Loading...
1991-245-Adopting Findings In Response To Written Objections On Adoption Of The Redevelopment Plan For The Central Los Gatos Redevelopment Project19 of —III Rol Y [U�fGi36k�y RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS ADOPTING FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS ON ADOPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL LOS GATOS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 30000 et sea.), the Redevelopment Agency of the Town of Los Gatos (the "Agency ") prepared and submitted to the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos (the "Town Council") a proposed Redevelopment Plan (the 'Plan ") for the Central Los Gatos Redevelopment Project (the 'Project'); and WHEREAS, the Town Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing on November 12, 1991, on adoption of the Plan and on certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (the "BIR ") on the Plan; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard and has received and considered all written comments received and all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Plan; and WHEREAS, Section 33363 of the Health and Safety Code provides that before adopting the redevelopment plan, the legislative body shall make written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity and shall respond in writing to the written objections received before or at the noticed public hearing; RESOLVED: Section 1. The Town Council has considered all evidence and testimony on the adoption of the Plan and has responded in writing to the written objections received before or at the notice public hearing. Section 2. The Town Council hereby adopts the written findings in response to each written objection of affected property owners and taxing entities attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. RDV\resos \findings PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 18th day of November, 1991, by the following vote. COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: Randy Attaway, Joanne Benjamin, Steven Blanton, and Mayor Eric D. Carlson NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Brent N. Vent r SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ATTEST: it®t CLERK OF THE TOWN O OS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA RDV\resos \findings 2 EXHIBIT A RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE CENTRAL LOS GATOS REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT L WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECEIVED ON NOVEMBER 12, 1991 ON BEHALF OF THE FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, AND THE CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Rejoinder to "Analysis of the Report of the Fiscal Review Committee" received from the County of Santa Clara on behalf of the Fiscal Review Committee and the Santa Clara County and the Central Fire District. The County submitted a document entitled Rejoinder to "Analysis of the Report of the Fiscal Review Committee" on behalf of the County of Santa Clara, the Central Fire Protection District and the Fiscal Review Committee. The first portion of this document was submitted on behalf of the Committee and disputed several statements and analyses contained in the Agency's Response to the Fiscal Review Committee Report contained in the Report on the Redevelopment Plan. Objection No. 1: The Project Area did not appear to demonstrate 'blight" of such a dimension that could not be alleviated by private enterprise acting alone and that alternative funding methods were not discussed. Responses /Findings As shown in the Preliminary Report, Report on the Plan and the Existing Conditions Report, the Agency has adopted a Project Area that meets the criteria for blight as set forth in the Community Development Law Sections 33031 and 33032. The Council finds that the area is a blighted area as identified in the above named documents. Objection No. 2: The proposed project appears to be capturing other taxing entities revenues to finance capital improvements that could be financed through other methods. Responses /Findinga The rejoinder states that there is an absence of new information on alternative funding mechanisms and the Agency continues to use information from the Preliminary Report and the Zephyr Report. In order to understand the Agency's use of the Zephyr Report, the genesis of the Report should be explained. In 1989, after defeating emergency legislation for the adoption of a Los Gatos Redevelopment Project, the County agreed to assist the Town in identifying alternative sources of revenue to fund the earthquake repair and retrofitting work. As a result of this agreement, the County funded an Alternative Financing Strategy report by Zephyr Associates. The Zephyr Report outlined many alternative financing programs. R0V\exh ibits \responwobj These programs were basically divided into three categories: funding from government emergency programs, funding mechanisms paid for by the property owners in the Project Area and redevelopment. The Town applied for all of the government emergency programs. The result of those applications was outlined in the Preliminary Plan. In addition, the Town adopted the majority of recommendations outlined in the Report. Since the Report was completed there have been very few new funding mechanisms developed, therefore, there is really no new information to report. Council finds that the improvements needed to alleviate the blighted conditions cannot be accomplished by private or other public methods alone without redevelopment. This finding is based on the evidence contained on the report to Council. Objection No. 3: The County has entered into revenue sharing agreements with other Redevelopment Agencies for Project Areas that are larger and smaller than the Central Los Gatos Project Area. Responses /Findings The rejoinder does not take into account the fact Agency has also offered the County a revenue sharing agreement, which would totally alleviate the fiscal detriment stated by the County. Council finds that any proven detriment that may be caused to affected taxing entities due to the project shall be alleviated. Finding is based on the fact that the Agency shall enter into agreements pursuant to Section 33401 wherever there is proven financial burden or detriment to any affected taxing entity. Objection No. 4; The members of the Fiscal Review Committee have no other sources of revenue other than property taxes and can therefore not replace revenues potentially lost through the Agency's use of tax increment financing. Responses /Findings The rejoinder makes the blanket statement that all members of the Fiscal Review Committee, except for the three school districts, have no other sources of revenue other than the one percent property tax levy. This analysis appears to lump all of the members of the Fiscal Review Committee into the same category, while each member has different financial needs and funding mechanisms. The Agency has offered revenue sharing agreements to several members of the Committee. These agreements will alleviate the fiscal burden identified during the fiscal review process. In addition, several of the Committee members do have the opportunity for other sources of revenue in the form of tax overrides, increased fees for services and grants. In addition, the Town has a history of providing funding and services for several of the members of the Committee. Council finds that any proven detriment that may be caused to affected taxing entities due to the project shall be alleviated. Finding is based on the fact that the Agency shall enter into agreements pursuant to Section 33401 wherever there is proven financial burden or detriment to any affected taxing entity. Objection No. 5: The Agency's analysis comparing the assessed valuation of the Project Area to the Assessed valuation of the other taxing agencies is irrelevant. RDV\exhibits \response.obj Responses /Findings The Committee Report stated that the use of tax increment financing in the Project Area would greatly reduce revenues available to the taxing agencies and used a table showing the present revenue loss by the Agencies of existing redevelopment Areas. This table does not show the impact of the potential loss of revenue due to the Los Gatos Project, but the revenue loss due to other redevelopment projects, which may be larger than Los Gatos or have high assessed value growth rates, due to Agency activities. The Agency presented three types of comparisons regarding the potential of reduced revenues attributable to the taxing agencies from the Project Area. The first was a comparison between the budgets of the taxing agencies and the Agency tax increments in the initial five years of the Project. The second was a comparison of the property tax revenue of the taxing agencies to the forecast tax increment. Both of these analysis were included in the Preliminary Report and updated with the new tax increment forecast. Additionally, the Agency compared the assessed valuation of the Project Area to the assessed valuation of the taxing entities in the Response to the Fiscal Review Committee document. Those three comparisons taken separately or together show the minimal impact of the Project on the revenues of the taxing entities. Furthermore, these minimal potential fiscal impacts would be mitigated by the revenue sharing agreements that have been offered by the Agency and accepted by the majority of those taxing agencies. Council finds that any proven detriment that may be caused to affected taxing entities due to the project shall be alleviated. Finding is based on the fact that the Agency shall enter into agreements pursuant to Section 33401 wherever there is proven financial burden or detriment to any affected taxing entity. Objection No. 6: The Agency response summary dismissed the Committee's recommendations to alleviate purported fiscal detriment. Responses /Findings Once again, the Agency has offered revenue sharing agreements to several members of the Committee. These agreements will alleviate the fiscal burden identified during the fiscal review process. Council finds that any proven detriment that may be caused to affected taxing entities due to the project shall be alleviated. Finding is based on the fact that the Agency shall enter into agreements pursuant to Section 33401 wherever there is proven financial burden or detriment to any affected taxing entity. RDV\exh i b its \respon se.o bj II. WRITTEN COM1b_ .sTS FROM THE COUNTY OF SA .A CLARA RECEIVED ON NOVEMBER 12, 1991 Rejoinder of the County of Santa Clara to "Analysis of the Report on the Fiscal Review Committee" Objection No. 1: The rejoinder explains the methodology used to develop the regression analysis presented by the County ResWnse4 \F ndines The County's regression methodology that produced the per capita costs completely 'ignores the revenues produced during the same time period. If revenues increased at an amount the same or above the costs then there would have been no fiscal impact. The County has presented no analysis of the revenue side of the equation. Objection No. 2: The effect of tax increment financing will cause a significant unmitigated financial burden or detriment on the County. The County's analysis shown in the Fiscal Review Committee Report, purports the county net increase in General Fund expenditures to be approximately $42,000,000 over the forty year life of the Project. The Agency has offered the County a revenue sharing proposal that exceeds the 542,000,000, thereby completely mitigating the purported fiscal impact of the Project. Finding for Responses to Objections Nos. 1 and 2 The Council finds that the fiscal analysis contained in the Report to Council is adequate and that the effect of tax increment financing on the County and Central Fire District will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment on the County or Central Fire Distrct This finding is based on the fact that the fiscal analysis meets the requirements in Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law and the fact that the Agency shall enter into agreements pursuant to Section 33401 in order to alleviate any proven financial burden or detriment caused to any affected taxing entities due to the Project. III. WRITTEN COMIN. -NTS FROM THE COUNTY OF S� TA CLARA RECEIVED ON NOVEMBER 12, 1991 ON BEHALF OF THE CENTRAL PROTECTION FIRE DISTRICT Rejoinder of the Central Fire District to "AWvsis of the Report on the Fiscal Review Committee" Objection No. 1: The rejoinder explains the methodology used to develop the regression analysis presented by the District ,. . , A.s stated in the Response to the Fiscal Review Committee Report, the Agency has the same concerns about the conclusions presented by the regression analysis in that the revenue side of the equation is not discussed. In addition, the use of assessed valuation as a measure completely skews the analysis presented by the District since increases in assessed valuation would have created increased District revenue. Objection No. 2: The Agency's statement's regarding the services that the District provides are incorrect and increases in assessed valuation create additional service requirements for the District. Resnonses�Findines The Fiscal Review Committee Report did not categorize the types of services that the District provides; therefore, the Agency assumed that the majority of District services were for actual. fires. However, the Rejoinder states that the most frequent calls for the District's services were not for actual fires, but for medical aid, public services and vehicle accident and rescue. Based on this information, it appears that the services that the District provides art primarily to persons not structures. Therefore, the measure used to calculate increases in service potentially created by the Project, should be. based on population or dwelling units rather than assessed valuation. The rejoinder does not discuss the possibility that the County has chosen to require the District to provide more services due to the large increases in revenue that the District has received due to increases in assessed valuation in the District. If this were the cast, using assessed valuation as a measure of service impact would greatly overstate the potential impact. Objection No. 3: The effect of tax increment financing will cause a significant loss of revenue to the District and adversely affect the services tlta District provides. ResRonses\ ndingj The information presented by the District that purports to show the potential impact of the Project on the quality or quantity of District services is based on an incorrect measurement and is therefore, difficult to analyze_ In addition, the District's analysis has failed to take into consideration any of the positive benefits accruing the District by Agency activities. These benefits include upgraded public infrastructure and a reduction in the hazardous conditions in tha Project Area. The District's analysis also fails to account for the existing agreement between the District and the Town, which allows the District fire stations to be located on land and buildings owned by the Town at no cost to the District. In addition, the small portion of the I'IOV 18 191 17:22 MCCi�NGU6H ,HULLHND'aHLLEN- 9NCT0.�'�_ FIOU 13 ' S 1 13: 20 F pOM SUTR0 PU2L 1 C F I NI -lNl,c District that the Project Area represcnts and the Agency's analysis of the budget and revenues of the District show that the impact of the Project on the District would not be Significant. This conclusion is further buttressed by the fact that the District has had the funds to embark on a large capital improvement carnpaigrt and has repeatedly offered purchase the land and buildings where the stations are located. Finding for Responses to Objections Nos. 1 - 3 The Council finds that the fiscal analysis contained in the Report to Council is adequate and that the effect of tax increment financing on the County and Central Fire District will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment on the County or Central Fire Distrct. This finding is based on the fact that the fiscal analysis meets the requirements in Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law and the fact that the Agency shall enter into agreements pursuant to Section 33401 in order to alleviate any proven financial burden or detriment caused to any affected taxing entities due to the Project., IV. WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM KEVIN SHOWN, RECEIVED ON NOVEMBER Objections 4, 1991. Opposed to Redevelopment Plan for the following reasons: 1. Does very little if nothing for homeowners. 2. Residents have no vote on where money is spent. 3. Plan is in effect for 40 years. Responses NO ADDRESS The Redevelopment Plan will provide the following benefits to home owners: a. Street and alley improvements b. Sidewalk improvements C. Replacement of street trees d. Reconstruction of storm drains and sewers e. Residential rehabilitation loans and grants f. Low- and Moderate income homeowners would be eligible to receive financial assistance 2. Residents have the opportunity to provide input to the Redevelopment Advisory Committee and Redevelopment Agency on the priority of projects and whether projects should be added to the Redevelopment Plan. 3. True - -- the Redevelopment Plan is in effect for 40 years. Finding for Responses to Objections Nos. 1 - 3 The Council finds, although every parcel in the project area may not be blighted, the project area as a whole is either blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment of the area as a whole. RDV\exh i b its \respon se.o bj V. WRITTEN COMMEN fS FROM STEPHEN PARSONa RECEIVED ON NOVEMBER 8, 1991 AND NOVEMBER 12, 1991 Letter from Steoben Parsons Objection No. 1: The property at 356 Johnson Avenue should be removed from the redevelopment project boundaries for the following reasons: 1) There are several owners of the 356 Johnson Avenue lot who are currently in the process of dividing the lot and joining each separate piece to their respective adjoining properties, which lie outside the redevelopment project boundary. There will be confusion when the 356 Johnson Avenue lot is leased as a separate, smaller lot, as the current project boundaries will no longer define parcel boundaries, but rather will divide several parcels. i 2) The lot in question is not blighted. The earthquake damaged house _ that used to occupy the lot has been removed, and the lot has been fully landscaped. Resuonses /Findinzs Deletion of this property from the redevelopment project area at this time, although it may be desirable to avoid splitting properties, would unnecessarily delay the redevelopment plan. inclusion of the property within the redevelopment project area will produce no adverse effects on the property because of the nature of the proposed redevelopment actions in the area (repair or upgrading of public improvements, rehabilitation grants, etc.) The property should be retained in the redevelopment project area. The Council finds, although] every parcel in the project area may not be blighted, the project area as a whole is either blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment of the area as a whole. Objection No. 2: The residential area on Johnson Avenue should be removed from the redevelopment project boundaries for the following reason: 1) The residential area is not blighted. Since the earthquake, several new homes have been built, a number of houses remodeled, and many homes sold in this area, indicating a thriving area with no need for redevelopment t ax monies. Responses Findings: The surveys within the, area, and the Existing Conditions Report, demonstrate that there fare adverse building conditions within this area that could be used to support a finding that the area is blighted. Specific adverse conditions include deteriorated and in some cases dilapidated structures, poor I NOV 13 191 F:18 MCDONOUGH,HOLLAND &ALLEN- SACTC,CA P.3 /3 paving and lack of drainage in alleys, and deteriorated paving, curbs and gutters in streets. Inclusion of the area will only be beneficial to property owners. Specific benefits could include residential rehabilitation and seismic retrofit loans and grants, improvement of alleys and inadequate drainage in these alleys, and repair or upgrading of other public improvements such as streets, curbs, and gutters. The Council finds, although every parcel in the project area may not be blighted, the project area as a whole is either blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment of the area as a whole.