Loading...
1991 04 02 RDA Minutesh LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES APRIL 2, 1991 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 Mrs. Juhola noted that the public hearing was scheduled for 7:00 P.M. MOTION It was moved by Mr. Rushworth, seconded by Mr. Sniff?f that the public hearing be continued to 7:00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. BUSINESS SESSION 1. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. NOTION It was moved by Mr. Bohnenberger, seconded by Mr. Rushworth to approve the agreement with Coachella Valley Unified School District. Motion carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 19, 1991. 2. APPROVAL OF ACQUISITION AND CONFIRMATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON JEFFERSON AND AVENUE 48 AND AUTHORIZATION TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY STEPS TO CONFIRM FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURCHASE AND APPROVAL OF LOAN FROM CITY FOR SAID PURCHASE. 3 ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT NO. 91-2 SEWER CONNECTIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO FILE NOTICE OF COMPLETION. MOTION It was moved by Mr. Bohnenberger, seconded by Mr. Sniff to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting was recessed to 7:00 P.M. BIB] 07-19-1996-U01 07:35:11AM-U01 RDAMIN-U02 04-U02 02-U02 1991-U02 hRedevelopment Agency 2 April 2, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. PUBLIC HEARING OF NECESSITY DETER?DETERMINING AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DO?AIN OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS APN 6g-154-oo8 AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS AND CALLE AMIGO. Mr. Kiedrowski advised that the property in question has been appraised and the City has mailed to the owners of record, an offer based upon the appraisal. He has had one meeting with a gentleman representing the owner regarding the appraisal who felt that the property may be worth significantly more than the appraisal. Agency Counsel has drafted a resolution for the Board's consideration to begin the process of condemnation. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN ADEEB SADD, 3522 Caribeth Dr. Encino, Calif., representing the Bank Audi, addressed the Board as follows: Verbatim transcript follows: I would like to say good evening and I want to thank you for the opportunity to be heard here this evening. Referring I'd like to just continuously here refer from the.. the statement to consider application of Resolution of Necessity. I'd like to start with the.. one of the issues, whether the public interest and necessity requires this project. My response to that particular issue is that the... or the issue is that presented in your notice is that you want to condemn the property. We feel our prospective is the that delineation of the proposed new route on the map that was presented to me shows no real necessity for realignment. The benefits are inconsequential... the present road has been there for many, many years and in spite of.. in spite of the population growth in the area, this present roadway doesn't seem to be hazardous to the users of the road. The convenience of realignment seems to be non or very little and compared to the cost and the efforts that will be expended in realigning the road. That's my response to Issue No. 1.. the public interest necessity requirement of the project. The project is planned and located in the manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. Regarding the most compatible the property is the only one.... it is not the only one.... I understand there is an alternative route that cOuld be accepted to realign the road. In regard to public good... we feel the public good would not be served by the realignment as I previously stated because of BIB] 07-19-1996-U01 07:35:11AM-U01 RDAMIN-U02 04-U02 02-U02 1991-U02 hRedevelopment Agency 3 April 2, 1991 the costs that are involved and the inconsequential benefits that would be reaped from that. The alternate route as I understand we don't have the information that you have that's available to us to really ascertain the alternate route, but in our opinion, the amount of damage that would be done to us by taking this property with regards to the alternate route, we feel the alternate route would best serve everybody's interest including the public good. In regard to the least amount of private injury, it has been our desire for a few years now... you were planning to develop this property. If you recall, a part of it was.. we had a second deed of trust1 the Bank did on the Fritz Burns present park that you have now and we were looking to recoup our losses with regard to this property and developing it and reaping the best and highest best use of the property. We still desire to develop the property to its fullest potential and your condemnation of the property would be tantamount to substantial financial injury on our part.. and our financial well being. Whether the property is necessary as a project.. we recognize your prospective in realigning of the road.. from your point of view it would be necessary to date the property and realign it from your point of view. Our prospective is that.. that it is not necessary to realign the road and the alternate route might be more advantageous to everybody concerned. Your offer was made to us and we felt it was extremely low and really not reflective of the market value. We know that you can condemn this property regardless of what I say here this evening through your condemnation rights. We recognize that, we know that.. all we are asking for... if you do decide to go ahead and condemn the property, just give us the market value. Give us a realistic market value. In our prospective it's almost like an unlawful taking because of the denial of due process and not compensating us for what the land is really worth. We are not here to be cantankerous or obstreperous or whatever, we're just here want to cooperate. We realize that I am just giving you our point of view this evening and I'm sure the City is already through this condemnation pars has decided to take this particular piece of property, but, we would prefer to develop it, but that'? what your wishes are... just give us what we feel is a realistic price on it. Thank you very much for letting me speak to you this evening. Council Member Rushworth: Why do you use the nouns we, us, our".. and who are you representing? Mr. Sadd: I represent the bank. Council Member Rushworth: What bank: BIB] 07-19-1996-U01 07:35:11AM-U01 RDAMIN-U02 04-U02 02-U02 1991-U02 hRedevelopment Agency 4 April 2, 1991 Mr. Sadd: Bank Audi, spelled like the car A. U. d. i of Paris. They had made a gentleman a 3 million dollar unsecured loan sometime back, maybe 10 years ago. He came here to La Quinta and became an investor with Mr. Thornburg, in the La Quinta Tennis Club. Just coincidentally, I have been going there for 30 years myself and knew the property very well. So, the President of the Bank is a very dear friend of mine, and he asked me to get involved with coming out here.. before it became a park, before you ripped down the buildings. We went and looked at them, parts of the roof were devastated, just in terrible shape. So we spoke to a Mr. Skinner at the Fritz Burns Foundation.. we discussed with him what it would take to cure the deed of trust which they were foreclosing on and it was just too high for us really to... to put up that amount of money and try to refurbish the buildings... just wasn't going to work. So we were looking then to the this parcel seven which is the one you now want to take for road.. to recoup losses and that's why we feel very strongly about letting us develop this property... it would give us an opportunity... the bank and myself anyway... through my efforts to try and recoup some of those losses that we had from the parcel that was torn down and now is a park. Council Member Rushworth: How long have you owned the property? Mr. Sadd: Well the Bank, the Bank's been involved with this property over 10 years. Council Member RUshwOrth: So you have had 10 years to develop it. Mr. Sadd: No.. we had 10 years of which the buildings existed on it and.. the parcel now.. we have only.. let me back up a little bit. We had economic interest in the property for 10 years. we were a second on the part that was torn down. We had no interest.. we had no interest in the part that we are now trying to... forgive me, I misled you a little bit. We had no interest in the property that now you want to realign the road on. But we settled out.. the Bank settled out with this gentleman that they had previously made this loan to and just a year and a half ago did we acquire an interest in the property that you want to realign the road on. Just a year and a half ago. I didn?t mean to mislead you, I was wrong in what I said. Mayor Pena: Any other questions? Thank you. End of verbatim transcript BIB] 07-19-1996-U01 07:35:11AM-U01 RDAMIN-U02 04-U02 02-U02 1991-U02 hRedevelopment Agency 5 April 2, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED In response, Mr. Kiedrowski advised that the road has had several alignments, noting that the County has planned the realignment of Avenue 52 since the early 7O?s and purchased property in the 1972-75 era along Avenue Sinaloa and along Washington to realign this road. Because of traffic safety concerns, the present road needs to be abandoned and relocated. There have been several studies completed as to what is the best and safest route for the realignment and it is the opinion of the staff that the best and safest route from a traffic safety point of view. Mayor PeNA asked if the appraisal was based on residential zoning and Mr. Kiedrowski advised that it was. At this? time, the Board adjourned to Closed Session upon motion by Members Bohnenberger/Franklin, pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) potential litigation. The Board reconvened with Legal Counsel advising that no action was taken by the Board they only asked for a point of clarification and she responded. RESOLUTION NO. 91-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DETERMINING AND DECLARING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE ACQUISITION BY EMINENT DOMAIN OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS AP NO.769-154-008 AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AVENIDA BERMUDAS AND CALLE AMIGO FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTING AND AUTHORIZING THE AGENCY ATTORNEY, AGENCY SPECIAL COUNSEL AND AGENCY CONDEMNATION COUNSEL TO PREPARE, COMMENCE AND PROSECUTE ACTION(S) IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDEMNING AND ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY. It was moved by Mr. Bohnenberger, seconded by Mr. Sniff that Resolution No. 91-5 be adopted. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Bohnenberger, Mrs. Franklin, Mr. Rushworth, Mr. Sniff, Chairman Pena NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None BIB] 07-19-1996-U01 07:35:11AM-U01 RDAMIN-U02 04-U02 02-U02 1991-U02 hRedevelopment Agency 6 April 2, 1991 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. 4-tful1?j;;edI SAUNDRA L JUHOLA, Secretary La Quinta Redevelopment Agency BIB] 07-19-1996-U01 07:35:11AM-U01 RDAMIN-U02 04-U02 02-U02 1991-U02