Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-026 CC Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 12-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE ADOPTION OF SB 986, SB 654, AB 1585 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula was a redevelopment agency in the City of Temecula, duly created pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law, Part 1, commencing with Section 33000, of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code (hereafter the "Temecula Redevelopment Agency"). 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." On December 1, 1989, the City of Temecula was incorporated. The boundaries of the Project Area described in the Plan 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. B. ABX1 26 and ABX1 27 were 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) ("Part 1.85") to Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code ("Health and Safety Code"). C. The California Redevelopment Association and League of California Cities filed a lawsuit in�the Supreme Court of California (California Redevelopment Association, et al. v. IVlatosantos, et al. (Case No. S194861)) alleging that ABX1 26 and ABX1 27 were unconstitutional. D. On December 29, 2011, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Matosantos case largely upholding ABX1 26, invalidating ABX1 27, and holding that ABX1 26 may be severed from ABX1 27 and enforced independently. E. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision, on February 1, 2012, all redevelopment agencies, including the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, were R:/Resos 2012/Resos 12-26 1 dissolved and replaced by successor agencies established pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34173. � F. The City Council of the City of Temecula (the "City") adopted Resolution No. 12-02 January 10, 2012, pursuant to Part 1.85 electing for the City to serve as the successor agency for the Temecula Redevelopment Agency upon the Agency's dissolution. G. The City Council of the City of Temecula, Acting as the Governing Body for the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency adopted Resolution No. 12-01 on February 28, 2012 declaring the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency duly constituted pursuant to law and establishing rules and regulations for the operation of the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency ("Successor Agency"). H. ABX 1 26 contains confusing and contradictory provisions and raises unanswered questions which include, but are not limited to, how and if the former Redevelopment Agency can spend previously issued bond proceeds, how and if the former Redevelopment Agency can spend unencumbered funding balances for the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, and ambiguous language as to the authority of the Successor Agency Oversight Board with approval of the sale and transfer of property and approval of financial agreements. Three bills are currently pending in the California Legislature to address these contradictory and ambiguous provisions of the legislation. Section 2. The City Council hereby supports the adoption Senate Bill 986. Section 3. The City Council hereby supports the adoption of Senate Bill 654. Section 4. The City Council hereby supports the adoption of Assembly Bill 1585. Section 5. The City Council are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things which they may deem necessary or advisable to effectuate this Resolution. Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. R:/Resos 2012/Resos 12-26 2 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 27 day of March, 2012. � k Washington, Mayor ATTEST: �/. Susan . Jones, MMC City CI k [S EAL] 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. 12-26 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 27 day of March, 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 . Jones, MMC City Clerk R:/Resos 2012/Resos 12-26 3