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