HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1984/09/06 Item 1c JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 9/6/8-4
ITEM TITLE: a) Resolution ///27j Approving agreement with the
County of San Diego for the leasing of Provence
Park and associated County-owned parcels
b) Resolution -Sa 7 Approving Owner/Participation
Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and the
County of San Diego relating to the Otay Landfill
c) Resolution //77 z- Approving agreement between
the City of Chula Vista and the County of San
Diego for settlement of County lawsuit regarding
the Otay Valley Redevelopment Area
SUBMITTED BY: City Attorne(19-1- (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
City and County staff have negotiated a proposed agreement whereby
in return for the City taking over Provence Park and entering into
an Owner Participation Agreement with regard to the County dump,
the County will dismiss its lawsuit challenging the establishment
of a redevelopment area in the Otay Valley.
DISCUSSION:
On February 24, 1984, the County of San Diego filed a lawsuit
challenging Chula Vista's establishment of a redevelopment
district in the Otay Valley. This challenge was pursuant to a
policy adopted by counties throughout the state to prevent the
leakage of tax revenues from counties to cities through the
establishment of redevelopment districts.
City staff has negotiated a settlement of this lawsuit after
numerous meetings with County staff. Throughout the negotiations,
the County asserted that it had two distinct concerns with Chula
Vista's establishment of a redevelopment district. The first
concern was the potential loss of tax revenues and the second
concern involved operation of the County dump. The City has
addressed the first concern by proposing to take over Provence
Park. The takeover would be accomplished by means of a forty (40)
year lease with an option to buy at the expiration of the forty
years. The purchase price would be $1.00. This takeover would
relieve the County of park maintenance costs and make up for any
lost tax revenues. The City would be able to bring a park which
serves City residents up to City standards.
Page 2, Item �G'
Meeting Date 9/6/84
The second concern was that the City would attempt to use its
powers as a Redevelopment Agency in such a way as to interfere
with the operation of the County dump. It has always been the
opinion of this office that this concern was unwarranted. There
is a tortuously worded article in the Government Code (Article 5,
§53090, et seq. ) which makes the County exempt from City
regulations (see also Akins v. Sonoma County (1967) 60 Cal .Rptr.
499) . The Attorney General has stated that this exemption applies
regardless of whether the County is acting in a governmental or
proprietary capacity. 40 Ops. Atty. Gen. 243.•
Redevelopment law does grant greater powers to cities to assemble
properties and to retain property taxes. Redevelopment law does
not grant cities authority to interfere with the sovereignty of
counties or other cities. When we agree that the City will not
assert any greater authority over the dump by establishment of a
Redevelopment District, we are merely agreeing on what we believe
the law to be. This matter is dealt with in the Owner
Participation Agreement.
The final document is the Settlement Agreement. This provides
that, upon execution of the Lease and Owner Participation
Agreement, the County will dismiss its lawsuit challenging the
establishment of the Redevelopment District.
by COIVH! of
1�
p.
4f1.a
Dated / '
1