The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRDA MINUTES 03-06-89HINUTI, ~F AN ~DJOURNED REGULAR ETIN(~ ~ ~ Tv~ REDEVELOPMENT I~Y OF TUST'rN, C/%L'rFOI~IA FEBRU~I:~Y 2:1., :1.989 C&LL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Kennedy at 7:17 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. ROLL CALL Members Present: Ursula E. Kennedy, Chairperson Richard B. Edgar, Chairperson Pro Tem Ronald B. Hoesterey John Kelly Earl J. Prescott Members Absent: None .Others Present: William A. Huston, Executive Director/City Manager James G. Rourke, City Attorney Mary E. Wynn, Recording Secretary/City Clerk Christine Shingleton, Director/Comm. Development Fred Wakefield, Acting Chief of Police Robert Ledendecker, Director of Public Works Susan Jones, Recreation Superintendent Lloyd Dick, Building Official Laura Kuhn, Senior Planner Steve Rubin, Senior Planner Mary Ann Chamberlain, Associate Planner Court Reporter for Item No. 3 Approximately 140 in the audience JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT ]~GENCY PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED SECOND /~MENDMENT TO THE AMENDED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TOWN CENTER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA ~ayor Kennedy stated this Public Hearing, in order to meet legal requirements, would be formally conducted and read from a script. She reminded the audience that everyone, at the' appropriate time, would have an opportunity to speak. She encouraged them to do so and to complete the necessary forms prior to addressing the Council/Agency.. At 7:17 p.m., Mayor Kennedy called to order the joint session of the Tustin Redevelopment Agency and the City Council of the City of Tustin. The City Clerk recalled the roll of the City Council and called the roll of the Tustin Redevelopment Agency. All members of the City Council/Agency were present. Councilman Prescott stated he would abstain regarding this subject matter. Mayor Kennedy opened the Public Hearing at 7:19 p.m. and read the Statement of Procedures. Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development, summarized for the audience that the Proposed Amendment was not eXpected to directly effect private property and there were no proposed changes in boundaries or additional uses in the Town Center Redevelopment Plan. The Proposed Amendment would not increase taxes on property within the project area. She then highlighted the critical aspects of the Proposed Second Amendment: (1) addition of certain public improvements, (2) increased limit on the principal amount of bonded indebtedness that can be outstanding, (3) restate the tax increment limit, (4) extend Agency's powers of eminent domain and (5) revise and update portions of the Town Center Redevelopment Plan's'language and clarify the roles of the Agency, property owners and businesses. Martha Nessel, representing Katz Hollis Coren & Associates, Redevelopment Agency consultant, reviewed the twelve parts of the Plan Amendment' s record. James Rourke, City Attorney, read the major evidentiary findings of the proposed ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan. REDEVELOPMENT AGE~ Page 2, 2-21-89 MINUTES Mayor Kennedy requested written comments on the Second Amendment t¢ the Amended Redevelopment Plan be submitted for the record. The City Clerk read opposing written comments from the following.: Dennis D. Hayden, 2014 N. Broadway, Santa Ana Elizabeth M. Dreher, 332 Prospect Pk. North, Tustin The City Clerk read neutral written comments from the following: Robert P. Gotelli, 1901 Harrison St., Oakland Gary Streed, County Sanitation Districts .. The following 'members of the community spoke or asked questions reflecting a nedtral position on the Amendment: Joe Martin, #1 Rimrock, Irvine Len Miller, 501 W. Edgewater, Newport Beach Gordon Lawrence, 17421 Laurie Lane, Tustin William Coles, 401 E. First Street, Tustin Charlotte Pratt, 423 E. First Street, Tustin Richard M. Vining, 400 W. Main Street, Tustin Louise Doyle, 1101 Packers Cir. #14, Tustin Alan Zeitlin, 2038 Gillilan Street, Placentia Joseph Casasanta, 2213 Arden Street, Santa Ana Robert LaBarge, 2218 E. Parkside, Orange Michael G. Cibellis, 392 Prospect Pk. North, Tustin Mayor Kennedy requested input from those in favor of the Amendment and there were no speakers. The following members of the community spoke or asked questions reflecting an opposing position on the Amendment: A1 Potenza, 1742 Greenmeadow, Tustin 'Shirley Griset, 27245 Aurora Drive, Hemet Pat Lester, 219 Albert Place, Tustin Sharon Roadman, 6 Cool Brook, Irvine James A. Olson, 1101 Packers Cir. #2, Tustin Mike Gallas, 17952' Irvine Blvd., Tustin Ken Tichy, 1914 N. Mabury Street, Santa Ana Andrea Haynes, 1101 Packers Cir. #7, Tustin Anne McCaffrey, 17978 Irvine Blvd., Tustin At 8:09 p.m., the meeting was recessed for twenty minutes. Diane Hadland, Katz Hollis Coren & Associates, Redevelopment Agency consultant, responded to questions asked previously regarding tax increment revenues. James Rourke clarified that the Redevelopment Agency does not i' itself increase taxes, but the Agency would receive a portion o. regular property taxes. Christine Shingleton responded to questions asked previously regarding the Certificate of Compliance process; the potential' impact of resale of property and property values; potential projects in the area and condemnations; property appraisal 'procedures; business owner participation; environmental impact reports; and blighted areas. She specifically stated that the Agency had no plans for condemnation of any proper.ties within the community. A question-and-answer period followed between staff and members of the audience who had Pregiously spoken. The following members of the audience spoke in opposition to the subject matter: Carole Bryant, 15500 Tustin Village Way, Tus'tin Charles C. Jones, 1101 Packers Cir.., Tustin Mayor Kennedy closed the Public Hearing. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ' .... JTES Page 3, 2-21-89 · Councilman Hoesterey reviewed what was previously stated and clarified the following: a Redevelopment Agency did not change the amount.of property taxes paid by property owners, the Agency's primary purpose was to divert a portion of the property tax monies from the County to the City for projects and rehabilitation; friendly condemnation was for property owner tax advantage purposes and was used more to the advantage of the property owner than the Agency's; one purpose of the Amendment was to amend the uses for funding and the amount of money available; and the majority of the property within the area had been built-in conformance with the plan and it was unlikely that eminent domain Would be adopted in order to reuse the property, but there was no property within the City, including his own, that was not subject to some form of eminent domain. Mayor Pro Tem Edgar commented that the Agency, since his membership in 1976, had not used eminent domain to condemn land and noted the years expended and the Council's sensitivity shown during the acquisition of property at Red Hill and Walnut Avenues. He noted that projects such as the City Hall expansion, park improvements, Senior Center, and enhancement of the water system are possible due to financing through the Redevelopment Agency. He pledged his continuing sensitivity to eminent domain concerns and he did not anticipate condemnation of any property within the Redevelopment area. Discussion followed between Mayor Kennedy and an unidentified member of the audience regarding eminent domain. At Mayor Kennedy's request, Mayor Pro Tem Edgar reviewed projects and improvements that had enhanced the City through Redevelopment Agency financing and procedures. Councilman Kelly said overall he was supportive of Redevelopment Agency activity. He expressed dissatisfaction with two areas: (1) financial gains resulting from tax increments were not shared with the school district and (2) eminent domain. He recalled the Plaza LaFayette Center as an example. He did not believe government should participate in speculative real estate transactions with developers and wanted the Council to promise residents that the force of eminent domain would not be used. Mayor Kennedy pointed out that any government body had the power of eminent domain, but the people had the power to elect or defeat members of the Council every two years. Historically, the Council had never condemned property and she encouraged the electorate to use their power when electing future Councils to insure the same action. She stated the Council did not move in haste and cited several dates in the chronology of events leading to this public hearing. She reminded everyone that all agenda information and reports were available to the public at the Police Department and the Tustin Library prior to every Council/Agency meeting; and charged the public with the responsibility of using that information to gain appropriate Council action. Mayor Kennedy stated that written responses to written objections received from property owners and taxing agencies would be provided at a joint meeting of the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council to be held on March 6, 1989, in the Council Chambers. At the same session, the Agency and the COuncil would proceed to consider adoption of the SecondAmendment to the Amended Redevelopment Plan. At 9:45 p.m,, the joint public hearing of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency was closed and the 'Redevelopment Agency meeting was reconvened at 11:17 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 6, 1989, REGULAR MEETING It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by Edg.ar, to approve the Minutes of February 6, 1989. The motion carried 5-0. REDEVELOPMENT AGEN~ Page 4, 2-21-89 ~INUTES · · · APPROVAL OF DEMANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $386,616.87 It was moved by Hoestere¥. seconded' by Ed_~ar, to approve subject demands in the amount of $386,616.87. The motion carried 5-0. DESIGN REVIEW 88-75 FOR AN EXTERIOR REMODELING OF THE EXISTING DON JOSE RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 14882 HOLT AVENUE It was moved by Hoesterey, seconded by.'~dqar, to approve the site plan and architectural design of the proposed restaurant remodeling by the adoption of the following Resolution No. RDA 89-4: .. RESOLUTION NO. RDA 89-4 - A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 'OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXTERIOR REMODELING OF ANEXISTING 7,126 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT (DON JOSE) AT 14882 HOLT AVENUE (DESIGN REVIEW 88-75) The motion carried 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS - None 8 · ADJOURNMENT At 11:23 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to the next Regular MeetiD~ on Monday, March 6, 1989, at 7:00 p.m. CHAIRPERSON RECORDING SECRETARY