Loading...
1983 11 22 CC Minutes%^ MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CITY OF LA QUINTA CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY An adjourned regular meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency held at the La Quinta Community Building, 77-861 Avenida Montezuma, La Quinta, California November 22, 1983 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER A. The Invocation was given by City Manager, Frank Usher. B. The Flag Salute was led by Mayor Baier. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Council Members Allen, Cox and Mayor Baier. Absent: Council Members Henderson and Wolff. Moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Allen, to excuse Council Members Henderson and Wolff. Unanimously adopted. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT 4. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 5. COMMENT FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS 6. HEARINGS Mayor Baier, who also serves as Chairman of the Redevelopment Agency, called the hearing to order, explaining that the purpose of the meeting was to consider and act upon the Redevelopment Plan for the La Quinta Redevelopment Project. Mayor Baier explained that any interested person would have an opportunity to speak regarding the proposed Plan. The Mayor declared the Joint Public Hearing open and asked that if any persons wished to speak, that they fill Out a form pro- viding the name, address and related information. The Mayor introduced the following persons who would be presenting information at the hearing: Frank M. Usher, City Manager City of La Quinta and Executive Director, La Quinta Redevelopment Agency Sandra L. Bonner, Principal Planner City of La Quinta BIB] 03-19-96-U01 10:59:00AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 22-U02 1983-U02 %^MINUTES City Council & Redevelopment Agency November 22, 1983 Allan A. Robertson, Planning Consultant KatzHollis, Coren & Associates Lawrence J. Arceneaux, Financial Consultant, KatzHollis? Coren & Associates Fritz Stradling, Agency Special Legal Counsel Stradling, Yacca, Carlson & Rauth William Mayer, Environmental Consultant LSA, Inc. The Mayor then outlined the procedures to be followed during the hearing. Mr. Stradling, the special legal counsel, outlined legal issues related to the plan, including a description of the findings and determinations that will be made in adoption of an ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan, including: 1. The Project Area meets the legal qualifications set forth by the State Legislature for a blighted area, the redevelop- ment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes described in the Community Redevelopment Law. 2. The Redevelopment Plan would redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. 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 peace, health, safety and welfare of the community and would effectuate the purposes and policies of the Community Redevelopment Law. 6. The condemnation of real property, as provided for on a qualified basis in the Redevelopment Plan, is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan, and adequate provi- sions have been made for payment for properties to be acquired as provided by law. Eminent domain may not be used by the Agency to acquire residentially zoned property for private development purposes without the owner?s written consent.) 7. The Redevelopment Agency has a feasible method or plan for the relocation of families or persons displaced from the Project Area if the Redevelopment Plan may result in the temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the Project Area. 2- BIB] 03-19-96-U01 10:59:00AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 22-U02 1983-U02 %^MINUTES City Council & Redevelopment Agency November 22, 1983 8. There are or are being provided within the Project Area or within other areas not generally less desirable with regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities, at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who may be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings egual in number to the number of and available to such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. 9. Inclusion of any lands, buildings or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the whole area of which they are a part, and any such area included is necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area without other Substantial justifica- tion for its inclusion. 10. The elimination of blight and redevelopment of the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Robertson summarized the Agency's Report to Council and the Redevelopment Plan which was included in the record, including: 1. Reasons for Selection of the Project Area. 2. Description of Conditions: a. General b. Physical c. Land Use d. Economic e. Social 3. Method of Financing. 4. Method or Plan for Relocation. 5. Analysis of the Preliminary Plan. 6. Report and Recommendations of the Planning Commission. 7. Citizen Participation. 8. Report of the County Fiscal Officer. 3- BIB] 03-19-96-U01 10:59:00AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 22-U02 1983-U02 %^MINUTES City Council & Redevelopment Agency November 22, 1983 9. Fiscal Review Committee Report. 10. Neighborhood Impact Report. 11. Agency Analysis of County Fiscal Officer Report and Summary of Consultations with Tax-Taxing Agencies. Mr. Usher described past flooding conditions which exist in the Project Area. He then described the means of financing flood control improvements through the tax increment method. Mr. Usher incorporated the report of the Fiscal Review Committee into the record. Mr. Robertson and Mr. Usher summarized the blight influences within the Project Area. The Mayor declared the Report of the Agency, including the Report and Recommendations of the Planning Commission and the proposed Redevelopment Plan, With related testimony, as a part of the record. The Mayor declared the Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Property Owners and Business Occupants as adopted by the Redevelooment Agency as a part of the record. The Mayor asked any persons who wished to speak to indicate their desire on a form attached to the agenda. The Mayor declared a five minute recess. The Mayor reconvened the meeting. The City Clerk read comments from the following persons. S. Takacs Mildred F. Farrugia Ralph H. Gapehart The Mayor indicated the the Council and Agency would now hear any statements, testimony or questions from the audience. Mr. en Wiese asked a question regarding blight and expressed concern regarding eminent domain. The City Manager described eminent domain procedures. Mr. Andrew S. Smith spoke in favor of the flood control. Mr. Rupert Yessayian spoke, indicating that he represented a number of commercial property owners. He stated that he was definitely in favor of the flood control. He spoke further indicating his Opposition to eminent domain. He asked that the issues of flood control and downtown redevelopment be 4- BIB] 03-19-96-U01 10:59:00AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 22-U02 1983-U02 %^MINUTES City Council & Redevelopment Agency November 22, 1983 separated and that representatives of the City meet with downtown business and business property owners. Mr. Mike wargo, representing the Coachella Valley Mosquito Abatement District, spoke regarding the fiscal impact on the District. He stated that the District is generally in favor of the redevelopment project. Mr. Bob Richey asked if service businesses would be permitted. Mr. Usher responded that many kinds of business activities are intended for the downtown area. He expressed the Council's commitment to meet with downtown business property owners before forming any kind of a plan for downtown development. Mr. James A. Rice, representing Landmark Land Company, indicated support for the need for flood control facilities. He expressed caution regarding the financing needs relative to the flood control project. Mr. Dennis Leam, representing the Coachella Valley Unified School District, expressed the District's support for the redevelopment plan, but he did reserve the District's legal rights with respect to the project. Mr. John Geppert asked a question regarding the time limit for adoption of the project. Mr. Usher described the time limit. Mr. T. Takacs expressed concern regarding eminent domain, but expressed support for flood control. Regarding general planning, the following persons submitted questions: Mr. George Underhill, regarding pedestrian access to surrounding mountains. Mr. R. whitney, regarding land requisition. Ms. Louise L. Godd, regarding rezoning. Mr. & Mrs. W. H. Owen, regarding the effect of the project on properties outside of the project area. Mr. A. J. Stock, regarding matters unrelated to the redevelop- ment plan. Mr. James E. McFarlan, regarding eminent domain over residential property. Mr. James C. Martin, regarding eminent domain and zone changes, and regarding future development. 5- BIB] 03-19-96-U01 10:59:00AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 22-U02 1983-U02 %^MINUTES City Council & Redevelopment Agency November 22, 1983 Mr. Usher responded to the various questions. Regarding engineering, the following persons submitted questions: Mr. Charles Vanderbilt, regarding the possibility of one channel. George and Jacqueline Macy, regarding why the Corps of Engineers is not involved. Mr. Lowell 0. Weeks, the General Manager and Chief Engineer of the Coachella Valley Water District, and Mr. Usher responded. Mr. L. De Martens asked a question regarding the financing of the project. Mr. Arceneaux responded. Mr. Dale Culp asked a question regarding financing. Mr. Arceneaux and Mr. Usher responded. Mr. Jack Buth asked a question regarding financing. Mr. Usher responded. Mr. Joe Connors asked a question regarding financing. Mr. Usher responded. Mr. Dirk Homan made a statement regarding the responsibility to proceed with development. Mr. M. F. De Martens asked for a vote on the issue. Mr. Jim Wiltze stated that the flood control issue and redevelop- ment should not be together. Mr. T. Takacs asked that immenent domain not be included. General questions followed regarding eminent domain. Mr. Usher responded to the questions. Council Member Allen stated that the Council does intend to work together with the business community. The Mayor declared a five minute recess. The Mayor reconvened the meeting. Mr. Usher explained that the Agency would be adopting a resolution exempting existing buildings, under existing ownerships, from eminent domain. 6- BIB] 03-19-96-U01 10:59:00AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 22-U02 1983-U02 %^MINUTES City Council & Redevelopment Agency November 22, 1983 Council Member and Agency Member Allen moved and Council Member and Agency Member Cox seconded to close the joint public hearing. Unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION NO. RA-83-24. A RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. Moved by Agency Member Allen, seconded by Agency Member Cox, to adopt Resolution No. RA-83-24. Unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION NO. RA-83-25. A RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT. Moved by Agency Member Cox, seconded by Agency Member Allen, to adopt Resolution No. RA-83-25. Unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION NO. RA?B3-26. A RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY EXEMPTING FROM THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN ALL EXISTING BUILDINGS UNDER EXISTING OWNERSHIPS IN THE COMMERCIALLY ZONED AREA WHICH IS WITHIN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA. Moved by Agency Member Cox, seconded by Agency Member Allen, to adopt Resolution No. RA-83-26. Unanimously adopted. Mr. Usher and Mr. Arceneaux explained the agreements relating to tax increment with Riverside County, Coachella Valley Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Water District. Moved by Agency Member Cox, seconded by Agency Member Allen, to approve the agreement with Riverside County in concept. Moved by Agency Member Allen, seconded by Agency Member Cox, to approve the Memorandum of Understanding with the Coachella Valley Unified School District. It was the concensus of the Agency to act on the agreement with the Coachella Valley Water District on November 25, 1983. Mr. Usher explained the necessary changes in the Redevelopment Plan relating to the discription of the flood control improve- ments, the tax increment draw limitation and the bond amount limitation. Moved by Agency Member Cox, seconded by Agency Member Allen, to approve the changes as described in the Redevelopment Plan. Unanimously adopted. 7- BIB] 03-19-96-U01 10:59:00AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 22-U02 1983-U02 %^MINUTES City Council & Redevelopment Agency November 22, 1983 Moved by Agency Member Cox, seconded by Agency Member Allen, to adjourn the Agency meeting to Monday, November 28, 1983 at 7:00 p.m., at City Hall. Unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83-71. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND IN ADOPTING SAID PROJECT HAVE RECOGNIZED THE OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS TO ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH WILL BENEFIT THE CITY FROM PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION. Moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Allen, to adopt Resolution No. 83-71. Unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83-72. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND IN ADOPTING SAID PROJECT RECOG- NIZING THE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. Moved by Council Member Allen, seconded by Council Member Cox, to adopt Resolution No. 83-72. Unanimously adopted. Moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Allen, to approve in concept the agreement with Riverside County. Unanimously adopted. Moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Allen, to approve the agreement with the Coachella Valley Unified School District. Unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83-73. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA RULING ON WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. Moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Allen, to adopt Resolution No. 83-73. Unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION N00 83-74. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY?S SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT. Moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Allen, to adopt Resolution No. 83-74. Unanimously adopted. Moved by Council Member Allen, seconded by Council Member Cox, to approve the changes as described in the Redevelopment Plan. Unanimously adopted. 8- BIB] 03-19-96-U01 10:59:00AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 22-U02 1983-U02 %^MINUTES City Council & Redevelopment Agency November 23, 1983 PROPOSED ORDINANCE. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. Moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Allen, to waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance. Unanimously adopted. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR. 8. BUSINESS SESSION. 9. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Council Member Cox, seconded by Council Member Allen, to adjourn the Council meeting to Monday, November 28, 1983, at 7:00 a.m., at La Quinta City Hall. The adjourned regular meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of the City of La Quinta, California, was adjourned at 12:05 a.m., November 23, 1983, at the La Quinta Community Building, 77-861 Avenida Montezuma, La Quinta, California. 9- BIB] 03-19-96-U01 10:59:00AM-U01 CCMIN-U02 11-U02 22-U02 1983-U02