Loading...
1989 03 21 RDA Minutes - Joint CC & RDA 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 City's consultants Mark Huebsch 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] 07-19-1996-U01 09:59:19AM-U01 RDAMIN-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. Huebsch 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. Huebsch 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] 07-19-1996-U01 09:59:19AM-U01 RDAMIN-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. B. 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 33E70 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] 07-19-1996-U01 09:59:19AM-U01 RDAMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02 Mr. Huebsch advised that the Council/Agency 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 tc 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] 07-19-1996-U01 09:59:19AM-U01 RDAMIN-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] 07-19-1996-U01 09:59:19AM-U01 RDAMIN-U02 03-U02 21-U02 1989-U02