Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
14 SO CENTRAL DEVEL 10-18-99
DATE: AGEND October 18, 1999 NO. 14 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF ACTIONS RELATING TO THE 1999 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CERTIFICATION OF THE RELATED NEGATIVE DELCLARATION AND APPROVAL OF THE 1999 A_ME_ND_ MENT SUMMARY: The City Council .approval of the written responses to written and oral objections received on the 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South Central Area Redevelopment Project, certification of the Negative Declaration for the 1999 Amendment and the adoption of the 1999 Amendment is requested. The 1999 Amendment proposes to re-establish the Agency's eminent domain authority for twelve years. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Adopt Resolution 99-87 approving the wwitten responses to written and oral comments received on the proposed 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South Central Area Redevelopment Project. 2. Adopt Resolution 99-82 certifying the Negative Declaration prepared for in connection with the 1999 Amendment. 3. Adopt Ordinance No. 1223 adopting the 1999 Amendment.. FISCAL IMPACT None at this time. BACKGROI/ND As the Council knows, the initial eminent domain authority within both the original Project Area and the area added by the first amendment expired recently. Under California Community Redevelopment Law, eminent domain authority may only be granted for 12-year periods and can only be re-established by amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. The proposed 1999 Amendment re-establishes the Agency's authority for eminent domain for an additional twelve-year period from the date of the ordinance adopting the 1999 Amendment. The South Central Area Redevelopment Project ("Redevelopment plan") was approved and adopted on August 1, 1983, by Ordinance No. 890. Thereafter, the Redevelopment Plan was amended on two occasions; the first amendment, adopted on July 15, 1985, by Ordinance No. 439, added approximately 138 acres to the South Central Area Redeveiopment Project. The second amendment, adopted on November 21, 1994, established certain time limitations required by the passage of Assembly Bill 1290. The Redevelopment Plan, as adopted and amended, included eminent domain authority over all property in the South Central Area Redevelopment Project William A. Huston, City Manager October 18, 1999 Page 2 Area ("Project Area"). The authority is needed within the Project Area to complete redevelopment and revitalization activities. Responses to Written and Oral Objections Received on the 1999 Amendment Pursuant to Sections 33451, 33454 and 33458 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency held a joint public hearing on October 4, 1999 for the purpose of taking public testimony in connection with the proposed 1999 Amendment to the South Central Area Redevelopment Project. At the joint public hearing, one property owner spoke in support of the 1999 Amendment and five property owner and business owners expressed opposition to the 1999 Amendment. In addition, two written objections were received from and on behalf of property owners in the Project Area. Because written objections to the 1999 Amendment were received, Agency staff recommended that any action beyond holding the public hearing to take the public testimony should be deferred until the next City Council meeting to allow Agency staff to prepare written responses to written objections. After all public comments were received, the City Council closed the public hearing and instructed Agency staff to prepare written responses to the written comments in accordance with Section 33364 of the California Community Redevelopment Law. Agency staff's written responses to written and oral objections are attached as Exhibit A to Resolution No. 99-87. Report to City, Council At the September 23 joint public hearing, the City Council received the proposed 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South Central Redevelopment Project and the Report to City Council on the proposed 1999 Amendment (the "Report"). The Report addresses the reasons for the 1999 Amendment and provides other information in accordance with California Community Redevelopment Law. Neeative Declaration The proposed 1999 Amendment is a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff has completed an environmental assessment of the 1999 Amendment in compliance with CEQA. Approval of the 1999 Amendment will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment and no significant environmental effects of the project are expected. An Initial Study/Negative Declaration dated September 1, 1999 was prepared and noticed for public review pursuant to CEQA and no public comments were received during the public review and comment period, which closed on September 27, 1999. The Initial Study and Resolution No 99-82 approving the Negative Declaration for the 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for South Central Redevelopment Project are attached hereto. Ordinance Adopting the 1999 Amendment To adopt the 1999 Amendment, the City Council should consider all written and oral objections to the 1999 Amendment and adopt the resolution adopting the written resp.onses to the objections before the adopting ordinance is introduced. Ordinance No. 1223, attached herewith, establishes that the 1999 Amendment is necessary to carryout redevelopment activities and that the amendment will promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the community. Following the first reading of the Ordinance, City Council may introduce and waive the second reading and adopt the Ordinance at the next regular meeting on November 1, 1999. If approved by the City Council, the Ordinance and the 1999 Amendment would take effect thirty (30) days after the second reading. William A. Huston, City Manager October 18, 1999 Page 3 The 1999 Amendment, if adopted, will facilitate the continued mitigation of substandard conditions in South Central Redevelopment Project, the completion of redevelopment implementation activities in the area, and the achievement of the goals, objectives and programs identified in the Redevelopment Agency's Five-Year Implementation Plan. Chri'~tine A. Shing~ton~ Assistant City Manager Attachments RESOLUTION NO. 99-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ADOPTING WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE 1999 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT The Tustin City Council does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: . That on October 4, 1999, the City Council of the City of Tustin ("City Council") and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin ("Agency") held a joint public heating ("Joint Public Heating") on the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South Central Redevelopment Project ("1999 Amendment"). At the Joint Public Heating, the Mayor, as the presiding officer, called for public testimony, and all persons present were afforded the opportunity to testify and submit materials and a total of two written objections ("Objections") were presented before or at the Joint Public Heating and five oral objections were made; and, II. 2. Section 33363 of the Health and Safety Code provides that, where written objections are received at or prior to the heating concerning the adoption or amendment of a redevelopment plan, the legislative body: "...shall...respond in writing to the written objections...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 the specified objections and suggestions. The legislative body shall include a good-faith, reasoned analysis in its response". City staff has prepared written responses to the Objectic~ns presented at the Joint Public Heating ("Response"), in the form submitted herewith as Exhibit "A"; and the City Council has reviewed in detail the Objection,s and Response, together with all testimony and reports presented at the Joint Public Heating. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed the objections and responses thereto as presented in Exhibit "A" attached and hereby approves and adopts the Response, in the form submitted herewith, as their findings and response to the Objections presented at the Joint Public Heating. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby overrules the Objections to the 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South Central Redevelopment Project. Passed, approved, and adopted this 18th day of October, 1999. TRACY WILLS WORLEY, Mayor ATTEST: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss. CITY OF TUSTIN ) CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 99-87 · PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Resolution No 99-87 was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City ~ouhcil of the City of Tustin held on the 18th day of October, 1999. COUNCILMEMBERS AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk EXHIBIT "A' WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS RECEIVED AT THE OCTOBER 4, 1999 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 1999 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WRITTEN OBJECTIONS: September 11, 1999 Dr. Robert Chick Letter Objections: 1. Opposed to their property being included in the redevelopment plan. 2. While in favor of tearing down older buildings (in excess of 30 years old), Dr. Chick believes their 9-year-old building should be exempted from the proposed Redevelopment Plan. Response: 1. The subject property is already located in the South Central Area Redevelopment Project, which was adopted on August 1, 1983. 2. The fact that the property was developed in 1990 indicates that the development was in conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and approved by the Redevelopment Agency. Completed development projects within a redevelopment project area are not eliminated from a redevelopment project area after development since it is the increased property tax increment created by such development that is used to fund redevelopment activities in the project area. October 4, 1999 Palmieri, Tyler, et. al., Letter on behalf of property owners of a 34-acre parcel Ob_iections: 1. The "1983 Report" is 16 years old, out of date and inapplicable at this time. Report does not accurately portray the area in its current state. The 2. The subject 34-acre property and nearby neighborhood are not blighted and are improved by and surrounded by relatively new construction. 3. The 1999 Amendment and supportingi documents make no showing of blight and the conditions mentioned on p.2 of the Report to City Council do not apply in any way to the 34-acre parcel. 4. There is no reason for assemblage of a 34-acre parcel, as it is large enough for significant development. 5. The statement in Section F that project area will not be enlarged is not true, as the subject 34-acre parcel was not previously included in the redevelopment plan. 6. The statement that the 1999 Amendment will not enlarge the project area is false since the subject 34-acre parcel was not previously included in the redevelopment plan. Responses to Written and Oral Objections Page 2 7. The Environmental Documentation for the project (1999 Amendment) thus far is inadequate. Response: 8. The owners of the parcel object to the 1999 Amendment as an attempt by the City to take further control of the 34-acre Parcel and an improper usurpation of eminent domain power based on outdated data on the project area, specifically the 34-acre parcel. 1, An updated finding of blight is not required by law when adding or extending the authority of eminent domain. Pursuant to Section 33368 of the Redevelopment Law, the decision of the City Council on July 15, 1985, extending the Project Area to include the 34 acres was final and conclusive, and "it shall thereafter be conclusively presumed that the Project Area is a blighted area ..." 2. See response Number 1 above. Additionally, SectiOns 33321 and 33368 of the Redevelopment Law provide that such findings need not be applied to each individual parcel in the Project Area. 3. See responses Number 1 and Number 2 above. 4. Section 441.9 of the First Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South Central Redevelopment Project adopted July 15, 1985, identifies potential transportation improvements in the Project Area, including the relocation of the northbound State Route 55 freeway ramps and other roadway improvements in the Amended Area. The Agency's Five Year Implementation Plan for fiscal years 1995-96 through 1999-00 also identifies the State Route 55 ramp project. The subject 34-acre parcel is located in the Pacific Center East Specific Plan area.of the City of Tustin, adopted on February 19, 1991 (Ordinance No. 1057). The Specific Plan and the Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan identifies the redesign of the freeway ramps and the redesign of roadways in the Specific Plan area, as well as the design guidelines and conditions under which parcels located within the Specific Plan boundaries may be developed. The 1999 Amendment does not affect the development potential of the property. Additionally, we do not understand the comment on assemblage. The 1999 Amendment does not assemble property. ' 5. The project area will not be enlarged and the subject 34-acre parcel was previously included in the First Amendment to the' Redevelopment Plan, adopted on July 15, 1985 expanding the boUndaries of the South Central Redevelopment Project. 6. The Preliminary Plan anticipated eminent domain authority. The 1999 Amendment that merely extends this authority for 1.2 years does not change the Preliminary Plan. 7. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the 1999 Amendment in compliance witl~ CEQA and state guidelines and has been distributed for public review. No comments were received during the public review period that closed on September 28, 1999. The comment is late, but, in any event, does not specify the nature of the alleged inadequacy. Responses to Written and Oral Objections Page 3 8. The 1999 Amendment applies to the entire Project Area and is not directed at the 34 acres. See Response Number 1 above. ORAL OBJECTIONS: Dean Karels, 17191 Corla, Tustin Objections: 1. Mr. Karels stated that he understood that PAC was the committee to vote on Plan Amendment and asked clarification as to why the PAC was not voting. 2. Mr. Karels asked why does Redevelopment Agency need authority for eminent domain if City already has the authority. 3. Mr. Karels stated that the prior public notices and mailing did not identify the eminent domain proceedings otherwise there would have been far greater public turnouts at July 15 and August 12 PAC meetings. Response: 1. The September 23, 1999 PAC / Public Information Meeting identified the plan amendment process, including the election, role and responsibility of the PAC. The PAC has no authority to adopt any element of the Redevelopment Plan. The PAC is solely an advisory committee and recommending body to the Redevelopment Agency and City Council. Only the elected City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board can adopt a Plan and any amendment to the Plan. The PAC at the September 23 meeting took action voting to recommend to City Council approval of the 1999 Amendment. 2. The Redevelopment Agency is a separate governmental agency under State Law and acts on distinctly separate property development issues under State Community Redevelopment Law. Having the eminent domain authority in-place provides: a. flexibility to the Agency and eliminates potential legal exposure that could result if the Agency needed to take 8 to 12 months to re-establish the authorit,y after identifying a specific project for eminent domain; and b. an additional economic incentive in the Agency's negotiations with property owners by giving the Agency the ability to offer favorable tax consideration through what is commonly referred to as a "friendly conde~rnation". 3. All public notices and mailings (pri,'nted in English and Spanish) commencing on March 19, 1999 with the notifications for the public hearing on April 5, 1999 to adopt the Procedure for the Formation and Election of the Project Area Committee clearly stated that the proposed 1999 Amendment would extend the Redevelopment Agency's authority to acquire property by eminent domain within the South Central Redevelopment Project Area. Copies of all notices are on file at the City for review. John Landolfi. 15611 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin Objections: 1. Mr. Landolfi stated his opposition to the Agency having eminent domain authority over his property. Response: 1. So noted. Responses to Written and Oral Objections Page 4 Steve Moore, 1001 E. Edinger Avenue, Tustin Objections: 1. Mr. Moore indicated that he was a member of the PAC and that the PAC voted against the will of the people at September 23 meeting. He stated that approximately 100 people attended the 23rd meeting and the overwhelming sentiment was in opposition to eminent domain. 2. Mr. Moore stated that he sees no evidence of blight in the area thus eminent domain is unnecessary. Response: 1. Each PAC member may represent his or her own view since there are over 3,600 constituent in the Project Area. Individual PAC members have full discretion to act based on their own review of the issues and are not required to reflect only the sentiment of those persons in attendance at any given public meeting. 2. Staff referenced the Report to City Council at the joint public heating and evidence of continued blight in the area as identified in the 1983 and 1985 Reports is documented in the 1999 Report to City Council with photo~aphs. Todd Neilson, 15822 Pasadena Avenue, Tustin Objections: 1. Mr. Neilson indicated that he was also a PAC member and that at every public meeting held by the PAC, the public in attendance was overwhelmingly opposed eminent domain in the area and on this basis he does not understand how six members of the PAC voted to recommend to the City Council approval for re-establishing eminent domain authority. 2. He stated that he opposed eminent domain because he does not want to see changes to the area's demographics or density as it would negatively affect his business located in the area. · 3. He believes that free enterprise by the business owners and landlords in the project area will make changes as necessary and will tako. car.e of itself. Responses: 1. See previous response number' 1 to Steve Moore objection. : 2. The continued revitalization of area businesses and rehabilitation of residential properties in the project area does not target demograhic segments of the population or densities identified in the RedevelOpment Plan for the South/Central Redevelopment Project adopted in 1983 and amended in 1985. 3. It was conclusively determined with the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan that private enterprise operating alone could not adequately address the issues contributing to blighting conditions in the area. Responses to Written and Oral Objt...~,ons Page 5 Tim Manahan Objections: 1. Mr. Manahan stated his opposition to eminent domain based on his concem about possibility of losing his property, as well as not being able to replace it with a similar' property. Response: 1. If the Redevelopment Agency sought to acquire the property through a negotiated transaction or eminent domain, the property owner is protected by State law. He would be required to receive adequate notice, the full fair market value for the property and relocation assistance payments. Fair market value is established by an independent appraisal, which relies on the principle that comparable properties located in the area having a similar condition and being in a similar neighborhood are available and may be purchased for the amount of the value of the property appraised. In addition to paying property owners fair market value, State Redevelopment law also requires relocation payments to businesses and persons displaced by a Redevelopment Agency activity to mitigate the expense of the move, as well as other costs to owners and/or occupants resulting from displacement. Copies of the written objections received at the October 4, 1999 joint public heating are attached hereto. Community Redevelopment Agency City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, Ca. 92780 RECEIVED SEP 15 ~999 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Sept. 11, 1999 Subject: Opposed to the Redevelopment Plan Dated August 27, 1999 Dear Sirs: Hease accept this written response for comments regarding the proposed Tustin redevelopment plan. We will nor be able ro attend the public hearing as we will be out of the country. Please have a representative read this letter at the public hearing. As the owner of the Wherehouse Plaza Shopping Mall located at 13662 Newport Ave and speaking for the 10 store proprietors located at the Plaza, we are all very much opposed to including the Plaza in the redevelopment plan as distributed for comment on 27 August 1999. Generally, we are in favor of tearing down the old, buildings in excess of 30 to 40 years of age, and making way for the new - this keeps a city alive and viable. If the criteria for redevelopment designation is property 9 years of age or older then most of Tustin would be appropriately declared in the redevelopment zone. This would include the Plazas across .N~~ort Ave and Main Street. In fact it would include all of the .~'prol~erJynorth~and south along Newport Ave. 16811 Baruna Lane Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 The WherehouSe Shopping Plaza received its occupancy permit in ~l 1990, it is only 9 years old, it should be eliminated from the .] proposed redevelopment plan. The Plaza has the equivalent of 50 full time employees. We pay in excess of $50,000 in property taxes annually. The shop owners pay many thousands, in sales tax and city permits annually. Truly a thriving business center. LAW OFFICES PALMIERI. TYLER. WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING I~I~OFESSIONAL CO~POI~ATIONS ANGELO 'J PALMIERI (1926-1996) ROBERT f WALDRON II927-1998) ALAN H. WIENERe GARY C. WEISBERG ROBERT C. IHRKE' MICHAEL H. LEIFER JAMES E. WILHELM' SCOTT R CARPENTER DENNIS G. TYLER' RICHARD A. SALUS MICHAEL J. GREENEe NORMAN J. RODICH fRANK C. ROThROCK' D. SUSAN WIENS DENNIS W. GHAN' RONALD M. COLE DAVID D. PARR' 1UCEE S. KIRKA CHARLES H KANTERe LORI K. DAVIES. GEORGE'J. Wall PAUL B. LA SCALA L. RICHARDRAWLS MICHAEL L. D'ANGELO PATRICK A,HENNESSEY MARIA A. RICHLEY DON FISHER CHARLES S. KROLIKOWSKI GREGORY N. WEILER MICHAEL J SARRAO WARREN A, WILLIAMS TROY THOMA~ JOHN R, LISTER JAMES R. McCOY JR. BRUCE w. DANNEMEYER ELIZABETH J. DAVIS CYNTHIAM. WOLCOTT DAROLYN Y, HAMADA JOEL P.KEW RAYMOND W. SAKAI MICHELLE M. FUJIMOTO STEPHEN A, SCHECK 2603 MAIN STREET EASt TOWER- SUITE 1300 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614-6228 (949) 851-9400 October 4, 1999 P O. BOX 19712 IRVINE, CA 92623-9712 WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER TELECOPlER (949) 851-1554 (949) 851-3844 (949} 757-1225 (949) 851-2351 REFER TO fILE NO. Community Redevelopment Agency of Tustin City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 In response to the notice of the meeting tonight at the Tustin City Council Chambers regarding the 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project ("1999 Amendment") (which was received at 5:00 p.m. this evening, two hours, before the meeting), the owners of the 34 acres at Edinger, Del Amo, Valencia and the Costa Mesa Freeway wish to make the following objections to the 1999 Amendment: The information on which the 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan ("1999 Amendment") is based is out- of-date and inapplicable at t~.i~ time. The "1983 ], Report" was prepared nearly 16 years ago, and does not accurately portray the area in its current state. The above-mentioned property and nearby neighborhood is not blighted. The area is improved with relatively new construction, and is surrounded by relatively neW construction, including the Orange'County Teachers' ~, Federal Credit Union, industrial and commercial buildings. - p The 1999 Amendment and suppqrting documents make no showing of blight of the 34 acres in their current state. All improvements on the 34 acres are in 'operation, recently renovated and painted. This, of course, will not be evident in a report from 1983. The conditions mentioned on p. 2 of the October 1999 Report to the City of Tustin do not apply in any way to the 34 Acre parcel. PAI..MIERI. TYLER. WIENER. WILHELM & WALDRON LLP October 4, 1999 Page ~3'~ ~~'Fvvu~.,'l · Absent the city/Freeway/Caltrans project, the property is available for development. The above-mentioned. property is vacant, and is 34 acres in total. There is no reason for assemblage of a 34-acre parcel, as it is large enough for significant development. · Section F states that the project area will not be enlarged under the 1999 Amendment, but this is not true, as the 34 Acre parcel mentioned above was not previously included in the redevelopment plan. · SectiOn G states that the Preliminary Plan is not affected by the 1999 Amendment, but the 1999 Amendment increases the powers of the Redevelopment Agency, and therefor does change the character of the Preliminary Plan. · The Environmental Documentation for the project thus far is inadequate. : In general, the.1999 Amendment is an attempt by the City of Tustin, through the Redevelopment Agency, to take further control of the 34 Acre parcel. The extent to which the Redevelopment Agency states that the 1999 Amendment does not change the Redevelopment Plan is false. The 1999 Amendment gives the Redevelopment Agency greater control to use the power of eminent domain to take property for the purposes of the plan. This is a wholly improper usurpation of that power based on outdated data on the project area, specifically the 34 Acre parcel mentioned above. The owners of this parcel object to the City's attempt to take over a parcel which is not blighted, is currently'in active use or has good development potential in its current state. b. Very tuuly yours, kndrew H. Fesler AHF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT $00 Centennial W~y, ?ustin, C~ 92~0 INITIAL STUDY BACKGROUND Project Title: 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for South/Central Redevelopment Project Lead Agency: City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Minoo Ashabi Phone: 714/573-3126 Project Location: South/Central Redevelopment Project Area (see Attachment 1) Project Sponsor'S Name and Address: City of Tustin Redevelopment Agency General Plan Designation: Refer to the attached General Plan Land Use Map (Attachment 2) Zoning Designation: Refer to the attached Zoning Map (Attachment 3) Project Description: The Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency is proposing to amend the Redevelopment Plan for the South/Central Redevelopment Project ("Redevelopment Plan"). The purpose of the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan is to re-establish t;h..e Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a twelve-(12) year time period. The 1999 Amendment is proposed to provide remediation of remaining blight in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project. : Surrounding Uses: The proposed amendment wotlld apply to the South/Central Redevelopment Project Area (refer to attached map) North: East: South: West: Other public agencies whose approval is required: [---] Orange County Fire Authority [--] City oflrvine [-"] Orange County Health Care Agency [-'] City of Santa Ana [--] South Coast Air Quality Management [-'"] Orange County EMA District Other B. ENVIRONMENTAL FAC · oRS POTENTIALLY AFFECTE~ The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist in Section D below. ~]Land Use and Planning [--~Population and Housing ~-]Geological Problems [--]Water [--]Air Quality [-~Transportation & Circulation I-]Biological Resources [-]Energy and Mineral Resources [-~Hazards [-']Noise ~-[Public Services [--]Utilities and Service Systems [--]Aesthetics [--]Cultural Resources [-]Recreation [~-]Mandatory Findings of Significance C. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [5~ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [--] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [--] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ~ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [~] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential!y significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. : [--] I find that although the proposed project could have'a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitig~3'on measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Ji~'~aughon, se~ni~ Project Man g Preparer i~~~z~. ~rd::'~'~~---~~ Minoo g/shv' abi, Assistant Planner Christine A. Shingleton, p~sistan C' y Manager Date Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMEN',..,~ IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its. surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Iii. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including r~eleasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans? policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial'adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? : b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? · VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS; - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, inju~', or death involving: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on'expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located wi'thin an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of l°ss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITy: - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) SubstantiallY deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop t° a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosiOn or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a. stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoffwater which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a I O0-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a l O0-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? · j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE. AND PLANNING - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact F-] a) Physically divide an established community.? ['~ [~] [-"1 1~ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recover5' site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? XI. NOISE- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles ora public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f') For a project within the vicinity ora private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excess noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, qecessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system: (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highWays? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [2] VI © [23 FI O C] 0 0 0 0 0 g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater'treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact ATTACHMENT A EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency is proposing to amend the Redevelopment Plan for the South/Central Redevelopment Project Area ("Redevelopment Plan"). The purpose of the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan is to re-establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a twelve-(12) year time period. This plan amendment is proposed to provide for future remediation of remaining blight in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project when appropriate. However, no acquisition or physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with this plan amendment. The South/Central Area Redevelopment Project is comprised of three areas: The South Area, the Central Area, and the Amended Area. The South Area is generally located south of the 1-5 freeway and is bounded by the Costa Mesa Freeway (55 Freeway) on the west, Newport Avenue on the east and Edinger Avenue on the south. The Central Area is generally located south of Main and Bryan Streets bounded by Newport Avenue on the west, C.C. Lambert School on the east and Bonita Street on the south. The Amended Area is bounded by Edinger Street, Red Hill Avenue, Valencia Avenue and Costa Mesa Freeway (SR-55 Freeway). The boundaries of the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project Area is shown on Attachment 1. The proposed plan amendment will not modify or enlarge the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project. 1. AESTHETICS Items a through d- "No Impact": The proposed plan amendment will re-establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a twelve-(12) year time period, however, no property acquisitions or physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction :..'witl3 the plan amendment. As such, the proposed amendment will not have any effects on aesthetics in the area including scenic vistas or scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The proposed plan amendment will not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the plan area or its surroundings. Impacts related to any furore property acquisition or eminent domain proceedings would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. S ourc es: South Central Redevelopment Project Plan Tustin General Plan · . Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Items a through c- "No Impact": The proposed plan amendment will re-establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a Attachment A - Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Amendment to South/Central Redevelopment Plan September 2, 1999 Page 2 twelve-(12) year time period, however, no property acquisitions or physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment. The proposed amendment will have no impacts on any farmland, nor will it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Willamson Act contract. The amendment will not result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. Impacts related to any future property acquisition or eminent domain proceedings would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: South Central Redevelopment Project Plan Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required 3. AIR QUALITY Items a through e - "No Impact. The proposed plan amendment will re-establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a twelve-(12) year time period, however, no property acquisitions or physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment. As such, the amendment will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air plan, violate any air quality standard, result in a cumulatively considerable increase of any criteria pollutant as applicable by federal or ambient air quality standard, nor will it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odor affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts related to future eminent domain proceedings would be evaluated when a specific project is proposed. Sources: South Central Redevelopment Project Plan Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required . BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Items a through f- ''No Impact": The proposed plan amendment will re-establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a twelve (12) year time period, however, no property acquisitions or physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment. No impacts to any unique, rare, or endangered species 6fplant or animal life identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations by the Cahfomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur as a result of this amendment. Impacts related to future eminent domain proceedings would be evaluated when a specific project is proposed. Sources: South Central Redevelopment Project Plan Tustin General Plan Attachment A - Evaluation of environmental Impacts Amendment to South/Central Redevelopment Plan September 2, 1999 Page 3 o o . Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required CULTURAL RESOURCES Items a through d - "No Impact": The proposed plan amendment will re-establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a twelve-(12) year time period, however, no property acquisitions or physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment. As such, the plan amendment will not adversely affect any historical resources or archaeolo~cal resources or destroy or disturb a unique paleontological resource, human remains or geological feature. Impacts related to any future property acquisition or eminent domain proceedings would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources.' South Central Redevelopment Project Plan Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required GEOLOGY AND SOILS Items a (1), a (ii), a (iii), a (iv), b, c, d and e- "No Impact": The proposed plan amendment will re-establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a. twelve-(12) year time period, however, no property acquisitions or physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment. As such, the proposed amendment will not expose peop!e to potential adverse geologic impacts, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, landslides, soil erosion, or loss of top soil, nor is the project on unstable or expansive?oil. Impacts related to any future property acquisition or eminent domain proceedings Would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. ; Sources: South Central RedevelOpment Project Plan Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required HAZARD AND HAzARDous MATERIALS Items a through h- "No Impact": The proposed pl.an amendment will re-establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a twelve (12) year time period, however, no property acquisitions or physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment. As such, the proposed amendment will not result in significant hazards (i.e. explosion, hazardous materials spill, interference with emergency response plans, wildland fires, etc.), nor is the project area located within an airport land use plan, or vicinity of a private airstrip. Impacts Attachment A - Evaluatio,..,t'Environmental Impacts Amendment to South/Central Redevelopment Plan September 2, 1999 Page 4 . . related to future eminent domain proceedings would be evaluated when a specific project is proposed. Sources.' South Central Redevelopment Project Plan Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Items a throuo~h j -"No Impact": The proposed plan amendment will re-establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a twelve (12) year time period, however, no property acquisitions or physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment. The project area is located within an urban area and is not located near any standing or moving bodies of water. The amendment will not result in any change in the amount or direction of surface or groundwaters. Impacts related to any future property acquisition or eminent domain proceedings would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: South Central Redevelopment Project Plan Tustin General Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required LAND USE AND PLANNING Items a through c- ''No Impact": The proposed plan amendment will re-establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a twelve-(12) year time period, however, no property acquisitions or physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment. The project area affected by the amendment is illustrated in the attached map. The proposed plan amendment will not 'enlarge or modify the boundaries of the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project Area. The amendment does not propose any changes to existing land use designations of the project area which are, and will continue to be, controlled by the City's General Plan and Zoning Code (Attachments 2 and 3). The proposed amendment will not phYSically divide an established community or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan. Impacts related to any future property acquisition or eminent domain proceedings would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. · Sourcesl Tustin General Plan Tustin Zoning Code South Central Redevelopment Project Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required Attachment A- Evaluation ot environmental Impacts Amendment to South/Central Redevelopment Plan September 2, 1999 Page 5 10. 11. 12. MINERAL RESOURCES Items a and b -"No Impact": The proposed plan amendment will re-establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a twelve (12) year time period, however, no property acquisitions or physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the plari amendment. The proposed amendment will not result in loss of a known mineral resource, Or availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on the general plan or other applicable land use maps. Impacts related to any future property acquisition or eminent domain proceedings would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. SOurCeS Tustin General Plan South Central Redevelopment Project Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required NOISE Items a through f- "No Impact": The proposed plan amendment will re-establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a twelve (12) year time period, however, no property acquisitions or physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment. As such, the proposed amendment will not expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the general Plan, noise ordinance, or excessive ground vibrations, nor will it create a permanent increase in the existing ambient noise levels. Impacts 'related to any future property acquisition or eminent domain proceedings would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. .t-. Sources: Tustin City Code Tustin General Plan South Central Redevelopment Project Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required POPULATION AND HOUSING Items a, b, and c -"No Impact": The proposed'plan amendment will re-establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a twelve '(12) year time period, however, no property acquisitions or physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment. The proposed plan amendment will not modify or enlarge the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project. No modifications to the number of units or living area of the properties within the project area are proposed. The amendment will not result in any increase in the population of the area, nor will it displace any number of existing housing, or Attachment A - Evaluation ,,~ Environmental Impacts Amendment to South/Central .Redevelopment Plan September 2, 1999 Page6 people. Impacts related to any future property acquisition or eminent domain proceedings would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Tustin General Plan South Central Redevelopment Project Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required 13. PUBLIC SERVICES 14. 15. Item a- "No. Impact": The proposed plan amendment will re-establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a twelve (12) year time period, however, no property acquisitions or physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment. As such, the proposed amendment will not create demand for alteration or addition of government facilities or services (fire and police protection, schools, parks, etc.). Impacts related to any future property acquisition or eminent domain proceedings would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Tustin General Plan South Central Redevelopment Project Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required RECREATION Items a and b - "No Impact": The proposed plan amendment will re'establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a twelve (12) year time period, however, no property acquisitions or physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunctibn with the plan amendment. No physical changes to the number of residential units within the project area are proposed and the amendment will not increase demand for neighborhood parks or recreational facilities. Impacts related to' any future property acquisition or eminent domain proceedings would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources Tustin General Plan South Central Redevelopment Project Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Items a throu~mh g- "No Impact": The proposed plan amendment will re-establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a twelve (12) year time period, however, no property acquisitions or physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment. As such, Attachment A - Evaluation oi r:nvironmental Impacts Amendment to South/Central Redevelopment Plan September 2, 1999 Page 7 no alteration in the traffic generation and circulation pattems within the project area would be affected by the proposed plan amendment. The proposed amendment will not result in changes to air traffic patterns, emergency access, level of service standards, or conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Impacts related to any future property acquisition or eminent domain proceedings would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Tustin General Plan South Central Redevelopment Project Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required 16. UTILTIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Items a through g - "No Impact": The proposed plan amendment will re-establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a twelve-(12) year time period, however, no property acquisitions or physical improvements are currently proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment. The proposed amendment would apply to a project area located in a developed urban area where all utilities are available to the site. The amendment will have no impacts to water treatment, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal. Impacts related to any future property acquisition or eminent domain proceedings would be identified and evaluated in conjunction with a specific project. Sources: Tustin General Plan South Central Redevelopment Project Plan Mitigation/Monitoring Required: None Required 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE" . The purpose of the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan is to re-establish the Agency's use of eminent domain in the Soulh/Central Area Redevelopment Project for a twelve (12) year time period. The 1999 Plan Amendment is proposed to provide for remediation of remaining blight in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project. Since no property acquisition, eminent domain proceedings, or physical improvements are proposed in conjunction with the plan amendment, the amendment does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment nor achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of the long-term. It does not have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable or that would cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings. ma:negdec-rdaplan.doc SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT AREA MAP I i 5// i ' . RI R1 PO- -'" COMM ,i ........ ~;:[ ............. ' "', ,-""-": ['" ,,:,~ i".;', ' I .. PM pc' t · ,'. 5' ; / ; South Central gedevelopment Project Area %% 'I'USTIN ZOHIHG HAP RESOLUTION NO. 99-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE 1999 AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN The Tustin CitY Council does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That the 1999 Amendment is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act; and B. A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public review. Co Whereas, the City Council has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Department staff and other interested parties with respect to the subject Negative Declaration. Do The City Council of the City of Tustin has reviewed and considered the Negative Declaration and has determined that the Negative Declaration is adequate and complete. II. A Negative Declaration has been completed in compliance with CEQA and state guidelines. The City Council has received and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration prior to approving the project, and found that it adequately discussed the environmental effects of the proposed project. Further, the City Council finds the project involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources; and therefore, makes a De Minimus Impact Finding related to Fi'sh and Game Code Section 711.4. : PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council, held on the 18th day of October, 1999. TRACY WILLS WORLEY, Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) SS CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 99-82 PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 99-82 was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 18th day of October, 1999. COUNCILMEMBER AYES: COUNCILMEMBER NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 1223 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN ADOPTING THE 1999 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "I"AND IS INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE WHEREAS, this Council heretofore has acknowledged that the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency, City of Tustin, California ("Redevelopment Agency" hereinafter), has initiated proceedings for the adoption of the 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South Central Redevelopment Project Area ("1999 Amendment" hereinafter). The Redevelopment Agency consented to hold a joint public hearing with this Council in regard to the 1999 Amendment in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33458 and directed the Executive Director and Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency to cause the notices of that joint public hearing required by law to be given upon this Council consenting to and setting the day, hour and place for that hearing; and WHEREAS, this Council consented to hold a joint public, hearing with the Redevelopment Agency in regard to the 1999 Amendment, at which hearing any and all persons having any. objections to the 1999 Amendment, or the regularity of any prior proceedings, would be allowed to appear before this Council and show cause why the 1999 Amendment should not be adopted. The joint public hearing was. held at 7:00 p.m. on October 4, 1999 in the Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California; and WHEREAS, notice of the joint public hearing has been given by publication and by mailing as required by Health and Safety Code Sections 33350 and 33452. Said notices all were timely published and mailed; and &.. WHEREAS, a copy of the 1999 Amendment is attached hereto, marked Exhibit 'T' and incorporated herein by reference. The boundaries of the South Central Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area" hereinafter);' which boundaries are not proposed to be modified by the 1999 Amendment, are described on Exhibits "A~' and "B" attached thereto; and V/HEREAS, the joint public hearing referred to above was duly concluded prior to the first reading of this ordinance and, WHEREAS, this Council has considered all .written objections and oral objections received on the 1999 Amendment and the written responses prepared pursuant to Section 33363 of the Health and Safety Code describing the disposition of the issues raised in the written and oral objections; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the passage of this ordinance have occurred. Ordinance No. 1223 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. All facts set forth above are hereby found to be true and correct. SECTION 2. The South/Central Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan" hereinafter), as amended by the 1999 Amendment, would develop the Project Area in conformity with Health and Safety Code, Division 24, Part 1, and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare. SECTION 3. The adOPtion and carrying out of the Plan, as amended by the 1999 Amendment, is economically sound and feasible. SECTION 4. The Plan, as amended by the 1999 Amendment, conforms to the General Plan of the City of Tustin. SECTION 5. The carrying out of the Plan, as amended by the 1999 Amendment, would promote the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the City of Tustin and would effectuate the purposes and policy of Health and Safety Code, Division 24, Part 1. SECTION 6. The condemnation, if any, of real property as provided for in the 1999 Amendment is necessary to the execution of the plan and adequate provisions have been made for payment for property to be acquired and provided by law. SECTION 7. The Redevelopment Agency has a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons displaced from the Project Area if the Plan, as amended by the 1999 Amendment, should result in the temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the Project Area. SECTION 8. There are or are being provided in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families an/t persons, if any, displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to the displaced families and persons and reasonably, accessible to their places of employment. SECTION 9. This Council is satisfied that permanent housing facilities will be available within three (3) years from the time occupants of the Proje~t Area, if any, are displaced and that pending the development of the facilities there will be available to the displaced occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the City of Tustin at the time of their displacement. Ordinance No. 1223 Page 3 SECTION 10. The purpose and intent, of this Council with respect to the 1999 Amendment is to protect and promote the sound redevelopment of the Project Area and the general welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Tustin by providing a method of property acquisition through the potential use of eminent domain in order for the Agency to be able to attract private redevelopment interest by insuring its ability to deliver property for that purpose. SECTION 11. The effect of tax increment financifig as used to implement the plan, as amended by the 1999 Amendment, will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment on any taxing agency deriving revenues from the Project Area. SECTION 12. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Sections 33411 and 33411.1. Dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Sections 33334.5, 33413, and 33413.5. SECTION 13. 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. SECTION 14. This Council herebY approves and adopts the 1999 Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit 'T' and incorporated herein by reference, and designates the previously amended redevelopment plan for the South Central Redevelopment Project Area, as again amended hereby, as the official Redevelopment Plan for the South Central Redevelopment Project Area. SECTION 15. This Council hereby authorizes and provides for the City of Tustin's expenditure of money provided for in the Plan as amended by the 1999 Amendment. · SECTION 16. This Council hereby declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceedings necessary to be carried out by the City of Tustin under the provisions of the Plan, as amended by the 1999 Amendment. ~-- . SECTION 17. The City Clerk of the City of Tustin ("City Clerk", hereinafter) shall cause a copy of this ordinance to be transmitted to the Redevelopment Agency. · SECTION 18. The City Clerk shall certify to the passag.e of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. Passed, approved and adopted this 18th day of October, 1999. TRACY WILLS WORLEY, Mayor Ordinance No. 1223 Page 4 ATTEST: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss. CITY OF TUSTIN ) PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Ordinance No. 1223 was duly and regularly introduced, passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Tustin, signed by the Mayor, and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular meeting the Tustin City Council of the City of Tustin held on the 18th day of October, 1999. COUNCILMEMBERS AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: PAMELA STOKER City Clerk EXHIBIT I 1999 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH/CENTRAL AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Prepared: May, 1999 Adopted: Ordinance No.: Prepared for: Redevelopment Agency of the City of~rustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin; California 92780 Prepared by: · Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305 Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 541-4585 F :'u~g\Tus~Jnkr, ocentamendXredamend.d~c TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Amendment No. 1 2 EXhibits Exhibit A - Map of the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project Exhibit B - Legal Description for the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project F:~R.sil\Tuslin~occntamcnd'~rcdamcnd. doc 1999 AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH/CENTRAL AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INTRODUCTION The City Council of the City of Tustin ("City Council") adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project ("Redevelopment Plan") pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et. seq., ("CRL") on August 1, 1983 by Ordinance No. 890. The Redevelopment Plan was subsequently amended on two occasions; the first amendment, adopted on July 15, 1985, by Ordinance No. 439, added approximately 138 acres to the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project. The second amendment adopted on November 21, 1994, established certain time limitations required by the passage of Assembly Bill 1290. The Redevelopment Plan, as adopted, and amended, included eminent domain authority over all property in the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"). However, the initial eminent domain authority within both the original Project Area and the area added by the first amendment expired in 1983 and 1985, respectively. The power of eminent domain can only be re-established by amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. This authority is needed within the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project Area to complete redevelopment and revitalization activities in the Project Area. This 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for 'the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project makes certain changes to the text of the Plan. More specifically, the proposed 1999 Amendment would re-establish the Agency's eminent domain authority for a period not to exceed 12 years. The changes made by this 1999 Amendment are not to be construed to amend, modify, change, or affect in any way the text of the Redevelopment Plan as it applies to the territory within the original boundaries of the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project. The South/Central Area Redevelopment Project Area is comprised of three areas: the South Area, the Central Area, and the Amended Area. The South Area is,.. generally located south of the I-5 Freeway and is bounded by the Costa Mesa Freeway (55 Freew£y) on the west, Newport Avenue on east and Edinger Avenue on the south. The Central Area is generally located south of Main and Bryan Streets bounded by .Newport Avenue on the west, C.C. Lambert School on the east and Bonita Street on the south. The Amended A~'ea is bounded by Edinger Street, Red Hill Avenue, Valencia Avenue and the Costa Mesa Freeway (55 Freew?y). The boundaries of the South/Central Area are shown as Exhibit A. F: ~i~sg\Tu.~in~c. eatamendu'edamgnd, doc AMENDMENT NO. 1 That Section 405.1 ACquisition of Real Property of E. Section 405 Property Acquisition, of IV. Section 400 PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIONS be revised to read as follows: Except as specifically exempted herein, the Agency may acquire but is not required to acquire, any real property located in the Project area, by any means authorize by law. It is in the public interest and is necessary in order to eliminate the conditions requiting redevelopment and in order to execute the Plan, for the power of eminent domain to be employed by the Agency to acquire the real property in the Project area which cannot be acquired by gift, devise, exchange, purchase or any other lawful method. Ir/ the event that eminent domain proceedings shall become necessary, they must be commenced no later than cnactc~ witk2n twelve years from the effective date of the ordinance adopting the 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan or the South/Central Area Redevelopment Proiect. Such limitation may only be extended by amendment of the Plan. cf thc, e^...,,,,+:,,., cf thc, ,,ed .... opm ....... a .... If the Agency has adopted a redevelopment plan but has not commenced an eminent domain proceeding to acquire any particular parcel of property subject to eminent domain thereunder within three years after the date of adoption of the plan, the owner or owners of the entire fee at any time thereafter may offer in writing to sell the property to the Agency for its fair market value. If the Agency does not, within 18 months from the date of receipt of the otiginal offer, acquire or institute eminent domain proceedings to acquire the property, the property owner or owners may file an action against the Agency in inverse condemnation to recover damages from the Agency for any interference with the possession and use of the real property resulting from the Plan, provided that this section shall not be construed as establishing or creating a presumption to any tight to damages or relief solely by reason of the failure of the Agency to acquire the property within the time set forth in this section. ,.. The Agency is authorized to acquire structures without acquiring the land upon which these structures are located. The Agency is authorized to acquire either the entire fee or any other interest in real property less than a'fee. The Agency shall not acquire real property on which an' existing building is to be continued on its present site and in its present form and use without the consent of the owner, unless: (1) such building requires structural alteration, improvement, modernization or rehabilitation; (2) the site, or lot on which the building is situated, requires modification in size, shape or use; or (3) it is necessary to impose upon such property, any of the controls, limitations or restrictions and requirements of this Plan and the Design for Development and the owner fails or refuses to participate in this Plan by executing a participation agreement. F: kK~g\Tu~fin~ceatamend~:lamend, doc The Agency is not authorized to acquire real property owned by public bodies which do not consent to such acquisition. The Agency is authorized, however, to acquire public property transferred to private ownership before the Project is completed, unless the Agency and the private owner enter into a participation agreement and the owner completes his responsibilities under a participation agreement. As part of the cost of acquisition of all property acquired in the Project area, the Agency shall compensate each displaced person and business, as provided in the California Relocation Assistance Law (Government Code, Section 7260, et. seq.), the guidelines of the California Department of Housing and Community Development adopted and promulgated pursuant thereto, and the Agency's roles and regulations thereto. F: ~R,sg\T usti n~,oce~mm~nd'~"edamgnd- ~ EXHIBIT A MAP OF THE SOUTH/CENTRAL AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT F:'d~g\Tu.~in~,ocentam~:ndwedamend. doc J t · SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT'AREA MAP 1 EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE SOUTH/CENTRAL AREA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CITY OF TUSTIN That portion of Lots 65 and 66 inBlock 10 and Lots 33, 48, 49, 63 and 64, all in Block 11 of the Irvine Subdivision, as shown on a map recorded in Book 1, Page 88 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, that portion of Stafford and Tustin Tract as shown on map recorded in Book 1, Pages 15 and 16 0fMiscellaneous Records of Los Angeles County, that portion of Tustin City as shown on a map recorded in Book I , Pages 52, 53 and 128 of Miscellaneous Records of Los Angeles County, that portion of Newport Avenue Tract as shown on a map recorded In Book 4 , Page 76 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, that portion of Ballards Addition as shown on a map recorded in Book 1, Page 48 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, that portion of Section 16, 17, 20 and 21 in Township 5 South, Range 9 West, San Bernardino Meridian, all being in the City of Tustin, County of Orange, State of California as followed. BEGINNING at the West corner of Lot 16 as shown on a map of Tract No. 4527 recorded in Book 163, Page 38 and 39 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records'of Orange County, said point also being the Northerly corner of the land described in a deed to Tustin School District of Orange County, recorded October 22, 1968 in Book 8762, Page 508, in official Records of Orange County; Thence along the Westerly line of said land to Tustin School District of Orange County,. South 39*54'46" West 95.02 feet to the beginning of a curve concaved Northerly having a radius of 75.00 feet; thence Southwesterly along said curve though a central angie of 89-59'07"a distance of 117.79 feet; thence North 50*06'07", West 48.30 feet;thence South 39-55'51" West .310.00 feet to a point in the Northeasterly line of the land described in the deed to the Orange County Flood Control District recorded August 6, 1963 in Book 662, Page 445 of official Records, Orange County; Thence Southeasterly along the Northeasterly line of said land to Orange County Flood Control District and its Southeasterly prolongation South 50*06'07" East 1600.18 feet to the most Westerly Northwest corner of Lot 204, as shown on a map of Tract No. 6647, recorded in Book 251, Pages 4 through 7, inclusive, Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, said point also being on the Southeasterly line of Redhill Avenue (110.00 feet wide) as shown on said map on Tract No. 6447; Thence along the Southeasterly line of said Redhill Avenue and its Southwesterly prolongation, South 39*56'54" West 545.00 feet to a point in the Southeasterly prolongation of the Southwesterly line of Edinger AvDnue (formerly Moulton Parkway) as described' in a deed to the County of Orange, recorded ~eptember 7, 1960 in Book 5406, Page 473,~in Official Records of Orange County; Thence North 50-06'07" West along sai~ Southwesterly line of Edinger Avenue and its prolongation,, 2730.77 feet to a point in the Northwest line of Newport Avenue (60.00 feet wide) as shown on a map entitled "PARCEL D, IRVINE-MYFORD ANNEXATION NO. 81 (AMENDED)" to the City of Tustin, as adopted by Ordinance No. 716 dated April 4, 1977 by the City Council of said City; Thence along the existing Ci~ 'of Tustin boundary per said Parcel ,,D",IRVINE-MYFORD ANNEXATION NO. 81 and the South' Tustin Avenue Annexation No. 2 per Ordinance No. 146 adopted February 6, 1961, through the following courses: North 39*53'38" East 187.08 feet, North 0*24'28" East 64.27 feet,South 89*56'36" West 111.63 feet, North 50*06'22" West 43.06'feet, North 19'42'14" East 255.71 feet, North 39-53'38" East 50.00 feet, South 50'16'22" East 36.70 feet to a point in the West line of Old Tustin Avenue as shown on a map entitled "Newport Freeway Right of Way Map, Road 7-0RA-55" per File No. 9638 in the Office of the County Surveyor of Orange County; EXHIBIT B Page 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CITY OF TUSTIN That portion of the Irvine Subdivision in the City of Tustin, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 1, page 88 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said County, described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the existing boundary of the Town Center Area Redevelopment Project in the City of Tustin as approved by the Council of said-City per Ordinance No. 701, said point being the centerline intersection of Bryan Avenue (73.00 feet wide) and Main Street (80.00 feet wide) as established by Tract No. 5390, as per map recorded in Book 202, pages 8 and 9 inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said County; Thence along said existing boundary through the following bearings and distances: South 89'59'11" West.1217.52 feet; South 39*57'46" West 359.69 feet; South 50'01'32" East 130.00 feet; South 39*57'46" West 150.00 feet; North 50'01'32" West'50.00 feet; South 39*57'46" West 680.00 feet; North 50'01'32" West 50.00 feet; South 39*57'46" West 250 feet; South 50'01'32" East 640.00 feet to an angle point in said existing boundary; said point lying in the Southeasterly line of Orange Street (50.00 feet wide) and being an angle point in the City of Tustin boundary as established by the High School Annexation per Resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of said County dated June 19, 1957; Thence leaving said existing Redevelopment boundary North 39'57'46" East 870.00 feet along said Southeasterly line of Orange Street to a point in the Southwesterly line of San Juan Street (60.00 feet wide); Thence along said Southwesterly line of San Juan Street South 50'01'32" East 642.77 feet to a point of intersection with the Southwesterly prolongation of the most Northwesterly line of Tract No. 8760, as per map.recorded in Book 362,,pages 15 and 16 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of said County; Thence along said Northwest line and i~s prolongation North 39'55'55" East 360.51 feet to the most Northerly Northwest corner of said Tract No. 8760; Thence along the Northeasterly boundary of said Tract *No. 8760 South 50~01'16'' East 10.00 feet to the Southwesterly corner of Tract No. 4334 as per map recorded in Book 153, pages 13 to 15 Inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of said County; Thence along the Northwest line of said Tract No. 4334~No~th 39'55'55" East 688.52 feet to an angle point in the boundary of said tract; thence continuing along said boundary South 50*00'30" East 200.00 feet to an angle point in said boundary; thence continuing along said boundary North 39*55'55" East 303.:00 feet to the most Easterly Northeast corner of said Tract No. 4334, said corner being a point'in the centerline of Bryan Avenue (80.00 feet wide); Thence leaving said tract along said centerline 'North 50'00'31" West 589.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described land contains'45.490 acres more or less and is contiguous with the existing City of Tustin Redevelopment boundaries. " EXI-IIBIT 1I Proposed 1999 Amendment to the ... Redevel°pment Plan for the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project Report to the City Council. Prepared for: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 540 N. Golden Circle, Suite 305 Santa A~na, CA 92705 Phone 714.541.4585 Fax 714.836.1748 E-Mail: RSGINCCA~aol.com TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ i SECTION A ........................................................................................................... 1 Reasons for Amending the Redevelopment Plan and a Description of Specific Projects Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blighting Conditions Found in the Project Area SECTION B ........................................................................................................... 2 A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions Existing in the Areas Affected by the Proposed 1999 Amendment Including a List of Blighting Conditions and Maps Showing Where the Conditions Exist SECTION C ' , ............................. 3 A Five-Year Implementation Plan that Describes Specific Goals, Objectives, Projects, and Expenditures and a Description of How These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blighting Conditions SECTION D ' 3 WhY the Elimination of Blight and Redevelopment Cannot Be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the Legislative Body's Use of Financing Alternatives Other Than Tax Increment · 4 SECTION E ........................................................................................................... The Method of Financing SECTION F The Relocation Plan SECTION G · ' . .................................. 4 Analysis of the Preliminary Plan SECTION H ........................................................................................................... 5 Report and Recommendation of~ the Planning Commission (Not Applicable) SECTION I .................................................... :'. ..................................................... 5 Project Area Committee Requirement · SECTION J ........................................................................................................... 6 General Plan Conformance SECTION PAGE SECTION K · oeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeooeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeoeeee·ee .... eeeoeeeeeeeeo eeeeo eeeeee eeeeoeoeeeeeeeeoeeee*eeeeeeeoeo Environmental Documentation 7 SECTION L ........................................................................................................... 7 Report of the County Fiscal Officer SECTION M ........................................................................................................... 7 Neighborhood Impact Report SECTION N 8 Analysis of the Report Prepared by the County Fiscal Officer, a Summary of Agency Consultation With Affected Taxing Agencies, and Responses to Affected Taxing Agencies' Concerns Regarding the 1999 Amendment APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 APPENDIX 3 Map of the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project Project Area Photographs PAC Meeting Minutes INTRODUCTION The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin ("Agency") is taking steps leading to the adoption of an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project ("1999 Amendment"). The Redevelopment Plan for the South Central Area Redevelopment Project ("Redevelopment Plan" or "Plan") was approved and adopted by the Tustin City Council on August 1, 1983, by Ordinance No. 890. The Redevelopment Plan was subsequently amended on two occasions; the f'n'st amendment, adopted on July 15, 1985, by Ordinance No. 439, added approximately 138 acres to the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project. The second amendment adopted on November 21, 1994, established certain time limitations required by the passage of Assembly Bill 1290. The Redevelopment Plan, as adopted, and amended, included eminent domain authority over all property in the Project Area. However, the initial eminent domain authority within both the original project area and the area added by the first amendment expired in 1995 and 1997, respectively. The power of eminent domain can only be re-established by amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. This authority is needed within the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project Area to assure that the Agency has the tools necessary to complete redevelopment and revitalization activities in the Project Area. The 1999 Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project makes certain changes to the text of the Plan. The changes made by this 1999 Amendment are not to be construed to amend, modify, change, or affect in any way the text of the Plan, with the exception of Section 405.1, Acquisition of Real Property, located on page 24 of the Plan. If adopted, the 1999 Amendment would re-establish the Agency's authority to acquire property by eminent domain within the Project Area for a period of twelve years. The South/Central Area Redevelopment Project ("Project Area") is comprised of three areas: the South Area, the Central Area, and the Amended Area. The South Area is generally located south of the 1-5 Freeway and is bounded by the Costa Mesa Freeway (55 Freeway)' on the west, Newport Avenue on the east and Edinger Avenue on the south. The Central Area is generally located south of Main and Bryan Streets bounded by Newport Avenue on the west, C. C. Lambert School on the east and Bonita Street on the south, l"The Amended Area is bounded by Edinger Street, Red Hill Avenue, Valencia Avenue and the Costa Mesa Freeway (55 Freeway). A map of the South/Central Area Redevelo. pment Project has been attached as Appendix 1. This document is the Agency's Report to the City Council ("Report") on the proposed 1999 Amendment and has been prepared pursuant to Section 33457.1 and 33352 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Sections 33000, et seq., "Redevelopment Law"). Pursuant to Section 33352 of the Redevelopment Law, the Agency is required to submit a Report corltaining specific documentation regarding the proposed 1999 Amendment. The purpose of this Report is to provide"the information, documentation, and evidence required to support the adoption of the 1999 Amendment. This information, documentation, 'and evidence is provided to assist the City Council in its consideration of the proposed 1999 Amendment, and in making the various determinations in connection with its adoption. Rosenow Spevacek Group, ln~ October ]999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin Report to the City Council The proposed 1999 Amendment proposes only one change to the Redevelopment plan: the re- establishment of the eminent domain provision within the Project Area. The proposed 1999 Amendment will not enlarge the Project Area. Section 33457.1 of the Redevelopment Law states that the reports and information required by Section 33352, to the extent warranted by the proposed 1999 Amendment, shall be prepared and made available to the public prior to the heating on the proposed 1999 Amendment. Much of the information required for the sections of this Report was previously documented in the "A Report of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin to the City Council for the South/Central Redevelopment Project," dated July 18, 1983 ("1983 Report") prepared for the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. The required reports and information which were part of the documentation prepared in connection with the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan are not again documented in this Report but, instead, reference is made to prior documentation which is incorporated herein. It is also important to note that Section 33368 of the Redevelopment Law states that the City Council's adoption of the ordinances adopting the Redevelopment Plan and all subsequent amendments are final and conclusive, and it is thereafter conclusively presumed that the Project Area is a blighted area as defined by Sections 33031 and 33032 of the Redevelopment Law and that all prior proceedings have been duly and regularly taken. The contents of this Report are presented in 14 sections which generally correspond to the subdivisions presented in Section 33352 of the Redevelopment Law. The sections are as follows: . SECTION A Reasons for Amending the Redevelopment Plan and a Description of Specific Projects Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blighting Conditions Found in the Project Area SECTION B A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions Existing in the Areas AffeCted by the 1999 Amendment Including a List of Blighting Conditions and Maps Showing Where the Conditions Exist . SECTION C SECTION D SECTION E An Implementation Plan that Describes Specific Goals, Objectives, Projects, and Expenditures for the Nq.x.t Five Years and a Description of How These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blighting Conditions Why the Elimina.tion of Blight and Redevelopment Cannot be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the Legislative Body's Use of Financing Alternatives Other Than Tax Increment The Method of Financing SECTION F SECTION G SECTION H The Relocation Plan Analysis of the Preliminary Plan Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission SECTION I Project Area Committee Requirement Rosenow Spevacek Group, Ina October 1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin Report to the City Council SECTION J General Plan Conformance SECTION K SECTION L SECTION M SECTION N Environmental Documentation Report of the County Fiscal Officer Neighborhood Impact Report Analysis of the Report Prepared by the County Fiscal Officer, a Summary of Agency Consultation with Affected Taxing Agencies and Responses to Affected Taxing Agencies' Concerns Regarding the 1999 Amendment Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. October 1999 ..o 111 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin Report to the City Council SECTION A Reasons for Amending the Redevelopment Plan and a Description of Specific Projects Proposed and How These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate' Blighting Conditions Found in tho ~rojoet Ama The Agency seeks to amend the Plan for the' following reasons: Re-Establish the Agency's Power of Eminent Domain The 1999 Amendment will re-establish the Agency's ability to use eminent domain proceedings to acquire property within the Project Area for a period not to exceed twelve years. With the re- establishment of the eminent domain provision, the Agency will have the ability to acquire property in the Project Area in the event that it becomes necessary and only after meeting all legal requirements. Eliminate Blighting Conditions The 1999 Amendment will provide the powers needed to continue to eliminate and prevent the spread of blighting conditions and to conserve, rehabilitate, and redevelop the Project Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and Five-Year Implementation Plan. In addition to completing the redevelopment and revitalization of the Project Area, the Agency will directly confront the physical and economic blighting conditions remaining in the Project Area. The negative effect of substandard structures can be removed. In addition, underutilized lots and buildings can be replaced or rehabilitated to provide more productive development. New businesses will create new jobs and increase economic activity in the area, as well as assist in constructing needed public improvements in the Project Area. Although the Agency may be able to facilitate blight removal and prevention without the use of eminent domain, in some instances the use of these extraordinary powers may be necessary~:' Agency powers are required to assemble multiple contiguous parcels under separate ownership for consolidation into larger parcels. This type of consolidation is frequently needed to entice new development which meets the criteria for modem development. This type of land assemblage project is often undermined by a single property owner who refuses to participate in the process, which typically leads to the abandonment of a new development project and the continuation of blighting conditions. It is in the community's best interest that the Agency retain the ability to resolve these situations through the judicious use of eminent domain powers. Without these powers, implementation of · the Plan may never be achieved. '. Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. October 1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin Report to the City Council Although the Agency has assisted in a number of projects and implemented programs in .the Project Area, blighting conditions cOntinue to exist. The 1983 Report identified the reasons for the selection of the Project Area, which included deteriorating housing conditions, a lack of public improvements, under-utilization of the land, traffic and circulation deficiencies, and the need to stem blight. The amended Redevelopment Plan, adopted on July 15, 1985, cites the need for public improvements and a circulation system as the reason additional territory was added to the original area. On May 21, 1999, Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. ("RSG"), the consultants preparing the 1999 Amendment for the Agency, conducted a windshield survey to identify the existing conditions within the Project Area. The conditions observed during this survey included: deteriorated and dilapidated buildings, and exposed and damaged wiring; factors which prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings, including substandard design and outdoor storage; incompatible or impacted uses; a lack of parking; and business vacancies. Photographs depicting these conditions are contained in Appendix 2 of this Report. These photographs are representative samples of blighting conditions present in the Project Area. This Report does not contain the information required by subdivision (a) of Section 33352 because the reasons for selection of the Project Area remain the same and are not affected by the proposed 1999 Amendment. In addition, no specific projects outside the scope of the Redevelopment Plan are proposed by the Agency in connection with the 1999 Amendment. SECTION B A Description of the Physical and Economic Conditions Existing in the Project Area Affected by the Proposed 1999 Amendment Including a List of Blighting Conditions and Maps Showing Where the Conditions Exist Section 33352Co) of the Redevelopment Law requires a description of the physical and economic conditions that cause the Project Area to, be blighted. This information was provided in the documentation which was prepared and provided as, evidence that the Project Area was deemed blighted at the time of adoption. Pursuant to Section 33368 of the Redevelopment Law, the adoption of the ordinances adopting the Redevelopment Plan and subsequent amendments are final and conclusive, and it is thereafter conclusively presumed that the Project Area is a blighted area as defined by Sections 33031 and 33032 of the Redevelopment Law and that all prior proceedings have been duly and r&gularly taken. Given the language in both Sections 33368 and 33457.1 of the Redevelopment Law, additional description is not appropriate or required due to the fact that the proposed 1999 Amendment will not change the. boundaries of the South/Central Area Redevelopinent Project. Rosenow Spevacek Group, Ina October ]999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin Report to the City Council ASECTION C Five-Year Implementation' Plan That Describes Specific Goals, Objectives, Projects, and Expenditures and .a Description of How These Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blighting Conditions .. The Agency adopted the Five-Year Implementation Plan for the Project Area in 1994, pursuant to Section 33490 of the Redevelopment Law. The Implementation Plan contains specific goals and objectives of the Agency for the Project Area, the specific projects and expenditures proposed to be made during the five-year period, and an explanation of how these goals, objectives, and expenditures will eliminate blight within the Project Area. The Agency has initiated the process to update the Implementation Plan prior to the end of the current five-year cycle. SECTION D Why the Elimination of Blight and Redevelopment Cannot Be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone or by the Legislative Body's Use of Financing Alternatives Other Than Tax Increment Section 33352(d) of the Redevelopment Law requires an explanation of why the .elimination of blight in the Project Area cannot be accomplished by private enterprise alone, or by the City Council's use of financing alternatives other than tax increment financing. This information was preViously provided in. the supporting documentation preg. ared and provided at the time the Project was adopted. The proposed 1999 Amendment will 'not'make any changes' which would effect the validity of the previously prepared documentation. · Rosenow Spevacek Group, Ina October 1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin Report to the City Council SECTION E The Method of Financing Section 33352(e) of the Redevelopment 'Law requires inclusion of a proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the Project Area. This documentation was. provided at the time the Project Area was adopted. Additionally, Ordinance No. 1142, adopted by the City Council on November 21, 1994, established certain financial and time limitations for the South/Central Area Redevelopment.Project. Because, the 1999 Amendment will not enlarge the Project Area or change the proposed method of financing, this 1999 Amendment will not change any aspect of the financing of the Project Area, or change the analysis prepared at the time the Project was adopted. SECTION F The Relocation Plan Section 33352(0 of the Redevelopment Law requires the inclusion of a plan and method of relocation in the Project Area. This information was provided in the supporting documentation prepared and provided at the time the Project was adopted. This proposed 1999 Amendment will not enlarge the Project Area, or change the previously prepared and adopted Relocation Plan. SECTION G Analysis of the Preliminary Plan Section 33352(g) of the Redevelopment Law requires the inclusion of an analysis of the Preliminary Plan.. This information was provided in the sub)porting documentation prepared at the time the Project Area was adopted. Pursuant to Section 33457.1 of the Redevelopment Law, and because the analysis of the Preliminary Plan remains the same and is not affected by the. proposed 1999 Amendment, additional analysis is ndt required. Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. October 1999 . Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin Report to the City Council SECTION H Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission Section 33352(h) of the Redevelopment Law requires inclusion of a report and recommendation of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin ("Planning Commission"). This .information was provided in the supporting documentation which was prepared at the time the Project Area was adopted. Because the proposed 1999 Amendment will not affect the land use provisions of the Plan and it was previously determined that the Plan was in conformance with the adopted General Plan of the City of Tustin, it was not necessary to require the Planning Commission to make additional findings. SECTION I Project Area Committee Requirement Pursuant to Section 33385.3 of the Redevelopment Law, if a redevelopment agency wishes to pursue an amendment to a redevelopment plan and a Project Area Committee ("PAC") does not exist, a redevelopment agency shall establish a PAC pursuant to Section 33385 of the Redevelopment Law, if the proposed amendment would do either of the following: grant the authority to the agency to acquire, by eminent domain, property on which persons reside in a project area in which a substantial number of low- and/or moderate-income · persons reside; or add territory in which a substantial number of low- and moderate-income persons reside and grant the authority to the Agency to acquire by eminent domain property on which persons reside in the added territory. ~" A PAC was originally formed in conjunction with the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan in 1983 and their report was contained in tl~e 1983 Report to Council. However, the City was unable to locate any of these original PAC members. Therefore, it was determined that a new PAC should be formed in connectiOn with the 1999 Amendment. A PAC serves as an advisory body during the redevelopment plan adoption process to provide input to the Agency on policy matters that affect the residents, property owners, businesses and community organizations of a proposed Project Area. Pursuant to Section 33385(c) of the CRL, a PAC is an elected body comprised of residential owner occupants, residential tenants, business owners (including non-resident property owners), and existing community organizations within a project area. Each group must be adequately represented. The specific role of a PAC is to review the proposed 1999 Amendment and prepare a report and/or make a recommendation regarding the 1999 Amendment to the City Council. If a PAC opposes the adoption of the 1999 · Rosenow Spevacek Group, Ina October 1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin Report to the City Council Amendment, the City Council must adopt the Amendment by a two-thirds vote, rather than a simple majority. Pursuant to Section 33385 of the CRL, a notice regarding the formation of the PAC was mailed on April 19, 1999 to Project Area property and business owners, residential and business tenants, and community organizations. A PAC information meeting was held on May 20, 1999, at 6:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers located at City Hall with approximately 30 people attending to discuss the proposed 1999 Amendment, the PAC's role and responsibilities and PAC selection process. A PAC was elected pursuant to the "Procedure for Formation and Election of the Project Area Committee" (adopted on April 15, 1999 by City Council Resolution No. 99-27) at an election held on June 2, 1999 at the City Council Chambers at City Hall. Approximately 35 people attended the election and a total of eight PAC members were elected in the following categories: Residential Owner Occupant, Residential Tenant, Business Owner, and~Community Organization Representative. A ninth PAC member was elected to fill the vacant seat in accordance with the adopted PAC procedures by the PAC at its first meeting on July 15, 1999. The PAC conducted two meetings to review the 1999 Amendment. In addition, a third meeting and public workshop was conducted to provide an additional public forum to discuss the Amendment with all interested property owners, residents, and business owners. The agendas and minutes fi.om each PAC meeting are included in Appendix 3. At the conclusion of the PAC meeting of September 23, 1999, the PAC members voted 6 ayes and 3 noes to support adoption of the 1979 Amendment. SECTION J General Plan Conformance Section 333520) of the Redevelopment Law requires a report of General Plan conformance per Section 65402 of the Gov'emment Code. Information whicl~ determined that the Redevelopment Plan was in conformance with the General Plan was provided in the documentation which was prepared at the time the Project Area was adopted. The Agency is not required to prepare this section due to the fact that the proposed 1999 Am~endment does not contain provisions which would alter land use designations, nor does the proposed 1999 Amendment affect the land use provisions of the Plan. Rosenow Spevacek Group, In~ October 1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin Report to the City Council SECTION K Environmental Documentation. Section 33352(k) of the Redevelopment Law requires the inclusion of the report prepared pursuant to Section' 21151 of the Public Resources Code. The Initial Study prepared in connection with the proposed 1999 Amendment, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") guidelines, revealed that because the proposed 1999 Amendment will only make textual changes to the Redevelopment Plan, and will not result in the construction of any facilities or the establishment of any programs outside the scope of the Redevelopment Plan, the 1999 Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration for the proposed 1999 Amendment was prepared. The City Council and Agency will consider certification of the Negative Declarati°n for the proposed 1999' Amendment at the meeting scheduled for October 18, 1999. SECTION L Report of the County Fiscal Officer The proposed 1999 Amendment will not enlarge the Project Area; therefore, it is not necessary for the Agency to request a base year report from the County of Orange ("County") pursuant to Redevelopment Law Section 33328. This information was provided in the supporting documentation which was prepared and'provided at the time the Project was adopted. Because the 1999 Amendment will not alter the boundaries of the Project Area, this report is not needed or required. . SECTION M Neighborhood Impact Report Section 33352(m) of the Redevelopment Law requires the inclusion of a Neighborhood Impact Report. This information was provided in the supporting documentation which was prepared and provided at the time the Project was adopted. Pursuant to Section 33457.1 of the Redevelopment Law, because this proposed 199.9 Amendment will not enlarge the Project Area, no additional analysis would be appropriate or required. Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. October ]999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin Report to the City Council SECTION N Analysis of the Report Prepared by the County Fiscal Officer, a Summary of Agency Consultation with Affected Taxing Agencies, and Response to Affected. Taxing Agencies' Concerns Regarding 'the 1999 Amendment The Agency did not submit a request to the County to prepare a report pursuant to Section 33328 of the Redevelopment Law. Because the proposed 1999 Amendment will not add area to the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project, it was neither required nor appropriate to. prepare such a report; therefore, a summary of this report is not included. With regard to consultations with affected taxing agencies, the proposed 1999 Amendment will not affect the financing of the Project Area in any way, nor will it significantly change land uses or public improvement projects and, therefore, additional consultations are not needed. Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. October 1999 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin Report to the City Council APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 Map of the South/Central Area Redevelopment Project L-' SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT AREA MAP EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CITY OF TUSTIN That portion of Lots' 65 and 66 in Block 10 and Lots 33, 48, 49, 63 and 64, all in Block 11 of the Irvine Subdivision, as shown on a map recorded in Book 1, Pag~ 88 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, that portion of Stafford and Tustin Tract as shown on map recorded in Book 1, Pages 15 and 16 0fMiscellaneous Records of Los Angeles County, that portion of Tustin City as shown on a map recorded in Book 1., Pages 52, 53 and 128 of Miscellaneous Records of Los Angeles County, that portion of Newport Avenue Tract as shown on a map recorded In Book 4 , Page 76 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, that portion of Ballards 'Addition as shown on a map recorded in Book 1, Page 48 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, that portion of Section 16, 17, 20 and 21 in Township 5 South, Range 9 West, San Bernardino Meridian, all being in the City of Tustin, County of Orange, State of California as followed. BEGINNING at the West corner of Lot 16 as shown on a map of Tract No. 4527 recorded in Book 163, Page 38 and 39 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, said point also being the Northerly corner of the land described in a deed to Tustin School District of Orange County, recorded October 22, 1968 in Book 8762, Page 508, in Official Records of Orange County; Thence along the Westerly line of said land to Tustin School District of Orange CoUnty, South 39*54'46" West 95.02 feet to the beginning of a cur~ze concaved Northerly having a radius of 75.00 feet; thence Southwesterly along said curve though a central .angle of 89'59'07"a distance of 117.79 feet; thence North 50'06'07", West 48.30 feet;thence South 39-55'51" West .310.00 feet to a point in ~he Northeasterly line of the land described in the deed to the Orange County Flood Control District recorded August 6, 1963 in Book 662, Page 445 of Official Records, Orange County; Thence Southeasterly along the Northeasterly line of said land to Orange County Flood Control District and its Southeasterly prolongation South 50*06'07" East 1600.18 feet to the most Westerly Northwest corner of Lot 204, as shown on a map of Tract No. 6647, recorded in Book 25i, Pages 4 through 7, inclusive, Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, said point also being on the Southeasterly line of Redhill Avenue (110.00 feet wide) as shown on said map .on Tract No. 6447; · Thence along the Southeasterly line of said Redhill Avenue and its Southwesterly prolongation, South 39*56'54" West 545.00 feet to a point in the Southeasterly prolongation of the Southwesterly line of Edinger A~enue (formerly Moulton Parkway) as described in a deed to the County of Orange, recorded September 7, 1960 in ~ook 5406, Page 473, in Official Records of Orange County; Thence North 50*06'07" West alon9 sai~ Southwesterly line of Edinger Avenue and its prolongation,, 2730.77 feet to a point in the N~rthWest line of Newport Avenue (60.00 feet wide) as shown on a map entitled "PARCEL Dj IRVINE-MYFORD ANNEXATION NO. 81 (AMENDED)" to the City of Tustin, as adopted by Ordinance No. 716 dated April 4, 1977 by the City Council of said City; Thence along the existin9 Ci~ :of Tustin boundary per said Parcel "D",IRVINE-MYFORD ANNEXATION NO. 81 and the South Tustin Avenue Annexation No. 2 per Ordinance No. 146 · adopted February 6, 1961, through the following courses: North 39*53'38" East 187.08 feet, North 0*24'28" East 64.27 feet,South 89*56'36" West 111.63 feet, North 50*06'22" West 43.06 feet, North · 19'42'14" East 255.71 feet, North 39*53'38" East 50.00 .feet, South 50'16'22" East 36.70 feet to a point in the West line of Old Tustin Avenue as shown on a map entitled "Newport Freeway Right of Way Map, Road 7-0R3%-55" per File No. 9638 in the Office of the County Surveyor of Orange County; EXHIBIT B Page 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CITY OF TUSTIN That portion of the Irvine Subdivision in the City of Tustin, County of Orange, State of California, as ~hown on a map recorded in Book 1, page 88 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said County, described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the existing boundary of the Town Center Area Redevelopment Project in the City of Tustin as approved by the Council of said City per Ordinance No. 701, said point being the centerline intersection of Bryan Avenue (73.00 feet wide) and Main Street (80.00 feet wide) as established by Tract No. 5390, as per map recorded in Book 202, pages 8 and 9 inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said County; Thence along said existing boundary through the following bearings and distances: South 89'59'11" West.1217.52 feet; South 39*57'46" West 359.69 feet; South 50'01'32" East 130.00 feet; South 39'57'46" West 150.00 feet; North 50'01'32" West'50.00 feet; South 39-57'46" West 680.00 feet; North 50'01'32" West 50.00 feet; South 39*57'46" West 250 feet; South 50'01'32" East 640.00 feet to an angle point in said existing boundary; said point lying in the Southeasterly line of Orange Street (50.00 feet wide) and being an angle point in the City of Tustin boundary as established by the High School Annexation per Resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of said County dated June 19, 1957; Thence leaving said existing Redevelopment boundary North 39-57'46" East 870.00 feet along said Southeasterly line of Orange Street to a point in the Southwesterly line of San Juan Street (60.00 feet wide); Thence along said Southwesterly line of San Juan Street South 50'01'32" East 642.77 feet Go a point of intersection with the Southwesterly prolongation of the most Northwesterly line of Tract No. 8760, as per map recorded in Book 362,,pages 15 and 16 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of said County; Thence along said Northwest line and its prolongation North 39*55'55" East 360.51 feet to the most Northerly Northwest corner of said Tract No. 8760; Thence along the Northeasterly boundary of said Tract *No. 8760 South 50,01'16" East 10.00 feet to the Southwesterly corner of Tract No. 4334 as per map recorded in Book 153, pages 13 to 15 Inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of said County; Thence along the Northwest line of said Tract No. 4334~'North 39*55'55" East 688.52 feet to an angle point in the boundary of said tract; thence continuing along said boundary South 50'00'30" East 200.00 feet to an angle point in said boundary; thence continuing along said boundary North 39*55'55" East 303~00 feet tO the most Easterly Northeast corner of said Tract No. 4334, said corner being a poin~ in the centerline of Bryan Avenue (80.00 feet wide); Thence leaving said tract along said centerline 'North 50-00'31" West 589.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. , The above described land contains 45.490 acres more or less and is contiguous with the existing City of Tustin Redevelopment boundaries. APPENDIX 2 Project Area Photographs APPENDIX 2 Project Aroa Photographs Photograph 1: APN 500-152-09 Photograph 2: APN 500-152-09 Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Appendix 2-1 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin Report to the City Council APPENDI 2 Project Area Photographs Photograph 3' APN 500-152-11 Photograph 4: APN 402-371-39 Rosenow Spevacet; Group, Inc. May 1999 Appendix 2-2 Redeveiopment /lgency of the City of Tustin Report to the Cio, Council APPENDIX 2 ProJect Area Photographs Photograph 5: APN 500-171-17 Photograph 6: APN 402-171-03 Rosenow Spevacek Group, Ina May 1999 Appendix 2-3 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin Report to the CiO, Council APPENDIx,, 2 ProJect Area Photographs Photograph 7: APN 402-172-08 Photograph 8: APN 402-133-06 Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Redevelopment Agency of the CiO, of Tustin May 1999 Appendix 2-4 Report to the City Council APPENDIX 2 Project Area Photographs Photograph 9: APN 402-133-06 Photograph 10: APN 430-253-14 Rosenow Spevacei~ Group, Ina May 1999 Appendix 2-5 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin Report to the CiO, Council APPENDI,, 2 Project Area Photographs Photograph 11: APN 430-251-08 Photograph 12: APN 430-251-09 Rosenow Spevacei~ Group, Ina Ma), 1999 Appendix 2-6 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin Report to the Cio, Council APPENDIX 2 Project Area Photographs Photograph 13. APN 430-263-03 Photograph 14: APN 402-361-10 Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. May iP99 Appendix 2-7 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Tustin Report to the City. Council APPENDI^ 2 Project Area Photographs Photograph 15: APN 402-151-03 Rosenow Spevacek Group, Ina May 1999 . Appendix 2-8 Redevelopment Agency of the CiO, of Tustin Report to the Cio, Council APPENDIX 3 PAC Meeting Agendas and Minutes Members Present: Regina Amthauer John Beringer, Jr. Todd Nelson Steven Moore Jim Palmer Ray Desselle Carl Thielman Omar Sandoval Jim Draughon Kathleen Rosenow TUSTIN SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PAC MEETING MINUTES of Thursday, July 15,1999 Residential Tenant Residential Tenant Business Owner Business Owner Community Organization-O.C. Rescue Mission Owner Resident Owner Resident Assistant City Attorney Senior Project Manager Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 1. Jim Draughon calls to order. Introductions. 2. Jim Draughon reviewed purpose of Plan Amendment and reasons for formation of PAC. 3. Kathleen Rosenow review of CRL requirements related to PAC -- Provide input on housing displacement/relocation. Make recommendations. Documents to be reviewed - Proposed Amendment/Existing Redevelopment Plan/Ordinance . Election of Officers. Moved, seconded, and unanimously approved: Jim, Palmer, Chair; Regina Amthauer, Vice Chair. 5. City Attorney Presentation: . Brown Act - Open public meetings. Limits on "serial meetings, "No discussions of meetings with majority in private; questions and clarifications to be directed to Omar Sandoy. al. Political Reform Act - (see attached outline) Application for Vacant PAC seat. Jocelyn Smith - Unanimously approved 7. Time of next meetings to be changed to 5:00 p.m - Unanimously approved -August 12 -September 9, tentatively, if PAC deems it necessary in advance of Public Workshop. September 23 - Public Workshop. Prepare/provide a hand-out on Acquisition and Relocation Process · Want to know the Agency has used its eminent domain authority previously- where'? 8. Adjourned 4~ TUSTIN SOUTH CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PAC MEETING MINUTES of Thursday, August 12,1999 Members Present: Jim Palmer, Chr. John Beringer, Jr. Todd Nielsen Ray Desselle Carl Thielman Jocelyn Smith Omar Sandoval Jim Draughon Jim Simon Community Organization-O.C. Rescue Mission Residential Tenant Business Owner Owner Resident Owner Resident Owner Resident Assistant City Attorney Senior Project Manager Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 1. Call to order; Introductions. 2. Minutes of July 15, 1999 meeting - Unanimously approved as revised to show Carl Theilman in attendance. 3. Nomination for Vacant Residential Tenant PAC seat. Retha Roberts - Unanimously approved and seated. 4. City staff presentation (City Attorney and Jim Draughon): a. Property Acquisition authority, process and legal requirements; b. Relocation authority, process and legal requirements; c. Pass use of eminent domain by the Tustin Community Redevelopment Agency. 5. Jim Draughon reviewed proposed 1999 Plan Amendment. 6. Motion to recommend adoption of 1999 Amendment by Carl Thielman, seconded by Ray Desselle; Motion withdrawn after discussion regarding desire for all members to be present and for additional public comment. 7. PAC Discussion: Expanding public outreach to Hispanic community and means for accomplishing outreach. Decided that next PAC meeting would provide public noticefin Spanish and that local resident (Alice Accosta) along with others will assist in distribution of notices, as well as publishing in Tustin Weekly or other suitable publication. · Objective to provide for more public comment on the proposed 1999 Amendment. Decided to hold September 9 PAC meeting to allow more PAC discussion of the Amendment and to receive additional public comment prior to Public Information Meeting on September 23. · Next meeting to provide entire period for discussion, public comment and consideration of the 1999 Amendment. · 8. Public Comments - continuing reservations expressed regarding the Agency's acquisition and relocation process. 9. Next meeting to be at 6:00 p.m., September 9, - Unanimously approved 10. Adjourned 4~ TUSTIN ~..d'TH CENTRAL KEDEVELOPM,. _ .. PROJECT PAC MEETING MINUTES of Thursday, September 23,1999 Members Present: Jim Palmer, Chr. Regina Amthauer John Beringer, Jr. Retha Roberts Todd Nielsen Steven Moore Ray Desselle Carl Thielman Jocelyn Smith Omar Sandoval Jim Draughon Kathy. Rosenow Community Organization-O.C. Rescue Mission Residential Tenant Residential Tenant Residential Tenant Business Owner Business Owner Owner Resident Owner Resident Owner Resident Assistant City Attorney Senior Project Manager Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Public in attendance approximately 120 persons. 1. Call to order; Introductions. 2. Minutes of August 12, 1999 meeting - Unanimously approved. 3. Open Public Information Meeting Presentation by City staff (Jim Draughon). Overview of pr.posed 1999 Amendment and South Central Redevelopment activities. · Overview of Amendment process including PAC election and representation and statutory requirements under State Redevelopment Law. · Re-establishing Eminent domain - need and past use in Tustin redevelopment projects. 4. Public Comments and questions Substantial sentiment opposing eminent domain in principal and questioning City staff as to what project plans are in hand that would necessitate the use of eminent domain. Concerns exjfi'essed regarding adequate advance noticing being provided to property owners and tenants when the use of eminent domain is contemplated. Primary question regarding why the Agency needs the authority if the City of Tustin already has it independently and as to why the Agency seeks the have the authority in place before identifying a specific property or project need. Staff response that the only action under the proposed 1999 Amendment is the re-establishment of eminent dOmain authority as a valuable tool as the need may arise; if required to initiate the pr6cess to re-establish while in negotiations with property owner(s) the time delay and process could subject the City to potential legal liabilities. In addition, under negotiated acquisitions ~with property owners the favorable tax consideration could be eliminated, which would otherwise be available through an acquisition "under the threat of eminent domain". PAC Discussion & Consideration · · Steve Moore indicated his opposition to the Amendment citing the lack of a need for redevelopment in his view and made a motion that the PAC adopt a resolution opposing the 1999 Plan Amendment · Motion seconded by Todd Nielson indicating that in his conversations with his customers they were overwhelmingly opposed the re-establishing eminent domain. o Motion tabled to open discussion to allow all PAC members to express the views; PAC Discussion Continued. · Jocelyn smith indicated her ,~,. osition to the Amendment citing her c,.._ .crn about the potential to be displaced from her residence. · John Beringer indicated that he supported the Amendment citing his view that eminent domain is a valuable tool needed by the Agency to ensure that the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan were achievable. · Carl Thielman indicated his support for the Amendment on the basis that eminent domain is a necessary tool for the Agency and that the City's judicious past use reflects how little fear there should be regarding its use. · Regina Amthauer indicated the she also supports the Amendment as a necessary and valuable tool. · Ray Desselle indicated his support based on the need for the public good being served and the positive aspects in his experience of redevelopment in the City of Tustin. · Retha Roberts indicated her support citing numerous positive redevelopment activities and her feeling that its judicious use results in a Win-win situation for property owners and tenants alike. Steve Moore's motion placed to vote; failing 6 noes to 3 ayes. Carl Theilman made motion that the PAC recommend to CounCil the approval of the proposed 1999 Amendment; motion seconded by Ray Desselle. Motion to approve passed with 6 ayes to 3 noes; City staffto reflect the PAC recommendation in the Staff report to City Council for the joint public hearing to be held on October 4, 1999. 6. Adjourned Next meeting to be convened at the will of the PAC.