The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-002 CC Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 12-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MAKING AN ELECTION IN CONNECTION WITH SERVING AS A SUCCESSOR AGENCY UNDER PART 1.85 OF DIVISION 24 OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE AND TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine, and declare that: A. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula (the "Agency") is a redevelopment agency in the City of Temecula (the "City"), created pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Part 1(commencing with Section 33000) of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code) (the "Redevelopment Law"). B. On June 12, 1988, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside adopted Ordinance No. 658 adopting and approving the "Redevelopment Plan for Riverside County Redevelopment Project No. 1988-1" (hereafter the "Plan") in accordance with the provisions of the CRL. On December 1, 1989, the City of Temecula was incorporated. The boundaries of the Project Area described in the Plan (the "Project Area") are entirely within the boundaries of the City of Temecula. On April 9, 1991, the City Council of the City of Temecula adopted Ordinances Nos. 91-08, 91-11., 91-14, and 91-15 establishing the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula and transferring jurisdiction over the Plan from the County to the City. Pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 91-11 and 91-15, the City of Temecula and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula assumed jurisdiction over the Plan as of July 1, 1991. The Plan has been amended by Ordinance Nos. 94-33, 06-11 and 07-20 adopted by the City Council. The Agency duly adopted its Implementation Plan for 2010-2014 on December 8, 2009 in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33490. The Agency is undertaking a program to redevelop the Project Area. C. ABX1 26 was signed by the Governor of California on June 29, 2011, making certain changes to the Redevelopment Law, including adding Part 1.8 (commencing with Section 34161) and Part 1.85 (commencing with Section 34170) to Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code. Commencing upon the effectiveness of ABX1 26, ABX1 26 suspends most redevelopment agency activities and, among other things, prohibits redevelopment agencies from incurring indebtedness or entering into or modifying contracts. Effective October 1, 2011(now February 1, 2012 as a result of the California Supreme Court decision), ABX1 26 dissolves all existing redevelopment agencies and redevelopment agency components of community development agencies, provides for the designation of successor agencies as successor entities to former redevelopment agencies, and provides that R:/Resos 2012/Resos 12-02 1 except for those provisions of the Redevelopment Law that are repealed, restricted, or revised pursuant to ABX1 26, all authority, rights, powers, duties and obligations previously vested with the former redevelopment agencies under the Redevelopment Law, are vested in the successor agencies. ABX1 26 imposes numerous requirements on the successor agencies and subjects successor agency actions to the review of oversight boards established pursuant to the provisions of Part 1.85. D. Health and Safety Code Section 34173, which is set forth in Part 1.85, provides that a city that authorized the creation of a redevelopment agency may elect to serve, or not to serve, as the successor agency under Part 1.85. E. ABX1 27 was signed by the Governor of California on June 29, 2011, adding Part 1.9 (commencing with Section 34192) to Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code. Part 1.9 establishes an Alternative Voluntary Redevelopment Program whereby, notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1.8 and Part 1.85, a redevelopment agency will be authorized to continue to exist and carry out the provisions of the Redevelopment Law. F. The California Redevelopment Association and League of California Cities have filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of California alleging that ABX1 26 and ABX1 27 are unconstitutional. G. On December 30, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued its Opinion in this case ruling that ABX1 26, terminating redevelopment agencies, is valid and legal exercise of the State's legislative power and that ABX1 27, allowing an Alternative Voluntary Payment to enable a redevelopment agency to continue, is unconstitutional as violating the section of the California Constitution that prohibits the State from taking redevelopment funds for state purposes. H. The Court also extended for four months the deadlines for City and Agency actions described in ABX1 26. I. The City Council desires to now adopt this Resolution making an election in connection with serving as a successor agency under Part 1.85. Section 2. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34173. Section 3. The City Council hereby elects for the City to serve as a successor agency under Part 1.85 in the event the Agency is dissolved pursuant to Part 1.85. Section 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the County Auditor-Controller. Section 5. The officers and staff of the City are herby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things which they may deem necessary or advisable to effectuate this Resolution, and any such actions previously taken by such officers are hereby ratified and confirmed. R:/Resos 2012/Resos 12-02 2 Section 6. The adoption of this Resolution is not intended and shall not constitute a waiver by the City of any right the City may have to challenge the legality of all or any portion of the implementation of ABX1 26 through administrative or judicial proceedings. Section 7. This Resolution has been reviewed with respect to applicability of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq., hereafter the "Guidelines"), and the City's environmental guidelines. The City Council has determined that this Resolution is not a"project" for purposes of CEQA, as that term is defined by Guidelines Section 15378, because this Resolution is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. (Guidelines Section 15378(b) (5)). Section 8. Nothing contained in this resolution is intended to nor shall be construed to repeal City Council Resolution No. 11-67 as this resolution is intended to reaffirm the City Council's election to serve as the successor agency in light of the California Supreme Court's decision in California Redevelopment Association et al. v Matosantos, et al., California Supreme Court Case No. S194861. Section 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 10 day of January, 2012. J r l �,� l ) � �,,,�" � / �� //- :�..... i" � ` Chuck Washington, Mayor ATTEST: � � Susan . Jo `es, MMC it CI k [S EAL] R:/Resos 2012/Resos 12-02 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 12-02 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 10 day of January, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None . � Susan W Jones, MMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2012/Resos 12-02 4