Loading...
1992 08 04 RDA Minutes LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Minutes of August 4, 1992 Regular meeting of the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency was called to order by Chairman Pena. PRESENT: Mr. Bohnenberger, Mrs. Franklin, Mr. Rushworth, Mr. Sniff, Chairman Pena ABSENT: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Agency Minutes of July 21, 1992 were approved as submitted upon motion by Mrs. Franklin, seconded by Mr. Sniff and carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT None BUSINESS SESSION 1. SELECTION OF UNDERWRITER FOR TAX ALLOCATION BOND ISSUE SERIES 1992, PROJECT AREA NO. 2 Mr. Genovese, Ass?t. City Manager, advised that we are moving forward with a bond issue in relation to Project Area 2. A major portion of these funds are necessary for the improvements to infrastructure relating to one commercial project as well as some additional infrastructure costs. Through a process conducted in conjunction with the Financial Advisors, Fieldman & Rolapp, requests for proposals were sent out. As a result of that process, a recommendation is being made to select Westhoff Martin as the underwriters. MOTION It was moved by Mr. Sniff, seconded by Mr. Bohnenberger to approve the selection of Westhoff Martin as underwriters for the Tax Allocation Bond Issue Series 1992, Project Area No. 2. Motion carried unanimously. 2. CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT WITH WALLING & MCCALLUM FOR PROFESSIONAL DESIGN?DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR A SITE IN THE VILLAGE AT LA QUINTA. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that the Board has previously approved in concept, the proposed agreement with Walling & McCallum and directed staff to put it into the form of an agreement and clarify some of the details, which has been done. The agreement covers a schematic design for some property which the Agency currently owns in The Village and that in addition, some financial analysis would be done and some initial marketing studies would be done to try to BIB] 07-18-1996-U01 01:12:32PM-U01 RDAMIN-U02 08-U02 04-U02 1992-U02 generate some interest in doing some development in The village Area. The agreement provides for a time-frame by which each of the activities will take place and for reports back to the Board as to the status of those activities and also makes clear that it is not exclusive. Mr. Sniff felt that this is a unique situation because it involves Agency property as opposed to privately-owned property. However, he expressed concern about whether or not the process is totally fair in not giving other developers an opportunity to submit proposals. He also questioned whether or not the Board has really thought out where wee re g6ing with The village and thirdly, he questioned the feasibility of proceeding without some disposition of the park. Mr. Warden, Interim City Manager, noted that the procedure thus far has not been in accordance with Council's adopted procedure, which says that you will ask for three firms, which was not done. However, he didn't feel that it's precc?ent setting because the Council already has a resolution setting forth the procedure. Mr. Speer, Ass't. City Engineer, advised that staff intends to hold some public meetings discussing the circulation plan prior to going to the Planning Commission with a proposal for amending the Specific Plan. Those meetings will be held in September with a proposal to the Planning Commission at the last meeting in September and to the Council at the first meeting in October. On-street parking will be a part of this proposal. He noted that if the property owners around the park reaffirm their desire to stick with the existing plan, then there will probably be no need to re-work the urban design concept. But, if it?s found that the circulation plan around the park needs to be re-worked then perhaps the Council may wish to consider some of the urban design concepts. Mr. Bohnenberger commented that there?s a need to determine if the concept works, which is a purpose of the contract in question. Therefore, he felt that we need to proceed with the contract and move forward with the project. Chairman Pena stated that the Board/Council has been anxious to proceed with something to let people know that we are interested in doing something in The village. Mr. Walling is a local person and we are trying to use local people for local jobs, noting that Mr. Walling's services are being used to design the Senior Center and the Arts Foundation Building, so there may be some continuity there that may carry forth into The village. Mrs. Franklin commented that the Council has adopted a policy for a reason and felt that it should be followed. She felt that other people should be given the same chance to do what Mr. walling has asked to do and if no one else comes forward, BIB] 07-18-1996-U01 01:12:32PM-U01 RDAMIN-U02 08-U02 04-U02 1992-U02 then we can go forward with this proposal. She agreed that time is of the essence, but we have been at this for some time1 so another short delay shouldn't be a problem. Mr. John walling, advised that this is unique in that it's a compilation of two disciplines architecture and commercial real estate. He doubted if the City is going to find another group who's willing to do something like this. It's doubtful an architect will be found who's willing to joint-venture with a commercial realtor to do the marketing and vice versa. He felt that to put it out to bid is a waste of time. He added that he has proceeded in good faith and has already started the work. Mr. Sniff and Mrs. Franklin suggested that this matter be continued to September 15th and staff be instructed to solicit additional proposals in the interim. Mr. Bohnenberger felt that this case is unique. Mr. walling has come to the Agency with a unique layout for a unique situation and circumstance. There's no policy that can be written to cover 100% of all cases. He believed that this case falls within the cracks of the resolution in question. He had no problem in proceeding. Mr. Rushworth concurred. MOTION It was moved by Mr. Sniff, seconded by Mrs. Franklin to continue this matter to September 15 and in the meantime, staff be directed to solicit additional proposals for Council to act On September 15th. Motion carried with Mr. Bohnenberger and Mr. Rushworth voting NO. 3. CONSIDERATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH WASHINGTON/ADAMS L.P. Ms. Honeywell, City Attorney, advised that the amendment before the Board is in the nature of a clean-up type amendment in order to change the pharmacy. PharMor is being substituted as the pharmacy because it's larger and will generate more sales tax to the City. Also, the applicant has done some restructuring with their entity, instead of being a limited partnership, it's now a general partnership, which needs to be reflected in the documents. Also, we need to revise the covenants that need to be recorded so that the two properties, both the one that has been sold to WalMart and the one that has been sold to Albertsons can record a more customized set of covenants on the property they own now. Additionally, there was a certain amount of street work which not originally the obligation of the developer that the City was planning to do and it became much more cost effective to have the developer do that street work as part of their overall scope of work and for us to pay them for those costs. BIB] 07-18-1996-U01 01:12:32PM-U01 RDAMIN-U02 08-U02 04-U02 1992-U02 RESOLUTION NO. RA g2-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO ThE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT Y AND BETWEEN LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND WASHINGTON ADAMS, L. P. It was moved by Mr. Sniff, seconded by Mr. Bohnenberger to adopt Resolution No. RA 92-17. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF DEMAND REGISTER. 2. SUBMITTAL OF STATEMENT O? FINANCIAL POSITION JULY 1, 1991 THROUGH MAY 31, 1992. MOTION It was moved by Mr. Sniff, seconded by Mr. Bohnenberger to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended. Motion carried unanimously. CLOSED SESSION a. Discussion of negotiations pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 La Quinta Canyon Center Development & Disposition Agreement Coachella Valley Land Proposal for housing project including potential acquisition of properties in the Cove area Williams Development Corporation Proposal for housing project including potential acquisition of properties in the Cove area The Board reconvened with no action being taken. Theye being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. R?s?ectfully submitted, UNDRA L. HOLA, Secretary La Quinta Redevelopment Agency BIB] 07-18-1996-U01 01:12:32PM-U01 RDAMIN-U02 08-U02 04-U02 1992-U02