Loading...
1989 03 21 CC Minutes LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 21, 1989 Regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council was called to order at the hour of 7:30 P.M. by Mayor Pena, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance PRESENT: Council Members Bohnenberger, Bosworth, Rushworth, Sniff, Mayor Pena ABSENT: None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON WASHINGTON STREET SPECIFIC PLAN 86-007 AMENDMENT NO. 3 AND CONCURRENCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TO REALIGN RIGHT OF WAY APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN AVENUE 48 AND HIGHWAY 111. Mr. Reynolds reviewed the proposed realignment of Washington Street from Avenue 48 to Highway 111. The entire alignment has been shifted to the east about 38' in order to eliminate problems with two properties at the corner of Highland Palms and Washington. He then explained access to the frontage road. The original Specific Plan showed a sound barrier separating a new frontage road from the future six-lane facility and this modification retains that barrier. However, the proposed interim construction is to provide a four-lane facility, not six. Staff could not recommend that a noise barrier wall be built at this time in the absence of a noise level study under the actual traffic conditions. If such a study is authorized at the appropriate time. If the study indicates that a sound barrier is necessary or desirable, the barrier can then be properly engineered to mitigate a known condition. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Reynolds advised that when the four lane facility is built, there will be excess right of way on the east side which will be used when it is expanded to six lanes. He added that there will be 36' between the first home and the first travel lane. He was confident that four lanes will handle the traffic for a considerable amount of time. Regarding the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington, there are problems there and he and the City Manager have a meeting with Caltrans later this week to discuss the issue. A sound barrier wall will not be designed in the first phase. A determination has to first be made as to the impact of the traffic in order to identify what kind of sound barrier is needed. BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 City Council Minutes Page 2 March 21, 1989 Mr. Reynolds added that with Washington Square, the Spanos Tract and The Grove, Avenue 47 and Avenue 48 will be going through and will siphon of f a considerable amount of traffic from this area. He reiterated that staff has to know what the problems are before they can be solved. In response to Council Member Bohnenberger, Mr. Reynolds anticipated being under design within the next few months as soon as the right of way is acquired. The Mayor declared the public hearing OPEN. CLYDE DAVIS, 46-895 Washington, asked how wide the frontage road will be and Mr. Reynolds advised that it will have two travel lanes and a parking lane. He then questioned access to the frontage road and Mr. Reynolds responded. STEVE GAYLORD, 46-555 Washington, asked how the City can justify six lanes when there are no other six lane roads in the Valley except 1-10. Mr. Reynolds advised that six lanes are based on future projections made at the time the study was made. Mr. Gaylord advised that last weekend, he couldn't get out of his driveway due to the heavy traffic. He wanted a frontage road with a sound wall. JOHN MASELTER, 46-585 Washington, stated that he was outraged that a sound wall isn't being planned at this time. A wall Cf 6-12 feet is necessary. He didn't feel that they should have to wait two or three years for it. Mr. Kiedrowski noted that the City does not have possession of the land at this time and before we can acquire the land, we have to adopt this Specific Plan. Based on this plan, the City then can approach the property owners and proceed with acquisition. ROBERT FIORI, 78-550 Singing Palms, wished to stress the need and importance that this neighborhood be taken care of. This Specific Plan should be contingent upon a sound wall being built at least six feet high to be paid for by the developer. LAWSON WALING, Singing Palms Drive, supported the comments that have been made thus far. BOB HARGREAVES, Atty. representing Wayne Weber, 46-285 Washington, commended City staff for attempting to solve the traffic problems in this area. However, he believed that the noise levels are unacceptable at this point and will only get worse. Therefore, now is the time to consider a noise barrier wall. He suggested that the City could bear the expense at this time and recoup the costs from the developers. BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 City Council Minutes Page 3 March 21, 1989 LEE SLEIGHT, 46-600 Cameo Palms, concurred with previous comments. The traffic is an impossibility making access to Washington Street from Singing Palms difficult. She didn't believe that vehicles should be allowed to park on Washington just north of Singing Palms. DAVID JOHNSON, 46-910 Highland Palms, asked if once the realignment is approved, does that mean that the developers can then begin building. Council Member Bohnenberger explained that no specific plans have been submitted, the action before the Council this evening is a b1ueprint'? for what they wish to do in the future. Mr. Kiedrowski advised that two years ago, the Council instructed staff to widen Washington Street to a full four lane facility as soon as possible. The first section widened, was that portion which we did not need to acquire the right of way for. Once we acquire the remaining right of way, staff will design the continuation of the four lane facility with the frontage road. As the other properties develop, they will will be required to provide right of way to widen the four lane facility to the ultimate six lane facility. JIM CARPENTER, 78-750 Singing Palms, stated that he was insulted that the sound wall is not being considered as part of this project from the beginning. ROBERT FIORI, felt that the sound wall should be built prior to construction on the east as part of this approval. There being no one else wishing to speak, the Mayor declared the public hearing CLOSED. In response to Mr. Fiori, Council Member Bohnenberger pointed out Condition No. 8 of the Washington Square Specific Plan which states That the noise impacts on the residential development to the west will be mitigated by the Developer who will participate in the construction of a noise wall based upon the amount of noise that can be attributed to this proposed development". Council Member Sniff commented that if Adams had been maintained, this would not be an issue. He believed that these residents need and require a sound barrier wall as soon as possible. He wished to see this plan go forward because if any part of the development on the east side is built, it will generate an enormous amount of traffic. He asked how much land is required and Mr. Kiedrowski advised that there are two more parcels that must be acquired. One section will be required to be dedicated as part of a development plan and the other property owner has to be approached. Council Member Bohnenberger noted that the plan cannot proceed and right of way cannot be acquired until the Specific Plan is adopted. BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 City Council Minutes Page 4 March 21, 1989 RESOLUTION NO. 89-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CONCURRING WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND APPROVING WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 3, REALIGNING THE WASHINGTON STREET RIGHT OF WAY APPROXIMATELY BETWEEN AVENUE 48 AND HIGHWAY ill SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 86-007, AMENDMENT NO. 3 WASHINGTON STREET CORRIDOR PLAN. It was moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Rushworth that Resolution No. 89-34 be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Pena commented that there is definitely a problem, the City is aware of it and is trying to move as quickly as the law allows us. He also pointed out that in November, the voters approved Measure A which provides for a half cent sales tax which will be spent on transportation needs and will raise in excess of two hundred million dollars over the next several years, so we can start approaching traffic issues On a regional basis. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON WASHINGTON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN 87-011; CHANGE OF ZONE 87-028 AND CONCURRENCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LOCATED AT THE EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111, WEST OF ADAMS AND 1/2 MILE NORTH OF AVENUE 48 APPLICATION BY MAURICE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL. Mr. Bower, Principal Planner, presented staff's report advising that the proposal being presented is by the Washington Square group involving a parcel located south of Highway 111, east side of Washington, west of Adams and 1/2 mile north of Avenue 48. The proposal is for a Change of Zone from R-l and R-1-12000 to C-P-S and for Specific Plan 87-011 which includes 268,000 sq. ft. of retail space; 80,800 sq. ft. of special retail; 19,000 sq. ft. restaurants; 90,000 sq ft. office; 350 hotel rooms and a cineplex. Environmental Assessment No. 87-081 was prepared which revealed traffic and archaeological concerns. Studies showed that mitigation measures can be applied to the development to lessen any impacts. Therefore, a Negative Declaration with mitigations is proposed. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this Specific Plan with conditions. There were concerns expressed regarding traffic; height of the buildings; archaeological impacts and noise. However, the conditions imposed mitigate these concerns, 1. e., fund a noise study; participation in construction of a sound barrier wall on the west side of Washington; dedication of right of way; building heights are subject to the requirements of development standards of the C-P-S Zone. BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 City Council Minutes Page 5 March 21, 1989 MAURICE KURTZ, Director of Planning of Archisystems, representing the Washington Square group, advised that this is a 70 acre mixed use development. Because of its strategic location, this project will serve as a major community retail, office, hotel, and entertainment center. Because of the triangular shape of the site, the project was planned and arranged in such a way to provide exposure and access to the center from both Washington Street and Highway ill. Highway 111 addresses the regional market while Washington Street contains the neighborhood and community uses. Regarding circulation, the plan proposes extension of Simon Drive to the west to tie with Washington Street which will provide a new intersection with a traffic signal and should provide relief of traffic at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington. Approximately 3 1/2 acres is being dedicated for widening of Washington. The plan also proposes a new east/west collector road at the south end of the property, which they're calling Avenue 47. It is planned as a collector street which will originate at Highland Palms and extend eastward to Adams. It also provides an additional east/west road to Jefferson Street in the future. It is also being planned as part of the A. G. Spanos project to the south. The Mayor declared the public hearing OPEN. JOHN MASELTER, expressed concern that this project will be built which will add to an unbearable situation and that the City won't have the money to build a sound barrier wall and that Washington Street will not be moved to the east. JANICE CRISY, 51-905 Avenida Villa, didn't believe that this community needs this development, she didn't wish to become urbanized. She also commented on the increase in traffic which Washington Street will be unable to handle. She asked that the property be left residential. ROBERT FIORI, 78-550 Singing Palms, emphasized that even though this development is going to participate in a wall and noise study, the wall should not depend upon a study, but rather what the people feel they need. A wall should be made a condition of this development. There being no one else wishing to speak, the hearing was CLOSED. In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Bower advised that the portions of the Specific Plan which we consider to be binding are access program; uses and rough square footage for those uses. Everything else is to be conditioned and modified once we get a concrete precise plot plan for a specific development. For instance, the height of buildings are not approved as part of this plan. He added that this plan is in conformance with the General Plan for that area. BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 City Council Minutes Page 6 March 21, 1989 In further response to questions by Council, Mr. Reynolds advised that the distance between the Highway ill signal and the one proposed at Simon Drive is 1,500'. Council Member Sniff stated that his concern is the stacking up of vehicles at Highway 111 intersection. Mr. Reynolds advised that Avenue 47 and Avenue 48 will relieve some of the traffic and the increase to four lanes will provide additional stacking. Also, synchronizing of signals will help. Staff sees no problems based upon engineering studies that have been done. Council Member Sniff felt that if the hotel was moved to another area of the property, it would help to relieve Washington. NEIL WHITAKER with Barton Ashton Assoc., Engineers for the project pointed out that even though the studies show 30,000 trips being generated, not all of them are new trips some of them are occurring today. Additionally, not all of them are being dumped on Washington many will be using Highway 111, Avenue 47 and Avenue 48. The distance between the signal at Highway 111 and Simon Drive is in excess of what is considered to be acceptable. Mr. Kiedrowski commented that La Quinta has been an exporter of sales tax dollars. Staff feels that some of the things being proposed in this center are the kinds of things people have been asking for in this community. If this project is not approved, the City will then have to negotiate with the property owners to acquire the land for the right of way. Regarding the affect on The village", he advised that there have been no proposals to develop anything in this project that would be in competition with the uses planned in the village. Council Member Bohnenberger felt that rather than compete with it, we're bringing in an additional 200-350 hotel rooms and those people will be supporting the village. So we would be increasing the draw. Mayor Pena questioned the affect the La Quinta Hotel, which is the second largest hotel in the valley, has had on traffic. Mr. Reynolds advised that there has been no affect so far. There is an agreement with the hotel that after one year they will conduct a traffic study to determine the impact on Eisenhower. It could possibly result in the need for a traffic signal at the hotel entrance which they will be required to install. Council Member Rushworth commented that this project does conform to the General Plan we have for the Highway 111 corridor and felt that it should be approved. He agreed that it will help bring in development to the village. BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 City Council Minutes Page 7 March 21, 1989 Council Member Bohnenberger sympathized with the people who spoke. He wished to see the City proceed with the improvements of Washington Street as soon as possible. He could see no reason to hold up approval of this Specific Plan noting that as each piece comes in to develop, its going to have its own conditions of approval. He also pointed out that we need to diversify our economic base and in order to do that we need to bring in a bed tax and sales tax base, we cannot continue to rely on developers fees which are one time payments. In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Kurtz advised that it will be built in phases whether or not it will begin on Highway 111 or Washington is yet to be determined. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Bower advised that the developer will participate in the sound wall to the extent of somewhere between 15% and 50%. Mr. Kiedrowski stated that the issue is where the first phase of the project will be built and its impact on Washington. He added that if the Council decides to budget for a sound barrier wall in this next fiscal year, then it will be built. Council Member Bohnenberger stated that the City could build the wall and then assess the developer some portion of the costs as their contribution. Mr. Kiedrowski noted that the Council may wish to consider sharing the costs of the wall with the property owners as well as the developer. The question is what is the nexus and how should the costs be shared. MOTION It was moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Rushworth that Ordinance No. 135 be taken up by title and number only and that full reading be waived. Motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 135 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY, BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY REFERRED TO IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 87-028 WASHINGTON SQUARE). It was moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Rushworth that Ordinance No. 135 be introduced and waive further reading. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Bohnenberger, Bosworth, Rushworth, Mayor Pena NOES: Council Member Sniff ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 City Council Minutes Page 8 March 21, 1989 RESOLUTION NO. 89-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL aF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CONCURRING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 87-081 AND GRANTING APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 87-Oil, FOR WASHINGTON SQURE CASE NO. SP 87-011 WASHINGTON SQUARE GROUP. It was moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Rushworth that Resolution No. 89-35 be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23773 SUBDIVISION OF 45.64 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF FRED WARING AND STARLIGHT LANE INTO 154 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO COMMON LOTS AND CONCURRENCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPLICANT: RICK JOHNSON. Mr. Bower, Principal Planner, presented staff report advised that this tentative map is subject of an annexation which has been approved by LAFCO and the City. The tract is for development of 154 single family lots and two common area/entry lots at the northwest corner of Fred Waring and Adams. The zoning is R-1-9000 and the development has a net density of 3.4 units/acre. He added that Starlight Lane will be gated into Bermuda Dunes and the left portion of that street will be public. Regarding the Environmental Assessment, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Planning Commission has recommended approval subject to findings and conditions. RICK JOHNSON, 41-615 Yucca Lane, and GREG SWAJIAN, advised that the public portion of Starlight will be 36' from curb to curb with no parking. The Mayor declared the public hearing OPEN. There being no one wishing to speak, the hearing was CLOSED. RESOLUTION NO. 89-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS, CONFIRMING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23773 TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A LAND SALES SUBDIVISION CASE NO. TT 23773-1. It was moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Sniff that Resolution No. 89-36 be approved. Motion carried unanimously. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 City Council Minutes Page 9 March 21, 1989 BUSINESS SESSION 1. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENTION REGARDING ACCESS TO LAKE CAHUILLA COUNTY PARK. Mr. Kiedrowski advised that there have been concerns expressed about access to Lake Cahuilla as a result of our Annexation No. 4 south of PGA West regarding the City's intention to provide permanent access to the Lake. Council concurred on amending Item No. 1 to read That it is our intent not to restrict, close, or limit access to Lake Cahuilla County Park in any way". RESOLUTION NO. 89-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION REGARDING ACCESS TO LAKE CAHUILLA COUNTY PARK. It was moved by Council Member Sniff, seconded by Council Member Rushworth that Resolution No. 89-37 be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. 2. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE CITY'S APPLICATION TO LAFCO REGARDING REORGANIZATION FOR THE DETACHMENT FROM THE SOUTHERN COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT FOR ANNEXATION NO. 4. Mr. Kiedrowski advised that when the City applied for Annexation No. 4 on behalf of the property owners in that area, we were not knowledgable of the fact that part of this land was also within the boundaries of the Southern Coachella Valley Community Services District. Therefore, in order to detach from that District, he recommended the resolution submitted be adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 89-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO AMEND THE CITY'S ANNEXATION REQUEST LAFCO NO. 88-97-4) TO INCLUDE REORGANIZATION FOR DETACHMENT FROM THE SOUTHERN COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ANNEXATION OF 291.6 ACRES OF PROPERTY SOUTH OF THE CURRENT CORPORATE LIMITS AND DIRECTING THAT A REQUEST FOR THIS PURPOSE BE EXECUTED AND FILED WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION. It was moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Sniff that Resolution No. 89-38 be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 City Council Minutes Page 10 March 21, 1989 CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21, 1989 AND MARCH 7, 1989. 3. APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP 21555-2 AND RELATED SUBDIVISION AGREEMENTS PARC LA QUINTA. 4. APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP 21555-3 AND RELATED SUBDIVISION AGREEMENTS PARC LA QUINTA. 5. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT REGARDING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 88-1. 6. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MAKING COMMITMENTS TO ECD CONCERNING THE SENIOR CENTER COMPLETION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. 7. SUBSTITUTION OF MEMBER OF FRITZ BURNS PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE. MOTION It was moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Sniff that Consent Items 1 through 7 be approved as recommended with Items 1 and 6 being approved by RESOLUTION NOS. 89-39 and 89-40 respectively. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 89-29. COUNCIL COMMENT- None PUBLIC COMMENT- None AT THIS TIME, THE MEETING CONTINUED AS A JOINT MEETING WITH THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PLEASE SEE SEPARATE MINUTES FOR THAT MEETING. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M. upon motion by Council Member Bohnenberger seconded by Council Member Rushworth and carried unanimously. SAUNDRA L. JU City Clerk City of La Quinta, California BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:23:04PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 JOINT MEETING CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES MARCH 21, 1989 Joint meeting of the La Quinta City Council and La Quinta Redevelopment Agency was held on March 21, 1989, Mayor/Chairman Pena presiding. CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Council Members Bohnenberger, Bosworth, Rushworth, Sniff, Mayor Pena ABSENT: None REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mr. Bohnenberger, Mrs. Bosworth, Mr. Rushworth, Mr. Sniff, Chairman Pena ABSENT: None Mayor Pena advised that prior to proceeding with the public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan and Final EIR, the Agency must first approve the Owner Participation Rules, the Method of Relocation, and the Agency Report to the City Council on the Redevelopment Plan. He continued, that a blighted area is one which is characterized by one or more of those conditions set forth in Sections 33031 or 33032, causing a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social or economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. At this time, Mr. Kiedrowski proceeded to introduce the Citys consultants Mark Huebach with Stradling, Yocca, Carlson; and Frank Spevacek with Rosenow Spevacek Group. RESOLUTION NO. RA 89-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING THE OWNER PARTICIPATION RULES AND METHOD OF RELOCATION AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF ITS REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 2. * It was moved by Mr. Sniff, seconded by Mr. Bohnenberger, that Resolution No. RA 89-5 be adopted. Motion carried unanimously. BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 1. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON FINAL EIR AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 2. Mayor/Chairman Pena advised that the proposed Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 2 and the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan. Mr. Hue bach advised that after review of the Agency and Council Members Statements of Economic Interests disclosing interest in real property located within the Project Area, it is his opinion that none of the members is disqualified from participating or voting on the plan for adoption. Mr. Hue bach requested that the following documents be entered into the record: a. The affidavit of publication of Notice of the Public Hearing. b. The certificate of mailing of Notice of Public Hearing to each property owner in the Project Area as shown on the last equalized assessment roll. c. The certificate of mailing of Notice of Public Hearing to the governing bodies of each taxing agency with the Project Area. Mayor/Chairman Pena advised that the State law under which we are acting is Part 1 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code commencing with Section 33000, commonly referred to as the California Redevelopment Law:) and the California Environmental Quality Act commonly referred to CEQA"), commencing with Section 21000 of the Public Resources Code. Mr. Huebsch advised that the purpose of the hearing is to consider evidence and testimony for and against the certification of the Final EIR and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 2. Evidence will be introduced for consideration by the City Council and Agency in connection with certain findings and determinations that will be made with respect to the Ordinance adopting the Plan. Mr. Huebsch proceed to review the findings and determinations as are set forth in Section 33367 of the Health and Safety Code as follows: 1. The Project Area exhibits the conditions of blight as outlined in Sections 33031 & 33032 of the Health and Safety Code and Agency action is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the Redevelopment Law. 2. The Redevelopment Plan would address conditions present in the area in conformity with the Redevelopment Law and in interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 3. The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. 4. The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City. 5. The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan would promote the public peach, health safety and welfare and would effectuate the purposes and policy of the Redevelopment Law. 6. The condemnation of real property may be necessary to the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and adequate provisions have been made for payment for property to be acquired as provided by the Redevelopment Law. 7. If implementation activities result in the temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the Project Area, the Agency has a feasible method or plan for the relocation of families and persons displaced by project activities. 8. There are, or are being provided, in the project area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons displaced from the project area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to the displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. 9. The inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare is necessary for an effective redevelopment program. No area is included in the Project Area solely for the purpose of obtaining an allocation of tax increment revenues from the area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Health and Safety Code. 10. The elimination of blighting conditions and the development of needed public facilities and utilities within the Project Area could not reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. 11. The effect of tax increment financing will not cause a significant financial burden or determent on any taxing agency deriving revenues from the Project Area. 12. In view of Health and Safety Code Section 33320.1 it is proposed that the City Council make a finding that no less than 80% of the Project Area is urbanized. BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 Mr. Huebsch advised that the CouncillAgency will be called upon to make findings regarding Section 33367 if it elects to adopt a Redevelopment Plan. The findings have to be supported by substantial evidence which has been defined as relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate in support of a conclusion. In terms of blight, in addition to having factors of blight be present, blight must be considered on the area as a whole and conditions of blight must pervade and predominate within the project area. The Mayor declared the public hearing OPEN. Mr. Kiedrowski briefly reviewed the history of this project. He advised that this hearing will be continued to April 18th. Mr. Spevacek then summarized the contents of the Agency Report to the City Council, which is the basic supporting documentation for the Redevelopment Plan and is on file in the City Clerk's office and he also summarized the Final Environmental Impact Report which evaluates the potential significant environmental impacts of Plan implementation activities and asked that they be made a part of the record. Mr. Huebsch then asked that the following documents be entered into the record: a. Final Environmental Impact Report; b. Additional letters, comments and responses, if any, from responding agency; c. Written public communications regarding the Final EIR. Mr. Spevacek then summarized the Redevelopment Plan advising that the Plan that was circulated earlier basically serves as the constitution to the Agency guiding and implementing redevelopment in the project area. The Plan defines the boundaries of the project area; provides the Agency authority to acquire property; provides for relocation; provides for property rehabilitation, constructs specified improvements; provides for property management if the Agency owns any property during the duration of the Plan; and establishes limits on the amount of tax increment revenue that the Agency can receive. He noted that in response to the Fiscal Review Committee report, the staff is proposing that the limits that were established for tax increment and bonded indebtedness that were put forth in the draft Redevelopment Plan be reduced from the four hundred million dollar limit on tax increment to two hundred fifty million dollars and to establish a two hundred million dollar cap on the total amount of bonded indebtedness the agency may have outstanding at any one time. The Plan also provides for the Agency to use its authority of eminent domain to acquire property within the project area. BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 Mr. Huebsch asked that the following documents be entered into the record: a. The Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 2. b. The Preliminary Report. Mr. Kiedrowski advised that there have been no written comments other then those previously listed. Any that are received will be placed into the record prior to closing of this hearing. The Mayor then called for oral testimony in favor of adoption of Redevelopment Project Area No. 2. or the EIR. There was none. The Mayor then called for oral testimony in opposition to adoption of Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 or the EIR. There was none. The Mayor entertained a motion to continue the public hearing to 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, April 18, 1989. MOTION It was moved by Council Member Bohnenberger, seconded by Council Member Sniff to continue this public hearing to 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, April 18, 1989. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion by Council Member Sniff, seconded by Council Member Bosworth, the meeting was adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. SAUNDRA L. JU City Clerk/Secretary City of La Quinta/La Quinta Redevelopment Agency BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 BIB] 02-13-96-U01 04:29:20PM-U01 CCMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02