Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-RDA Item .. .... AGENDA ITEM INFORMATION SUMMARY GENERAL INFORMAnON: eel- Subjec\ Author Ext. Ward Proj8CI Area AJ(A Budget Authority Committee CommissionlCouncil Filing Dates Meeting Dates Funding Requirements 4/(flAJ-- . Dale RDA MANAGEMENT REVIEW: CLEARANCES: ~~r~u>-+ 3-7-Cf() Adminislralive Deputy ~ '3/7 ManagerlSupervisor Yes CITY DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: Dale Dept By Dept By ~ fig EZ:I o Dale NlA jJ /' I .... i;0 ~ o ~ti~g'~C" 'e' < ,1) /- ') - ,r) DO itiil/L' 3-7-'" / AlIDm8y ~ City Administrator RDA Committee recommendation INFORMATIONAL DATA FORWARDED TO CITY DEPARTMENTS/COUNCIL OFFICES: Sent to Mayor's Office Council Ward Council Ward Council Ward Council Ward Department Department By Date COMMENTS/CONCERNS: Include pertinent comments and concerns of offices and persons clearing the summary, such as controversial Issues, time constraints and funding complications. Indicate dates when action must be taken. ~ RDA .174 REV. 6-29-89 Redevelopment Agency · City of San Bernardino 300 North "D" Slreel, Founh Floor . San Bernardino, California 92418 (714) 384-5081 FAX (714) 888-9413 Pride ~ ~:fte. MARCH 13, 1990 AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW RDA TO SET-ASIDE 20~ OF THE TAX INCREMENT GENERATED IN THE CENTRAL CITY EAST PROJECT AREA FOR LOW AND MODERATE HOUSING IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LEGISLATION 33334.6. Synopsis of Previous Commission/Council/Committee Action: 03-03-76 Central City East Project Area was established as part of the City's Redevelopment Plan by adoption of the Common Council. 1983 Meadowbrook, Central City, Central City Soutb and Central City East Project Areas were merged by an amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. 03-12-90 The Committee recommended that the item be forwarded to the CDC for adoption. Recommended motion: (Mayor and Common Council) Move to adopt RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL CITY EAST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Mayor and Common Council) Move to waive further reading and layover for adoption the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. MC-563 AND THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL CITY EAST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. (Community Development Commission) Move to adopt RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A HOUSING FUND DEFICIT PLAN AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATING THERETO Respectfully Submitted, ROb~~~~~Executive Supporting data attached: Yes FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: None Director Ward: 1 Project: CCE Councl1 Notes: RBT:mv:1981R Agenda of: Item No. Redevelopment Agency S TAt t R t P 0 R T RDA staff is requesting that the Mayor and Common Council approve and adopt the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan as pertains to the Central City East Project Area and the Negative Declaration. BACKGROUND The Central City East Project Area was established by the City's Redevelopment Plan in 1976. In 1983 said project area was merged with the Central City South and the Meadowbrook Central City No.1 Project Areas for purposes of pooling tax increment revenues. The project area merger occurred as a result of legislation passed in 1980 which requires that 20~ of the tax increment from a merged project area be deposited in the Housing Fund. (Health and Safety Code Section 33487). Ongoing projects, programs, and activities of the Agency as set forth in Resolution Number 4917 adopted by the Community Development Commission on August 18, 1986, will absorb all funds. In addition, new projects, programs and activities of the Agency such as updating infrastructure will consume anticipated future tax increment. In 1985, the State legislature imposed the housing set-aside requirements on Pre-1977 redevelopment projects. Previously, projects established under Pre-1977 Redevelopment Plans had been exempt. As such, the Central City East Project Area is subject to the 1985 legislation contained in Health and Safety Code Section 33334.6 and to the 1980 legislation contained in Section 33487. The proposed amendment to the City's Redevelopment Plan will allow the RDA to set-aside 20% of the tax increment generated in this project for low and moderate housing in compliance with State Law. Research indicates the proposal is consistant with the policies and objectives outlined in the Housing Element of the City's General Plan. On December 21, 1989, the City's Environmental Review Committee reviewed the Initial Study and recommended the adoption of a Negative Declaration. OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL The Mayor and Common Council may adopt or deny the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan or continue the item to the next regular agenda meeting. RECOMMENDA TION Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council approve the proposed amendment to the Redevelopment Plan. Council's motions are provided. Prepared by: Deborah Woldruff, Associate Planner On March 12, 1990, the Redevelopment Committee recommended that this agenda item be forwarded to the Community Development Commission for adoption. 1981R RESOLUTION NO. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL CITY EAST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, staff has duly noticed the initial determination and presented the initial study and environmental analysis concerning the potential for negative impacts due to the proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Central City East Redevelopment Project (Ordinance No. ) (the "Plan Amendment") to the Common Council for its determination. NOW, THEREFORE, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino Do Hereby Find and Resolve As Follows: Section 1. This Negative Declaration is certified to be noticed and 14 prepared according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality 15 Act (Public Resource Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA"). 16 Section 2. An Initial Study was prepared by the Planning Department 17 and was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee who determined that the 18 Plan Amendment would not have a significant effect on the environment and, 19 therefore, recommended that a Negative Declaration be adopted. 20 21 Section 3. The proposed Negative Declaration received a public review period and all comments relative thereto have been reviewed in compliance with 22 CEQA and local regulations. 23 Section 4. The Negative Declaration is approved as an adequate 24 environmental review for the proposed Plan Amendment. 25 Section 5. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Mayor and Common Council of 26 the City of San Bernardino that it does hereby find that the Plan Amendment 27 will not have a significant effect on the environment and that this Negative 28 Declaration be adopted. 2 Section 6. The City Clerk is directed to file a Notice of Determination of the Negative Declaration with the Clerk of the County of San Bernardino certifying the City's compliance with CEQA in preparing the Negative Declaration. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the day of , 1990, by the following 3 4 5 6 7 8 vote, to wit: 9 Council Members: ESTRADA AYES NAYS ABSTAIN 10 11 12 REILLY FLORES 13 MAUDSLEY 14 MINOR 15 POPE-LUDLAM 16 MILLER 17 18 City Clerk /1// 19 /1// 20 /11/ 21 1111 22 / II / 23 1111 24 II / / 25 1111 26 /11/ 27 28 2772H 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 RESOLUTION...ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL CITY EAST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. 2 The foregoing resolution is hereby approved this , 1990. day 3 4 5 6 of W.R. Holcomb, Mayor City of San Bernardino 7 Approved as to form and legal content: 8 JAMES F. PENMAN, 9 City At~~r_n~e_y.. V~ 10 ,." ) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2772H ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. MC-563 AND THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL CITY EAST REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 3571 adopted on May 3, 1976, the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino, California, duly adopted the Redevelopment Plan for the Meadowbrook Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Plan"); and WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. MC-563, adopted' on December 8, 1986, the Redevelopment Plan was subsequently amended by the Mayor and Common Council in accordance with Legislative mandate set forth in Health & Safety Code Section 33333.4(a) to include certain provisions including without limitation provisions relating to the number of dollars of taxes which may be divided and allocated to the Commission pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan; WHEREAS, Section E-3b entitled "Limitation on Number of Dollars of Taxes Which May be Divided and Allocated to Agency" was added to the Redevelopment Plan pursuant to Ordinance No. MC-563; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission has prepared under the requirements of Section 33334.6(g) and adopted by Resolution No. , a plan (the "Housing Fund Deficit Plan") to eliminate the deficit in the low and moderate income housing fund for the Redevelopment Plan (the "Housing Fund"); and WHEREAS, Section 33333.4(c) provides that any city which adopted an ordinance pursuant to Section 33333.4(a) shall amend such ordinance to modify the tax increment limit in the Redevelopment Plan when it determines that the tax increment limit previously established is inadequate to fund the Housing Fund deficit resulting from the imposition of the twenty percent (20%) set aside requirement imposed by Section 33334.6; and WHEREAS, in order to elminate the deficit in the Housing Fund, it is necessary to amend and modify the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan relating to the tax increment limit; and WHEREAS, the City has given notice pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et ~.) of its intention to adopt a negative declaration of environmental impacts relating to the amendment and modification of the Redevelopment Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The following sentence shall be added to to the end of Section "E-3b" of the Redevelopment Plan: "An amount equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of that amount derived from the above formula shall be added to that amount resulting from the application of the above formula to arrive at the total tax increment." Section 2. Within fifteen (15) days after its passage, the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of San Bernardino. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days following the date of adoption hereof. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at an adjourned regular meeting hereof, held on the ___ day of , 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: City Clerk The foregoing Ordinance is hereby approved this ___ day of , 1990. Mayor of the City of San Bernardino Approved as to form and legal content: JAMES F. PENMAN, City Attorney B~ 02123/90 8465n/2601/020 - 2 - RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A HOUSING FUND DEFICIT PLAN AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATING THERETO WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for the Central City East Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Plan") was adopted prior to January 1, 1977; and WHEREAS, under Health & Safety Code Section 33334.6, the Commission must annually deposit twenty percent (20%) of the taxes generated from the Redevelopment Plan project area and allocated to the Commission pursuant to Section 33670 into a low and moderate income housing fund (the "Housing Fund") established pursuant to Section 33334.3; and WHEREAS, the accompanying staff report evidences that there is a deficit in the Housing Fund resulting from the imposition of the twenty percent (20%) set aside requirement imposed by Section 33334.6; and WHEREAS, Section 33334.6(g) permits the Commission to adopt a plan (the "Housing Fund Deficit Plan") which would eliminate the deficit as well as enable the Commission to meet all existing obligations and programs under the Redevelopment Plan. NOW THEREFOR, the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino does hereby resolve as follows: Section I. The Commission finds and determines that there is a deficit in the Housing Fund. Section 2. The Housing Fund Deficit Plan for the Central City East Redevelopment Project as presented by staff is adequate, necessary and in the vital interest of the City of San Bernardino in order to accomplish the original goals and directions of the redevelopment plan and to increase, improve and preserve the community's supply of low- and moderate-income housing available at affordable housing cost to persons or families of very low, low and moderate income. Section 3. The Housing Fund Deficit Plan, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved and adopted. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino at an adjourned regular meeting held on the day of , 1990, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Secretary The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this ___ day of , 1990. Chairman of the Community Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino Approved as to form and legal content: DENNIS A. BARLOW Senior Assistant City Attorney By, ~ ) / - 02/23/90 8472n/260l/020 - 2 - HOUSING PLAN - SECTION 33334.6(g) OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE Section 33334.6(g) of the Health and Safety Code provides in pertinent part that if any agency deposits less than 20~ of tax increment in any year to its low- and moderate income housing fund, the amount equal to the difference between 20t of the taxes allocated at the agency pursuant to Section 33670 for each effected project and the amount deposited that year shall constitute a deficit of the project. This Section goes on to state "The agency shall adopt a plan to eliminate the deficit in subsequent years as determined by the Agency." This document constitutes the "plan" of the CommunHy Development Commission of the City of San Bernardino to "eliminate' the deficit" within the meaning of Section 33334.6(g) of the Health & Safety Code. The Plan is as follows: 1. The City of San Bernardino has a variety of housing needs for diverse elements of the population. Needs include the provision of housing for seniors at affordable housing costs, as well as housing for families. There is also a need for high-quality market-rate housing; however, it is anticipated that resources other than monies from the Agency's low-and moderate income housing fund be utilized to deal with the community's needs for market-rate housing. 2. Needs for the community include rehabilitation of existing structures, the construction of new single family dwellings, the construction of multi-family housing, and the provision of infrastructure in connection with the development or rehabilitation of residential neighborhoods having affordable housing stock. 3. Because of competing program needs, as well as the basic features of tax increment financing, it is not possible to predict with specificity what revenue will be available to the Agency to address the housing deficit in the near future. The governing board of the Agency shall retain flexibility to appropriate funds at those times and to such specific activities as shall, in the judgment of the governing board of the Agency, best effectuate the housing objectives of this plan. In establishing such objectives, it is the policy of the governing board of the Agency to consider the housing objectives as set forth in the housing element of the General Plan of the City of San Bernardino, as may be amended from time to time. Specific funding techniques utilized will also be a function of and shall be limited by the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law, including without limitation, Section 33334.2 of such law. 4. This Housing Plan shall be amended from time to time as may be deemed appropriate by the Agency. 1963R - Applicant(s) Address City, State Zip MISC: ISPREPARATION ke/9-1-89 ... C'-Y OF SAN BERNAR[ \JO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL STUDY Initial Study for Environmental Impacts For ""I"'proj ect NUmber Date December t .Iq" . Prepared by: be~"I1'" WeLdru.," Name ~{t;I('1Il..UU~n.e. r Title City of San Bernardino Planning Department 300 N. "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418 -- -- r CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT ., ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CHECKLIST ~ ~ A. BACKGROYlID Application Number: Project Description: I 10 tJflhJ 1?/)8 'It qfM ').0" tJ(tk .. itrlflJlfJ rtJ/k/iA ~;1.1Jd. fDf LtllAl o.J ::::~~ ~=-;:;if4 ~ldil;W1 . .U~~'/. ~. Environmental Constraints Areas: ~ General Plan Designation: Jt~ ~~~~ ~ Zoning Designation: ~ 8. ~NVIFONM~NTAL IMPACTS Explain answers, where appropriate, on a separate attached sheet. 1. EaKth Resources Will the proposal result in: Yes No Maybe a. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? x b. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 15% natural grade? ~ . c. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? x d. Modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? )( REVISED 12/87 PAGE 1 OF 8 - -- Yes No Maybe e. Soil erosion on or off the project site? f. Modification of a channel, creek or river? x. )( g. Development subject mudslides, other similar within an area to landslides, liquefaction or hazards? )( X h. Other? 2. hIR_RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in: a. air upon emissions or ambient air >< Substantial an effect quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? t. c. Development within a high wind hazard area? )( 3. W~TEB___RESOURCES: proposal result in: Will the a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff due to impermeable surfaces? )( b. Changes in the course or flow of flood waters? x , c. Discharge into surface waters or any alteration of surface water quality? x d. Change in the quantity or quality of ground waters? " )( e. Exposure of people or property to flood hazards? f. Other? x X REVISED 12/87 PAGE 2 OF 8 - , Maybe " 4. BIOLOGICAL R~SOURC~p: proposal result in: Could the a. Change unique, species habitat trees? in the number of any rare or endangered of plants or their including stands of b. Change unique, species habitat? in the number of any rare or endangered of animals or their c. Other? 5. NOISE: Could the proposal result in: \... 6. a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to exterior noise levels over 65 dB or interior noise levels over 45 dB? c. Other? LAND_ USE: result in: Will the proposal Yes No ..J REVISED 10/87 PAGE 3 OF 8 a. A change in designated Plan? the land use as on the General b. Development within an Airport District? c. Development within "Greenbelt" Zone A,B, or C? d. Development within a high fire hazard zone? e. Other? )( x . )/ , y... )( >( x x ~ x ~ , Yes No Maybe "'" 7 . MAN-MADE HAE~FP~: project: Will the a. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? " . b. Involve the release hazardous substances? of )( c. Expose people to the potential health/safety hazards? d. Other? 'i. '/.. 8. HOUSING: Will the proposal: a. Remove existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? -L- )( . b. Other? 9. TRANSPQBTATION/CIRCULATION: Could the proposal result in: a. An increase in traffic that is greater than the land use designated on the General Plan? x b. Use of existing, or demand for new, parking facilities/ structures? x c. Impact upon existing public transpoltationsystems? >< d. Alteration of present patterns of circulation? ~ X e. Impact to rail or air traffic? f. Increased safety hazards to vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? x \.... ~ REVISED 10/87 PAGE 4 OF 8 - r Maybe ~ g. A disjointed pattern roadway improvements? of h. Other? 10. pUBLIC SERVICES Will the proposal impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service? a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools (i.e. attendance, boundaries, overload, etc.)? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Medical aid? f. Solid waste? g. Other? 11. UTILITIES: Will the proposal: b. c. "" REVISED 10/87 a. Impact the following beyond the capability to provide adequate levels of service or require the construction of new facilities? 1. Natural gas? 2. Electricity? 3. Water? 4. Sewer? 5. Other? Result in a pattern of extensions? disjointed utility Require the construction of new facilities? Yes No )( ~ -J..- x. . x x X . x X .x ~ X X ]I. x J( ~ PAGE 5 OF 8 - ~ -- --- - -- - r Maybe 12. AESTHETICS: a. Could the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic view? b. Will the visual impact of the project be detrimental to the surrounding area? c. Other? 13. CULTURAL RESOURCES: proposalresult in: a. The alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? Could the b. Adverse impacts historic object? Other? physical or aesthetic to a prehistoric or site, structure or c. 14. Mandatory Findings of Significance (Section 15065) \.. The California Environmental Quality Act states that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Yes x. ){ ~ ~ X . No '" )l ~ REVISED 10/87 PAGE 60F8 - ~ - - - Yes No Maybe important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 'i. b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.> x c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) ~ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? )( C. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES (Attach sheets as necessary.) ~d,j,,.,,, j,nu.~i~. HUlJJNtr, fJA~1/, If&J 11c1;lfi~ (jr pr~tcT~ifJ,;~ ~ jNDjt'.t!fAHIt lAJill be t-e(jlAiral'/t; IvLut4.t1 TI'JI'tj4/~1u14nrJ bt Y'tvituJftl ~ E:R~ i{tlfPh'rAhIt.. .. REVISED 10/87 PAGE 7 OF 8 - -- "'" DETERMINAT10N On the basis of this initial study, o The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, although there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described above have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. The proposed project ~mY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. o D ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA ~;1) E. ~..;~ "1'I~r; IhAJV,P;tJL- d"hl/tV~ Name and Title ~?~ tignature Date: leJ - dl-~7 ~ ~ REVISED 12/87 PAGE 8 OF 8 ~- F' CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DEPARTMENT .., r AGENDA "'l ITEM #: LOCATION CASE Redevelopment Area: Central C~ty East HEARING DATE '" AT~ [] Ie. &Tn ~ .. z i -,0 . ... .... ~ c ~