Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />CRY ATIUANEY'S OFFICE <br />3900 MAIN STREET <br />RI, ERSE)E, CA 92522 <br />(951) 826 -5567 <br />RESOLUTION NO. 1 <br />A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF <br />RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE <br />REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE, <br />AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE TO SUBSTITUTE IN AS <br />PLAINTIFF FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY IN THE CASE OF <br />REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE V. <br />RIVERSIDE SCRAP IRON & METAL CORP., RIVERSIDE COUNTY <br />SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. RIC 471484, AN ACTION FILED UNDER <br />THE POLANCO REDEVELOPMENT ACT. <br />WHEREAS, the Polanco Redevelopment Act (Health & Saf. Code § 31459 et seq.) allows <br />Redevelopment Agencies to undertake an action to remedy or remove, or to require others to <br />remedy or remove, including compelling a responsible party through a civil action, to remedy or <br />remove a release of hazardous substance within a redevelopment area; and <br />WHEREAS, on May 14, 2007, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Riverside filed an <br />action under the Polanco Redevelopment Act (Redevelopment Agency of the City of Riverside v. <br />Riverside Scrap Iron & Metal Corp., Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 471484), to <br />compel Riverside Scrap Iron & Metal Corporation to remedy or remove a release of hazardous <br />substance on its site in the Marketplace Redevelopment Area, located by 6`" and Commerce Streets, <br />in the City of Riverside; and <br />WHEREAS, the state legislature recently enacted Assembly Bill IX 26, the Redevelopment <br />Agency Dissolution Act ( "AB 1X 26 "), intended to stabilize school funding by reducing or <br />eliminating the diversion of property tax revenues from school districts to the state's community <br />redevelopment agencies; and <br />WHEREAS, AB 1X 26, recently upheld by the state Supreme Court in California <br />Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos, bars redevelopment agencies from engaging in new <br />business and provides for their winding down and dissolution; and <br />WHEREAS, AB IX 26 provides that all authority, rights, powers, duties, and obligations <br />previously vested with the former redevelopment agency under the Community Development law <br />with certain exceptions, are vested in the successor agency (Health and Saf. Code §34173(b)); and <br />