1983: RDA area 1 - Redevelopment Plan - Proposed Oct. 1983KatzHollis
Ll
RD
REPORT TO LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL
on the
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
for the
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Prepared by
KATZ, HOLLIS, COREN 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.
for the
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
October, 1983
111483
MMAAR10
Katz ®llls
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 1
PART
I. REASONS
FOR SELECTION OF PROTECT AREA . . . . . .
. I-1
II. DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS EXISTING IN PROTECT AREA . . .
. II-1
A. Existing
Physical Conditions . . . . . . . .
. II-1
1.
Project Location . . . . . . . . . . . .
. II-1
2.
Land Uses and Acreages . . . . . . . . .
. II-1
i' 3.
Buildings and Structures . . . . . . . .
. II-2
a. Age and Deterioration . . . . . . .
. II-3
b. Defective Design and Character
of Physical Construction . . . . . .
. II-3
c. Mixed Character . . . . . . . . . .
. II-4
d. Inadequate Sanitation . . . . . . .
. II-4
4.
Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. II-5
a. Lots (Parcels) Subject
ito
Flooding . . . . . . . . . . . .
. II-5
b. Inadequate Public Improvements,
Facilities and Utilities . . . . . .
. II-7
1) Flood Control Facilities
Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . .
. II-7
2) Inadequate Street System . . . .
. II-8
l3)
Sever and Water System
Defiencies . . . . . . . . . . .
. II-8
4) other Deficiencies . . . . . . .
. 1i-8
B. Existing Social Conditions . . . . . . .. . .
. II-9
1.
Project Area Population, Income
and Housing . . .
II-9
2.
Project Area Crime • • . . . . • . . • .
• II-10
C. Existing Economic Conditions . . . . . . . .
. II-10
1.
Project Area Businesses . . . . . . . .
. II-10
2.
Economic Dislocation and Disuse
from Faulty Planning . . . . . . .
. II-11
i 3.
Cost of Public Services vs Tax
Revenues Available . . . . . . . . . . .
. II-11
4.
Prevalence of Economic Maladjustment . .
. II-12
(i)
lu
KatzHoffls
PART PAGE
III.
PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT
OF PROJECT
AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III-1
A.
General Financing Methods Available
to Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III-1
B.
Tax Increment Financing Method. . . . . . . . .
III-1
C.
Estimated Project Costs . . . . . . . . . . . .
III-3
D.
Proposed Financing Method . . . . . . . . . . .
III-3
E.
Tax Increment Limitations and Requirements . .
III-4
IV.
PLAN
AND METHOD OF RELOCATION . . . . . . . . . . .
IV-1
A.
Minimal Agency Displacement Anticipated . . . .
IV-1
B.
Relocation in the Event of Agency
Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV-1
C.
Rules and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV-2
D.
Agency Determinations and Assurances . . . . .
IV-2
E.
Replacement Housing Plan . . . . . . . . . . .
IV-4
F.
Relocation Assistance Advisory Program and
Assurance of Comparable Replacement Housing
IV-5
1. Administrative Organization . . . . . . .
IV-5
a. Responsible Agency . . . . . . . . . .
IV-5
b. Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Iv-5
2. Relocation Office . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV-7
3. Information Program . . . . . . . . . . .
IV-7
4. Relocation Record . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV-8
5. Relocation Resources Survey . . . . . . .
IV-8
6. Relocation Payments . . . . . . . . . . .
IV-8
7. Temporary Moves . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV-8
8. Last Resort Housing . . . . . . . . . . .
IV-8
9. Grievance Procedures . . . . . . . . . . .
IV-9
10. Relocation Appeals Board . . . . . . . . .
IV-9
V.
ANALYSIS OF PRELIMINARY PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . .
V-1
VI.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION,
AND
REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 64502 OF GOVERNMENT
CODE.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VI-1
Ll
Katz®ills
PART
PAGE
VII.
RECORD OF MEETINGS WITH PROTECT AREA OWNERS,
RESIDENTS, COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS . . .
VII-1
A. No Project Area Committee Formed for Project .
VII-1
B. Consultations with Residents, Community organ-
izations and Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VII-1
VIII.
REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 21151 OF PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE (PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT)
VIII-1
IX.
REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER . . . . . . . . . .
IX-1
X.
REPORT OF FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . .
X-1
XI.
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . .
XI-1
A. Impact on Residents in Project Area and
Surrounding Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
XI-1
1. Relocation, Traffic Circulation,
Environmental Quality and Community
Facilities and Services . . . . . . . . .
XI-1
2. School Population and Quality of Education
XI-2
3. Property Assessments and Taxes . . . . . .
XI-3
B. Relocation and Low and Moderate Income Housing
XI-3
1. Housing Units to be Destroyed or Removed
XI-3
2. Projected Residential Displacement . . . .
XI-4
3. Number and Location of Replacement Housing
XI-4
4. Number and Location of Low and Moderate
Income Housing Planned, Other than Replace-
ment Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
XI-4
5. Financing Method for Replacement Housing
Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . .
XI-5
6. Timetable for Provision of Relocation and
Housing Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . .
XI-5
XII.
ANALYSIS OF REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER AND
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS WITH AFFECTED TAXING
AGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
XII-1
A. Analysis of Report of County Fiscal Officer . .
XII-1
1. Assessed Valuation of Project Area Property
XII-1
2. First Year Taxes Available to Agency . . .
XII-1
r]
El
KatzHollis
PART
XII (con't) 3. Property Tax Revenues Derived from Project
Area . . . . . . . . .
4. Assessed Valuation Trend . . . .
B. Summary of Consultations with Affected Taxing
Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IO
PAGE
XII-2
XII-3
XII-1
FOLLOWING
PAGE
I-1 La Quinta Redevelopment Project Area . . . . . . . . I-1
II-1 Topographic Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2
II-2 Flood Insurance Rate Map Designations . . . . . . . II-6
II-3 La Quinta Subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-11
TABLES
II-1
Land Uses and Estimated Acreages . . . . . . . . . .
II-2
II-2
Dwellings and Dwelling Units Within Project Area . .
II-3
II-3
Water System Deficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II-8
II-4
Estimated Project Population . . . . . . . . . . . .
II-9
II-5
Reported Crime Statistics for La Quinta . . . . . .
II-10
III-1
Proposed Public Improvements and Facilities Projects
III-3
III-2
Estimated Project Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III-3
XII-1
Base Year (1983-84) Full Cash Values of Project
Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
XII-1
XII-2
Comparison of 1983-84 Project Area Revenue to
Taxing Agency Total 1983-84 Revenues . . . . . . . .
XII-2
(iv)
LI.
11
Katz®llis
REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROTECT
INTRODUCTION
This Report to the City Council ( "City Council") of the City of
La Quinta ("City") on the proposed Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment
Plan") for the La Quints. Redevelopment Project ("Project"), has been
prepared for the La Quints. Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") pursuant to
Section 33352 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and
Safety Code, Section 33000 et sec.).
The purpose of this Report is to provide the information, documen-
tation, and evidence required by Section 33352 of the Community Redevel-
opment Law ("CRL") to accompany the proposed Redevelopment Plan when it
is submitted by the Agency to the City Council. Such information, docu-
mentation and evidence is provided to assist the Council in its consi-
deration of the proposed Plan and in making the various determinations
it must make in connection with the adoption of the proposed Plan.
This Report is divided into 12 parts which generally correspond
to the subdivisions contained within CRL Section 33352, with each part
having a separate function as described in the summary listing which
follows this paragraph. Certain parts of this Report, as noted in the
summary, have been prepared by entities other than the Agency. Section
33352, however, requires the Agency to aggregate and submit such docu-
ments as a part of this Report.
Part No.
and CRL Responsible
Section No. Title Entity
Part I Reasons for Selection of Project Area Agency
[33352(a)]
Part II Description of Physical, Social and Agency
[33352(b)] Economic Conditions Existing in Proj-
ect Area
Part Iii Proposed Method of Financing Redevel- Agency
[33352(c)] opment of Project Area
Part IV Plan and Method of Relocation Agency
[33352(d)]
-1-
C'h
J
11
KatzHolfls
Part No.
and CRL Responsible
Section No. Title Entity
Part V Analysis of Preliminary Plan Agency
[33352(e)]
Part VI Report and Recommendations of Planning Planning Com-
[33352(f)] Commission, and Report Required by mission
[33352(h)] Section 65402 of Government Code
Part VII Record of Meetings with Project Area Agency
[33352(g)] Owners, Residents, Community Organiza-
tions, and Others
Part MI Report Required by Section 21151 of Pub- Agency
[33352(1)] lic Resources Code (Project Environmen-
tal Impact Report)
Part IX Report of County Fiscal Officer Riverside
(33352(j)] County Audi-
tor -Controller
Part X Report of Fiscal Review Committee Riverside
[33352(k)] County repre-
sentative to
Fiscal Review
Committee
Part XI Neighborhood Impact Report Agency
[33352(1)]
Part XII Analysis of Report to County Fiscal Of- Agency
[33352(m)] ficer and Summary of Consultations with
Affected Taxing Agencies
-2-
KatzHollis
Part I. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF PROJECT AREA
The geographical area encompassed by the Project (the "Project
Area") of the La Quinta Redevelopment Project, as selected by the Plan-
ning Commission of the City of La Quints, 1s described in maps, tables
and text in Part II of this Report to City Council and is shown on the
Project Area Map as Map I-1 of this part of the Report to Council.
The City of La Quinta is located on the west side of the Coachella
Valley in Riverside County. The valley is within Southern California's
portion of the Colorado Desert. The Project Area, with an estimated
11,200 acres, encompasses over 82 percent of the City. The City and
Project Area are bordered to the south and west by the Santa Rosa Moun-
tains, to the east by agricultural areas and the communities of Indio,
Coachella, and Thermal, and to the North and northwest by Indian Wells,
Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage and Cathedral City.
Over half of the Project Area is mountainous and generally un-
developable. Just over 10 percent of the Project Area (1,196 acres) is
currently outside the corporate boundaries of the City, in unincorpor-
ated Riverside County territory. As can be seen on Map I-1, the unin-
corporated County territory is all that portion of the Project Area east
of Jefferson Street.
The entire Coachella Valley has historically been subjected to
floods and flash floods that occur primarily during periods of intense
Summer thunderstorms. While extensive flood control facilities have
been constructed in other parts of the Valley, and to some degree in the
northern portion of the City of La Quints, most of the City and Project
Area 1s either unprotected or inadequately protected from such floods.
The absence of adequate flood protection facilities has had a
severe impact upon the City of La Quints. The type, location, character
and scope of development has been affected. In addition, certain other
physical, social and economic factors have exerted a negative influence
on the City's growth and character. These factors, as well as the
City's flood control problems, are described in detail in the next sec-
tion (Part II) of this Report to City Council.
The selection of the Project Area is in response to the many
problems existing in the area and the need for an effective program for
addressing such problems. In general, the redevelopment program within
the Project Area will focus upon the following goals and objectives:
1. To eliminate and prevent the spread of blight and deterio-
ration and to conserve, rehabilitate and redevelop the
Project Area in accord with the General Plan, specific
plans, the Redevelopment Plan and local codes and ordi-
nances.
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY
e
i
i
LA'QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA
CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAP 1-1
0
Katz Hollis
2. To encourage the investment of the private sector in the
development and redevelopment of the Project Area by elimi-
nating impediments to such development and redevelopment.
A particular objective in this regard is the provision of
necessary improvements required to protect Project Area
properties from the danger of flooding due to rainwater
runoff from surrounding mountains.
3. To encourage and provide for the orderly and proper develop-
ment of undeveloped portions of the City in accordance with
the Redevelopment Plan, the General Plan, and local codes
and ordinances.
4. To promote the physical, social and economic well being of
the Project Area, the City of La Quints, and its citizens.
S. To promote the development of local job opportunities.
6. To provide for increased sales, business license, hotel
occupancy and other fees and taxes to the City of La Quinta.
The reasons for the selection of the Project Area may be summa-
rized as follows:
1) The Project Area needs revitalization and upgrading. The
Redevelopment Plan can assist the City to attain the real market poten-
tial for the area, based on real market demands.
2) The Project Area suffers from the existence of inadequate
public improvements, facilities and utilities; from substandard, dete-
riorating, and obsolete buildings; and from a prevalence of depreciated
values, impaired investments and economic maladjustment.
3) The blighting conditions are prevalent within the Project
Area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social
and economic burden on the City which cannot reasonably be expected to
be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone.
4) Redevelopment of the Project Area will carry out and implement
the policies and goals of the General Plan. The Redevelopment Plan will
become an important tool for the City to achieve its long-range objec-
tives for the Project Area and for the City.
(I-2)
El
KatzHoffls
Part II. DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Information presented in this Part iI of the Report to City Coun-
cil relies upon various sources, including:
-- A field survey of the Project Area conducted by Katz Hollis
staff in September, 1983.
-- Interviews with City staff and others outside City govern-
ment, including selected Project Area owners.
-- A review and analysis of various reports, documents, plans
(including the General Plan) and other data provided by
City staff.
-- The Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, dated
September, 1983, prepared by LSA, Inc.
In general, all sources of data are cited throughout this Part II
of the Report to City Council.
A. Existing Physical Conditions
1. Project Location
As described in Part I of this Report to City Council, and as
shown on Map I-1 therein, the La Quints, Redevelopment Project encompasses
the entire City south of Avenue 52, plus the area west of Eisenhower
Drive and north of Calls Mazatlan and an additional 1,196 acres outside
the eastern City boundary line between Avenue 54 and Avenue 58.
2. Land Uses and Acreages
The Project Area contains several different land uses, with a few
dominating overall. Open space and watershed uses are the most predomi-
nant, followed by agriculture, residential, and resort (hotel/golf
course) uses. Other more minor uses exist in the Project Area, including
commercial, public facilities, and recreation.
Agriculture uses are consolidated mainly along the eastern portion
of the Project Area and extend into the central portion. Most of the
agriculture is farmed as irrigated row crops. These agricultural uses
are located on prime agricultural soils. Consequently, the land is con-
sidered prime agriculture land and includes approximately 2,786 acres.
Residential uses are confined primarily to two areas: the "Cove," and
northern La Quints.
M
ICatzH®llis
The Cove subdivision, while subdivided in the 1930's, has never
been fully developed. Only about a third or less of all the lots
currently have residences, although development is evenly distributed.
(See photo Plate No. 22.)
Northern La Quinta is currently being developed with attached
condominiums. The La Quanta Hotel is located on the northwestern portion
of the Project. Golf course uses surround the hotel, with fairways
located in or adjacent to flood control facilities (Oleander Reservoir
and flood evacuation channel).
Generalized Project Area land uses and estimated acreages are
presented in Table II-1. The major land use headings in Table II-1 are
descriptive of the general character of the land areas denoted by the
minor headings under them. Minor headings reflect corresponding land
use designations from the three Riverside County General Plan Maps
adopted by the City upon incorporation in 1982, and still applicable to
the City.
Just under 20 percent of the Project Area is developed or has ex-
perienced limited development. This includes all areas designated by
the General Plan Maps as low, medium, and high density as well as general
commercial areas. The La Quinta Hotel and golf courses are primarily
within these designations. Over one -quarter of the Project Area (25.9
percent) is either in agricultural use or is vacant land. These areas
are designated very low density by the applicable General Plan Maps.
Over half of the Project Area (52.0 percent) is in undeveloped, mountain-
ous territory which is designated on the General Plan Map as open space
and planned residential development, other agricultural lands, water
problem area or mountainous area. The mountainous nature of much of the
Project Area can be seen on May II-1. This map was made from a 1980
O.S. Geological Survey map which does not cover the entire City of La
Quinta or Project Area. The portion of the City and Project Area not
shown on Map II-1 is equally mountainous as the contiguous portion
shown. Water courses (including Lake Cahuilla and portions of the La
Quinta Hotel golf course) and equestrian trails account for another 3.6
percent of the Project Area.
3. Buildings and Structures
The Project Area is characterized by the existence of buildings
and structures, used or intended to be used for living, commercial, in-
dustrial, or other purposes, which are unfit or unsafe to occupy for
such purposes because of any one or a combination of the factors
described below and illustrated in part by the photographs appearing on
Plates 1 through 22.
LfJ
0
100583
mmAAR10
Table II-1
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
La Quinta Redevelopment Project
LAND USES AND ESTIMATED ACREAGES
Land Uses Percent
URBAN/DEVELOPED Acres of Total
Low Density Residential 1,783
Medium Density Residential 96
High Density Residential 127
General Commercial 63
Total Urban/Developed 2,069 ( 18.5%)
AGRICULTURAL/VACANT
Very Low Density Residential 2,905 ( 25.9%)
UNDEVELOPED/MOUNTAINOUS
Open Space and Planned
Residential 4,267
Open Space/Other Agricultural
Lands/Water Problem Area/
Mountainous Area 1,560
Total Undeveloped/Mountainous 5,827 ( 52.0%)
OTHER
Water Course & Equestrian 399 ( 3.6%)
TOTAL PROJECT AREA 11.200 (100.0%)
Source: City of La Quinta Planning Department
Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc.
u c E - 'a
I� l�
------------
_.y ,NLr 0[,^ItlI PO m L. L L. L. i l � 1 r]0•
SCALE 1.24000
0
o Qom m m m m m Nn
CONTOUR INTERVAL W FEET
.T110 LII.LS.t M<.[Nl 1.'Wl LOFIOV-
N.nOIW 4LIM%TK YLmrI MNY 0 1"
YI tl•ri01.. G10�OGI�L15WTI`T DENIER .M[u.Ii YW OS ry'.4lS Ol .NOLA.LLE VIORAI W[LTN43209]
ti m
mints
'
MAP II-1
LA OUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
KatZH®llis
a. Age and Deterioration
In September, 1983, a field survey was completed to determine
land uses, the condition of public improvements, and other Project Area
characteristics. A non -technical structural condition analysis was com-
pleted as a part of the field survey.
Except for the La Quinta Hotel in the Northern La Quinta portion
of the Project Area, and the handful of commercial businesses within the
Cove area west of Washington Boulevard, almost all buildings within the
Project Area are residential. of the 2,077 residential buildings in the
Project Area, 2,024 are located within the Cove area, with the overwhelm-
ing majority (1,961) west of Washington Street. A summary of Project
Area dwellings and dwelling units is presented in Table II-2.
Within the Cove area, there are a total of 6,268 lots including
117 commercial lots (34 lots are developed), 2,002 developed single-
family lots and 26 multiple family units.
A total of 25 commercial buildings are located within the Project
Area, occupied by 43 tenants. In addition, a total of 402 hotel rooms
are available on a seasonal basis for visitors to the City.
Despite the fact that the original subdivision was laid out and
streets. constructed in 1933, most of the housing and commercial uses
within the Cove area are of recent origin. The 1959 U.S. Geological
Survey Map shows a total of 331 dwellings in the area. The 1974 USGS
Map shows 567 dwellings, a 71 percent increase in 15 years. The current
count is just over 2,000 dwellings, giving a 256 percent increase in the
last 10 years. Given these figures, approximately 16 percent of the
Cove area dwellings are 25 years old or older. It is estimated that
two-thirds or more of these older buildings were not constructed to ap-
plicable Code requirements or have deteriorated to the point today where
if inspected would be found to have one or more major code violations
which would require major repairs to correct. At least 10 percent of
all older dwellings have moderate to heavy structural deterioration,
' numerous code violations, and would require extensive reconstruction to
bring them up to full code compliance. The cost of such reconstruction
would likely exceed 50 percent of the value of such structures and there-
fore would be of questionable economic feasibility. Demolition would be
the probable alternative. Representative examples of Project Are build-
ing conditions may be seen in Plates 20, 21 and 22.
b. Defective Design and Character of Physical
Construction
Buildings of any type may suffer deterioration or disuse, or may
Ask contribute to such problems in other buildings, because of inherent de -
IN fects in the design or character of their physical construction. In some
RatzH®lils
cases such defects exist from the moment that a building is completed.
In other cases, such defects evolve over time as uses within the building
or within surrounding buildings change.
Within the Project Area, for example, many of the older buildings
are defective in terms of modern building, electrical, plumbing and
health standards. A few such buildings are still served by a 2-line
electrical hookup instead of the more modern 3-line service connection.
Current code standards require a slightly elevated building pad in Proj-
ect locations most susceptible to flooding (see Plate 18), but many re-
sidences exist without such protection, having been constructed prior to
the code requirement.
C. Mixed Character
Buildings and structures may generally be characterized by their
uses. When more than one use is made of a building, or if two buildings
of different uses exist on the same parcel or adjacent to each other on
abutting parcels, then such buildings may be considered to be of mixed
character. Some mixed character buildings have uses compatible with
each other. Other buildings have uses which conflict. There are several
examples of mixed character buildings within the Project Area. In one
area a residence has been converted to a church. In another area, a
residence has been converted to a used auto parts business ( see Plate
21).
d. Inadequate Sanitation
The Cove subdivision, formed in the 1930's has substandard ori-
ginal metal pipeline that has corroded and deteriorated through the
years. This has resulted in pressure loss, inadequate fire flows and
poor water quality. Septic tank usage throughout the Cove area has also
suffered from age and deterioration. Consequently, contaminants from
septic tank leakage have infiltrated into the water lines. To overcome
this health hazard, the water is heavily chlorinated, resulting in poor
taste.
The entire Cove area is on septic tank systems. Because of their
age and small size, tanks have failed in many instances. This failure
rate is increasing. Because of the small lot size and higher density in
the Cove area, there is no remaining room to add more septic tanks when
these failures occur.
As a result of poor local drainage in the Cove, many spetic tanks
have overflowed or have subsided from ground failure. Also, the soil
conditions in many locations have reached their saturation point, pre-
venting percolation, thus causing the system to backup and overflow.
(II-4)
® 0
0
CD .i
W X.
Ln 5gp9
O
O
rl
it i%
G v P
Y7 tr0- 0 7
1S M f
a o
c c
H ° o E-
m D N
r d i
A C m U
E a d h
ma.
C 41 3
14 v
cc A
& A
m
000
VRI
Ifl
NI
N
G
rl
a
N
NI
�
m
0
0
O
F
�ro
a
N
II
rl
N
N
Q�
I
p
�
O
OI
O
f0
.i
OII
1-1D
a�
a+ E
m
� m
C W
C
o
of
rf
of
ip11
N
N
m
3
O
>
-W
p
N
O
O
O
1
N
m
m mU
N N
G
rny�
o
0
0l
rll
N
N
NII
�
w
0
3
G
V
NI
c
o
rn
o
DI
d
�
W .0
U
0
m m
pppp
(A
41
r-1
N
Is
W
W
0
V
0
0
m
G
71
+i
41
41
D
0
0
iC
Oql
3
W
MEC
a
yO
yO
•7
m C�
m O�
7
O
E
.C-
7
A
m
0
U
3
3
C
c
0
a
x
U
04
Katz H®11 is
4. Properties
The Project Area is characterized by properties which suffer from
deterioration and disuse because of the factors described below and il-
lustrated in part by the photographs appearing in Plates 1 through 22.
a. Lots (Parcels) Subject to Flooding
Flood control problems are the most important blight factor im-
pacting the Project Area. The threat of floods and flash floods not
only imperils existing properties, but has exerted a strong constraint
on development. Within the Cove area, there are nearly 6,300 subdivided
parcels. Less than one-third of these parcels are developed. Most of
the vacant property in other parts of the Project Area cannot be devel-
oped because costly major flood control facilities would be required to
protect such development. Providing such facilities on a piecemeal,
development -by -development basis, even if economically feasible (which
it is not), would not be nearly as effective as planning and installing
such facilities on an area -wide basis as is done in other Coachella
Valley locations.
The following paragraphs explain the source and nature of the
flood problems afflicting the Project Area.
The Coachella Valley and adjacent Santa Rosa Mountains are subject
to intense, although infrequent, thunderstorm rainfall. Steep, mountain-
ous terrain south of La Quinta (see Map II-1) rapidly sheds rainfall
runoff, which concentrates in drainages with little infiltration and
flows down into the lower, flatter elevations. Generally, "local
storms" present the greater problem storms and flooding hazards in the
Project Area. These storms occur mostly during the hot summer months,
but have also occurred at other times of the year.
Watershed basins throughout the Project Area boundary contribute
to the concentration of runoff that flows into lowland valleys. The
most significant watersheds are located south and west of the Cove
subdivision. All watershed streams are intermittent, flowing for only
short periods during and immediately following storms. The mountains
are steep, rugged, and largely barren. Streams flow in a generally
northerly to easterly direction, from elevations up to 5,100 feet above
sea level, and empty onto the desert at below sea level elevations over
large alluvial fans.
The largest watershed system is Bear Creek in the western part of
the area. The headwaters of this stream are about six miles southwest
of La Quinta. Floodwaters of Bear Creek, after flowing in a northerly
direction through the mountains, continues north along the western edge
of the cove subdivision, generally contained by the existing levee.
11
11,
KdtzHolliS
There are several small unnamed streams, flowing easterly, which
are adjacent to the Bear Creek basin emptying south of Lake Cahuilla.
South of these, in order, are Devil Canyon, several unnamed streams, and
Toro Canyon, whose drainage occupies the most southeasterly portion.
In the past, flood waters have swept through the Project Area,
resulting in both significant economic loss and threat to the safety of
residents. Generally, flood runoff skirts the Cove subdivision. In the
1930's, a levee/channel was constructed along the west side of the sub-
division to protect residences from the fury of Bear Creek runoff.
Floodwaters have breached this levee on several occasions, resulting in
localized flooding. The poor condition of the levee and inadequate
design have precluded effective flood control. Similarly, mounds of
earth have been formed by bulldozers to protect residences and property
on the east side of the Cove subdivision.
An adequate drainage system has never been built in the Cove sub-
division. Roadways were constructed without curb and gutter improvements
as well as without local storm drain facilities. Consequently, a large
portion in the northern section of the subdivision experiences local
street ponding and flooding during periods of heavy rainfall. Because
the northern area of the subdivision is low, runoff from upstream sources
collects in the streets and floods the neighborhoods. As shown in Map
II-2, the Federal Insurance Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map
for the La Quints area shows most of the Cove area to be within flood
zone B, while the entire northern portion is within flood zone A0. To
overcome this problem, foundation pads must be raised a minimum of two
feet, resulting in an additional $2,000 per pad improvement cost. The
southern portion of the Cove area is not exposed to local nuisance
drainage problems. Consequently, no special foundation pad treatments
is required in this area.
The existing levees and channels on the east and west sides of
the Cove subdivision were not provided by the Coachella valley water
District (CVWD) - the major governmental entity responsible for flood
protection in the Coachella valley. Because they are not CVWD facili-
ties, the district does not maintain them, nor does any other government-
al entity. The lack of regular maintenance is evident, and in some lo-
cations the channels are constricted and overgrown with brush and trees.
On the east side of the Cove area, runoff has crested in the past
and overflowed, flooding the downtown area. Avenue 52 has washed out
and, on one occasion, a 6 to 8-foot trench scoured the roadway crossing.
Several homes and vacant lands have been flooded in an area north of
Avenue 52.
I
P
7. ' a el
_ --O _t eiii� �� ELE3RU5 AV T_____ ze q' F_Ie '7r.0 E0AGE-PUS:!
- P N AV it
e
gg fy,: 9
EA.a RON NO II
NE JR
09 i L 3• �nq'S• ol�i. a� �iM�
I fLLLE VgATLAN R Ty ...••. "ttt, Im<NR �a Aa Art
t .J
I e,¢ S p3 AVENIba TIYO-------
rq VEN101 TWUNCA
APANL
�+NI • I p'::. i! Ell A'i iipw 3 s� ' _T
I yx �. i ! •r+w' Y I MENIOA • ' ARITA
y9A .. {N•a i ( r A rMA FONOA
e '4 a A TORRES
AV
I --'�-;
INT
1 b ea IT
Project
pours aryWRA
a:::::; :: • , __
' I a I i•' `'' ZONE A: Areas of 100-year flood; base flood el eaatlorrt and
I"a'AN I 1 •: :::t: `• : flood hazard factors not determined.
I I I ZONE AO: Areas of 100-year shallow flooding when depths
t I i ♦- are between 1 and 3 feet; average depths of inun-
I a I 11..,,•'. dati On are shown, but no flood hazard factors are
A ' a , ' determined.
ZONE A3: Areas of 100-year flood; base flood elevations and
flood hazard factors are determined.
ZONE E: Areas between limits of the 100-year flood and SOO-
T year flood; or certain areas subject to 100-year
flooding with average depths less than 1 foot or
where the contributing drainage area is less than
1 square mile; or areas protected by levees from
the base flood.
MAP II-2
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP DESIGNATIO
Source: Federal Insurance Management Agency, in
La Quinta Project Draft EIR, LSA, Inc., September, 1983
11
KatzH®llis
Flood flows from Bear Creek and the other drainage described above
spread onto the Coachella Valley floor and flow generally south, follow-
ing the slight depression in the valley floor more or less parallel to
the western mountains. This route crosses the Coachella Canal, and on
July 23, 1949, such a flow damaged the canal, then in the last stages of
construction. Should this event recur, structural damage to the canal
would be expected, and heavy siltation by flood -borne debris would
probably occur in portions of the underground irrigation water delivery
system. Adjacent farms, now highly developed since the importation of
dependable irrigation supplies, would experience more severe losses than
have been experienced in the past.
Lake Cahuilla County Park has been damaged in the past from flood-
waters originating from two sources: floodwaters funneled into the
Coachella Canal, and runoff flowing into the area from adjacent water-
shed.
As floodwaters flow along the east side of the Cove subdivision,
round the mountain, and head south, they intersect the Coachella Canal.
The heavy silt content contained in the flood runoff is deposited in the
north end of Lake Cahuilla, reducing the lake's capacity. Dredging of
the sediments is necessary to restore the lake to its proper depth.
In 1978, runoff generated from watershed to the west of Lake
Cahuilla flowed down into the area with such force that it damaged picnic
and other facilities by the lake. If left unresolved, damage to these
facilities could occur again in the future from a significant thunder-
storm.
In August of this year, an intense storm deposited 4.25 inches of
rain in four days and caused moderate to locally heavy flooding within
the Project Area. (The average annual rainfall for La Quinta is five
inches.) Alert and rapid channel -deepening and embankment repair work
prevented major damage from occurring to properties within the Cove
area. Although an immense volume of water was generated by the storm,
it was characterized by the CVWD General Manager and Chief Engineer as
only a "4-year storm." (A storm of an intensity which would occur once
every four years.)
Evidence of the effects of the August, 1983 storm and earlier
storms is shown in Plates 1 through 15.
b. Inadequate Public Improvements, Facilities
and Utilities
1) Flood Control Facilities Deficiencies
Existing flood control facilities within and serving the Project
Area are provisional at best, are poorly maintained if at all, and are
KatzH®llis
wholly inadequate to protect existing properties. The continual threat
of annual flooding and the inadequacy of the existing facilities, as
described in the foregoing section of this Report, have severely impacted
existing properties and prevented desired new development from occurring.
These problems and deficiencies can be addressed only on an area -wide
basis through the planning and construction of a series of major improve-
ments which would not only protect the La Quinta Project Area but would
link up with other Coachella Valley flood control facilities. One of
the major purposes of the proposed Redevelopment Plan is to provide for
such improvements.
Proposed flood control facilities and improvements are briefly
described in the Redevelopment Plan, and are described in detail in the
Project Environmental Impact Report included as Part VIII of this Report
to City Council.
2) Inadequate Street Systems
Regional access to the Project Area is via Washington Street and
Jefferson Street from Highway 111 to the north, and via Avenue 52 from
the east. Both Jefferson Street and Avenue 52 are modest two-lane road-
ways but are shown on the General Plan as arterial highways requiring
110-foot rights -of -way. (See Plate 17.)
When the original Cove subdivision was developed in 1933, surface
streets were never engineered or constructed to specifications which are
considered adequate by today's standards. Consequently, all roads in
this area are substandard. These substandard conditions include reduced
paving width (26-feet), no curbs and gutters, no storm drains, and no
base material. Roadway conditions have since deteriorated resulting in
numerous potholes and asphalt breakup. In addition, uncontrolled flood
runoff caused by waters breaching the levee in 1978 have washed out por-
tions of Avenida Montezuma. This condition has never been repaired.
(see Plates 16, 17 and 18.)
3) Sewer and Water System Deficiencies
Certain deficiencies within the Cove area sewer and water systems
were previously described. In addition to these problems, the Southern
California Water Company, La Quint& District Office, has identified
several problems in their existing facilities serving the Project Area.
These problems are summazied in Table II-3.
4) Other Deficiencies
In the Cove area, the
La Quinta
Community Park is
currently oper-
ated and maintained by the
Coachella
Valley Parks and
Recreation Dis-
IF
trict. This park provides a
lighted baseball diamond, two
basketball
a ® ® 100383
Katz oll ➢➢ aS mm8AR10
Table II-3
La Quints. Redevelopment Agency
La Quints. Redevelopment Project
WATER SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES
Order of
Deficiency
A. SOURCE MONITORING
1. All sources need complete chemical analyses for H-2
General Mineral, General Physical, and Inorganic
Chemicals
2. Well 5 produces water with a concentration of ni- D
trates exceeding 45/mg/l. (This well is blended with
low nitrate water which is purchased from CVWD).
B. SOURCES
1. Well 3 - Velasco
a. The open hole in the casing needs plugging. H-3
C. STORAGE
1. The system has inadequate storage capacity. H-2
2. Reservoir 1 - North Madera
a. Roof in need of repair H-3
3. Reservoir 2 - South Tecate
a. Had one major leak in west side H-3
D.
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
1. There may be inadequate pressure at meters in some
H-2
areas of the South Pressure Zone during peak de -
Alm
mand. (Should be corrected in April, 1982.)
2. About 60% of the system is in poor condition and there
H-2
are extensive substandard lines.
3. About 10 to 15% of the water mains are unprotected
H-2
steel in poor condition.
E.
VALVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
1. The valve maintenance program is inadequate.
D
2. Valve ties have not been established and recorded.
D
F.
RELIABILITY OF SERVICE
1. All wells are electrically powered and there is no
H-2
standby power provided at any of the wells.
G.
OPERATION, PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
1. The Emergency Notification Plan is outdated.
H-2
2. At Well 4 (Desert Club), the extra chlorine cylinder
H-3
needs to be chained so it will not tumble over and
interrupt service.
3. A Master Plan for orderly development of the system
D
to meet needs of the service area has not been pre-
pared and submitted to this office.
4. The Well Drillers Report for all sources have not been
D
submitted.
Order of Deficiency Legend:
H -
Health -related deficiency, with "H-l" being the most serious
and in
need of immediate correction.
VW
D -
Deviation from good waterworks practice.
Source: Southern California Water Company - La Quinta District, in La
Quinta Project Draft EIR, LSA, Inc., September, 1983
2
E
11
KatzHollis
courts, a children's play area, and a community center building. (see
Plate 19.) Demand on La Quints. Park exceeds its facilities, therefore
the park suffers from overuse and overcrowding. As infill development
occurs in the Cove, recreation demand on La Quinta Park will be accel-
erated, thus causing further overcrowding and decline of facilities.
Consequently, a new community park is needed, preferably in the southern
portion of the Cove.
The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. The City has had
neither the time nor the funds to construct an administrative building
in which to locate its small but growing staff. In the interim, the
City has rented space for its staff in a commercial building located
within the Project Area.
B. Existing Social Conditions
j1. Project Area Population, Income and Housing
Statistics from the 1980 U. S. Census for Coachella Valley com-
munities are available in a report compiled from summary reports by the
` Southern California Association of Government (SLAG) Census Data Center.
La Quints is one of nine communities listed in the report, and the only
one which was not incorporated at the time the census was taken. Later
data on population and housing units was providedto the City upon its
incorporation from the California State Department of Finance. Estimates
of Project Area population and assumptions regarding income are based
upon the SCAG and State reports.
,. Census data show a high (40 percent) vacancy rate for dwelling
` units within the City of La Quints. It is believed that most of these
vacant units are located within the City's newer condominium develop-
ments, almost all of which are outside the Project Area. (Many of the
( units within these developments are second homes, used on a seasonal
basis.) Within the Project Area it is believed that turnover and
seasonal vacancies total no more than 10 percent for the entire Cove
area, and 20 percent for the condominiums in the Northern La Quinta
area. Using these assumptions, it is estimated that 1,982 of the Project
Area's 2,240 dwelling units are occupied. Using a factor of 2.75 persons
per dwelling unit, it is estimated that the total permanent population
within the Project Area is 5,451 persons. Project population estimates
are presented in Table 1I-4.
( Approximately 70 to 75 percent of the Project population is
t, estimated to be "white," non -Hispanic, with 25-30 percent of other race
or ethnic origins. Moat of this latter population (15 to 20 percent)
f falls within the Hispanic subcategory.
(
(II-9)
13
KatzHollis
Northern La Quinta
Cove Area, West of
Washington
Cove Area, East of
Washington
Agricultural Areas
100583
cwAAR10
Table II-4
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
La Quinta Redevelopment Project
ESTIMATED PROJECT POPULATION
Dwelling
Vacancy
Occupied
Times 2.75
Units
Factor
D.U.'s
Persons/D.U.
120
40%
72
198
2,044
10%
1,840
5,060
56
10%
50
138
20
0
20
50
Total Occupied Dwelling Units
Total Estimated Project Population
Source: City of La Quinta Planning Department
Katz, Hollis, Coren 8 Associates, Inc.
�+�82
5-5"
il
El
KatzH®llis
No census data is available regarding household income. Certain
assumptions may be made however, from other census data. Of the nine
communities within the Coachella Valley, La Qunita ranked sixth in median
value of owner -occupied dwelling units. Only Indio, Coachella and Desert
Hot Springs had lower median values for owner -occupied units. It is
believed that the majority of the City's owner -occupied housing is within
the Cove portion of the Project Area. Given this assumption, together
with the generally modest nature of Cove area residences, it can be con-
cluded that income levels for the majority of Project Area households is
within the moderate range, with a few lower income families, and even
fewer higher income families.
2. Project Area Crime
Table II-5 presents crime statistics for the period 1981 through
August, 1983 for the City of La Quinta. Since the Project Area encom-
passes over 82 percent of the entire City, including most of the resi-
dential areas, the statistics presented in Table II-5 can be assumed to
be reflective of the Project Area.
The felony crimes of burglary and auto theft, and the misdemea-
nor crimes of assault, disturbing the peace, petty theft and malicious
mischief have been and apparently are continuing to be the major crime
problems in the Project Area. Of the felony crime categories, only grand
theft appears to be significantly declining, although if the present pace
of burglaries continues, this crime will also show a decrease for the
year. This may be in part due to an intensification of burglary preven-
tion efforts by the City since its incorporation. It is clear, however,
that residential burglaries have been a significant problem. Many of
the houses within the Cove area have bars installed over the windows.
C. Existing Economic Conditions
1. Project Area Businesses
The City of La Quinta has very little existing commercial develop-
ment. A new small commercial center has recently been developed along
t' Highway 111, outside of the Project Area. "Downtown" La Quint& is lo-
cated within the Project Area, centering around the La Quints. Park/Calle
Estado/Avenida Bermudas area. Twenty-five commercial buildings contain-
ing an estimated 43 tenants are located in this area.
The La Quinta Hotel and La Quints, Golf Course, both located north
of the Cove in the northern section of the Project Area, serve the local
tourist business, which is becoming the mainstay of the area's economy,
f rather than the diminishing, traditional agricultural industry of the
vicinity. The arid climate and mild winters promote a large seasonal
KatzH®llis 100383
MMAAR10
Table II-5
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
La Quinta Redevelopment Project
REPORTED CRIME STATISTICS FOR LA QDINTA
Type of Crime
Felonies
Homicide
Robbery
Assault
Burglary
Grand Theft
Auto Theft
Arson
Narcotics
Sex Crimes
Miscellaneous
Misdemeanors
Assault
Petty Theft
Disturbing the Peace
Drunk in Public
Malicious Mischief
Sex Crimes
Miscellaneous
Total
*Through August, 1983
No. Crimes Reported
1981 1982 1983•
0
0
0
2
2
4
25
21
11
381
460
264
73
116
27
39
28
27
5
9
6
1
6
5
14
18
9
55
25
13
595
685
366
95
78
60
136
160
104
304
377
280
36
44
26
185
144
86
30
9
5
428
451
306
Source: Riverside County Sheriff's Department
E
in
El
KatzH®His
population in the La Quinta area with peak residency occurring during
winter months. The summer season shows a sharp decline in population
due primarily to high temperatures.
2. Economic Dislocation and Disuse from Faulty Planning
The overall impression of the commercial portion of the Project
Area is that of stagnation or decline. While other communities within
the Coachella Valley have experienced dramatic commercial growth in
recent years, little growth has touched La Quints. This is not due to a
lack of space. The downtown area is similar to the rest of the Cove
area: two out of every three lots are vacant. It is difficult to com-
prehend that the top photo in Plate 18 was taken at one of the major
commercial intersections in downtown La Quints.
The lack of commercial development, the economic dislocation and
disuse, are clearly due to faulty planning. The original Cove subdivi-
sion in 1933 was a superficial effort, with minimal improvements. It is
likely that there was never a market for either commercial or residential
development on the scale envisioned by the original subdividers. Being
located in an unincorporated area, street maintenance, weed removal and
other services provided within cities have not been high priorities in
La Quinta. In recent years, as residential development has accelerated
within the Project Area, it has not generally been matched by commercial
development. It is probable that new businesses have been reluctant to
enter an area which has so little aesthetic attraction. For major im-
provement to occur, a significant development on the order of the new
small shopping center on the north end of the City would have to be de-
veloped. Aside from normal market considerations such as location,
population, average income and other feasibility factors to be consi-
dered, any such a development would be greatly dependent upon the
developer's ability to acquire the land necessary for the site. In
downtown La Quinta, acquisition of a 3-5 acre development site could
conceivably involve having to deal with a dozen different owners even
though the majority of the site may be vacant land. This is another
legacy of the 1933 subdivision of the area into small lots. (Map II-3
shows the number of lots created within a portion of the Cove area by
the original 1933 subdivisions.)
3. Cost of Public Services vs Tax Revenues Available
The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. Since the
passage of Proposition 13, the process of incorporation involves the
determination of and agreement upon an appropriate division of property
taxes between the county and the newly created city. The proportion of
property taxes allocable to the City of La Quinta is based upon Riverside
County's estimated costs of operation and maintenance of La Quinta serv-
ices and facilities. This does not reflect actual costs incurred by the
11
III
11
(s
MAP
OF
LA QUINTA
SUBDIVISIONS
COMPILED FROM
ASSESSORS MAPS
J F OAVIDV . C E
MAP 11-3
KatzH®His
new city, nor does the City/County split address any capital expenditure
needs. Thus, to fund actual operating costs and to set aside moneys
into a capital improvement fund, the City must derive funds from sources
other than property taxes, or must forego certain operation or mainten-
ance expenditures. The City and the Project Area have major capital
improvements needs, as detailed in earlier sections of this Report. The
funding of such needs from property taxes is, in the absence of a
redeveloment project providing for tax increment financing, not very
Optimistic. Other funding sources such as sales tax and auto license
fees will take considerable time to develop. Hotel occupancy taxes will
eventually provide an important source of funding. In the meantime, the
cost of maintaining, operating and otherwise providing for City and
Project Area needs is in excess of the funding available from all
funding sources.
4. Prevalence of Economic Maladjustment
The City and Project Area are suffering from economic dislocation
and disuse due to faulty planning which commenced in 1933 and carried
forward to incorporation in 1982. In addition, the City and Project
Area are impacted by a funding shortage in relation to operation, main-
tenance and capital expenditure needs. The combined effort of these
10 problems is a prevalence of economic maladjustment.
r�..�y 'v.tij �� •a
1 A
• 41 rti.
14
Or
• f, + 4''� f� � •�;�#fir � ^ ''l,k� l �i��+�
i _� '. i.:. _ ♦��':`iJ.. •(� .DIY'. .. •'�
Plate 1
V
i,lry{III'.
FLOODING AND FLASH FLOODS HISTORICALLY
HAVE BEEN AND CURRENTLY CONTINUE TO BE
A MAJOR PROBLEM IN THE PROJECT AREA
. a►
� s• •mow »J� {1.�`J' � � .�\
Flood erosion from major 1948 storm. Kennedy Ranch area, east of Jefferson Street.
Plate 2
Looking north along Avenida Montezuma near Calle Ensenada in Cove area. Debris from July, 1976
storm.
�v w
' �� �� 'I I K 1'.r *:--.1``v i �_ ��• ..:. -tom,; _ -. _
y� afar • �� / �� , ` �.`* _ 1•\ ^�
Flood -eroded west Cove levee, breached during July, 1976 storm.
Plate 4
r
f
r
n
Mr.
-too
k—
Flood water flow at north end of west Cove channel, near Avenida Carranza and Calle Tar-mico.
August, 1983 storm.
FF-'-h
&a
2Ir7---jrj7 -
r-79-- s
Plate 5
11
r
Eroded west Cove channel, entering La Quinta Hotel golf course and Oleander Reservoir. August,
1983 storm.
Overnight repair work required on west Cove channel at Avenida Montezuma and Calle Chihuahua.
August, 1983 storm.
Plate 7
M
8
F
Looking west at flooded
Avenue 52, at intersection of Washington Street. August, 1983 storm.
PT
Looking north at intersection of Washington Street and Avenue 52. August, 1983 storm.
Plate 10
,�� � •�. V J t. .�, tom. -!
y ♦.
�� >. � 5 (. , . r � - - ^' �` •t-.eve.
ill il: li❑ ITAV
.. y i+,�•"
* c sy
• - may_ _ ^r"�.�i•f �i�q ` __a-
Erosion damage from August, 1983 storm to roadway leading into Lake Cahuilla Park.
K�
Intersection of La Fonda Avenue and Calle Iloilo three weeks after August, 1983 storm.
Plate 14
11
El
u
• � ' �� Y� �� _ _ � .lam �� � Z • y
Temporary dike at corner of Calle Yucatan and Calle Alvarado, three weeks following august, 1983
storm.
New residence in Cove area, corner of Calle Chihuahua and Avenida Juarez constructed on elevated
foundation pad with retaining wall to provide flood protection.
Plate 15
11
,0
Calle Paloma and Ave. Nuestra
Calle Tampico and Calle Ronda
Calle Jacumbra and Ave. La Fonda
POORLY CONSTRUCTED STREETS 4%D
MISSING SIDEWALKS, CURSS A%D
GUTTERS ARE CHARACTERISTICS O=
THE PROJECT AREA.
--7
Calle Hueneme and Ave. Nuestra
# Z
Ave. Alvarado and Ave. Montezuma
Plate 16
Looking north on Avenica'
Montezurna near Calle
Chihuahua three weeks
after August, 1983 storm.
Roadway has been washed
out on numerous occasions
in this area.
Plate 18
Ell
Another poorly maintained residence on
Calle Paloma. Note iron bar gate for
burglary protection.
PROJECT AREA BUILDING CO�iDMONJS
(Plate 20 through Pate 22)
7.w;;
FL�f►.�
Deteriorated residence on Calle Paloma north of Avenida Nuestra.
Plate 20
® 0
C'I
n%iw � --T� �+.. ���c�. ��a'w �. 7�i�. r.Y ♦ 4:�-_+e.rr�'�.�Ii'1V '? �.\Y.r .. ten.
Residence on Calle Paloma converted to church.
Residence on north side of Avenida La Fonda west of Calle Guatemala used as used auto parts
facility.
Plate 21
0 Is
11
Northeast corner Avenida Juarez and Calle Arroba in Cove area. No sidwalks, curbs, gutters.
Sporadic development.
Southwest corner of same intersection as above photo.
Plate 22
KatZH®llls
Part III.
PROPOSED
METHOD
OF FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT AREA
A.
General
Financing
Methods Available to Agency
The proposed Redevelopment Plan authorizes the Agency to finance
the Project with financial assistance from the City, State of California,
federal government, tax increment funds, interest income, Agency bonds,
donations, loans from private financial institutions, the lease or sale
of Agency -owned property, or any other available source, public or
private.
The proposed Plan provides the Agency with the powers, duties and
obligations to implement and further a program generally formulated in
the Plan for the redevelopment, rehabilitation and revitalization of the
Project Area. The Plan does not present a specific plan or establish
priorities for specific projects for the redevelopment, rehabilitation,
or revitalization of any specific area within the Project Area. Instead,
the Plan presents a process and a basic framework within which specific
development plans will be presented, priorities for specific projects
will be established, and specific solutions will be proposed, and by
which tools are provided to the Agency to fashion, develop, and proceed
with such specific plans, projects, and solutions.
B. Tax Increment Financing Method
In 1952 the voters of California approved an amendment to the
State Constitution which authorized a unique method of financing the pub-
lic costs associated with redevelopment. Based on this amendment, the
California Legislature provided specific statutory authority in the Com-
munity Redevelopment Law allowing local redevelopment agencies to use tax
increment or tax allocation financing within formally designated redevel-
opment project areas. This method has since become the model used by
many other states.
The basic theory behind tax increment financing is that redevelop-
ment projects should pay for themselves. To bring this about, the Com-
munity Redevelopment Law provides that when a redevelopment plan for a
project area is adopted, the total current taxable value of all taxable
property within the area is determined. (The current value is the value
on the assessment rolls last equalized prior to the date that the rede-
velopment plan is adopted. The last equalized roll is called the "base
year roll," and the total taxable value of the taxable property within
the project area shown on that roll is the "base year value.") After
the base year value is determined, all taxing agencies who had been pre-
viously receiving taxes continue to annually receive the taxes produced
from the base year assessment roll. Any taxes which are produced from
increases in taxable value in the project area above the base year value,
U
0
tzH®llis
however, are annually allocated to the redevelopment agency to pay the
costs it has incurred in carrying out redevelopment activities in the
project area.
Increases in taxable value within redevelopment project areas may
occur in the same manner and for the same reasons as increases in other
areas. They may be due to routine annual reassessments (limited to a
maximum increase of two percent by Proposition 13); they may arise from
reassessments following changes in property ownerships or they may be
occasioned by assessments of new developments being completed and placed
on the assessment rolls. Within redevelopment project areas it is the
third method - new developments - which is relied upon most heavily to
produce increased values and tax increment revenues. And it 1s generally
held that it is the redevelopment agency's actions in eliminating blight-
ing conditions and providing other incentives in the project area which
are the prime catalysts in bringing such new developments about.
A redevelopment agency may incur project costs directly, or it may
borrow money, issue bonds or enter into agreements to incur debt. Re-
gardless of the method used to incur the debt, so long as such debt
exists (and providing the agency has requested payment in the manner
prescribed by law) the agency will annually receive the tax increment
produced by the project area. When all loans, bonds, advances and other
debts of the agency have been paid off - or in any year when no such
debts have been incurred - then the tax increment funds are allocated to
the county and other project area taxing agencies in the same manner as
taxes produced by the base roll are allocated.
Assuming there is taxable value above the base year value, and
that the redevelopment agency has incurred project debts, tax increment
revenues are payable to that agency during the first fiscal year which
begins after January let following adoption of the project redevelopment
plan. Thus, if a plan is adopted in 1983 and is effective prior to
January 1, 1984, the agency would be able to claim tax increments from
the project area (if any are generated) for the fiscal year commencing
July 1, 1984. If the redevelopment plan is not adopted or effective
until after January 1, 1984, the agency could not collect tax increments
until the fiscal year which commenced on July 1, 1985.
After project area values have increased sufficiently to create a
moderate or higher annual tax increment "flow,* an agency may borrow
against the future payment of such increment by issuing bonds or tax
anticipation notes, and may fund interest as a part of such borrowing.
Realistically, construction of major new developments would have to be
commenced or firmly committed in the project area before the agency could
issue tax allocation bonds. Other factors which would bear upon a poten-
tial bond issue include the current market interest rate, the need to
provide assured increment flow in excess of projected annual debt service
1atzHollls
needs, the requirement to set aside 20 percent of all tax increment
funds for low and moderate income housing purposes, and the provisions
and requirements contained in any fiscal detriment alleviation agreements
the agency may have entered into with affected taxing agencies. Until
such time as sufficient tax incre- ment funds are assured for bond pur-
poses, an agency would have to rely on loans or advances from the City,
loans from other sources, or proceed on a "pay-as-you-go" basis from
each year's annual tax increment allocation.
C. Estimated Project Costs
One of the primary purposes of the Project is to revitalize and
upgrade a significant area of the City by eliminating the conditions of
blight in the Project Area as evidenced by, among other things, the exis-
tence of inadequate public improvements, facilities and utilities. The
Agency proposes to eliminate such conditions by providing, or assisting
in the provision of, some or all of the public improvements and facil-
ities projects listed in Table III-1.
The public improvements and facilities projects listed on Table
III-1 have an estimated local cost (in 1983 dollars) of $15,600,000 and
are not listed in order of priority. Such listing is not meant to be a
limitation on the Agency's authority or methods in carrying out, and im-
plementing the proposed Redevelopment Plan, nor is it an indication that
such improvements are currently feasible or will be actually financed in
whole or in part by tax increment or other revenues.
In addition to the public improvements and facilities project
costs estimated in Table III-1, the Agency may incur annual administra-
tive costs for staff and consultant services, and may incur other costs
for such purposes as land acquisition, demolition, owner participation,
site occupant relocation or other activities related to redevelopment,
and may set aside up to 20 percent of all tax increment funds received
into a low and moderate income housing fund. The total estimated cost
for these activities is $6,900,000, giving a total estimated Project
cost of $22,500,000. Total estimated Project costs are shown on Table
III-2.
U. Proposed Financing Method
Nominal advances for early survey and planning activities and Pro-
ject administration have come and will continue to come from the City
until Agency working capital from tax increments or other available
sources is available. The Agency may agree to repay such loans and ad-
vances from the City, including simple interest thereon. The Agency and
City may enter into agreements under which the City would assist the
Agency to provide public improvements and facilities projects, including
Katz H®l l is CW0AAR1R10
Table III-1
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
La Quints. Redevelopment Project
PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVMEMENT AND FACILITIES PROTECTS
Flood control improvements and facilties, consisting of the following
components:
1. West Drainage System - approximately 14,000 linear feet of
training dike and channel system to intercept and channel
flows from Bear Creek and other drainages.
2. East Drainage System - approximately 9,000 linear feet of
training dike and channel system to intercept and channel all
flows east of Bear Creek.
3. Cove Reservoir - a reservoir of up to 250 acre-feet storage
capacity, with a 35-foot spillway to protect against flood
damage, and a buried outlet from the Oleander Reservoir flood
evacuation channel.
4. Other Supporting Facilities - such other dikes, channels,
reservoirs, conduits, pumping stations, and other supporting
facilities as may be necessary in conjunction with or addi-
tion to the three facilities described above. Included
within this category may be Dike No. 1, an earth fill dam
located at the alluvial outwash fan of Bear Creek and unnamed
tributaries. Dike No. 1 would provide 3,400 acre-feet of
detention storage and would divert runoff through a mountain
pass and down into storage facilities behind Dike Nos. 2 and
4. Floodwaters would ultimately be conveyed to the Avenue 64
evacuation channel And on to the Salton Sea. Would require a
pumping station at Lake Cahuilla, but if constructed, Dike
No. 1 would result in a scale -down of the three improvements
above.
Note: This listing of projects is set forth for planning purposes, and
shall not be deemed as a limitation on the Agency's authority to
implement the Redevelopment Plan.
10038
r_wAAR10
Katz 0ll is
Table I1I-2
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
La Quinta Redevelopment Project
ESTIMATED PROTECT COSTS
Proposed Public Improvements and
Facilities Projects (Table III-1)
Project Administration Costs
Escalation, Contingencies
TOTAL
Plus: Low and Moderate Income
Housing (20% of Total Estimated
Project Costs Below)
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROTECT COSTS
Note:
$15,600,000
775,000
1,625,000
$18,000,000
4,500,000
$z2,soo,000
On August 4, 1983, the Agency and the City of La Quinta entered
into an agreement with the County of Riverside which provides in
part that prior to the County's final approval of the Redevel-
opment Plan for the La Quinta Redevelopment Project, the Agency
and the City shall endeavor to present to the County a method to
be used in a "pass through" agreement whereby the County and all
public agencies represented by the County's Board of Supervisors
shall be reimbursed a mutually agreeable percentage of their
prorata share of tax increment allocation occuring from the
Project Area for the life and term of the Project.
The above estimated Project costs do not include an estimated
amount to be allocated to the Agency and "passed through" to the
County and its dependent taxing agencies.
ra
11
KatzHollis
those listed in Table III-1, or to accomplish other Project purposes.
Agency bonds or tax anticipation notes may be issued if needed and
feasible to finance all or any portion of Project costs.
The cost estimates shown for the public improvements and facili-
ties projects in Table III-1 are local costs only, and do not necessarily
reflect the total estimated cost of a given project. In some cases, the
Agency may seek the participation of other funding sources, including
developers, in Project financing. In every case, however, the Agency is
committed to the principle of seeking total project financing from alter-
native funding sources before committing to finance all or any portion
of a project from tax increment funds.
The proposed Redevelopment Plan limits the amount of tax increment
dollars which may be allocated to the Agency to a cumulative total of
$61,970,000, which includes debt service on any bonds or :notes the
Agency may issue or interest bearing reimbursement agreements the Agency
may enter into. The proposed Plan limits the principal amount of Agency
bonded indebtedness which is to be repaid in whole or in part from tax
increment funds to a total of $22,500,000 outstanding at any one time.
Ah E. Tax Increment Limitations and Requirements
In addition to the tax increment and bond limits discussed above,
there are several other statutory requirements relating to the Agency's
use of tax increment funds. The Agency is cognizant of such requirements
and intends to fully adhere to them to the extent they are applicable to
the Agency and to the Project. A summary of these requirements is pre-
sented below.
1. Prior to paying all or part of the value of land for
and the cost of installation and construction of any publicly owned
building, facility, structure or other improvement within or outside the
Project Area, the Agency will request the City Council consent to such
payment and to determine:
a. That such building, facility, structure or improve-
ment is of benefit to the Project Area or the immediate neighborhood; and
b. That no other reasonable means of financing the
building, facility, structure or improvement is available to the Agency.
2. Prior to committing to use tax increment funds to pay
for all or part of the value of the land for, and the cost of installa-
tion and construction of, a publicly owned building (other than parking
facilities) the Agency will request the City Council to hold a public
hearing and to make the above determinations. In connection with such
public hearing a summary will be prepared to:
11
11
Katz®llis
a.
proposed to be used
interest payments);
Show the estimated amount of tax increment funds
to pay for such land and construction (including
b. Set forth the facts supporting the Council's
determinations; and
C. Set forth the redevelopment purposes for which such
expenditure is being made.
3. The Agency will not, without the prior consent of the
City Council, develop a site for industrial or commercial use so as to
provide streets, sidewalks, utilities or other improvements which the
owner or operator of the site would otherwise be obligated to provide.
4. Prior to entering into any agreement to sell or lease
any property acquired in whole or in part with tax increment funds, the
Agency will request the City Council to approve such sale or lease after
holding a public hearing. In connection with such public hearing the
Agency shall make available a summary describing and specifying:
a. The cost of the agreement to the Agency;
b. The estimated value of the interest to -be conveyed
or leased, determined at the highest uses permitted under the Redevelop-
ment Plan; and
C. The purchase price or the sum of the lease pay-
ments, and, if the sale price or total rental amount is less than the
fair market value of the interest to be conveyed or leased determined at
the highest and best use consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, an ex-
planation of the reasons for such difference.
5. Unless certain specified findings are made, not less
than 20 percent of each year's tax increment funds allocated to the
Agency will be set aside in a special fund for the purposes of increasing
and improving the City's supply of housing for persons of low and moder-
ate income and very low income households.
6. Although not statutorily mandated, the Agency will, upon
the request of any taxing agency with territory within the Project Area
which can demonstrate it has suffered a financial burden or detriment
caused by the Project, consider making a payment to such agency to alle-
viate such burden or detriment. Any such payment, however, would be sub-
ject to the availability of funds to make such payment, after meeting
required obligations.
KatzH®llis
Part IV. PLAN AND METHOD OF RELOCATION
A. Minimal Agency Displacement Anticipated
It is anticipated that minimal displacement of persons and busi-
nesses will occur as a direct result of Agency implementation activities
within the Project Area. The principal redevelopment activity to be
pursued by the Agency after Project adoption will be the provision of
new and the replacement of existing inadequate public improvements and
facilities, chiefly the provision of flood control improvements and
facilities, as detailed in Table III-1 in Part III of this Report. There
may be some land acquisition by the Agency in the Project Area for public
improvements purposes. The Plan also provides authority to the Agency
to assemble land for development if necessary to accomplish the purposes
of the Plan. The Agency may not use the power of eminent domain for
such purpose on residentially zoned property. To the extent that the
Agency acquires occupied property for public improvement or other pur-
poses, or enters into agreements with developers or others under which
occupants will be required to move, the Agency will cause or will be
responsible for causing such displacement of occupants. The Agency is
not responsible for any displacement which may occur as a result of pri-
vate development activities not directly assisted by the Agency under a
disposition and development, participation, other such agreement. Agency
actions involving displacement, if any, will be phased in a manner to
reduce potential problems arising from a number of persons or businesses
being required to move in the same time period.
B. Relocation in the Event of Agency Displacement
As noted above, minimal displacement of persons, families, busi-
nesses or tenants is anticipated under current Agency plans. If dis-
placement occurs, however, the Redevelopment Agency will provide persons,
families, business owners and tenants displaced by Agency Project Area
activities with monetary and advisory relocation assistance consistent
with the California Relocation Assistance Law (Government Code, Section
7260 et seq.), the State Guidelines adopted and promulgated pursuant
thereto, Relocation Rules and Regulations adopted by the Agency, and the
provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the Project.
The Agency will pay all relocation payments required by law. In
addition, subject to the availability of funds, the Agency may make addi-
tional relocation payments which in the Agency's opinion may be reason-
ably necessary to carry out the purposes of the Redevelopment Plan. The
following portions of this section of the Report to Council outline the
general relocation rules and procedures which must be adhered to by the
Agency in activities requiring the relocation of persons and businesses.
Also identified in this section are the Agency determinations and assur-
ances which must be made prior to undertaking relocation activities. The
Agency's functions in providing relocation assistance and benefits are
also summarized.
(IV-1)
2
LI
KatzHollis
C. Rules and Regulations
The Agency before undertaking or participating in an activity
which will result in the displacement of persons shall adopt rules and
regulations that: (1) implement the requirements of California Relocation
Assistance Law (Government Code, Chapter 16 of Division 7 of Title 1,
commencing with Section 7260) (the "Act"); (2) are in accordance with the
provisions of the California Department of Housing and Community Develop-
ment's Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines"
(the "State Guidelines"); (3) meet the requirements of the California
Community Redevelopment Law and the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan;
(4) are appropriate to the particular activities of the Agency and not
inconsistent with the Act or the State Guidelines. Such rules or regula-
tions issued by the Agency shall be promptly revised as necessary, to
conform to applicable amendments of the Act, the California Community
Redevelopment Law or the State Guidelines.
D. Agency Determinations and Assurances
1. The Agency may not proceed with any phase of a project
or other activity which will result in the displacement of any person,
business or farm until it makes the following determinations:
a. Fair and reasonable relocation payments will be
provided to eligible persons as required by law, the State Guidelines
and Agency rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto.
b. A relocation assistance advisory program offering
the services described in Article 2 of the State Guidelines will be
established.
C. Eligible persons will be adequately informed of
the assistance, benefits, policies, practices and procedures, including
grievance procedures, provided for in the State Guidelines.
d. Based upon recent survey and analysis of both the
housing needs of persons who will be displaced and available replacement
housing and considering competing demands for that housing, comparable
replacement dwellings will be available, or provided, if necessary, with-
in a reasonable period of time prior to displacement sufficient in num-
ber, size and cost for the eligible persons who require them.
e. Adequate provisions have been made to provide or-
derly, timely and efficient relocation of eligible persons to comparable
replacement housing available without regard to race, color, religion,
sex, marital status, or national origin with minimum hardship to those
affected.
f. A relocation plan meeting the requirements of law
and the State Guidelines has been prepared.
(IV-2)
1
11
KatzH®il$s
2. No person shall be displaced until the Agency has ful-
filled the obligations imposed by the Act, the California Community Rede-
velopment Law, the Redevelopment Plan, the State Guidelines and the
Agency rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto.
3. No persons or families of low and moderate income shall
be displaced unless and until there is a suitable housing unit available
and ready for occupancy by such displaced person or family at rents com-
parable to those at the time of their displacement. Such housing units
shall be suitable to the needs of such displaced persons or families and
must be decent, safe, sanitary and an otherwise standard dwelling. The
Agency shall not displace such person or family until such housing units
are available and ready for occupancy.
4. Whenever all or any portion of the Project Area is de-
veloped with low or moderate income housing units the Agency shall re-
quire by contract or other appropriate means that such housing be made
available for rent or purchase to the persons and families of low or mod-
erate income displaced by the Project. Such persons and families shall
be given priority in renting or buying such housing; provided, however,
that failure to give such priority shall not affect the validity of
® title to real property.
5. If insufficient suitable housing units are available in
the community for low and moderate income persons and families to be dis-
placed from the Project Area, the City Council shall assure that suffi-
cient land is made available for suitable housing for rental or purchase
by low and moderate income persons and families. If insufficient suit-
able housing units are available in the City for use by such persons and
families of low and moderate income displaced by the Project, the Agency
may, to the extent of that deficiency, direct or cause the development,
rehabilitation or construction of housing units within the City, both
inside and outside of the Project Area.
6. Permanent housing facilities shall be made available
within three years from the time occupants are displaced, and pending the
development of such facilities there will be available to such displaced
occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to
those in the City at the time of their displacement.
7. Whenever dwelling units housing persons and families of
low or moderate income are destroyed or removed from the low and moderate
income housing market as part of the Project, the Agency shall, within
four years of such destruction or removal, rehabilitate, develop or con-
struct, or cause to be rehabilitated, developed or constructed, for ren-
tal or sale to persons and families of low or moderate income an equal
number of replacement dwelling units at affordable housing costs within
the Project Area or within the City.
(IV-3)
M
$zHoIlls
S. At least 30 percent of all new or rehabilitated dwelling
units developed within the Project Area by the Agency, if any, shall be
available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low and
moderate income. Of such 30 percent, not less than 50 percent thereof
shall be available at affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, very
low income households. At least 15 percent of all new or rehabilitated
dwelling units developed within the Project Area by public or private
entities or persons other than the Agency shall be available at afford-
able housing cost to persons and families of low or moderate income. of
such 15 percent, not less than 40 percent thereof shall be available at
affordable housing cost to very low income households. These require-
ments shall apply in the aggregate to housing in the Project :Area and
not to each individual case of rehabilitation, development or construc-
tion of dwelling units. The Agency shall require that the aggregate
number of dwelling units rehabilitated, developed or constructed pursuant
to these requirements remain available at affordable housing cost to
persons and families of low and moderate income and very low income
households, respectively, for not less than the period of the land use
controls established in the Redevelopment Plan.
E. Replacement Housing Plan
® Not less than 30 days prior to the execution of an agreement for
acquisition of real property, or the execution of an agreement for the
disposition and development of property, or the execution of a partici-
pation agreement, which agreement would lead to the destruction or remov-
al of dwelling units from the low- and moderate -income housing market,
the Agency shall adopt by resolution a replacement housing plan. For a
reasonable time prior to adopting a replacement housing plan by resolu-
tion, the Agency shall make available a draft of the proposed replacement
housing plan for review and comment by the Project Area committee, if
any, other public agencies, and the general public.
The replacement housing plan shall include those elements required
by the Community Redevelopment Law. A dwelling unit housing persons of
low or moderate income whose replacement is required by the Agency, but
for which no replacement housing plan has been prepared, shall not be
destroyed or removed from the low- and moderate -income housing market
until the Agency has by resolution adopted a replacement housing plan.
Nothing, however, shall prevent the Agency from destroying or
removing from the low- and moderate -income housing market a dwelling
unit which the Agency owns and which is an immediate danger to health
and safety. The Agency shall, as soon as practicable, adopt by resolu-
tion a replacement housing plan with respect to such dwelling unit.
L
11
KatzHollis
F. Relocation Assistance Advisory Program and
Assurance of Comparable Replacement Housing
The Agency shall develop and implement a relocation assistance
advisory program which satisfies the requirements of the State Law and
Article 2 of the State Guidelines and the Civil Rights Act and the Rum-
ford Act. Such program shall be administered so as to provide advisory
services which offer maximum assistance to minimize the hardship of dis-
placement and to ensure that (a) all persons and families displaced from
their dwellings are relocated into housing meeting the criteria for com-
parable replacement housing contained in the State Guidelines, and (b)
all persons displaced from their places of business or farm operations
are assisted in reestablishing with a minimum of delay and loss of earn-
ings. No eligible person shall be required to move from his dwelling
unless within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement compar-
able replacement dwellings or, in the case of temporary move, adequate
replacement dwellings are available to such person.
The following outlines the general functions of the Agency in
providing relocation assistance advisory services. Nothing in this
section is intended to permit the Agency to displace persons other than
in a manner prescribed by law, the State Guidelines and the adopted
Agency rules and regulations prescribing the Agency's relocation respon-
sibilities.
1. Administrative Organization
a. Responsible Agency
The La Quinta Redevelopment Agency is responsible for providing
relocation payments and assistance to site occupants (persons, families,
business owners and tenants) displaced by the Agency from the Project
Area, and the Agency will meet its relocation responsibilities through
the use of its staff and consultants, supplemented by assistance from
local realtors and civic organizations.
b. Functions
The Agency's staff and/or consultants will perform the following
functions.
1) Prepare a Relocation Plan as soon as possible
following the initiation of negotiations for acquisition of real property
by the Agency and prior to proceeding with any phase of a public improve-
ment or facility project or other implementation activity that will re-
sult in any displacement other than an insignificant amount of non-resi-
dential displacement. Such Relocation Plan shall conform to the require-
(IV-5)
KatzlH®ills
ments of the Section 6038 of the State Guidelines. The Agency shall in-
terview all eligible persons, business concerns, including non-profit
organizations and farm operations to obtain information upon which to
plan for housing and other accommodations, as well as to provide counsel-
ing and assistance needs.
2) Provide such measures, facilities or services
as needed in order to:
a) Fully inform persons eligible for reloca-
tion payments and assistance within 15 days following the initiation of
negotiations for a parcel of land as to the availability of relocation
benefits and assistance and the eligibility requirements therefor, as
well as the procedures for obtaining such benefits and assistance, in ac-
cordance with the requirements of Section 6046 of the State Guidelines.
b) Determine the extent of the need of each
such eligible person for relocation assistance in accordance with the re-
quirements of Section 6048 of the State Guidelines.
c) Assure eligible persons that within a
reasonable period of time prior to displacement there will be available
comparable replacement housing, meeting the criteria described in Section
6008(c) of the State Guidelines, sufficient in number and kind for and
available to such eligible persons.
d) Provide current and continuing informa-
tion on the availability, prices and rentals of comparable sales and ren-
tal housing, and of comparable commercial properties and locations, and
as to security deposits, closing costs, typical down payments, interest
rates, and terms for residential property in the area.
e) Assist each eligible person to complete
applications for payments and benefits.
f) Assist each eligible, displaced person to
obtain and move to a comparable replacement dwelling.
g) Assist each eligible person displaced
from his business or farm operation in obtaining and becoming established
in a suitable replacement location.
h) Provide any services required to insure
that the relocation process does not result in different or separate
treatment on account of race, color, religion, national organ, sex, mari-
tal status or other arbitrary circumstances.
11
Katz®llis
i) Supply to such eligible persons informa-
tion concerning federal and state housing programs, disaster loan and
other programs administered by the Small Business Administration, and
other federal or state programs offering assistance to displaced persons.
j) Provide other advisory assistance to eli-
gible persons in order to minimize their hardships. As needed, such
assistance may include counseling and referrals with regard to housing,
financing, employment, training, health and welfare, as well as other
assistance.
k) Inform all persons who are expected to
be displaced about the eviction policies to be pursued in carrying out
the Project, which policies shall be in accordance with the provisions
of Section 5058 of the State Guidelines.
1) Notify in writing each individual tenant
and owner -occupant to be displaced at least 90 days in advance prior to
requiring a person to move from a dwelling or to move a business or farm
operation.
2. Relocation Office
If a substantial number of persons will be displaced and the relo-
cation staff's office is not easily accessible to those persons, the
Agency will establish at least one appropriately equipped site office
which is accessible to all the area residents who may be displaced and
is staffed with trained or experienced relocation personnel. office
hours should be scheduled to accommodate persons unable to visit the
office during normal business hours.
3. Information Program
The Agency shall establish and maintain an information program
that provides for the following:
a. Within 15 days following the initiation of negotia-
tions and not less than 90 days in advance of displacement, except for
those situations described in sub -section 6042(e) of the State Guide-
lines, the Agency shall prepare and distribute informational materials
(in the language most easily understood by the recipients) to eligible
persons for Agency relocation benefits and assistance.
b. Conducting personal interviews and maintaining
personal contacts with occupants of the property to the maximum extent
practicable.
(IV-7)
® 0
KatzH®His
c. Utilizing meetings, newsletters and other mecha-
nisms, including local media available to all persons, for keeping occu-
pants of the property informed on a continuing basis.
d. Providing each person written notification as soon
as his eligibility status has been determined.
e. Explanation to persons interviewed of the purpose
of the relocation needs survey, the nature of relocation payments and as-
sistance to be made available, and encouragement to visit the relocation
office for information and assistance.
4. Relocation Record
The Agency shall prepare and maintain an accurate relocation re-
cord for each person to be displaced as required by the State of Califor-
nia.
5. Relocation Resources Survey
The Agency shall conduct a survey of available relocation resources
in accordance with Section 6052 of the State Guidelines.
6. Relocation Payments
The Agency shall make relocation payments to or on behalf of eli-
gible displaced persons in accordance with and to the full extent permit-
ted by State Law and Article 3 of the State Guidelines. The obligations
for relocation payments are in addition to any acquisition payments made
pursuant to the Agency's real property acquisition guidelines, which may
be adopted at the time the Agency's relocation rules and regulations are
adopted. In addition, subject to the availability of funds, the Agency
may make additional relocation payments which in the Agency's opinion
may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of the Redevel-
opment Plan.
7. Temporary Moves
Temporary moves would be required only if adequate resources for
permanent relocation sites are not available. Staff shall make every
effort to assist the site occupant in obtaining permanent relocation
resources prior to initiation of a temporary move, and then only after it
is determined that Project Area activities will be seriously impeded if
such move is not performed.
S. Last Resort Housing
The Agency shall follow the State Law and the criteria and proce-
dures set forth in Article 4 of the State Guidelines for assuring that if
the Agency action results, or will result in displacement, and comparable
(IV -a)
KatzHollls
El
replacement housing will not be available as needed, the Agency shall use
its funds or fund authorized for the Project to provide such housing.
9. Grievance Procedures
The Agency shall adopt grievance procedures to implement the pro-
visions of the State Law and Article 5 of the State Guidelines. The pur-
pose of the grievance procedures is to provide Agency requirements for
processing appeals from Agency determinations as to the eligibility, the
amount of relocation payment, and for processing appeals from persons
aggrieved by the Agency's failure to refer them to comparable permanent
or adequate temporary replacement housing. Potential displacees will be
informed by the Agency of their right to appeal regarding relocation
payment claims or other decisions made affecting their relocation.
10. Relocation Appeals Hoard
The Mayor of the City of La Quints shall appoint a relocation ap-
peals board composed of five members, subject to the approval of the
City Council. The relocation appeals board shall promptly hear all com-
plaints brought by residents of the Project Area relating to relocation
and shall determine if the Redevelopment Agency has complied with the
applicable State relocation requirements and where applicable, federal
regulations. The board shall, after a public hearing, transmit its find-
ings and recommendations to the Agency. The members of the relocation
appeals board shall serve without compensation, but each of the members
shall be reimbursed for his necessary expenses incurred in performance
of his duties, as determined by the City Council.
11
I
Katz col l is
Part V. ANALYSIS OF PRELIMINARY PLAN
The Preliminary Plan for the La Quinta Redevelopment Project
describes the boundaries of the proposed Project Area, contains general
statements of land uses, layout of principal streets, population
densities, building intensities and building standards proposed as the
basis for the redevelopment of the Project Area. The Preliminary Plan
also shows how the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law would be
attained through the redevelopment of the area, and states that with one
exception the proposed redevelopment will conform to the General Plan of
the City. The exception area, which generally lies east of Jefferson
Avenue, will require a General Plan amendment. The Preliminary Plan
also describes generally the impact of the Project upon .residents
thereof and upon the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area conforms
with the standards and provisions of the Preliminary Plan. The Project
Area boundary remains the same. The Redevelopment Plan proposes the
same land uses and provides for all principal streets indicated in the
Preliminary Plan. Building intensities are in compliance with limits
established in the Preliminary Plan. Proposed building standards also
remain the same.
As set forth in the Preliminary Plan, the proposed Redevelopment
Plan will attain the purposes of the California Community Redevelopment
Law by the elimination of areas suffering from economic dislocation as a
result of faulty planning or other reasons; by the replanning, redesign
and rehabilitation and/or development of areas which are stagnant or
improperly utilized, and which could not be accomplished by private
enterprise acting alone, without public participation and assistance;
and by protecting and promoting sound development and redevelopment of
blighted areas and the general welfare of the citizens of the City by
remedying such injurious conditions through the employment of appro-
priate means.
(V-1)
11
Katz®llis
Part VI. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION. AND
On November 11, 1983, the Planning Commission of the City of La
Quinta adopted Resolution No. 83-6 which reported that the Commission
found the proposed Project Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General
Plan of the City of La Quints, and that the activities and undertakings
which may be undertaken within the Project Area pursuant to the Plan
conform to the General Plan. Resolution No. 83-6 also approved the
$61,970,000 tax increment limitation set out in the Redevelopment Plan
and any higher amount of such limitation as may be determined appropriate
by the Agency to fulfill the specific objectives of the Plan; recommended
that the language after the first sentence in Section 4 of Redevelopment
Plan Exhibit "C" be deleted; recommended approval and adoption of the
Redevelopment Plan; and included the report of the Planning Commission
required by Section 65402 of the Government Code.
A copy of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 63-6 is included
with this Part VI of the Agency's Report to City Council.
(VI-1)
Eiji
RESOLUTION NO.P•C. 83-6
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF
THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LA QUINTA
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency has submitted
to the Planning Commission a proposed Redevelopment Plan for
the La Quinta Redevelopment Project which project includes
lands within the City of La Quinta and certain lands within
unincorporated territory of Riverside County; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta
has formulated and adopted a Preliminary Plan for the Project;
and
WHEREAS, Section 33346 of the Community Redevelopment Law
(Health and Safety Code, Section 33000 et seq.) provides that
the Planning Commission is to review the proposed Redevelopment
Plan and make its report and recommendation thereon to the
Agency and the City Council, including a determination that the
Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City of
La Quinta; and
WHEREAS, Section 33213 of the California Community
40 Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code, Section 33000 et
seq.) provides in part that if the legislative body of one
community authorizes the redevelopment of an area within its
territorial limits by another community, the community so
authorized may undertake the redevelopment of such area in all
respects as if the area was within its territorial limits and
its legislative body, agency and planning commission shall have
all the rights, powers, and privileges with respect to such
area as if it was within the territorial limits of the
community so authorized; and
WHEREAS, on August 30 , 1983, the Board of Supervisors
of the County of Riverside, by Ordinance No. 605 , authorized
the City of La Quinta to initiate the undertaking of redevelop-
ment of the unincorporated territory of the County of Riverside
included within the proposed La Quinta Redevelopment Project;
and
WHEREAS, Section 65402 of the Government Code
provides in part:
1 "(a) If a general plan or part thereof has been
adopted, no real property shall be acquired by
dedication or otherwise for street, square, park
or other public purposes, and no real property
shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated
or abandoned, and no public building or structure
shall be constructed or authorized, if the
adopted general plan or part thereof applies
thereto, until the location, purpose and extent
of such acquisition or disposition, such street
vacation or abandonment, or such public building
or structure have been submitted to and reported
upon by the planning agency as to conformity with
said adopted general plan or part thereof. . . .
"(c) A local agency shall not acquire real
property for any of the purposes specified in
paragraph (a) nor dispose of any real property,
nor construct or authorize a public building or
structure, in any county or city, if such county
or city has adopted a general plan or part
thereof, until the location, purpose and extent
of such acquisition, disposition, or such public
building or structure have been submitted to and
reported upon by the planning agency having
jurisdiction, as to conformity with said adopted
general plan or part thereof. "•
and
WHEREAS, the above required reports and recommendations,
including matters referred to in Section 33346 of the Health
and Safety Code and Section 65402 of the Government Code, are
to be made to the Agency and the City Council for their
40 consideration in acting on the adoption of the Redevelopment
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the
proposed Redevelopment Plan, including the Draft Environmental
Impact Report, and the General Plan of the City and other
pertinent reports.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of La Quinta as follows:
1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby finds and
determines that:
(a) Pursuant to Section 33346 of the Community
Redevelopment Law, the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the La
Quinta Redevelopment Project (attached hereto as Attachment
No. 1) conforms to the General Plan of the City of La Quinta.
(b) Pursuant to Section 65402 of the Government Code,
with respect to activities which may be undertaken within the
Project Area pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan, and that as
referred to in said section, such activities and undertakings
conform to the General Plan of the City of La Quinta.
-2-
6364P/2338/00
2. Report and Recommendations.
(a) The Planning Commission hereby reports to the
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency and the City Council of the City
of La Quinta the findings referred to in Section 1 hereof, and
recommends the approval and adoption of said Redevelopment Plan
as submitted by the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency. The Planning
Commission hereby approves the $61,970,000 tax increment limita-
tion set out in said Redevelopment Plan and also approves any
higher dollar amount of such limitation as may be determined
appropriate by the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency to fulfill the
specific objectives of the Redevelopment Plan.
(b) It is further recommended that the language in
section 4 of Exhibit "C" after the first sentence be deleted.
3. Transmittal. The Planning Director shall transmit a
copy of this Resolution to the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
and the City Council of the City of La Quinta for consideration
as part of the Agency's Report to the City Council pursuant to
Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law, and this
Resolution shall be deemed the report and recommendations of
the Planning Commission concerning the proposed Redevelopment
Plan and contemplated public project and activities thereunder
as required by applicable provisions of law.
ADOPTED this 8th
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
1
day of
November 1983,
Commissioners Salas, Goetcheus, Imkamp, Thornburgh
and Chairman Klimkiewicz
None
None
CHAIRMAN
Mr.
Katz ®Ills
Part VII. RECORD OF MEETINGS WITH PROJECT AREA OWNERS, RESIDENTS
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS
A. No Project Area Committee Formed for Project
Section 33385 of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) provides
that the City Council shall call upon the residents and existing commun-
ity organizations in the Project Area to form a project area committee
if the Project will result in the displacement of a substantial number
of low and moderate income families. As described in Parts IV and XI,
minimal site occupant displacement is anticipated to occur as a result
of Agency activities in implementing the Plan. While there may be some
Agency property acquisition for public improvements purposes, the Agency
may not use the power of eminent domain to assemble residentially zoned
property for development. Accordingly, on August 16, 1983, the City
Council of the City of La Quints adopted Resolution No. 83-49 determining
that the Project will not displace a substantial number of low and moder-
ate income families, and that formation of a project area committee is
not required and will not be formed. The City Council in this same
resolution directed the Agency to consult with and obtain the advice of
residents and the community organizations within the Project Area, and
Afik to provide such residents and organizations with the Redevelopment Plan
MP prior to its submission to the City Council.
B. Consultations with
In response to the City Council's direction, the Agency and City
Council on October 21, 1983 held an adjourned regular meeting at 7:30
p.m. in the La Quinta Community Center for the purpose of providing in-
formation and seeking public input into the Redevelopment Plan adoption
process. A notice of this meeting (and Project Area boundary map) was
published in the Indio Daily News on October 10, 1983. Copies of the
notice and map were mailed to all Project Area assessees of record, com-
munity organizations, businesses and property occupants.
At the public meeting, the goals and objectives of the Project
were discussed, slides depicting La Quints's flood problems were pre-
sented, and a question/answer session was conducted. Copies of the pro-
posed Redevelopment Plan and the Rules Governing Participation and Pre-
ferences by Property Owners and Business Occupants in the La Quinta
Project were available for inspection.
A copy of the minutes of the October 10, 1983 combined adjourned
Council/Agency/public meeting is included with this Part VII of the
Report to City Council.
Aft
M I N U T E S
CITY 101t4CIS - CITY OF LA QIINTA
IA Q)IMA REDEYE OPMEW AGDCY
®
An adjourned regular meeting of
the City Council and Redevelopmnt
Agent' held at the La Quinta
Community Center, 77-861 Avenida
Montezuma, La Quinta, California. C✓ c. �
October 21, 1963 7:30 P.M. ? ^I
1. CALL TO ORDER
A
Mayor Beier called the :meting to order at 7:31 p.m.
A. The Invocation was led by Mayor Baler.
B. The Flag Salute was led by Assistant to the City Manager Jennings.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members Allen, Cox, Henderson, Wolff and Mayor Baler.
Absent: None.
Also Present: City Manager Usher, Assistant to the City Manager Jennings and
hell Weeks, General Manager/Chief Engineer of C.V.W.D.
'
3. PUBLIC COM Dn
4. WRITTEN CC MRNICATICNS
5. CCM• M FROM COUNCIL ME2 RS
6. HEARINGS
7. CONSENT CALEIZAR
8. BUSINESS SESSION
A. The City Manager presented a series of slides depicting the results of past
flooding incidents in la Quinta, and the need for permanent flood control
improvements. Mr. Lowed 0. Weeks, General Manager and Chief Engineer of
the Coachella Valley Water District, described the proposed flood control
facilities. The City Manager described the method of financing and other
matters relating to the proposer] Redevelopment Plan and Rules Governing
Participation and Preferences by Property Owners and Business Occupants in
the La Qui.nta Redevelopment Project, copies of which were available for
inspection. The City Manager responded to questions from property owners,
tenants and business paws regarding various elements of the RedeveloEnent
Plan.
RFSOLUrICN NO. 83-62. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY Q77tCIL OF THE
CITY OF IA Q12M, CALffORNIA, OXSENTL%
1O AND CALLING A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING CN THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LA
Q7INTA REDEVELOPMENT PROTECT.
Moved by Council Member Wolff; seconded by Council Member Allen, to adopt
Resolution No. 83-62. Unanimously adopted.
RE9OIAYrI0N NO. RESOIJMCN OF i •U�` -- Ora•. r aa+
AGENCY SUB=INGTHE PROPOSED •a ••
• , •• • u •• Sa w • • m • ,
••.•••�» •E� E •• is •.• , • w v •,», E •• n •-+ a
Moved by Agency Member Cox, seconded by Agency Member Wolff, to adopt
Resolution No. RA-83-14. Unanimously adopted. -
9. ADJOUF[a•ENT
Moved by Council Member Henderson, seconded by Cmnncil Member Coot, to adjourn.
The adjourned regular meeting of the City COunncil and Redevelopmnt Agency was
adjourned at 9:16 p.m., Friday, October 21, 1983, at the la Quinta Cammnnity
Center, 77-861 Avenida Montezuma, Ia Quints, California.
u
l
E
11
rl
Katz offls
Part VIII. REPORT
CODE (
BY
IMPACT
PUBLIC
After the Final Environmental Impact Report has
certified by the Agency in accordance with State Law
local procedures, it will be submitted separately to
for inclusion in this Report to City Council.
been prepared and
and guidelines and
the City Council
(VIII-1)
atzH®llis
Part IX. REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER
In accord with Section 33328 of the Community Redevelopment Law
(CRL), the Riverside County Auditor -Controller, as the fiscal officer
charged with responsibility of allocating tax increments under Section
33670 of the CRL, has prepared the attached report to the Redevelopment
Agency and all taxing agencies located with the Project Area. Also
attached is the portion of the Auditor -Controller's report which is
prepared by the State Hoard of Equalization. In addition, as required
by Section 33352(m) of the CRL, the Auditor -Controller's report is ana-
lyzed by the Agency and such analysis is included in Part XII of this
Report to City Council.
(IX-1)
County of Riverside
Office of
County Auditor -Controller
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street
Rivenide, California 92501 Howard D. Stephetm CPA
Telephone:(714) 787.2975 AuditorContro(ler -
November 3, 1983
City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California 92253
Re: Fiscal Information
Gentlemen:
In accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33328, we
submit the following fiscal information for La Quinta Rede-
velopment Project.
EXHIBIT A - Total assessed valuation of taxable property
® within the project area for the 1983-84 base
year.
EXHIBIT B - Affected taxing entities.
EXHIBIT C - Total property tax revenue for each affected
taxing entity from base year assessments
(within the Project area).
EXHIBIT D - Total property tax revenue for each affected
taxing entity for the 1983-84 fiscal year,
(within and without the Project area).
HDS:jh
cc: Supervisor Larson
Co. Administrative Officer
County Counsel
County Assessor
All Affected Taxing Entities
Respectfully submitted,
Howard D. Stephens
Auditor -Controller
Chairman, Fiscal Review Committee
11
El
EXHIBIT A
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TOTAL ASSESSED VALUATION OF TAXABLE PROPERTY
WITHIN THE -PROJECT AREA
1983-84 BASE YEAR
SECURED
UNSECURED
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
TOTAL SECURED AND UNSECURED
207,lo6,o83
407,248
see note
207,513�331
NOTE: State Board of Equalization Values for 1983-84
within the project area are not currently avail-
able.
EXHIBIT B
C
LA QUIPITA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AFFECTED TAXING ENTITIES
County of Riverside
County Free Library
County Structural Fire Protection
Supervisorial Road District 4
City of La Quinta
Coachella Valley Unified School District
Desert Sands Unified School District
Coachella Valley Community College District
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
Coachella Valley Public Cemetery District
Coachella Valley Mosquito Abatement District
Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District
Coachella Valley Water District
Coachella Valley Resource Conservation District
® ® EXHIBIT C
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FOR EACH AFFECTED
TAXING ENTITY FROM 1983-84 BASE YEAR ASSESSMENTS
(G—LTHIN THE PROJECT AREA)
Percent Total
Affected Taxina Entities of Taxes Taxes
County of Riverside
24.21
$ 502,390
County Free Library
2.84
58,934
County Structural Fire Protection
6.11
126,791
Supervisorial Road District #4
.13
2,698
City of La Quinta
6.64
137,789
Coachella Valley Unified School District
1.69
35,070
Desert Sands Unified School District
36.41
755,556
Coachella Valley Community College District
7.84
162,690
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
4.27
88,608
Coachella Valley Public Cemetery District
.35
7,263
Coachella Valley Mosquito Abatement District
1.43
293674
Coachella Valley Recreation and Park
District
2.15
44,615
Coachella Valley dater District
5.89
122,225
Coachella Valley Resource Conservation
District
04
830
Total
100.00
$2,075,133
NOTE: Above amounts represent the general levy (1%) only and do not
include taxes from State Board of Equalization assessments or
debt service.
Il�Mt—. N
�N
uMt0 —
looco
c ID M_: O�QOtn
N C�D.Qi �W ,?O�ON MN
N
m
0"10,
.
O 'M0�
O
0§N01Q[
d
co
O
E
A
H
0
O
co
M •
01
ti
x
m
.0
INO0�coo,CRO aN)cItoNO
�WO
y4•
NtiMI
O�MC�,r1 TuU'OKaL
U
co n8co �O t-t-:;A ?�
N
y
O CD I�O�rIO N.I ri
O
N
m
N
.ml
U
S
a
a
0
O�c�po MN .i [ .i O (—f—N n
S
y
Q
m„
(•�'11f1 Mti �I00WOI�t+Y.O
?
C
m
Wrl
1•'
4
6
0
F
V
C
2U
H
C
O
m
4
C
w
z
w
U
W
m
aS
WW
r
W
i
OS
u.�� c%
� �NOI O.Nd
o
O
0
and
m
a
V
m
O�ti LC
?O]mN ri Nn d.•ISOO
d
as d
H
ri
W
0
a
�Omm IIlM0000�.-�
�C
OV
c
WW
E+
N
NOO H�
N 0J m.y ,�O D\ M N Lam? i-i
.a
H
F
N
NtiN NONOJ M
Lco
a
O
w
O
imN
CD
O
i
N
OI>.
mm
wm
W
>
m S
O
far
O
O
y
N
m
'Coo
of
n
s
u
u
pEp
' W
a
7
C
.-I V
Q
o
E
ei
H
W
O
�
��•f
0 4
J
O d
Y U
.Ui eyu 4Y .m•I
8 N G
w
U aF+ .mi m
f
.-I mL 4Nq
a~+ugy mQ14
WNe
g
.mi .mi m a c m m
o
p 7O
pe
0Om
..Oi elmNuiT.NCuati
y
d% 8AU9y@@A
U
N
0
m0
.i
u u U ei C 9 G C u U
0
F..•1
as
00 00>100 ow
0
0A
W
4.mi7Cdto
m
tc
mm .0i V01 7
am+d
g9
N
.CI
.�I LI V fi GA ma U+ W
0
1 m
0 Tw C m O a 0 0 0 0
0
E-
.'imdE�a
�cdm s
o
10
m w d 0a >I- TTTT TTT
4
C
0A �2 C 0 C 0a+0000 m
d
0
a d 0d d
m
or 0 d d d d
ama.�d >v>u >
a
.+
u
A2
d
Em.0 ONddCpdmdd
F
A
a
d d d
owm.mia.�-INti "i `"•1
mN
aN.'i. .~i
bo
T T T> O m u 0 m 0 0 0 0 0
C
J V77pp �+M LwL MLLLLL
p
••
0000.060.09999
i
0 U 0 A 0000C40UUUU
i
O
y
STATIE OF CALIFORNIA
STATE BOARD OF
N STREET, SACRAMENTO,
EQUALIZATION
CALIFORNIA
CONWAY N COLLIS
ivn Gn
ERNEST J. DROMENN�RG. S
80R 1799, SACRAMENTO.
CALIFORNIA 95808)
S.D~.is Dl
916/322-2323
November 1, 19E3
W EIAMMEENNETT
T6 d DaI14r. [.d
RICHARD NFV NS
Fo, 1 D,~. P .a
KENNETH CCITT
- Cw 161. Soc.v.w..
-Mr. Howard D. Stephens
Riverside County Auditor
County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon Street, llth Floor
Riverside, California 92501
Dear Mr. Stephens:
DOUGLAS D. UILL
E.Rvn.. Sawa)
33
Pursuant to Section 33328 et seq. of the Health and Safety Code, the 1983-84
assessed values of state -assessed property located within the boundaries of
the proposed La Quinta Redevelopment Project are enclosed. The Board of
Supervisors has given the City of La Quinta jurisdiction for redevelopment
purposes over certain Tmincoeporated territory.
These assessed values will continue to be valid if the project boundaries re-
main fixed and the ordinance adopting and approving the redevelopment plan for
this project becomes effective prior to August 20, 1984.
JEH:jb
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Frank M. Usher
11
Very truly yours,
Jay E. Hubert
Area Office Administrator
VALUATIO14 DIVISION
Iil
® -
La Quinta Redevelopment Project
Company
TAX -RATE AREA 20001
Southern California Gas Company
General Telephone Company of California
TAX -RATE AREA 20002
Southern California Gas Company
General Telephone Company of California
TAX -RATE AREA 20003
Southern California Gas Company
General Telephone Company of California
TAX -RATE AREA 20007
Southern California Gas Company
General Telephone Company of California
TAX -RATE AREA 20008
Southern California Gas Company
General Telephone Company of California
TAX -RATE AREA 58047
General Telephone Company of California
GRAND TOTAL WITHIN PROJECT
1983-84 Assessed Values
Land Improvements Personal
1,920
166,930
168,850
148,780
751,540
900,320
131,940
63,650
195,590
16,410
60,300
76,710
18,120
460
18,580
17,770
1,377,820
E
KatzH®llis
C
Part R. REPORT OF FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Section 33353 of the Community Redevelopment Law provides that a
county or any affected taxing agency may call for the creation of a fis-
cal review committee within 15 days after receipt. from a redevelopment
agency a description and map of the boundaries of a proposed redevelop-
ment project area and a statement that a plan for the redevelopment of
the area is being prepared. To be composed of one representative from
each of the affected taxing agencies (including the county), the commit-
tee's purpose would be to report to the redevelopment agency on the fis-
cal impact of the proposed redevelopment plan on each of the committee's
members.
In accord with Section 33327 of the Community Redevelopment Law,
on September 6, 1983, the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency transmitted a
boundary description, Project Area Map, and "Statement of Preparation of
Redevelopment Plan or Amended Redevelopment Plan for the La Quinta
Redevelopment Project" to the governing bodies of each affected taxing
agency, to the Riverside County Auditor -Controller, Assessor and Tax
Collector, and to the State Board of Equalization (SBE).
In response to the request of the County of Riverside, a fiscal
review committee was called for and formed for the La Quinta Redevelop-
ment Project.
A hearing of the fiscal review committee was held on November 7,
1983 at 10:00 a.m, in the Council Chambers of the La Quinta City Hall.
Attendees at the fiscal review committee hearing were:
Name and Title
Taxing Agency Represented
Howard Stevens, Auditor -Controller, Riverside County
Riverside County and Chairman,
La Quinta Project Fiscal Review
Committee
Linda Thomason, Administrative
Analyst
Gene L. Perry
Robert H. Elrod, Ph.D.,
Superintendent
Dennis J. Learn, Assistant
Superintendent, Business Services
JJj
Riverside County
Coachella Valley Water
District
Coachella Valley Unified
School District
Coachella Valley Unified
School District
0
C
tzH®llls
Name and Title
Gretchen A. Dockel, Acting Super-
intendent
Frank Guerrer, District Manager
Michael J. Wargo, District Manager -
Entomologist
Frank Usher, City Manager, and
Executive Director
Lawrence J. Arceneaux, Jr.,
Vice President, Katz Hollis
Allan A. Robertson,
Vice Presient, Katz Hollis
Taxing Agency Represented
Coachella Valley Recreation
and Park District
Coachella Valley Recreation
and Park District
Coachella Valley Mosquito
Abatement District
City of La Quinta, La Quinta
Redevelopment Agency
La Quinta Redevelopment
Agency
La Quinta Redevelopment
Agency
At the hearing, the Auditor -Controller distributed copies of the
fiscal officer's report on Project Area taxes and taxing agencies. (See
Part IX of this Report to City Council.) The Auditor -Controller also
distributed two reports, "Estimated Fiscal Impact on Affected Taxing
Entities Resulting from Tax Increment Financing," and nTotal Fiscal Im-
pact on Affected Taxing Entities Resulting from Tax Increment Financing
Based on a Plan Limitation of $61,970,000." Copies of both of these
reports are included in this Part X of the Agency's Report to City
Council.
During the hearing the La Quinta Agency Executive Director pre-
sented information on the Project, particularly on the need for flood
control facilities to serve the greater La Quints area. He explained
that attempting to finance such improvements via special assessments
would be, because of the vast area covered, impractical and unfair.
Since the tax increment limit within the Plan is based entirely on flood
facilities cost (plus administration and low and moderate income housing
set -asides), other needed public improvements and facilities would have
to be provided by special assessments or other such fees. Imposing all
costs on new housing developments would add a high cost burden to their
sales prices and perhaps jeopardize competitive position in the market.
The representatives from the Coachella Valley Unified School Dis-
trict stated that their district may be highly impacted by new housing
developments within the Project Area in terms of potential new schools
required to serve the population of such developments. They requested
that methods be explored to alleviate this impact in such a way that the
district would not suffer a loss of State funds as a consequence of such
assistance.
(X-Z)
Ll
n
Katz®llis
The representative from the Coachella Valley Mosquito Abatement
District commented that he appreciated the proposed limited use of tax
increment funding by the La Quinta Project.
In response to a question concerning how much tax increment reve-
nues might be generated by new developments expected to occur within the
Project Area once the flood control problem had been solved, Mr. Usher
distributed copies of a May, 1983 preliminary bond feasibility report
completed by Katz Hollis, and a letter dated November 7, 1983 from Katz
Hollis determining that the tax increment projection contained in their
May, 1983 report was still a reasonable indication of the tax increment
revenues to be generated. Copies of the Katz Hollis' May, 1983 report
and November 7th letter are included in this Part % of the Report to
City Council.
The Auditor -Controller noted that the revenue projections con-
tained in Katz Hollis' report could likely be considered to be in addi-
tion to the annual revenues projected in his reports, which assume an
annual 15 percent growth in Project Area taxable values.
Members of the fiscal review committee were given copies of the
preliminary draft of the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency's Report to the
La Quinta City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the La
Quints. Redevelopment Project. Copies of the proposed Redevelopment Plan
and Draft environmental impact report for the Project had been previously
transmitted to the members.
The Auditor -Controller, as chairman of the fiscal review commit-
tee, requested that any taxing agency who so desired could send addi-
tional comments to his office by November 16, 1983 for inclusion in the
report of the fiscal review committee.
When the report of the fiscal review committee is issued, it will
be added to this Report to City Council or will be submitted to the City
Council for addition to this Report.
(%-3)
f0�
.Y N if1
01
ri
N
fD
I`
MOB
�O
O
�M
O
�Sp
SSnC�
Oo
0)N
MtD
co
cc; ~
.1
. i
NCO
N
N
11
I,l
19 MO
W
N
N
if1
M�L- N N U l
�O
M
M
n
T
S
m M
co N 01
In
S
S
O\
O
Ifn M
a
0n
N
M
m
M
S
.Mi
O
N
MN
t-H 1n
�o
.o
m
O
.o
t-0)
N
N
m
01S
10 N O
�o
H
n
N
rIS
N
CO
m
C
CSC N
N
O�
C
M
S
N
SUS
�O
N
t`
�yrl
aN
N
N
S
�
l
O
�c
N
MOB
M
r1
In
rl
r-I
�
q
N
N
t-
O
N
N
co C\
0 lt��
N
n
co
Ut
"D
. O
w 111
CO
M
4
\O
M
Ul
Mr;
O
N
S
rf
NIO
O
M
�
N
N
O,8 O O ti O
NO
N io
N O co co m
CV
O
00 co co corn M
11
M 111 MS N
N
N O, O � r-1
M N co
N O% S O�
1
N
mo ON noo O
MM
Os H
dM
0
e
U\S
O\
In VIM
MOJ 0?r%C NS1NC?
�NO .-�
.O
nw m
mM
\O00
S:a
NN
N r4
r~N-1
OC
q
J
OJ
C V
d
O-t tico a,
O to
M # U�N O
O+-i
m �
OE M us U=
MUD ll lcP O
O, O
in �O
.O I N
C O
d
N
(��O
O W
OW
O ImN n t�.1 m
In rl .1
In �O fD
h .r
N ? N
.i
O
.�
N
tl d
co
a J
6w
B d
.y
N
m NO) �I
y fC�
C W e~1 �
.�
#
S
d fY m
Uw Fmm
N % r�
.p t� 4
.i N In
I
of
N
O Tl
h O
tl m L
m d
dd6
J
m a J
L m
0
Cd
ti
y
G
m
m
u
C
a
E
S
u
W
0
C .0
C
..Uj
o aAi adi
O .Oi .mi d
O. O
LO
1. Sri C
J J Ca U
U J
J d
V C •i
U � tl w J
m tl d
y
tl m .d
fA L
�I a 4 a U
a N y
geag
�Ja
dAW C
d 0 a
ttd��
d tldJ
y~tl
WG
aw
N m tl tl
�.. d
.�
O'u
p
mLOJA
d
GA
Q
ALA A Alfa
W7
d
w p L fL C Y
c V w y
d J d J d y d d
m O
r
O
rm'u rd H. C
m
a w
z.
. 0 a
�-++o
0tl
a o m
uC Cddtl
m O
tlOtlLtl Ltl
.mi
yyO'yO
>QUi>
i+i+»o
O
tl9tl
L
a0AW
OrrVGu
O
6m.4 my.tlOF
and
O G. v1 Vm m+U)
W70
m d HgOL
'd06
d d m
m m
wuuCutluu0g9FVa.Voo
UW
a aJ mra
mo ticaomUtl
NC
ematlmU
71w m
mm
0 0 0 a� O
d O 4
O O O O O
m J y
UUU MQU
Ca U =
0 0 0 VU
6m4
is
0
>w
a m o rn p N ON n
C� o O o 0 ^'
ti in ti O �O
m N N ti N
tm. L t�'•1 b m N 01 N
ND N � O0 N N N
W t~i H 0 r�'1 m M d
G. > m M t+l cD ' � m
va x a
��.7 m N .7 n o m
O J b d �O O� to C%
(� H 4 F O � ti .�1 N
iWG u H N„ N N (+1 M
w
m
L
m
>�
m
m
>.
m
m
A
C m
v
C .mi
c0
t0
N
03
J
00
Ol
V
m
m
t
J
S
L
7
9
m
m
J
rl
J
�i
m
m
J
u
m
c,
a
m
O
J
C
m
J
u
O
O
n•I
m
m
p
O
J
m
J
c
0
u
0
J
m
aCs
7
O
m
J
C
m
m
m
L
a
m
w
m
m
w
m
m
T
m
m
m
pu
O
�. m
O 3
O
m L
If�L
0 J
0
o
N O
M
m 4m
F�
O
A
aO
F
Z
O
V
d
O
H
H
G
a
0
0
U
a
1-1
H
L'
O
W
U
1.1
W
O
N
O
7S
r
LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TOTAL FISCAL IMPACT ON AFFECTED TAXING ENTITIES
RESULTING FROM TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
BASED ON A PLAN LIMITATION OF 861 970 000
Percent
Affected Entity
of Taxes
Total
County of Riverside
24.21
$1510025937
County Free Library
2.84
1,759,948
County Structural Fire Protection
6.11
3,786,367
Supervisorial Road District ##4
.13
8o,561
City of La Quinta
6.64
4,114,808
Coachella Valley Unified School District
1.69
1,0475293
Desert Sands Unified School District
36.41
22,563,277
Coachella Valley Community College District
7.84
4,858,448
Riverside County Superintendent of Schools
4.27
2,646,119
Coachella Valley Public Cemetery District
•35
216,895
Coachella Valley Mosquito Abatement District
1.43
886,171
Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District
2.15
1,332,355
Coachella Valley Water District
5:89
3,650,033
Coachella Valley Resource Conservation District
01E
24,788
Totals
100.00
$61,970,000
(PREPARED BY OFFICE OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY .'AUDITOR -CONTROLLER)
® 44-ci�i vim. eL
KatzHollis
November 7, 1983
Mr. Frank Usher
City Manager
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Dear Mr. Usher:
Per your request, we have reviewed our letter report of May 26, 1983, which
presents estimates of tax increment revenue to be generated within the pro-
posed La Quinta Redevelopment Project. The purpose of the review was the
determination of whether the report is still a reasonable indication of tax
increment to be generated and, as such, is suitable for presentation to the
Fiscal Review Committee which has been convened as part of the redevelopment
plan adoption process.
In our opinion, the report still presents an "order of magnitude" portrayal
of revenues which could be generated in the proposed Project. we are not
aware of any new information which would require that we update the assump-
tions or findings of the report. A substantial reason why no changes are
required, however, is the highly speculative nature of the findings of the
report.
It is our understanding that, with the exception of the Arden development
which is already underway, realization of all of the developments described
in the report is dependent upon the installation of the flood control im-
provements contemplated as part of the redevelopment activities in the Proj-
ect Area. Also, because of the extended build -out period required for reali-
zation of all the developments, there is little certainty as to their actual
implementation or the faithfulness of their final forms to those assumed in
the report. These uncertainties are disclosed in the report. If the specu-
lative nature of the estimates is recognized, the report remains useful for
the current, preliminary analyses being conducted by you and the Fiscal Re-
view committee.
In addition to the general caveat expressed above, we also wish to point out
that the determination of bonding capacity included in the report may need
updating. The assumed interest rate of 9.5% is currently available only to
the strongest of tax allocation (tax increment) bond issues - primarily
those having bond insurance as additional security for the bond holders.
Unless the La Quinta issue could demonstrate comparable security, the inter-
est rate on the bonds, if sold today, would probably be higher and the re--
suiting proceeds would be less than the amount shown in the report.
Katz HoMs Coren
a nssoaates, lrtG
Fhanclal
Consultants
The Ovlatt
Bulking
617 Soulh Olive
Suite 710
Los Angeles, CA
(213)629.3065
Sail Lake City, UT
(801) 485-5151
San Frandsoo, CA
(415) 788-0360
KatzHollis
Mr. Frank Usher
City of La Quinta
November 7, 1983
Page 2
Inclusion of a bonding capacity determination in the report may obscure a funda-
mental enigma regarding the implementation of the La Quinta Redevelopment Project.
The sale of the bonds assumes that the anticipated development is underway and
generating tax increment. However, the flood control improvements which are to
be funded from the proceeds of the bond must be in place before the developments
can get underway. The resolution of this "chicken or the egg" dilemma will be
the major component of the implementation plan for the Project.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
RATZ, HOLLIS, COREN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
0/wrence J Arceneaux, Jr.
L7A/mm
4
Kat: HOW. Caen
e
Ka tz H®D 1, s
& Associates. IIX
Financial
Consultants
The Ovmatt
Budding
617 South Olive
Suite 710
May 26, 1983
-
Los Angeles. CA
90014
(213) 629 3M
Mr. Frank Usher
City Manager
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Dear Mr. Usher:
Pursuant to our letter agreement with the City of La Quinta, we are pro-
viding a tax increment projection and bond feasibility analysis for a
_-----
potential redevelopment project. This projection and analysis is based
on information provided by the City and representatives of developers
with projects within the proposed redevelopment area. The projections
are limited to the increases in property tax values generated by the
major developments identified by City staff and the developers. Those
developments are the "Kennedy Ranch" and the "Hack Land" by Landmark
Land Development Corporation,"Desert Gardens" by Ridgeway Ltd. and
"Santa Rosa Cove" by the Anden Corporation. Much of the proposed deve-
lopment is at this time in the conceptual planning phase and subject to
- -- -
change. The Schedule of Development provided as Table I, is based on
change.
the best information available at this time and should in no way be in-
— - -
terpreted as a representation that any of the proposed development will
actually take place, or take place as scheduled.
— — - -
General Assumptions
1. Limited Taxable Value Increases - Taxable value increases are assumed
to result from only the specifically identified new developments. No
provision has been made to increase the value of real property annually by
the maximum of two percent as permitted by Article XIII A of the Califor-
nia Constitution.
2. Tax Rates - The tax rate has been limited to $1.00 per $100 of Taxa-
ble value.
3. Dollar Value - All values are given in 1983 dollars. - - —
4. Land Values - All major land purchases are assumed to be complete
and on the tax rolls by the 1983-84 base year.
5. Absorption Rates for Housing - Housing units are assumed to be sold
by the lien date following construction. To the extent that units re-
main unsold beyond those periods there would be an adverse impact on the
amount of value added to the roll in any given year. Given the volume
of housing units being added, slower absorption rates would not be unusual.
11
E
11
Katzlio➢lis
Mr. Frank Usher
City of La Quinta
May 26, 1983
Page 2
Development Assumptions
1. Landmark Land Development Corporation
"Kennedy Ranch" - The Kennedy Ranch is a 1600 acre parcel located adjacent
to but outside the current boundary of the City of La Quinta. In order for
development in this area to generate revenue for a La Quinta redevelopment proj-
ect, the area would either have to be annexed into the City, or authorized as
part of the project by Riverside County in accordance with Section 33213 of
the Health and Safety Code. For purposes of this. projection, it is assumed
that the Kennedy Ranch area will be part of the redevelopment project area.
The proposed developments for the Kennedy Ranch area include:
a. Four golf courses of 18 holes each, with a taxable improvement value
of $1,026,000 each. Each golf course is to be started in the fall and com-
pleted within 18 months. Fifteen percent of the total improvement value for
each course is assumed to be added to the property tax rolls on the March 1st
following the start of construction, with the remainder of the value to be
added the following March 1st. The golf courses are currently scheduled to
begin construction in 1983, 1984, 1986 and 1988.
b. Club House - A 33,000 square foot clubhouse to be developed in conjunc-
tion with the first golf course, with construction commencing in October of
1983 and completed by March 1, 1985. Total taxable improvement value of
$2,475,000, with 15 percent of the value on the property tax rolls by March 1,
1984, and the remainder on the rolls by March 1, 1985.
C. Hotel - A 600 room Class A hotel to begin construction in October, 1988
and be complete by October, 1990. Total improvement value of $50,400,000,
with 15 percent of the value on the property tax rolls by March 1, 1989, 75
percent by March 1, 1990, and the remainder by March 1, 1991.
d. Housing - Beginning in November of 1984, a minimum of 300 condominium
housing units will be constructed each year for 15 years, with the units com-
pleted, sold and added to the property tax rolls the March 1st 16 months fol-
lowing the start of construction. The average unit cost is expected to be
$200,000. Less estimated existing land values, the value added to the property
tax rolls is assumed to be $198,000 per unit.
The 'Hack Land" - The Hack Land development consists of a residential devel-
opment on 193.8 acres surrounding an existing golf course. There are a total
of 1,218 lots in the development. in accordance with the Developer's proforma,
Katzllollis
Mr. Frank Usher
City of La Quinta
May 26, 1983
Page 3
a total of 345 lots will be developed as residential units, with an average
sales price of $280,000. Less existing land values, the value added to the
property tax rolls is estimated to be $260,000 per unit.. It is anticipated
that 57 units will be built, sold and added to the tax rolls by March 1, 1985,
84 units by March 1, 1986, 104 units by March 1, 1987, and 100 units by March
1, 1988. There will be 137 lots sold as developed lots,, 32 priced at $60,000
each and 105 at $100,000 each. Deducting for existing :Land values, the aver-
age value for all of the lots added to the property tax rolls for each lot is
$72,000. Thirty-seven lots are expected to be sold and added to the property
tax rolls by March 1, 1986, 50 lots by March 1, 1987 and the remaining 50 by
March 1, 1988. An additional 736 undeveloped lots are to be sold for multi-
family and residential units. The total value added to the property tax rolls
for these lots, after deducting estimated existing land values, is $2,000,000.
Four hundred lots are expected to be sold and change ownership prior to March 1,
1986, 168 prior to March 1, 1987, and another 168 prior to March 1, 1988.
only increases in land value have been added for developed and undeveloped
lots. To the extent that these lots are further developed with structures,
additional value would be added to the property tax rolls.
2. Ridgeway Ltd.
"Desert Gardens" - The Ridgeway development would take place on a 524
acre parcel known as the "Ahmanson Farm" located in the eastern portion of
the City. This development in particular has not been finalized as to sche-
dule or specific types of development, and may be subject to significant
changes. The developments listed represent the developer's "best guess" at
this time as to the types of developments.
a. A 27 hole golf course with a total added improvement value of $1,500,000.
Construction would start in March of 1984 and be complete prior to March 1,
1986. Forty percent of the value is assumed to be on the property tax rolls
by March 1, 1985 and the remainder by March 1, 1986.
b. Hotel - A Class A hotel of 100 rooms and a total improvement value of
$8,400,000. Construction commences on March of 1984 with completion by
March of 1986. Forty percent of the improvement value to be added by March 1,
1985, and the remainder by March 1, 1986.
c. A Spa and Athletic Club - As per the developer, the estimated improve-
ment value to be added to the property tax rolls is $4,500,000, with 40 per-
cent on the rolls by March 1, 1985 and the remainder by March 1, 1986.
11
KatzHollis
Mr. Frank Usher
City of La Quinta
May 26, 1983
Page 4
d. Health Club - A 10,000 square foot health club with an estimated im-
provement value of $680,000, with 40 percent added to the property tax rolls
by March 1, 1985 and the remainder by March 1, 1986.
e. Restaurant, Club, Lobby- A 50,000 square foot multi -use facility in-
cluding a restaurant, clubhouse and lobby area. The estimated improvement
value is $3,750,000, with 40 percent added to the property tax rolls by March 1,
1985 and the remainder by March 1, 1986.
f. Meeting Room - A 10,000 square foot meeting roam building with an es-
timated improvement value of $500,000, 40 percent of which would be on the
property tax rolls by March 1, 1985 and the remainder by March 1, 1986.
g. Condominiums - A 600 unit condominium development to take place in
AM three phases of 200 units constructed each year, starting in March of 1984.
The average selling price of each unit is expected to be $200,000. After
deducting for existing land values, $187,000 in value is expected to be added
to the property tax rolls for each unit. Sixty percent of each phase will
be added to the March 1st following the commencement of construction, with
the remainder of the values being added the following March 1st.
3. Anden Corporation
The Anden Corporation is currently underway with a 648 unit condominium
development built around existing golf courses. As of February of this year,
89 units had been completed. The prices on the concominiums range from
$143,000 to $318,000, with the average price being $200,000. Less an estimated
existing land value, the average value added to the property tax rolls is
$180,000 for each unit. The value for 94 units is expected to be added by
March 1, 1984, 75 units by March 1, 1985, 76 units by March 1, 1986, 100 units
by March 1, 1987, 100 units by March 1, 1988, and 114 units by March 1, 1989.
Tax Increment Projection
For purposes of the tax increment revenue projection, it, is assumed that the
project will be adopted with a 1983-84 base year. Subsequently, only devel- C k
opment believed to be added to the tax rolls after March 1, 19* has been
included as part of the revenue projections. The revenues have Seen calcu-
lated on a conservative basis in that no provision has been made for increases
in value due to reassessment of properties upon changes of ownership or for
other developments within the project area. Additionally, only the one per-
cent tax rate has been utilized, which understates tax revenue.
E
Kau lollis
Mr. Frank Usher
City of La Quinta
May 26, 1983
Page 5
As indicated on Table I, incremental tax revenues of $174,000 are first
generated in the project in 1984-85, and increase significantly each year.
Table II indicates the net revenue available to the Agency after deducting
20 percent of the gross tax increment revenue to be set aside for low and
moderate income housing as required by Section 33334.2 of the Health and
Safety Code. Based on the net revenue available, it appears that there
will be sufficient revenues generated by the developments to support a tax
allocation bond issue.
Bond Feasibility Analysis
Based on the net revenues available, it appears that the 1985-86 tax incre-
ment could support a bond issue yielding net bond proceeds in the amount of
$3,918,000 (see Schedule I), and that the 1986-87 tax increment could sup-
port a bond issue yielding net bond proceeds in the amount of $12,219,000
(see Schedule II). Revenue flows in later years could support significantly
larger bond issues, and, depending upon the level of commitment of the pro-
posed developments, it is possible that significantly larger bond issues could
be supported in the early years of the project.
Depending on the amount of bond proceeds required, and the time when such pro-
ceeds would be needed, there are several alternative bond scenarios that the
City may wish to consider. If the bond proceeds are required prior to or
early in the development schedule, the following alternatives are suggested:
1. If the flood control improvements can be constructed and funded in
phases, it may be possible to issue more than one series of bonds, with each
additional series issued as funding is required. This approach has the ad-
vantage of limiting the Agency's exposure on any individual issue, and add-
ing to the security of the issue in that it would not require a future commit-
ment to proceed with a development. The disadvantage of this alternative is
that it reduces the available bond proceeds by additional issuances costs.
It is also possible that it may be more difficult to issue future series due
to uncertainties in future bond and real estate markets and legislative deci-
sions.
2. Provide for a bond issue in 1984-85 sized on the revenues to be ge-
nerated in a future year. An example of this approach is provided on the
bottom of Schedule II. In this example, bond proceeds are used, along with
tax increment, to fund two years of debt service. The advantage of this al-
ternative is that only one bond issuance may be necessary. The disadvantage
is that it would require firm future commitments on the part of the developers
to carry out their projects as scheduled and it raises some question as to
the marketability of such bonds in today's market. ,
-
El
KatzHolfis
Mr. Frank Usher
City of La Quinta
May 26, 1983
Page 6
3. A third alternative would be the issuance of a short term bond anti-
cipation note, not to exceed three years, to be taken out by a tax allocation
bond issue. The advantages of this alternative is that the notes could be
prepared and sold earlier, some potential early savings on interest costs,
and the provision of future flexibility when issuing the tax allocation bonds.
The disadvantage, like alternative two, is the level of commitment by devel-
opers to future development may be greater than what is feasible today.
Conclusions
Having prepared the above analysis, it is our conclusion that within three
years of adoption revenues generated from the identified proposed development
could support a tax allocation bond issue to fund up to $10 million in flood
control improvements. This conclusion is based on the premise that a rede-
velopment agency is created, a redevelopment project area established and a
redevelopment plan.approved, and the portion of the project area outside the
current city boundaries is included in the project area, and all these activ-
ities occur before the end of 1983. We note that there is legislation pending
(AB 1545) that would significantly change the legal requirements for establish-
ing a redevelopment project of the nature of the project contemplated by
La Quinta. We offer no opinion that the rather ambitious development and
marketing plan assumed in our analysis can be implemented as planned.
This concludes our services under the letter agreement. Please call me if
you have any questions. Should the City proceed with the proposed redevelop-
ment project, we would welcome the opportunity to offer future assistance.
Sincerely,
KATZ, HOLLIS, COREN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
WL C' C0"^cKt^B>
Martin C. Coren
MCC/so
Enclosures
C!I
El
m
��a
g
�s�"�$�0.
o.r
MNsnxs�
n o�wp
al
nO�
m
� mn�
o�
n
..gym♦ nn
„
O
n
M
�
w
N
�
!
n
!
N
N
N
^
r
M
N
N
q
N
�
N
O
O
N
N
p
q
0
v
�
�
m
n
♦
ri
m
N
n
N
�+
q
N
O
S
O
w
m
r
�
m
A
ry ♦
n
m
N
M r
q
q
n
00
w
m
ry v
m
N
r
I
N
N
r
N
N
.
O O
rvl
T
N
.Ni
YNt O
N
ry
O
r ♦
O
N
V
N
N
N
p
N O
v O
S
O
!
r
mryi
i
m0
r
n
N
N
N
p
v
N O
O
N O r
r e
o
O
V
m
m
n
H
n
n
n n
n
M
O
M
q
N
g
�01n
NOoaO$
r♦
m
0
n
N
0
0
O
li .
m
q
♦
N n
N n n r
li1
n
p
n
p
n.
0
3
m n
lMwmC
q
`tl«j.171
m
m
♦ow
r
ry
♦ M
I7 M M ry
A
•1
p
ry
!
r
w
ry
p
M
M
N
N
T
_
✓ r
wrwwi 4>i
3
0
w
a
00
a
•
gQQg
✓
�
w
�
a a
a
�
M
�
�
g .•r
�
ppp;111
p�
�
YY�
�Y�
.1
a�
��'J m
.1
�J
C� e�
a
��.e1 S+p Ye
�
C
'Y
tlO
.■pO,1
e•
052683
�I J
Table II
City of La Quinta
Proposed Redevelopment Project
TAX INCREMENT REVENUES AVAILABLE
(000's Omitted)
Tax Increment
Less Housing
Net Revenues
Revenues
Set -Aside
Available
1984-85
$ 174
$ 35
$ 139
1985-86
799
160
639
1986-87
2,426
485
1,941
1987-88
4,039
808
3,231
1988-89
5,427
1,085
4,342
1989-90
6,453
1,291
5,162
1990-91
7,508
1,502
6,006
1991-92
8,378
1,676
6,702
1992-93
9,122
1,824
7,298
1993-94
9,866
1,973
7,893
1994-95
10,610
2,122
8,488
1995-96
11,354
2,271
9,083
052683
rl
i
i
ARL
Schedule I
City of La Quinta
Proposed Redevelopment Project
BONDING CAPACITY OF 1985-86 TAX INCREMENT
1985-86 Tax Allocation Bond Issue
Incremental Tax Revenue
Less: 20% Housing Set -Aside
25% Coverage
Net Amount to Size Bond Issue
Gross Bond Issue (25 yrs, 9.5%)
Less: 5% Discount
Issuance Cost
Sub -Total
Less: One Year's Debt Service
in Reserve Fund
Net Bond Funds Available
$160,000
128,000
241,000
150,000
$ 799,000
288,000
S 511,000
$4,820,000
391,000
$4,429,000
511,000
53,918,000
052683
Schedule II
City of La Quinta
Proposed Redevelopment Project
BONDING CAPACITY OF 1986-87 TAX INCREMENT
1986-87 Tax Allocation Bond Issue
Incremental Tax Revenues
Less: 20% Housing Set Aside
25% Coverage
Net Amount to Size Bond Issue
Gross Bond Issue (25 yrs., 9.5%)
Less: 58 Discount
Issuance Cost
Sub -Total
Less: 1 Year's Debt Service
in Reserve Fund
Net Bond Funds Available
1984-85 Tax Allocation Bond Issue
sized on 1986-87 Revenues (Above)
Net Revenues after provision
for Reserve Fund
Less: 2 Year's Funded Interest
Plus: 2 Years Tax Increment
Net Bond Funds Available
$485,000
388,000
733,000
150,000
S 2,426,000
873,000
$ 1,553,000
14,655,000
883,000
13,772,000
1,553,000
§12,21�9,000
$12,219,000
2,784,450
9,434,550
778,000
$10,212,550
KatzH®llis
Part %I. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT REPORT
Section 33352(1) of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) requires
the preparation of a neighborhood impact report if a redevelopment proj-
ect contains low or moderate income housing. The purpose of the report
is to describe in detail the impact of the project upon the residents of
the project area and surrounding areas, in terms of relocation, traffic
circulation, environmental quality, availability of community facilities
and services, effect on school population and quality of education,
property assessments and taxes, and other matters affecting the physical
and social quality of the neighborhood. The neighborhood impact report
is also to include: (a) the number of dwelling units housing persons
and families of low or moderate income expected to be destroyed or re-
moved from the low and moderate income housing market as part of a rede-
velopment project; (b) the number of persons and families [households] of
low or moderate income expected to be displaced by the Project; (c) the
general location of housing to be rehabilitated, developed, or construct-
ed pursuant to Section 33413 of the California CRL; (d) the number of
dwelling units housing persons and families of low and moderate income
planned for construction or rehabilitation, other than replacement hous-
ing; (e) the projected means of financing the proposed dwelling units
Aft for housing persons and families of low and moderate income planned for
construction or rehabilitation; and (f) a projected timetable for meeting
the plan's relocation, rehabilitation and replacement housing objectives.
Because the Project Area contains dwelling units housing persons
and families of low or moderate income, a neighborhood impact report is
included herein. Due to the overlapping among the data required in the
Environmental Impact Report, the Method or Plan for Relocation, the
Physical, Social and Economic Conditions in the Project Area and the
Neighborhood Impact Report - all of which are contained in this Report
to City Council - cross-referencing is employed in order to reflect the
most comprehensive data source and to avoid repetition where possible.
A. Impact on Residents in Project Area and Surrounding Area
1.
i and Services
The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), contained in Part VIII
of this Report to City Council, presents information on the potential
Project impacts upon residents of the Project Area and the surrounding
areas, in terms of relocation, traffic circulation, environmental quali-
ty, availability of community facilities and services, and other matters
affecting the physical and social quality of the neighborhood. Part II
of this Report to Council, "Description of Physical, Social and Economic
Conditions Existing in Project Area," also presents pertinent information
MW
I IJ
M
In
izHollis
concerning the above -named impacts to Project residents and adjoining
neighborhoods.
There are 1,982 occupied dwelling units and an estimated 5,451
persons residing in the Project Area. (This figure assumes an average
of 3.00 persons per dwelling unit.) Future Project Area development
will occur within areas now vacant or as in -fill development within the
Cove area. Current plans do not envision land acquisition by the Agency
except for public improvement purposes. The Agency is prohibited from
using eminent domain to acquire residentially zoned property without the
owner's permission. Any displacement which occurs as a result of Agency
redevelopment activities would be mitigated by the relocation payments,
advisory assistance, and replacement housing plan requirements imposed
on the Agency, as described in detail in Part IV of this Report to City
Council and in Part XI.B. below.
2. School Population and.Quality of Education
The Project Area is served by the Desert Sands Unified School
District, the Coachella Valley Unified School District, and the Coachella
Valley Community College District. There are presently no schools locat-
ed within the City or Project Area. Students are bussed to schools in
other communities. A new elementary school to be located somewhere
within the Cove area is the secondary planning stage by the Desert Sands
District.
The Desert Sands District has advised that its existing facili-
ties are housed to capacity, that future enrollment increases from new
residential development would have serious impact upon its facilities,
and that the district has no current financial resources to provide
additional school facilities. The district proposes a mitigation fee be
paid by future developers in the amount of $628 per dwelling unit.
Proposed and pending Project Area developments are summarized in
the Draft EIR contained in Part VIII of this Report to City Council.
The phasing of such new developments is presumed to occur over a 20-year
period. The lengthy time period involved will tend to soften the impact
of new developments on the affected school districts. If mitigation
fees are collected, or if other mitigation measures are provided (such
as developer/school site donations), then the potential impact of new
resiential developments will be less. If the concerns expressed by the
Desert Sands Unified School District cannot be addressed or mitigated,
then the quality of education within the district may be adversely
affected.
(XI-2)
KatzH011is
3. Property Assessments and Taxes
in general the taxable valuations of property within the Project
Area and adjoining the Project Area should increase as construction or
reconstruction of public and other development improvements occurs. The
Assessor may increase property valuations at the maximum rate of two per-
cent per year allowed under Proposition 13, regardless of Project -related
actions. In cases where property changes hands, the Assessor will likely
assess the property at the newly recorded market value. Additionally,
the Assessor will reassess the added value to property and improvements
due to any new development or rehabilitation which occurs.
Overall property values and tax -related impacts will be less for
properties located farther away from the specific development activities
inside the Project Area.
The only other matters potentially affecting property taxes in the
Project Area and surrounding areas would be the possibility of additional
levies due to special assessment districts. There are no proposals for
such districts at this time. A parcel evaluation would be undertaken at
a later date should it be desired to create a special assessment district
within the Project Area. It should also be noted that special assessment
districts for various legally permitted purposes may be established by
the City where feasible irrespective of whether a redevelopment project
is adopted.
B. Relocation and Low and Moderate Income Houses
1. Housing Units to Be Destroyed or Removed
Specific Agency programs for the implementation of the Redevelop-
ment Plan will generally be limited to the provision of public improve-
ments and facilities, although some direct Agency land assembly may
occur. Because of the Redevelopment Plan's prohibition against using
eminent domain for residential land assembly, the number of dwelling
units housing persons and families of low or moderate income expected to
be destroyed or removed from the low and moderate income housing market
by the Agency as part of the Redevelopment Project, if any, is not
anticipated to be large. The Agency would be required to construct,
develop or rehabilitate, or cause the construction, development or
rehabilitation of, dwelling units equal in number to those destroyed or
removed from the low and moderate income housing market as a result of
Agency -assisted activities. Additionally, 20% of Project tax increment
revenues received by the Agency must go to the provision of low and
moderate income housing unless certain findings are made by the City
Council in accordance with the California Community Redevelopment Law.
1
KatZH®flis
2. Projected Residential Displacement
When actual displacement is contemplated, if at all, household
relocation surveys will be undertaken in accordance with the Agency re-
location rules and regulations. Until then, the actual number of house-
holds eligible to receive Agency relocation benefits and assistance will
not be known. However, as noted earlier, few of these displacements are
anticipated to be the direct result of Agency activities.
The Agency is required to conduct individual household surveys in
order to determine the number, type and location of comparable replace-
ment housing units and the required number of referrals thereto prior to
displacement of any persons of low or moderate income. See Part IV of
this Report to City Council for an overview of the steps in the reloca-
tion process that must be undertaken by the Agency prior to displacing
any person(s) or family(s).
3. Number and Location of Replacement Housin
The specific number and type of replacement housing units required
pursuant to Section 33413 of the California CRL, if any, are not known
at this time. Most or all of, any such units constructed would be pro-
vided within the Project Area. The City Council and the Agency will
make findings necessary to provide such housing outside the Project Area
and within the City, if necessary. If the Agency acquires property,
enters into a Disposition and Development Agreement, Participation Agree-
ment or other agreement, or undertakes any other activities requir- ing
or causing the destruction or removal of housing units from the low- and
moderate -income housing market, the Agency will provide the housing
required pursuant to Section 33413 of the CRL. Although it is unlikely
for the Agency to be directly responsible for removing dwelling units in
the Project Area, if any such removal should happen, then dwelling units
would be required to be constructed, rehabilitated, or developed by the
Agency. The actual number of replacement dwelling units to be provided
for in this manner would depend upon the specifics of actual Agency -
related development requirements which are unknown at this time.
4. Number and Location of Low and Moderate Income
Housing Planned Other than Replacement Housing
The specific number and type as well as the location of low and
moderate income housing units planned for construction or rehabilitation
other than replacement housing units is not known at this time. The
Agency presently has no plans to develop such units itself. As required
by Section 33413 of the CRL, at least 15 percent of all new or rehabil-
itated units developed within the Project Area by public or private
entities or persons other than the Agency shall be available at afford-
able housing cost to persons and families of low and moderate income.
KatzH®llis
E
Of such 15 percent, not less than 40 percent thereof shall be available
at affordable housing cost to very low income households. As permitted
by Section 33413, these requirements will be applied in the aggregate to
the Project Area as a whole, and not to each individual case of rehabili-
tation, development, or construction of dwelling units.
5. Financing Method for Replacement Rousing Requirements
The Agency will employ as necessary any of the methods outlined in
Part III of this Report to City Council to meet replacement housing
requirements and other obligations under the Redevelopment Plan and
Community Redevelopment Law. Not less than 20 percent of all taxes which
are allocated to the Agency pursuant to Section 33670 of Article 4 of
the CRL shall be used by the Agency for purposes of increasing and im-
proving the supply of low- and moderate -income housing available at af-
fordable housing cost to persons and families of low or moderate income,
unless certain findings prescribed in the law are made.
In instances in which the Agency plans to enter into a Disposition
and Development Agreement or Participation Agreement or other agreement
wherein substantial private benefit to the party(s) to the agreement(s)
are to be realized, if any, the Agency may consider requiring in such
agreement(s) that all or portions of the replacement housing and/or
relocation costs be assumed and paid to the Agency by such benefiting
private persons(s) or entity(ies).
6.
ect
If replacement housing is to be provided pursuant to Section 33413
of Article 9 of the CRL, the Agency shall take necessary steps to cause
the construction, rehabilitation or development of such housing in accor-
dance with the time limits prescribed by law.
The relocation plan(s) prepared by the Agency for a particular
development activity shall contain schedules to insure comparable re-
placement housing is available in accordance with the requirements of the
CRL and the State Relocation Guidelines.
E
11
11
KatzH®llis
Part XII. ANALYSIS OF REPORT
t FISCAL OFFICER AND SUMMARY OF
TAXING AGENCIES
A. Analysis of Report of County Fiscal Officer
The report of the Riverside County Auditor -Controller (fiscal
officer) on Project Area taxable values and revenues was submitted on
November 3, 1983. A copy of the Auditor -Controller's report, as well as
a report of the State Board of Equalization, dated November 1, 1983, de-
tailing the state -assessed public utility values within the Project
Area, is included in Part IX of this Report to City Council. The Audi-
tor -Controller supplements his report with a report of projected taxable
value and tax increment financing for the Project. Area. Included in
this supplemental report is a projected fiscal impact. on affecting taxing
entities utilizing a $61,970,000 plan limitation on tax allocations.
Both the regular report and the supplemental report were distri-
buted by the Auditor -Controller at the fiscal review committee hearing
held on November 7, 1983. A copy of the supplemental report is included
in the fiscal review committee section (Part X) of this Report to City
Council.
1. Assessed Valuation of Project Area Property
The base year (1983-84) full cash valuation of all property
within the La Quinta Redevelopment Project Area, as reported by the
County Auditor -Controller and the State Board of Equalization, is
$208,891,151. A breakdown of this figure between the secured and un-
secured tax rolls, and between locally and state assessed property is
seen on Table XII-1.
2. First Year Taxes Available to Agency
The Auditor -Controller's report is augmented by a six -year pro-
jection of revenues which would be allocated to the Redevelopment Agency
upon Project adoption (included in Part X of this Report to City Coun-
cil). The Community Redevelopment Law requires this information to be
provided for the first year such monies will be available, broken down
by taxing agency and based upon data supplied by the Redevelopment
Agency. The supplemental report of the County Auditor -Controller de-
viates from these requirements, since the projection is based upon an
assumed fifteen percent annual taxable value growth rates rather than on
information provided by the Agency.
No indication is given in the supplemental report of the Auditor -
Controller as to the determination of the fifteen percent growth. It is
® probable that the Project Area has not historically, experienced the high
degree of economic growth assumed by the Auditor -Controller. It would ap-
lu
1'L
KatzH®Ilis
Table XII-1
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
La Quints Redevelopment Project
BASE YEAR (1983-84) FULL CASH VALUES OF PROJECT AREA
Total
Secured Roll
Locally Assessed $207,106,083
State Assessed 1,377,820
Unsecured Roll
Locally Assessed 407,248
TOTAL $208.891,151
111483
mmAARl0
Source: Riverside County Auditor -Controller and State Board of Equali-
zation Reports on La Quinta Redevelopment Project
KatzH®llis
would appear that the rate selected by the Auditor -Controller is spec-
ulative and as a result tends to inflate the impact on taxing agencies
in terms of assumed lost tax revenues.
Further, the adoption and implementation of a redevelopment proj-
ect does not result in a loss of property tax revenues as inferred by
the report of the fiscal officer. Through the use of powers granted
under the Community Redevelopment Law, it is anticipated that property
tax revenues will be generated which could not have been expected absent
the implementation of an active redevelopment project. As a result,
much of the revenues shown in the Auditor -Controller's supplemental re-
port as constituting a fiscal impact may not otherwise have been avail-
able.
3. Property Tax Revenues Derived from Project Area
The Auditor -Controller's report details the base year property
tax revenue allocated to each Project Area taxing agency from the Proj-
ecc Area base year valuation, and the total property tax revenues real-
ized by each taxing agency from its respective taxing jurisdiction.
Table XII-2 compares Project Area revenues of each entity receiving
® property tax revenues (except the City of La Quints) from the basic $1.00
per $100 taxable value tax rate to the total property tax revenues re-
ceived by that entity within its entire jurisdiction. Total property
tax revenue estimates for each taxing agency were computed by the
Auditor -Controller from original 1982-83 tax charges, reportedly as a
result of the unavailability of 1983-84 data. Total revenue for the
City of La Quints, was excluded from the Auditor -Controller's computation
since the City was not incorporated in time, and thus did not have a
1982-83 tax charge to be reflected and utilized in his report.
Of the fourteen taxing agencies identified by the Auditor -Control-
ler, one entity will have a significantly high amount of its tax reve-
nues generated from the Project Area. The Coachella Valley Recreation
and Park District, in total, will receive more than ten percent (10%) of
its revenues from the property values in the base year of the La Quints.
Redevelopment Project. By comparison, two taxing entities will have
less than one percent (18) of their property tax revenue generated within
the Project Area. They are identified in the Auditor -Controller's report
as the County of Riverside (0.7468) and the Riverside County Superinten-
dent of Schools (0.9838). Of the remaining taxing entities, three will
have between five percent (58) and ten percent (10%) of their revenue so
situated and seven will have less than five percent (58) of their prop-
erty tax revenues within the Project Area.
As reported by the Auditor -Controller, the combined property tax
revenues to be derived by all taxing agencies from the Project Area during
(XII-2)
�p�r ap-�s 111483
KatzHollis mmAAR10
® Table XII-2
La Quinta Redevelopment Agency
La Quinta Redevelopment Project
COMPARISION OF 1983-84 PROJECT AREA REVENUE TO TAXING AGENCY
TOTAL 1983-84 REVENUES
County of Riverside
County Free Library
County Structural Fire Protection
Supervisorial Road District #4
City of La Quinta(3)
Coachella Valley Unified School
District
Desert Sands Unified School
District
Coachella Valley Community College
District
Riverside County Superintendent
of Schools
Coachella Valley Public Cemetary
District
Coachella Valley Mosquito Abate-
ment District
Coachella Valley Recreation and
Park District
Coachella Valley Water District
Coachella Valley Resource Conser-
vation District
TOTAL
Taxing Agency Project Area
Total
Revenues(1)
Total
Revenues(2)
$67,365,251
$ 502,390
1,956,708
58,934
2,591,840
126,791
209,671
2,698
N/A
137,789
8 Project Area
Revenues to
Total Revenues
(0.7468)
(3.0128)
(4.8928)
(1.2878)
2,347,204
35,070
(1.4948)
11,504,825
755,556
(6.5678)
6,447,353
162,690
(2.5238)
9,018,427
88,608
(0.9838)
115,071
7,263
(6.3128)
827,660
29,674
(3.5858)
435,208
44,615
(10.251%)
3,404,359
122,225
(3.5908)
11,252 830 (7.3768)
106.234.829 52.075.133
(1) Based on Fiscal Year 1982-83 tax charges by taxing entity, unadjusted
for delinquencies.
(2) Based on Base Year 1983-84 general levy (18), excluding State assessed
valuation and debt service.
(3) City of La Quinta reflected no 1982-83 tax charge.
Source: Riverside County Auditor -Controller.
® 0
KatzH®His
the 1983-84 base year from the basic $1 per $100 of assessed value
(which represents 100% of taxable value on the tax rolls) is $2,075,133.
This figure represents approximately one and nine -tenths percent (1.98)
of the combined total amount of property tax revenues all taxing agencies
will receive from their respective jurisdictions during the 1983-84 base
year.
4. Assessed Valuation Trend
The Auditor -Controller's report does not include a summary of the
total taxable valuation of the Project Area property for the years pre-
ceding the 1983-84 base year, as required in Section :33328 of the Commun-
ity Redevelopment Law if requested by the Agency. The La Quinta Rede-
velopment Agency did not request such a summary.
B. Summary of Consultations with Affected Taxing Agencies
Section 33328 of the CRL requires the Agency, prior to the
publication of the notice of the joint Agency/City Council public hear-
ing, to consult with each affected taxing agency with respect o the pro-
posed Redevelopment Plan and to the allocation of tax increment revenues.
The joint public hearing is scheduled for November 22, 1983; the date of
the publication of the first notice of such hearing was October 24, 1983.
on September 6, 1983, in accord with the California CRL, the
Agency transmitted a Project boundary Legal Description, a Project Area
Map depicting the boundary of the Project Area, and a Statement of Pre-
paration of Redevelopment Plan or Amended Redevelopment Plan for the La
Quints. Redevelopment Project to the governing bodies of all affected
taxing agencies, the Riverside County Treasurer, Assessor, Tax Collector
and Auditor -Controller, and to the State Board of Equalization. Included
in the letter of transmittal to the governing bodies of affected taxing
agencies was an Agency request to advise the Agency of the name, address
and telephone number of the official whom should be contacted to arrange
for consultations with respect to the proposed Project Redevelopment
Plan.
As summarized below, the Agency has had discussions and meetings
with all affected taxing agencies regarding proposed Project activities
and the potential fiscal impact of such activities upon the tax entities.
Such discussions are expected to continue, and a supplemental summary of
such discussion will, if necessary, be submitted to he City Council for
addition to this Report to City Council.
on July 25, 1983, a meeting of taxing agency representatives was
t held in the La Quinta City Hall. Representatives from the County of
Riverside, the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District, the Coa-
chella Valley Mosquito Abatement District, the Coachella Valley Water Dis-
tzHo is
trict (CVWD), the Coachella Valley Public Cemetary District, and the
City of La Quinta attended the meeting. At this meeting, Mr. Lowell
Weeks, General Manager and Chief Engineer of the CVWD, explained the
need for and nature of flood control facilities in the greater La Quints
area. The City Manager of La Quinta explained how the City proposed to
use the redevelopment process to help correct this area -wide problem and
other blighting conditions in the City of La Quinta.
On September 27, 1983, the Agency's Executive Director met with
Dr. Kenneth Meburg, Superintendent of Schools for the Desert Sands Uni-
fied School District. The use of developer fees was discussed as a
means of alleviating potential fiscal impact of the Project as outlined
in a letter from the district to the La Quinta City Manager dated July
25, 1983. Discussions with the Desert Sands Unified School District
continue.
on September 27, 1983, a representative of the Agency met with
Mr. John Richards, Secretary/Superintendent of the Coachella Valley
Public Cemetary District. Mr. Richards expressed concern regarding the
impact of redevelopment projects on district revenues, and stated that
such projects tend to increase the cost of burying the poor. Mr. Richards
did not explain how this increase is brought about, nor did he request
any action by the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency to alleviate such pur-
ported impact.
On August 4, 1983, the Agency and the City of La Quinta entered
into an agreement with the County of Riverside which provides in part
that prior to the County's final approval of the Redevelopment Plan for
the La Quinta Redevelopment Project, the Agency and the City shall en-
deavor to present to the County a method to be used in a "pass through"
agreement whereby the County and all public agencies representd by the
County's Board of Supervisors shall be reimbursed a mutually agreeable
percentage of their prorata share of tax increment allocation occuring
from the Project Area for the life and term of the Project.
on November 1, representatives of the Agency met with representa-
tives of the County to discuss terms of the "pass through" agreement.
County representatives have requested additional information from the
Agency regarding future potential tax increment revenues and other in-
formation. Agency representatives will provide such data and plan to
continue working toward drafting the necessary "pass through" agreement.
Katz ®IIIS
DECLARATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7550
This Report to City Council for the La Quinta Redevelopment
Project is prepared pursuant to an Agreement for Services by and between
the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency and Katz, Hollis, Coren 6 Associates,
Inc., dated , 1983, which Agreement provides for services
involving preparation of certain reports and documents and the
coordination of Agency staff activities. Total compensation under terms
of the Agreement for Services is Nineteen Thousand Dollars ($19,000),
including out-of-pocket expenses. Compensation for staff coordination
services is payable at specified hourly rates.