Packers Cir., Tustin
Mayor Kennedy closed the Public Hearing.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
Page 3, 2-21-89
councilman Hoesterey reviewed what was previously stated and
clarified the following: a Redevelopment Agency did not change the
amount of property taxes paid by property owners, the Agency's
primary purpose was to divert a portion of the property tax monies
from the County to the City for projects and rehabilitation;
friendly condemnation was for property owner tax advantage purposes
and was used more to the advantage of the property owner than the
Agency's; one purpose of the Amendment was to amend the uses for
funding and the amount of money available; and the majority of the
property within the area had been built in conformance with the plan
and it was unlikely that eminent domain would be adopted in order
to reuse the property, but there was no property within the City,
including his own, that was not subject to some form of eminent
domain°
Mayor Pro Tem Edgar commented that the Agency, since his membership
in 1976, had not used eminent domain to condemn land and noted the
years expended and the Council's sensitivity shown during the
acquisition of property at Red Hill and Walnut Avenues. He noted
that projects such as the City Hall expansion, park improvements,
Senior Center, and enhancement of the water system are possible due
to financing through the Redevelopment Agency. He pledged his
continuing sensitivity to eminent domain concerns and he did not
anticipate condemnation of any property within the Redevelopment
area.
Discussion followed between Mayor Kennedy and an unidentified member
of the audience regarding eminent domain.
At Mayor Kennedy's request, Mayor Pro Tem Edgar reviewed projects
and improvements that had enhanced the City through Redevelopment
Agency financing and procedures.
Councilman Kelly said overall he was supportive of Redevelopment
Agency activity. He expressed dissatisfaction with two areas: (1)
financial gains resulting from tax increments were not shared with
the school district and (2) eminent domain. He recalled the Plaza
LaFayette Center as an example. He did not believe government
should participate in speculative real estate transactions with
developers and wanted the Council to promise residents that the
force of eminent domain would not be used.
Mayor Kennedy pointed out that any government body had the power of
eminent domain, but the people had the power to elect or defeat
members of the Council every two years. Historically, the Council
had never condemned property and she encouraged the electorate to
use their power when electing future Councils to insure the same
action. She stated the Council did not move in haste and cited
several dates in the chronology of events leading to this public
hearing. She reminded everyone that all agenda information and
reports were available to the public at the Police Department and
the Tustin Library prior to every Council/Agency meeting; and
charged the public with the responsibility of using that information
to gain appropriate Council action.
Mayor Kennedy stated that written responses to written objections
received from property owners and taxing agencies would be provided
at a joint meeting of the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council
to be held on March 6, 1989, in the Council Chambers. At the same
session, the Agency and the Council would proceed to consider
adoption of the Second Amendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan.
At 9:45 p.m., the joint public hearing of the City Council and the
Redevelopment Agency was closed and the Redevelopment Agency meeting
was reconvened at 11:17 p.m. 60
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 6, 1989, REGULAR MEETING
It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edqar, to approve the Minutes
of February 6, 1989. The motion carried 5-0.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
Page 4, 2-21-89
5. APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $386,616.87
It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edqar, to approve subject
demands in the amount of $386,616.87. The motion carried 5-0. 60
6. DESIGN REVIEW 88-75 FOR AN EXTERIOR REMODELING OF THE EXISTING DON
JOSE RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 14882 HOLT AVENUE
It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edqar, to approve the site
plan and architectural design of the proposed restaurant remodeling
by the adoption of the following Resolution No. RDA 89-4:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-4 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING
THE EXTERIOR REMODELING OF AN EXISTING 7,126 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT
(DON JOSE) AT 14882 HOLT AVENUE (DESIGN REVIEW 88-75)
The motion carried 5-0. 60
7. OTHER BUSINESS - None
8. ADJOURNMENT
At 11:23 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to the next Regular Meeting
on Monday, March 6, 1989, at 7:00 p.m.
RECO~ING