Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1988/07/12 Item 23a COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 23a Meeting Date 7/12/88 ITEM TITLE: Joint Public Hearing with Redevelopment Agency on the Proposed Second Amendment to the Town Centre No. I I Redevelopment Pl an and Final EIR. Requested Council action on the following: /3b 5 ~ 1. A resolution certifying the Final Redevelopment Plan Amendment 2. Introduction and first reading of the Ordinance approving and adopting said Redevelopment, Plan Amendment ! -', \ ,\ Community Developmen: Director 'f~-- Ci ty Manager ~ t ~~14/5thS Vote: Yes _No 1...1 EIR for said SUBM ITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: The Joint Public Hearing with the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency is the final step in the process to adopt the Second Amendment to the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Pl an. The Ca 1 iforni a Communi ty Redevelopment Law provi des that the Redevelopment Agency and City Council may hold a joint public hearing to receive testimony and evidence both for and against the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment. Items before you for consideration include the Agency Report to Council, the text of the Proposed Redevelopment Amendment, and the Final EIR on said Amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the Joint Public Hearing to receive testimony regarding the proposed Redevelopment plan Amendment, adopt the resolution certifying the Final EIR and introduce the first reading of the Ordinance approving the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On June 8, 1988, the Planning Commission conducted a publiC hearing on the Draft EIR. On June 22, 1988, the Planning Commission certified the Final EIR and reviewed and recommended adoption of the proposed Second Amendment to the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Plan. At their July 6, 1988 meeting, the Montgomery Planning Committee expressed concern that one of the expansion sites fell within the Montgomery Community contrary to the City's annexation position paper which precluded redevelopment for four years (two years have passed). They also expressed concern over the 1 and use and densi ty if the site is redeveloped. A representative of the Montgomery Planning Committee will be present for the public hearing. The Town Centre Project Committee revi ewed the proposed pl an amendment at their meeting of July 7, 1988. The PAC recommended the deletion of the publicly owned sites that were not scheduled for redevelopment (i.e., Civic Center and Eucalyptus Park) since they would drain redevelopment funds which should be spent in support of private redevelopment activities. /f);/~ " "'y:.:;;1~)Jl Page 2, Item 23a Meeting Date~ DISCUSSION: The Cal Hornia Community Redevelopment Law requires that a publ ic hearing be held by both the City Council and Redevelopment Agency to consider evidence and testimony both for an against the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. At the pub 1 i c heari ng, the Ci ty Counci 1/ Agency wi 11 recei ve testimony on the Agency Report to City Counci 1, the text of the proposed Redevelopment Pl an Amendment and the Final EIR on the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. As part of the agenda packet, notebooks were ci rcul ated to City Council/Agency members that include the aforementioned documents. The Agency Report to Council outl i nes the reasons for the proposed Redevelopment Pl an Amendment, revi ews the financial feasibility of the proposed Amendment, and summarizes all activities that have taken place to date. The text of the proposed Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan outlines the specific sections of the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Plan that are proposed to be amended through this process. Finally, the Final EIR outlines the potential significant environmental impacts that would result from redevelopment implementation activities related to the Plan Amendment. Pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law, the notice for this joint public hearing has been advertised in a local newspaper of general circulation for four consecutive weeks. Additionally, each property owner in both the existing Project Area as well as the properties proposed to be added were mailed notices of this joint public hearing by a certified mail return receipt requested. Finally, the taxing agencies who levy taxes within both the Project and the Amendment areas were also noti fi ed by the aforementi oned procedure. FISCAL IMPACT: Section C of the Agency Report to Council outlines the potential fiscal impacts of the proposed Plan Amendment. It is anticipated that the Agency would generate approximately $23.4 million in tax increment revenue from those properti es proposed to be added by the Redevelopment Pl an Amendment; this revenue would be generated over a 40-year period. These projections do not account for, however, the impact of the fiscal agreements with the County of San Diego and the Sweetwater Union High School District. Fiscal agreements with both of these agencies are still being negotiated. WPC 3655H m#h"4 the City Council of Chula Vista, California Dated ~4f 13~S'..l COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 23a Meeting Date 7/12/88 ITEM TITLE: Joint Public Hearing with Redevelopment Agency on the Proposed Second Amendment to the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Plan and Final EIR. Requested Council action on the following: 1. A resolution certifying the Final EIR for said Redevelopment Plan Amendment l'2..7 (J 2. Introduction and first reading of the Ordinance approving 7 and adopting said Redevelopment Plan Amendment SUBMITTED BY: Community Development Director~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~t ~/ . ~s Vote: Yes_NoLl The Joint Public Hearing with the Chu1a Vista Redevelopment Agency is the final step in the process to adopt the Second Amendment to the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment P1 an. The Cali forni a Communi ty Redevelopment Law provi des that the Redevelopment Agency and City Council may hold a joint public hearing to receive testimony and evidence both for and against the proposed .~ Redevelopment P1 an Amendment. Items before you for cons i derati on i nc 1 ude the Agency Report to Counci 1, the text of the Proposed Redevelopment Amendment, and the Final EIR on said Amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the Joint Public Hearing to receive testimony regarding the proposed Redevelopment plan Amendment, adopt the resolution certifying the Final EIR and introduce the first reading of the Ordinance approving the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On June 8, 1988, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Draft EIR. On June 22, 1988, the Planning. Commission certified the Final EIR and reviewed and recommended adoption of the proposed Second Amendment to the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Plan. At their July 6, 19BB meeting, the Montgomery Planning Committee expressed concern that one of the expansion sites fell within the Montgomery Community contrary to the City's annexation position paper which precluded redevelopment for four years (two years have passed). They also expressed concern over the land use and density if the site is redeveloped. A representative of the Montgomery Planning Committee will be present for the public hearing. The Town Centre Project Commi ttee revi ewed the proposed pl an amendment at their meeting of July 7, 1988. The PAC recommended the deletion of the publicly owned sites that ~/ere not scheduled for redevelopment (i.e., Civic Center and Eucalyptus Park) since they would drain redevelopment funds which should be spent in support of private redevelopment activities. Page 2, Item 23a Meeting Date~ DISCUSSION: The California Community Redevelopment Law requires that a public hearing be held by both the City Council and Redevelopment Agency to consider evidence and testimony both for an against the Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. At the public hearing, the City Council/Agency will receive testimony on the Agency Report to Ci ty Counci 1, the text of the proposed Redevelopment Pl an Amendment and the Final EIR on the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. As part of the agenda packet, notebooks were circulated to City Council/Agency members that include the aforementioned documents. The Agency Report to Council outl i nes the reasons for the proposed Redevelopment Pl an Amendment, revi ews the financial feasibility of the proposed Amendment, and summarizes all acti viti es that have taken place to date. The text of the proposed Second Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan outlines the specific sections of the Town Centre No. II Redevelopment Plan that are proposed to be amended through this process. Finally, the Final EIR outlines the potential significant environmental impacts that would result from redevelopment implementation activities related to the Plan Amendment. Pursuant to the Cal ifornia Community Redevelopment Law, the notice for this joint public hearing has been advertised in a local newspaper of general circulation for four consecutive weeks. Additionally, each property owner in both the existing Project Area as well as the properties proposed to be added _._ were mailed notices of this joint public hearing by a certified mail return receipt requested. Finally, the taxing agencies who levy taxes within both the Project and the Amendment areas \~ere also noti fi ed by the aforementi oned procedure. FISCAL IMPACT: Section C of the Agency Report to Council outlines the potential fiscal impacts of the proposed Plan Amendment. It is anticipated that the Agency would generate approximately $23.4 million in tax increment revenue from those properti es proposed to be added by the Redevelopment Pl an Amendment; thi s revenue woul d be generated over a 40-year period. These projections do not account for, however, the impact of the fiscal agreements with the County of San Diego and the S\~eetwater Union High School District. Fiscal agreements with both of these agencies are still being negotiated. HPC 3655H by the City Council 0 Chula Vi a, California Dated Dated 1/19 Iff !.I' ' ;~~/ tl .