Loading...
2003 01 07 RDA Minutes LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES JANUARY 7, 2003 A regular meeting of the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency was called to order by Chairperson Henderson. PRESENT: Board Members Adolph, Osborne, Perkins, Sniff, Chairperson Henderson ABSENT: None PUBLIC COMMENT - None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Executive Director Genovese advised that Business Item No. 2 and Public Hearing Item No. 2 should be deleted from the agenda as no Agency action is required on either item. MOTION - It was moved by Board Members Sniff/Adolph to approve the agenda as modified. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION - It was moved by Board Members Sniff/Adolph to approve the Minutes of December 17, 2002, as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER DATED JANUARY 7, 2003. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT NO. 2001-02, WASHINGTON STREET PAVEMENT IMPROVEMENTS. MOTION - It was moved by Board Members Sniff/Adolph to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended. Motion carried unanimously. Redevelopment Agency Minutes 2 January 7, 2003 BUSINESS SESSION 1. CONSIDERATION OF AGENCY REORGANIZATION AND SELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE-CHAIRPERSON FOR THE YEAR 2003. There were no changes to the staff report as submitted and on file in the City Clerk's Office. MOTION - It was moved by Board Members Sniff/Adolph to appoint Board Member Henderson as Chairperson and Board Member Perkins as Vice Chair. Motion carried unanimously. 2. CONSIDERATION OF A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND BISON HOTEL GROUP, LLC., FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF 9.21 ACRES OF PROPERTY TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL IN THE VILLAGE OF LA QUINTA. This item was pulled from the agenda (see Confirmation of Agenda). STUDY SESSION - None DEPARTMENT REPORTS - None CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS' ITEMS - None 7:00 P. M. PUBLIC COMMENT- None Redevelopment Agency Minutes 3 January 7, 2003 PUBLIC HEARINGS JOINT PUBLIC HEARINGS WITH THE LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL: 1. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF: 1) AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BY AND BETWEEN THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SANTA ROSA PLAZA, LLC., PURSUANT TO WHICH THE AGENCY WOULD PURCHASE FROM SANTA ROSA PLAZA LLC. 6.81 ACRES OF PROPERTY (THE HOTEL PARCEL); 2) AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BY AND BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND SANTA ROSA LLC., PURSUANT TO WHICH THE AGENCY WOULD PURCHASE FROM SANTA ROSA PLAZA LLC. 2.4 ACRES OF PROPERTY (COMMERCIAL PARCELS); AND 3) A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DDA) BY AND BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND BISON HOTEL GROUP, LLC., (THE DEVELOPER) PURSUANT TO WHICH THE AGENCY WOULD SELL THE HOTEL PARCEL AND THE COMMERCIAL PARCELS TO THE DEVELOPER TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL IN THE VILLAGE OF LA QUINTA. The Chairperson declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 7:27 p.m. Community Development Director Herman presented the staff report. Consultant Frank Spevacek reviewed three proposed changes to the DDA. The first change modifies Section 605 (Agency Option to Acquire Plans) to give the Agency the unilateral right to secure the plans for the hotel after the $1.6 million of Phase I assistance is provided and provided the developer defaults on the agreement. The second change modifies the Schedule of Performance to require the developer to secure building permits, securities, and performance bonds for Phase I no later than 60 days after the City approves building permits and no later than one year after the DDA is executed. This would place an end date on the time frame that the process to start the transaction would occur, and if it takes longer than one year to accomplish it, the DDA would either expire or the Agency and developer would agree to extend the time frame. The third change adds additional language to the DDA and Purchase Agreement designating that the $1.6 million will go toward clearing the title first for the hotel parcel and any funds left over would be used for construction of the hotel In response to Board Member Perkins, Mr. Spevacek confirmed the funds proposed to be used for the loan are unappropriated tax increment revenue from Redevelopment Project Area No. 1. Redevelopment Agency Minutes 4 January 7, 2003 Board Member Sniff questioned where these last changes came from and why. He also asked about acquiring the hotel plans. Mr. Spevacek stated the developer brought up the issue of the time frame on the building permits, and staff agreed. As for the option to purchase the hotel plans, the developer noted the original wording would leave him no alternative but to surrender the plans if for whatever reason the agreement was terminated and the Agency did not fund the $1.6 million. The third change was added by staff as a way to tighten control on the funds, to which the developer agreed. Mr. Herman confirmed the hotel plans have been submitted to the Building Department for plan check. Mr. Spevacek explained by securing rights to obtain the hotel plans, if the developer defaults on the agreement after it is funded, the Agency would be able to obtain the construction plans at no charge and select another developer to use the plans to build an Embassy Suites on the site, should that be the Agency's desire. Board Member Sniff noted the plans would be of negligible value if the Agency decided not to use them. In response to Board Member Osborne, Mr. Spevacek stated prior to the developer receiving funding, the Agency has to approve the construction lending, and receive final review and approval of the construction budget and performance bonds. He added the developer has several construction loan options but cannot get a loan commitment until the lender sees the final construction plans and bid estimates. Legal Counsel Jenson advised the completion performance bond provides the Agency with another entity to sue should there be a default. It does not guarantee the hotel will be built but does guarantee that the contractor will perform if the developer complies with his agreement. In response to Board Member Sniff, Mr. Spevacek stated the total construction value is anticipated to be approximately $28 million and the construction loan would fund $15-$18 million, with the balance being a combination of the Agency funding and developer equity. He deferred to the developer for specifics on those figures. In response to Board Member Adolph, Mr. Spevacek stated recent legislation regarding prevailing wages provides that a transaction structured as a market- rate loan, is not viewed directly as assisting construction of the project. If a Redevelopment Agency Minutes 5 January 7, 2003 challenge is made to the project regarding prevailing wages, payment of such wages would be the developer's obligation and not the Agency. He stated the opinion of the developer's legal counsel at this point is that the current structure would not require payment of prevailing wages. Potential impacts should that happen, are increased construction costs and it could bring into question the viability of financing in terms of the whole package. Board Member Adolph asked what the Agency's liability would be, in order to recoup the redevelopment funds invested, if the project stops in the middle of construction due to financial problems. Mr. Spevacek stated at that point, the Agency would have a total of $1.6 million invested and would be in second position to the construction loan. The lender would determine whether or not to complete the project or to foreclose on the Agency's position and eliminate it from the project. The Agency would then seek legal remedies against the developer. He noted the $1.6 million would be in a subordinate position to the construction loan, and once the construction lending amount exceeds the Agency's investment amount, then the lender is in control in terms of disposition of the project. Board Member Adolph stated his major concern is that the City's investment be protected and that the City doesn't end up with a vacant building. He noted the agreement provides for repayment of the loan over a five-year period from revenue generated from hotel operations, and asked what happens if hotel occupancy and cash flow are less than expected. Mr. Spevacek stated the Agency could demand payment from other assets of the development by: foreclosing on the commercial parcels, which are worth in excess of $1.8 million, if they have not been developed and sold, and recoup a portion of the monies from the sale of those parcels; by negotiating repayment from other assets the developer may have; and/or by extending the term of repayment to 8 to 10 years. The Agency would be in a position to do whatever is most equitable for the Agency and keep the developer afloat for operations flow long enough to recoup the full repayment. He confirmed there are no guarantees. In response to Board Member Adolph, Ms. Jenson stated the Agency should view the $1.6 million loan amount as "at risk" funds since the Agency would be in a subordinate position on the deed of trust. Should the Agency be asked in the future to invest additional funds to protect its $1.6 million investment, that is something the Agency would have to determine at that time. The Agency will be in first position on the deed of trust for the commercial parcels but if the hotel is not successful it could impact the value of the commercial Redevelopment Agency Minutes 6 January 7, 2003 parcels, She stated staff has attempted to minimize the risk but it has not been eliminated. Board Member Sniff referenced the requirement for the Embassy Suites Hotel to remain in operation from the time a certificate of occupancy is issued through the five-year purchase period, and asked how that could be enforced. Ms. Jenson stated the developer would be in default if the hotel is not operational and the Agency would have the ability to foreclose with regard to the commercial parcels. Howard Thompson, 48-200 Via Solana, questioned why the developer is not able to get a construction loan. He understood the developer has talked to a construction lender and that the lender is holding back. He noted lenders are in the business of knowing when to loan money and that the Agency may not be as knowledgeable about the situation. Mr. Spevacek advised the developer has a first trust deed note on the hotel property and lenders like to see the land free and clear. The Agency's notes will provide a means to retire the existing loan against the property, and with the Agency being the subordinate on the loan, the lender would look at the property as being free and clear. Palm Desert National Bank has indicated an interest in financing the project but wants to first see the final construction drawings and bid estimates based on those drawings. He added the developer is looking at other lenders to obtain the best financing, and the Agency funds will not be released until the Agency has approved of the construction loan. David Brudvik, 77-435 Calle Colima, spoke in support of the proposal. He owns property in the Village and views the hotel as an asset. Wells Marvin, 79-258 Cetrino Street, stated he supports the hotel project and feels it will be an asset to the City. As for the loan, he feels it's an interesting way to raise equity and will provide a good precedent for other property owners who wish to pursue projects in the City as a source of equity funding. He questioned when a city is a bank or equity lender, and if loans would be provided to future hotels in the City. He further questioned the size of the redevelopment fund pool and the best place to allocate those funds. He stated his investors for the Old Town project demanded a 25% annualized rate of return, and questioned why the City is not requiring a 15-18% return on its money as is stated as an objective in the City's Economic Development Plan. He commented on the construction of the condominiums, and noted they must have increased the value of the property since the Agency is proposing to purchase one quarter of the site for $1.6 million and the developer purchased Redevelopment Agency Minutes 7 January 7, 2003 the entire site three years ago for $1.4 million. He feels this is a worthy project and encouraged the Council to look at it very carefully. Bill Ivey, 78-665 Descanso Lane, stated he is not opposed to the project but is opposed to the way it is being financed. He quoted Will Rogers saying, "I'm not so concerned about the return on my money as the return of my money." Albert Sutcliffe, 48-145 Via Solana, questioned why the developer is looking to the City for financing. He noted Cathedral City has ended up in the theater business and voiced concern about La Quinta ending up in the hotel business. Given the current economic conditions, he felt the proposal is a big risk with money that shouldn't be used in this manner. He only learned about the proposal today when he read it in the newspaper, and feels it should be given a lot of consideration before a decision is made. Wally Reynolds, 79-860 Fiesta Drive, noted the City will slowly die unless it has businesses to supply a viable revenue stream for the City's public services. He encouraged Council to take a shot at the proposal because he feels the hotel is needed. Kay Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, asked if this is a loan or mortgage, and suggested it be reviewed by the Investment Advisory Board with a report back to Council. She encouraged Council to take some time with this and find out how the residents want to spend the redevelopment funds. She questioned why the developer has not secured a loan through normal channels and stated if it's a bad investment for a bank, it's a worse investment for a City. She also questioned why the City would purchase 9.21 acres for $3.4 million when the developer paid only $1.4 million for 13 acres two years ago. What happens if the developer defaults and the City ends up in the hotel business? She asked if the proposed loan falls within redevelopment law requirements for controlling blight, and noted the State is looking at cities who have abused redevelopment funds by using them to subsidize luxury developments. She urged Council not to rush to spend uncommitted funds on foolish ventures. She believes the developer will find financing on his own if this is a viable project. Tom Harms, 79-605 Cetrino, asked if the developer is supplying any equity or personal guarantees for the loan, and if income projections from the hotel have been looked at for the likelihood of sufficient revenue to repay the loan. He also asked about the first and second positions on the two loans and what commercial properties secure the loans. Mr. Spevacek explained the $1.6 million will be secured by the hotel parcel. If before the construction loan funding exceeds $1.6 million and there is a default, Redevelopment Agency Minutes 8 January 7, 2003 the Agency would be in a position to secure repayment through selling the hotel parcel. The $1.84 million would be funded after the hotel is completed, and the security for that is the three commercial parcels. He stated the properties have been appraised by an appraisal company, and they have indicated the properties would be worth the amount the Agency will be investing if this is approved. Staff has reviewed a market feasibility study that was prepared for the construction lender to look at occupancy rates over a twelve-year period, and they have looked at the cash flow from the hotel to see if sufficient funds would be available to repay the loan. Mr. Harms noted the commercial lender can pull the plug on the project and the Agency would lose all of its money unless there is an iron-clad agreement with Embassy Suites for the City to complete construction of the hotel plans. He also voiced concern about having to sacrifice other retail commercial projects, such as Old Town, in order for the City to get its money back should the commercial property end of this deal not prove viable. He questioned whether or not the time is right for the proposed lending arrangement if the developer is not able to get commercial financing at any price or with any guarantee, or isn't willing to take that risk. Joyce $ivley, 79-775 Westward Ho Drive, stated she is still in support of the hotel development, and feels it will be a catalyst for regulated growth in the Village. She stated many members of the Westward Ho Property Owners Association support this project, and Colonel Paige has asked her especially to urge Council to move forward with it. She believes the bed tax and sales revenue is needed to sustain City services, including police, fire, and recreation. She noted the Council has the opportunity to fulfill the vision of many City leaders over the years to develop the Village. Hovak Najarian, 78-395 Palm Garden Place, commented that the developer threatened to pull out when the project was before the City Council a few years ago, and he felt it's ironic that now he wants to bail out. He feels the proposal has too much potential for litigation, and questioned that Council would have considered the hotel project at all if the current transaction had been a part of the original application. Richard Hughes, 57-138 Medinah, stated he feels the hotel is vital to the Village. He noted Rancho Mirage gave away $25-$40 million of real estate to get The River project, which has done more for the Valley than any other single development. He feels this project provides the same type of opportunity for La Quinta because if the Village is developed properly, it could mean a great deal to the entire City. As for the increase in the purchase price of the property, Redevelopment Agency Minutes 9 January 7, 2003 he noted the developer has improved the property since he purchased it three years ago. loren McGuire, 78-732 Sienna Court, noted if the project fails, the City would not only lose the redevelopment funds but also the investment on those dollars. He urged Council to continue this item until additional research is done to make sure it is a sound investment for the City. There being no further requests to speak, the Chairperson declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 8:36 p.m. Board Member Perkins stated whatever decision is made this evening, it is not a quick one because the potential and risks of the proposal have been studied for a long time. He stated the City is trying to provide an incentive to keep the Village moving in a properly-controlled, small town atmosphere. He believes a mid-range priced hotel is desperately needed in the Village. He commented on the need for additional bed tax and commercial development to provide public services because the City receives very little revenue from property tax. He stated there is a certain amount of risk in everything, and he is willing to support this proposal because he feels the project will be an asset to the City. Chairperson Henderson noted this project has been an issue for the last three years, and during that time she has discussed the project with a lot of residents. Some of them oppose a hotel in the Village unless it meets certain criteria, which she feels would be impossible to acquire. She stated there has been a perception for years that a village exists in the Cove, however, there is no viable economic place where people can gather and say, "they've been to the Village." She feels the City is now at that point because great progress has taken place, such as the street improvements and the Civic Center Campus. She noted the hotel project has undergone a cost of approximately $2 million due to delays imposed by the litigation, drawing of new construction plans, and the tightening of the lending institution after the September 11th incident. She commented on the inability to use redevelopment money for City services, and stated she feels the best use of those funds is to generate general fund revenues that can be used for City public services. As for the 525 acres recently purchased by the Agency, she feels the municipal golf course will be an immediate benefit to the City but a resort probably won't happen for up to 10 years. She doesn't feel these things will happen unless the City continues to develop and increase its assessed value and have the funds so the City can be a dynamic place. She felt, in essence, Mr. Hughes comments summed up her feelings for the City, the Village, and the City's future. She noted there are no risk-free business deals, and she feels the biggest risk here is the faith and trust in the community in Redevelopment Agency Minutes 10 January 7, 2003 what can be done and the people who have a strong desire to be a part of the City. Board Member Osborne stated he has researched a lot about this proposal since he learned about it last Friday, and believes the project as a whole will do very well for the City by bringing in some financial strength. As a past member of the Investment Advisory Board for seven years, he stated the proposal may not qualify under the Board's investment plan but this is not the same type of investment. Redevelopment money is meant to invest for the City's future and its operational funding. Although there are definite risks involved, he understands a franchise agreement with Embassy Suites exists, and that the developer is looking at a management contract with Hilton. He stated he would like to have asked the developer a few questions but feels from a redevelopment standpoint, the proposal is meant to do what is intended, which is to increase the revenues of the City and help the Village community. Board Member Sniff stated he believes a major enterprise is needed in the Village to serve as a catalyst for other businesses to locate there and to be able to expect reasonable success. He doesn't feel this should be viewed as a carte blanche to support equity financing for all types of businesses. He complimented Mr. Marvin and others who have made a major financial commitment to help develop the Village, and stated he hopes there will be a synergy to make all of the businesses successful. He realizes there are risks in the proposal, and complimented staff for drafting the most risk-free secure agreements possible. He stated he also would like to have asked the developer some questions. He commented on the possibility of the State taking away funds from the City and the need for the City to utilize its financial resources to maximize the results. He noted there is potential for 9700,000 annual revenue in Transient Occupancy Tax for the City if the hotel is built, and pointed out no funding will be provided unless construction financing is obtained. He is not totally comfortable with the proposal but feels the need to get the Village as viable as possible is, to some degree, an overriding item. He feels the built-in safety factors in the agreements allow the City to be as secure as possible. Board Member Adolph stated he has never been against the hotel but is against the height element because it is over the City's height limit of 35 feet in the Village. He will continue to oppose the hotel until it meets the criteria, and therefore feels it would be hypocritical for him to support a loan for the hotel. He agreed commercial development is needed to help support residential growth, and that the need for a hotel in the Village is a good need, but he doesn't like the height. He also agreed the City needs a mid-priced range hotel and additional Transient Occupancy Tax but noted the Marriott project is moving forward and are not asking for any money from the City. He didn't feel Redevelopment Agency Minutes 11 January 7, 2003 it's necessary to rush into a decision. As for redevelopment funds, he noted the State has taken away some redevelopment money and could take these monies as well. He stated redevelopment funds available to the City need to be earmarked and projected to projects so the State cannot take them. He is concerned the height element of the hotel will destroy the ambience of the Village along with the conceptual idea of early residents of the community. Should the hotel move forward, he feels the City should protect its investment the best it can, and noted "security" is the mission statement of the City's Investment Advisory Board. He is concerned what will happen if the project doesn't go to completion. In response to Board Member Sniff, Mr. Spevacek confirmed the $1.6 million will not be advanced until construction financing is approved by the City and is secured. Board Member Osborne stated he has questioned staff about the same issues the public has asked, and he felt each question has been answered in a positive manner. RESOLUTION NO. RA 2003-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND BISON HOTEL GROUP, LLC, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE TAMPICO AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE. It was moved by Board Members Sniff/Osborne to adopt Resolution No. RA 2003-001 as submitted. Motion carried with Board Member Adolph voting NO. RESOLUTION NO. RA 2003-002 A RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BETWEEN THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SANTA ROSA PLAZA, LLC, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE TAMPICO AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE (HOTEL PARCEL). It was moved by Board Members Sniff/Perkins to adopt Resolution No. RA 2003-002 as submitted. Motion carried with Board Member Adolph voting NO. Redevelopment Agency Minutes 12 January 7, 2003 RESOLUTION NO, RA 2003-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BETWEEN THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SANTA ROSA PLAZA, LLC, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CALLE TAMPICO AND DESERT CLUB DRIVE (COMMERCIAL PARCEL). It vvas moved by Board Members Osborne/Sniff to adopt Resolution No. RA 2003-003 as submitted. Motion carried with Board Member Adolph voting NO. 2. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING TO CERTIFY A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-466 REGARDING THE APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCTION OF 149 SENIOR AFFORDABLE DETACHED HOUSES AND 36 SINGLE FAMILY MARKET RATE DWELLING UNITS ON APPROXIMATELY 32 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 48 AND ADAMS STREET. This item was pulled from the agenda (see Confirmation of Agenda). 3. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF 20.04 ACRES OF AGENCY PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF AVENUE 48 AND ADAMS STREET IN LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 2. The Chairperson declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 9:44 p.m. Community Development Director Herman presented the staff report. In response to Board Member Henderson, Consultant Frank Spevacek advised the number of years on covenants for single family, owner-occupied units is 45 years, and 55 years for rentals. There being no other requests to speak, the Chairperson declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 9:47 p.m. Redevelopment Agency Minutes 13 January 7, 2003 RESOLUTION NO. RA 2003-004 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 48 AND ADAMS STREET. It was moved by Board Members Adolph/Sniff to adopt Resolution No. RA 2003-004 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 4. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BY AND BETWEEN THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, LLC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, FOR THE SALE OF 11.9 ACRES OF AGENCY PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF AVENUE 48 AND ADAMS STREET IN THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 2. The Chairperson declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 9:48 p.m. Community Development Director Herman presented the staff report. There being no requests to speak, the Chairperson declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 9:50 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. RA 2003-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE AND ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BETWEEN THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND SANTA ROSA DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 48 AND ADAMS STREET. It was moved by Board Members Sniff/Osborne to adopt Resolution No. RA 2003-005 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Redevelopment Agency Minutes 14 January 7, 2003 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved by Board Members Adolph/Perkins to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, JUNE S. GREEK, Agency Secretary La Quinta Redevelopment Agency