Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-06-274 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 1991 I. 1I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Snyder convened the meeting at 5:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Pro-Tem Richard S. Kelly Councilman S. Roy Wilson Mayor Walter H. Snyder Also Present: Excused Absence: Councilman Buford A. Crites Councilmember Jean M. Benson Bruce A. Altman, City Manager Bill Adams, Deputy City Attorney Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk/P.I.O. Carlos L. Ortega, ACM/Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency Ramon A. Diaz, ACM/Director of Community Development Richard J. Folkers, ACM/Director of Public Works Paul Shillcock, ACM/Director of Economic Development Paul Gibson, Director of Finance Patrick Conlon, Director of Building & Safety Frank Allen, Director of Code Compliance Larry McAllister, Director of Human Resources Linda Moore, Acting Environmental Conservation Manager Catherine Sass, Public Art Coordinator M. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of June 13, 1991. Rec: Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE AGENCY TREASURY - Warrant No. 0516 and 0614. Rec: Approve as presented. MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 27, 1991 C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Amendment to Lease Agreement No Q0-447 with the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District. Rec: By Minute Motion, approve Amendment No. 1 to I ease Agreement No. 00- 447 to provide for the relocation of the temporary trailers. D. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK for Contract No. RDA-521 with Westscape Development Corporation for Highway 111 Center Median Tree Planting and Landscaping Beautification Project. Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to record a Notice of Completion. Upon motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by unanimous vote of the Council. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None V. RESOLUTIONS None VI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VIl. NEW BUSINESS None VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Consulting Contract No. RD-555 with Richard Caplan & Associates for a Three -Phase Study to Determine the Feasibility of a Municipal Golf Course. (Continued from the Meeting of June 13, 1991.) Mr. Ortega stated that this item had been continued to allow staff to look into the Board's concerns regarding the first phase of the study to determine whether it was necessary. He said staff had met with the consultant who explained the first phase was necessary to determine how many people might take advantage and use the course as well as what revenues may be derived. He added that the consultant had indicated if we could tell him the number of rounds and how much fees would be, it would not be necessary to do that study; however, because there is no way to determine the number of rounds and fees, staff continued to recommend implementation of the study in three phases as outlined in the staff report. 2 - MINUTES _PALM DESERT REDEVFPMENT AGENCY MEETING n JUNE 27, 1991 Member Kelly stated that his main concern had been with the first phase dealing with the marketing study and that he was now satisfied.. Member Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to execute Contract No. RD-555, and 2) authorize the appropriation of S15,750 from the Agency's Project Unallocated Reserve Fund. Upon question by Wilson regarding how we ended up with this firm and if we went out to bid, Mr. Altman responded that the bidding process was not necessary for professional services and that Mr. Ortega had checked into the background of this firm. Mr. Ortega added that other firms had also been asked to submit proposals. Member Wilson expressed concern with doing a feasibility study of the demographics and what the community would pay. He said he would not want to build something like Indian Wells and charge $40 to $50 for greens fees. He added that he would like to see a municipal golf course in the true sense of the word. Member Kelly stated that the plan was for a City -owned golf course where people would get their money's worth and play on a nice course. Member Wilson seconded the motion. The motion carried by unanimous vote of the members present. IX. OLD BUSINESS None X. REPORTS, REMARKS, AND AGENCY BOARD ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION A. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR None B. AGENCY COUNSEL Absent C. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY None Member Wilson moved to adjourn to Closed Session at 5:20 p.m. pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.9 (a) and (b), pending and potential litigation. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote of the Members present. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 27, 1991 Chairman Snyder reconvened the meeting for the following joint public hearings, with no action announced from Closed Session. XI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PROJECT AREA NO. 3. See verbatim transcript attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A". Member Kelly moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. , approving the Final Owner Participation Rules, Final Method of Relocation, and Agency Report to the City Council. Member Wilson seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote. Upon motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, and unanimous vote of the Council, Mayor/Chairman Snyder closed the public hearing. B. CONSIDERATION OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED FINANCIAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991-92. This item was considered as a joint public hearing with the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Altman briefly reviewed the staff report, noting that staff had followed up on all issues raised in the Budget Study Session. With regard to the Palm Desert Children's Choir request for funding, he stated it had been included in the budget. He thanked staff for its participation in the budget process. Mayor/Chairman Snyder declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this matter. MS. JULIE BORNSTEIN spoke as a member of the Civic Arts Committee and expressed the Committee's support of the additional allocation for the Palm Desert Children's Choir. She offered to answer any questions. With no further testimony offered, Mayor/Chairman Snyder declared the public hearing closed. Councilman/Member Kelly discussed the matter of the public art coloring book, noting that the recycling coloring book had cost approximately $1.00per book. He said a bid had been received for $.67 per book if we do the art work ourselves. He said he felt it would be an excellent way to promote the Art -In -Public -Places program and asked that $3,374.O0be included in the budget for 500 copies of the public art coloring book. Upon question by Councilman/Member Wilson regarding the funding for the coloring -MINUTES. PALM DESERT REDEVETMENT AGENCY MEETING /1" JUNE 27, 1991 i* i i* i i i i* i i i i* i i i i i i i i i i i i* i i i* books, Mr. Gibson responded that there were funds in the budget available from the Chamber of Commerce cuts that he had not deleted, and funds could be allocated from this account for the printing of the coloring books. Noting for the record that he was not endorsing the salary compensation plan that would be discussed under recommendation No. 2 and No. 5 of the staff report, Councilman/Member Wilson moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 91-$2, adopting a program and financial plan for the fiscal year July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1992, to include an additional $4,000for the children's choir and $3,374 for the public art coloring book, and by Minute Motion, approve the 1991-92 Fiscal Year Budget for the Redevelopment Agency. Councilman/Member Kelly seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote of the Council/Redevelopment Agency Board. Councilman Wilson expressed concern with not seeing the actual resolution dealing with the salary compensation plan until after discussion in Study Session. He asked that in the future staff provide it for study session as well as a copy of the previous year's resolution so that Council can look at exactly what it is being asked to approve. Other Council concerns were as follows: With regard to the recommended 10% temporary increase for the Director of Code Compliance to supervise purchasing, Councilman Wilson said this matter had not been discussed during study session. Mr. Altman responded that this matter had been discussed with members of the Personnel Committee. Councilman Wilson stated that in comparing this resolution with the 1990-91 resolution, he noticed that an Associate Planner position had been eliminated (because Catherine Sass had been moved to Public Art), and there was an Assistant Planner position that was not there last year. Mr. Gibson responded that it was a promotion for an individual from one position to another. Mr. Altman added that the Personnel Committee had agreed that all title changes would be held until the new Human Resources Director is hired. This particular position would be one of the items reviewed. Councilman Wilson questioned Group B listed on page 5 of the resolution and said there was an additional position that had not been included in Group B last year. He said he did not recall discussing this matter. Mr. Altman responded that this particular position was moved to Group B because it is a supervisory position now. Councilman Wilson questioned the step increases and said he did not realize that there would now be 10 steps (A-J) instead of the 9 (A-1) shown on last 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 27, 1991 year's resolution, and those individuals at the end step would get an 8% increase instead of 6%. Mr. Altman responded that those individuals would have to wait five years from their last raise before getting the additional 2%. Councilman Wilson questioned the "Y"rating as defined in Mr. Allen's memo and said he understood it differently. He said the "Y"rating according to what he was familiar with meant the salary was frozen until the salary schedule catches up. Mr. Allen's definition was worded so that the position that is "Y" rated receives the annual cost of living increase, which means it would never catch up. Mr. Altman responded that this issue had been discussed with Councilmembers Kelly and Benson of the Personnel Committee. Councilman Kelly agreed with Wilson and said he had expressed a great deal of concern during the Committee discussions. Councilman Kelly said he was concerned because he could not determine by looking through all of the information provided exactly what percent increase each particular position would receive for the next year due to cost of living, merit increase, market increase, etc. He said he was used to working with a plan where he is able to see each position to see what the total increase will be for the entire year. Councilman Wilson stated that because this resolution required three affirmative votes for adoption, and because he was not prepared to vote in favor, he would suggest continuing the matter to July 11, 1991, with the assurance to staff that he would have no problem making it retroactive to July 1st. He asked that prior to the July 11, 1991, meeting another study session be held to discuss the Human Resource Officer position and the various job title changes as well as concerns raised by Council at this hearing. Mrs. Gilligan noted that Council already had a 3:30p.m. study session scheduled for July llth to meet with representatives of Equity Directions. Mr. Altman suggested that Council vote on the resolution and place it on the next Agenda for ratification. Councilman Kelly noted that he agreed with Councilman Wilson and was not prepared to vote in favor at this time. Councilman Wilson added that there were several employees who were at the higher end of the salary schedule who would receive an 8% increase He expressed concern because the Los Angeles Times had indicated that thousands of people would be laid off this year, and he felt it would be bad policy to give such large raises at this time and in this kind of environment. 6 • MINUTES _ -PALM DESERT REDEVEnPMENT AGENCY MEETING � s DUNE 27, 1991 Councilman Kelly moved to continue the review and recommendation by City Manager and Committee reviewing the Human Resource Officer position and the various job title changes as well as consideration of Resolution No. 91-22, rescinding Resolution No. 90-$3 and adopting allocated classifications, authorized positions, compensation plan, related employee benefits, and new Memorandum of Agreement for the 1991-92 Fiscal Year, effective July 1, 1991, to an adjourned meeting to be held at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, July 3, 1991. Councilman Wilson seconded the motion, and it carried by unanimous vote. XII. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, and unanimous vote of the Agency Board, Chairman Snyder adjourned the meeting at 10:37 p.m. with no action announced from Closed Session. WALTER H. SNYDER, CHAI ATTEST: r -,SHEILA fit. GILLIGAN, SECRETARY TO THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 27, 1991 EXHIBIT "A' VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING "A" Snyder: The next item on the agenda is a joint public hearing for consideration of Final Environmental Impact Report and Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Agency Project Area No. 3. I will call the meeting to order. This is a joint meeting of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency. Members of the City Council also sit as members of the Redevelopment Agency. To make it official, I will ask for a roll call. Gilligan: Member Benson and Member Crites are excused absences. Member. Vice -Chairman Kelly. Kelly: Here. Gilligan: Member Wilson. Wilson: Here. Gilligan: And Chairman Snyder. Snyder: Here. Prior to the opening of the public hearing, it is necessary for the Agency to consider and act on the following items. Owner participation rules, method of relocation, Agency report to the City Council. The Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency will now consider action on the owner participation rules, the method of the relocation, and the Agency Report to the City Council as follows: One, resolution approving the owner participation rules, the method of relocation, and Agency report to the City Council. Mr. Ortega. Ortega: Mr. Chairman and Mr. Mayor, you have a report before you that explains what the owner participation rules would be. That, that those apply to business owners, owners of property in the area. If there is to be any relocation to implement the plan, what the Agency proposes to do to assist and advise those people of the relocation procedures. There is also an Agency report to the Council that explains all of the plans. It explains all the meetings that we have had with taxing jurisdictions, and the property owners in the area and includes the Environmental Impact Report and several other documents. These you would adopt prior to acting on the public hearing items. Snyder: The City Council has received these documents. They have them in front on them. They have had them for some time. I would like a resolution now approving these documents. Kelly: You need that Resolution 248 before the public hearing. Is that right? Snyder: Right. Yes, before we can continue this. Kelly: I move approval of Resolution Number 248. Wilson: Second. 8 VUNUTES • PALM DESERT REDEVEI('NMENT AGENCY MEETING a JUNE 27, 1991 EXHIBIT "A' Snyder: Please vote. Gilligan: The motion carries by unanimous vote. Snyder: I will now declare the public hearing open. The purpose of this joint public hearing is to consider: One, the proposed Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 3 of the Redevelopment Agency and two, the final Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan. Opening comments by the Executive Director. Ortega: Mr. Mayor, this is the first time that anybody in the public, including those people in the project area, have had an opportunity to formally address the Board and the Agency on this matter. Prior to this we have had five citizens, we had five citizens meetings. Those meetings, all the property owners have been notified, and we have in the repon to Council a list of the agendas of the subjects that were discussed and a roll of all the people that attended. In addition to any testimony you may receive tonight, there are comments in writing that have been submitted. You may, as part of the public hearing process tonight, additionally receive comments. It is our intent to have those comments that can be addressed tonight, addressed either by Council or the consultant. This evening staff and consultants will present evidence and testimony pertaining to the Redevelopment Plan and the final Environmental Impact Report. Further, we will take public testimony in connection with the Redevelopment Plan and final EIR. Snyder: Thank you. Under the law, it is my responsibility to preside over this joint public hearing. The State law under which we are acting is Part 1 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with Section 3,000, 33000, commonly referred to as the Redevelopment Law and the California Environmental Quality Act, commonly referred to as CEQA, commencing with Section 21000 of the Public Resources Code. This combined public hearing on both the Redevelopment Plan and final Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan, so please make it clear when you are speaking whether your remarks are directed to the Plan or the Environmental Impact Report or both. The order of procedure will be as follows: First, the staff will present the proposed Redevelopment Plan, the Environmental Impact Report, and other evidence and testimony in support of the Plan and the Environmental Impact Report. Second, we will receive any written comments. And third, we will receive any evidence or oral testimony from those present concerning the Redevelopment Plan or the Environmental Impact Report. We ask that you confine yourself to the subject at hand and to no new comments only. Now if the staff will proceed with the staff presentations. Ortega: I would like to, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Mayor, request some introductory comments about the reasons for the proposed Redevelopment Plan. The proposed Project Area includes approximately 764 acres of residential, office, commercial, industrial, public, and open space uses. The projected area is located in the City of Palm Desert, County of Riverside, and generally includes that area of the city bounded by Portola Avenue and Cook Street to the west, the corporate City boundary and Carlotta Drive to the east, Hovely Lane and Running Springs Drive to the north, and the Whitewater River Channel to the south. The Portola County Club is not a part of the Project Area. Those boundaries for the Project Area are as designated in an exhibit that you have received, 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 27, 1991 EXHIBIT 'A' which we have labeled Exhibit A. The area selected is a proposed Project Area characterized by a variety of conditions which adversely impact the economic potential of the properties within the Project Area, and health, safety, and welfare of the Project Area residents. In many respects, development in the Project Area has occurred in an unrestricted and unplanned manner. This has resulted in a combination of conditions that have led to blight as defined in the Redevelopment Law. Tonight we have present to answer questions, legal and otherwise, Bill Strauss, who is the Agency's legal counsel. We have Felice Acosta and Susan Kelly from the firm of Rosenow Spevacek Group. They are our main consultants. We have Scott Weisner and Patrick Mann who are with Cotton Beland and Associates, who is the firm that developed the Environmental Impact Report and we have Mr. Moe Waddie, DKS, who provided the traffic analysis for the project. In addition, what I would like to do at this time, which you have been handed to you is Appendix E, which is a photo study and that was taken of the area by the consultants. I would at this time request the following documents be entered into the record. Exhibit A, the affidavit of Publication of Notice of the Joint Public Hearing. Exhibit B, Certificate of Mailing of Notice of Joint Public Hearing to each property owner in the Project Area as shown on the last equalized assessment roll. Exhibit C, Certificate of Mailing of Notice of Joint Public Hearing to the governing bodies of each taxing agency within the Project Area. Exhibit D, Report of the Agency to the City Council, including Final Environmental Impact Report. Exhibit E, the Redevelopment Plan. Exhibit F, the taxing agencies response to the Plan. Exhibit G, public communications concerning the Plan. Exhibit H, additional reports from staff and/or consultants, supplemental Traffic Analysis Report, mitigation monitoring program. Exhibit I, additional letters, comments, and responses, if any, from responding agencies and public hearings regarding the final EIR. These documents will be part of the record and in order for us to have a complete set of documents, I will now present all of these to the City Clerk. Snyder: These documents will now be made part of the record and have so been ordered. Ortega: Now I would like to introduce Felice Acosta from Rosenow Spevacek Group, who will give us a summary of the Plan and the report to the Agency. Acosta: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, I will now refer to and summarize the contests of the Redevelopment Plan and the report of the Agency to the City Council. The Agency's report to the City Council is the basic and supporting documentation for the Redevelopment Plan. My testimony will also supplement the facts contained in the report and should be considered as part of the record. The Redevelopment Plan for Project Area 3 provides the legal framework in which the Agency may operate and take actions in their efforts to redevelop and improve the Project Area. The Redevelopment Plan provides a financial and legal mechanism to assist the Agency and improve the adverse conditions within the Project Area and insure that adequate public infrastructure is created and economic development is provided within the Project Area. The Redevelopment Plan document sets forth the goals of the Project Area, the Project Area boundaries, actions which the Agency may take in implementing the Redevelopment Plan. These actions include property acquisition, participation by owners and tenants, conformance, certificates of conformance for owners, cooperation with other public 10 • IrllNJ 1 EJ• PALM DESERT REDEVEMENT AGENCY MEETING /, JUNE 27, 1991 ••• * • * * * * s s * s * s s * * * s u * * * * • * * • * ♦ * * * * • EXHIBIT 'A' bodies, property management, the ability to make payments to taxing agencies to alleviate financial burden or detriment, the relocation of persons displaced by the project, demolition clearance or providing public improvements and site improvements for the project, rehabilitation in moving structures by the Agency and provisions for seismic repair, property disposition and development, and provisions for affordable housing. Additionally, the Plan contains permitted land uses which, in this case, are the land uses which set forth in the City's General Plan as they now exist or will be or changed or amended in the future. The Plan also contains a method of financing, which includes specifically provisions for tax increment financing. The Plan sets tax increment limits of $360,000,000.00and authorizes the Agency to issue tax allocation bonds. It provides a limit for the Agency of issuing debts for 30 years and provides a limit on the amount of indebtedness at any one time of $100,000.000.00. The Plan also provides for cooperation with the City to implement the Plan, provides for the duration of the Plan of 40 years, and includes procedures for amendments which are compatible with the State's California Redevelopment Law. I will now summarize the report to the Council. The report to the City Council from the Agency, which the City Council has received in your agenda packet has been prepared pursuant to the law. It contains information, documentation, and supporting evidence for the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. This information has been compiled by City staff, legal counsel, and consultants over the last nine months. It documents the adverse conditions that are found within the Project Area that can only be remedied through the powers of redevelopment. The report to Council is formatted and contains the following sections and information. The reasons for selecting the Project Area, the section generally describes the overall conditions found in the Project Area that are detrimental and which require redevelopment to remedy. A description of the specific projects proposed by the Agency and how these projects will improve or eliminate the conditions of blight. This section also provides an explanation why the redevelopment of the Project Area cannot be reasonably expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone or the City'suse of financing alternatives other than tax increment financing. Section B of the report contains a description of the physical, economic, and social conditions found in the Project Area. This section details the conditions that were found through a visual survey that was conducted by a consultant and other analysis conducted by City staff. The survey details deteriorated housing that is need of repair and renovation, residential neighborhoods that are lacking in sewers, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, industrial and commercial properties that contain numerous site constrains and impaired circulation. It documents inadequate and the lack of proper infrastructure throughout the Project Area. Specific conditions within the Project Area include age, obsolescence and deterioration, defective design, faulty interior arrangement and exterior spacing, inadequate provisions for light and ventilation and sanitation, lack of open space and recreational facilities, inadequate public improvements and inadequate community facilities. Section C of the report analyzes the proposed methods of financing of the Redevelopment Project. This section details the use of tax increment revenue for this project. It estimates that the project, the public improvement cost on the project's list at $104,000.000.00pof which the project is proposed to fund $43,000,000.00. At financing over 25 years, that would mean that this project would approximately cost $245,000.000.00. This section also analyzes the potential tax increment revenue to the Redevelopment Agency over the 40 year life of the Plan and our analysis indicates that this project may generate approximately $285,000,000.00over the 40 year life of the Plan 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 27, 1991 EXHIBIT "A'' making it economically feasible to redevelop the area. Section D of the report is the relocation plan. Although the plan does not anticipate any displacement, State law requires that the Agency adopt a relocation plan to protect the citizens and businesses of the community. This section of the report contains the relocation plan that you adopt this evening. Section E is an analysis of the preliminary plan for the Project Area that was adopted at the beginning of this process. Section F presents a report and recommendations of the Planning Commission on the Redevelopment Plan. Section G summarizes the citizen participation program that was conducted during the adoption process. That was briefly outlined by Mr. Ortega. Section H analyzes the conformance of the Redevelopment Plan with the General Plan. Section I is the Environmental Impact Report, which will be reviewed by the environmental consultant. Section J is the report of the County Fiscal Officer, which has calculated the base year's assessed valuation for this Project Area at $152,000,000.00. Section K is the report of the Fiscal Review Committee which contains the comments and concerns of the affected taxing agencies. Section L is the neighborhood impact report which specifically analyzes the effect of the Redevelopment Plan on the residential neighborhoods within the Project Area. Section M is an analysis of the (inaudible) report prepared by the Auditor/Controller. It also contains a summary of the Agency's consultations with the various affected taxing agencies and an analysis of the report of the Fiscal Review Committee, including the Agency's response to that report. Additionally, there are three appendix. Appendix A and Appendix B dealing with sections of the law, and Appendix C is the pictorial survey which you received this evening. That concludes my summary of the report to Council. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them. Snyder: Any questions? Thank you for your report. Acosta: Thank you. Snyder: Mr. Ortega. Ortega: Now we will have Mr. Scott Weisner who will talk about the Environmental Impact Report. Weisner: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Council, members of the audience. Good evening. My name is Scott Weisner. I'm with the environmental consulting firm of Cotton Beland and Associates. We have been retained by the Agency to complete the Environmental Impact Report on the project you have before you. Excuse me. The EIR is just one component of the report to City Council on the Redevelopment Plan. This document is an informational document to be used by the decision makers and the public. In accordance with CEQA, the EIR for a redevelopment project is termed a Program EIR. A Program EIR is prepared in conjunction with the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan is a more general document than an EIR, which may be prepared for discreet development projects. This EIR analyzes potential future development contemplated in the Project Area, however, it does not analyze specific projects that may be developed within the Project Area itself. I think an important distinction to be made regarding this project and the EIR is that the Redevelopment Agency does not propose 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVF).QPMENT AGENCY. MEETING A EXHIBIT "A' NNE 27, 1991 all development considered in the EIR. Much of the development that will occur in the private market place over the life time of the plan, this Redevelopment Plan focuses on providing necessary infrastructure improvements throughout the entire Project Area to make the area more attractive to development. I would also like to note that as individual project applications are submitted to the City, additional environmental review at the project level will be, will occur. I would also briefly, for part of the record, go over the EIR process to date. The City of Palm Desert, as the lead agency, mailed out a notice of preparation to all the taxing and responsible agencies, as well as interested, individuals indicating the Agency was in the process of preparing an EIR and requested any additional comments from those taxing and responsible agencies. With regard to information that should be contained in the EIR, that Notice of Preparation is sent out for a 30 day review period. At the end of that 30 day period, we prepared what is called a Draft EIR. This document is made available to the public for a 45 day review period, at which time the Agency held a public hearing on the information contained in that document and solicited public testimony on the information that was contained therein. At that hearing, no members of the public provided oral testimony. In addition to oral testimony during that 45 day review period, the Agency also accepted written comments regarding any information contained in the EIR. At determination at the 45 day review period, we had received four written letters from three agencies and one individual. As part of the final EIR, we are required to prepare written responses to all comments received during the 45 day review period. We have done so and those are included within the final Environmental Report that you have before you. The final Environmental Report essentially consists of the draft EIR, as well as the comments and written responses to those comments. I would like to briefly summarize the results of our environmental analysis on the project. The EIR analyzed all 20 issue areas contained the CEQA check list. Overall, the project would have beneficial impact on the environment by improving the conditions within the Project Area through various programs and infrastructure improvements. Also, potentially significant impacts can be avoided, mitigated or substantially lessened to a less than significant level. However, two impact areas were found to be significant and unavoidable. Adoption of the Redevelopment Plan will require adoption of a statement of overriding considerations, which essentially indicates that the decision making body has determined that the benefits of the project, the overall benefits of the project outweigh any adverse environmental impacts that may result. The two areas that we found as significant were in the areas of air quality and traffic. I would like to briefly discuss the air quality. Projected air emissions generated by total development throughout the Project Area will exceed the suggested threshold criteria of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Now this is essentially important because the entire South Coast Air Basin is considered an nonattainment area, although conditions may not be as adverse out here in the desert area as maybe the more urbanized L.A. area, it is still contained within that air basin and given the fact that air basin is a nonattainment area, the emissions generated by the development within the Project Area is considered significant. Mitigation measures have been outlined completely in the EIR to substantially lessen these impacts, however, they will not be reduced to a level of insignificance. The traffic study was also prepared that considered the impacts of project generated traffic as well as regional background growth on ten intersections in the vicinity of the Project Area. The results of this study indicate that project and regional traffic will result in intersection approaches at four intersections 13 bI y8noyllE MEy1 puy IIIM ICoua2V Put Iiouno3 /Clip 01.11 Xw41 I `stye o) asuodsal III •1aa11S loop uo or3;sn ay) vassal p1IIOM s►Lp 1ey1 anallaq 1,uop gam nip put aAISuadxa ,(lawanxa aq pinom spy) anailaq gayi nip ino iutod Aagj 'Rare 1ey1 ut uopelnono ay) Bulnoldwr ui pannbal aq AEw rem SsaooE ain1n; 10 pasodold 8uImoys paxlew ysEy rem ley) dew aopou 8uueaq • • • (;de);o pua) •luawaal2E algeldaooe Allenlnw E `ivawulap pouulpoz SI way1;I aouo `pawlt;uoo aouo pue luawulap Ieputur3 ,Cue SI 21341 10u 10 13yla4M luawnoop of way) y11M Suol1Ellnsuoo ut a1e pue lauls!Q 1aleM ay1 qUM law sey ;;Eis ay) 1E41 31EME s1 2na11aq I XouaSV alp `13113j sty) 03 gu!puodsal dCgauq III -way) of )uawalout nay);o pe y8nolyi ssed pue uopenns am malnal ,C3uo2v ay) 1Eyl isanba1 gay,I, •anunuoo spun; asayl 10; spaau ay1 1Ey1 pun suopoun; lopisIQ lnlaua8 pue 1a)eM ttuols 1o; pasn s1 `a)toiPui gam `anuanal spa •1,176.9 g1alewlxoadde si rare stye wo1; anuanal xer;o anys a8eluaolad rou)siu 131EM ay) lnyl pue naps loop Jo lapis tpoq uo pump waols lantg .IammallyM;o yuou eaay roafold E 8uu3p1suo3 st £uD ayr NIP puE)siopun gam my) salEoipu► iou)siQ 1aleM atld• •lou)stU 1a1EM gaIIEA eltayotop atp w01; sit pus bZ aunt pa1Ep SI aouapuodsanoo puooas ays •aouapuodsonoo uopealooN pus wed ay1 u1 paptnold uopeuuo;ul ay) sI 1E10 puy •Z •oN easy );;fold 10; 4Coua2y 341 yIIM wawaaae Supsixa )Eyl 01 1EIIWIs aq o1 papualui st luawa8ue11E spp )Eli) 1no ruiod dCa a •1aluao Arlunwwoo pus wntssuwi(8 uor)ealoal ay);o uoponlusuoo ay) Sutpun; ui wawaaout lei lions Jo a1Eys s,loulsIQ atll asn o) i(ouaSy am litulad pUE eaay );;fold ay1 wpm palelaua8 wawaroul xtl ay);o alsys s,)ourstQ ay1 ao; wawaarat ySno.nl sled e Supsanbal olio; 01 Su1IpM Si 1ou1SIQ ay1 `waw)iwwoo Sly) 10; Iun1a1 III •0661 `£Z gENI pomp loulsrj atp yIIM 1u2w3a18E astal 341 01 )uensind laluaj oinij uasaQ wled ay) 1E 1aluao j()tunwwoo pue wnlstuwi(8 uopealoag pue soiled ay) Jo uoponnsuoo ,Circa Ire of luawliwwoo s,goua8v ay) 10; tunlal u1 aoltl Plnom loulsiu au, ')ouls1Q uopeaioau puB lolled ay1 11101; easy loafold ay1 ao; uoddns sassaidxa lanai siq) `A ewwns III 'loinsiu S)IJEd Put uopeaaoag gaileA EllayoEop ay) w01; Sii `9Z aun f pa)tp s1 auo 1s1g aQL •alep of aouapuodsauoo ual)uM 1no; aney am Irounop off) Jo sragwaw pue 1o,Cew 1jtil :Elsooy - •2IIH IEug am pue uBld luawdolanapa1I ayl uo 01 papnllE aney tali) 1Ey1 sruawwoo uallum gue azuewwns rpm sluelinsuoo at{i awn sigi le `1oi k •1N :e2a110 -EBauo 'IN i,ltounop ayl wo1; suopsanb guy •uopeivasald 1nog 10j nog >(uey,I, :IapguS •no,C >(us a •aney ICEw nog( suopsanb ,Cue 1oMsue o1 a14slrnne aft ,Cpnls o1;;En ayi foam/told ;Atli oym sale►oossy S}IQ wo1; aiPPEM 30NI se Ilam SE `w13 1no Jo Iedtouud a `uuEy11 led puE;lasgyi 'awp slyi 1e uoptruasald gw saiaidwoo letl,I• •plooal ayi;o ued se goua8v atp of pauiwgns uaaq ley pue apo3 saolnosag ollgnd at{1;o 9'1801Z u0poaS 411m aoUEpl000e ui palmdaad uaaq set{ we18oid Suuolluow uope2ppu a `ssaoold gIg ayl;o ued sy •siaedwi at{) uassal giiEllueisgns i11m swawanoldwr pasodord alp pue alnin; ayl u1 anupuoo iou 111m uopenlls sit{i `Apuasald loa11S 'loop Suole algenio1 aq gew suopipuoo y8noyily Imps oloo3 8uoie uopelnono anoldwl 01 E21y PO fold atll u1 piM sluawanoldw1 naps ;o lagwnu E sasodold osiE veld luawdolanapag au, •ICalaluoW pue gnlp tiluno3 le sagoEolddE oMi pue Elouod pus quip A1unop 1E t{osoldds auo •Elouod pus Suuem pa13 ;o uopoaslaiul ayr 1t sayoeolddE aalgl;o uopdaoxa ayl tpi^+ `slanal algEldaooe le sallow:Idde uopaaslalui l[s ;o uoptlado am ui 11nsa1 pinom 2II3 ay1 ui mop u1 pauipno sivawanoldwl uopoaslarui pue 1aa11s ;o sauas anlsuayaldwoo y •slanal 21E1S/Xiij paidaoon Molag 8utlle; .V. 118:1H C3 1661 `LZ DPILL73f1 A3NHOV lifEliVc101E1AgQ32I Dig WJVd sal lN1 'MINUTES. ^ PALM DESERT REDEVErMENT AGENCY MEETING ' 1 JUNE 27, 1991 EXIITEIIT •A' access and improvements for this problem is indicated on the projects list, a specific project has not been specifically located and I believe that the information that was provided on the public hearing map was done so to give people a general idea of where access may be taken to improve these problems, but certainly no final decision on where access would be taken to remedy this problem has been made at this time. The last letter is from the law offices of Peters and Kolosky and they represent the Mountainview Fall Homeowners and Vista del Monte, Montas Homeowners Association. They express, the Homeowners Associations desired to be removed from the Project Area. They indicate that. they believe there is no justification for including these properties within the Redevelopment Area, citing that the Redevelopment Area is primarily commercial. They don't feel that there is any reason why they should be imposed the burden of providing funds for the bridge over Cook Street. Additionally, they express an opinion that the Redevelopment Agency, they additionally go on to say that they believe that this power is, only applies to Project Areas that were adopted or in existence as of July 1, 1978, and they request that the Redevelopment Agency confirm that they do not have the power to, to, the power or right to levy special assessments against any properties within the redevelopment zone. They also request that their comments be responded to in writing as provided by the Health and Safety Code. Additionally, they believe that there is no legitimate reason for the two projects, two residential projects to be included in Project Area 3, however, they would have no problem in being included in Project Area No. 2. Briefly, that summarizes all of the written comments that we have received to this point. Snyder: Thank you. We have received the reports from staff and their consultants and now I will take oral testimony in favor. We will now hear or receive any statements or testimonies from those present in favor of the Redevelopment Plan or Environmental Impact Report. You have the opportunity to pose questions to the staff and the consultants through the Chair. We ask that comments be limited to the subject at hand and to new issues only. Staff responses to comments and questions will be held until all testimony has been received. Is there anyone who would care to testify in favor of this Redevelopment Agency, step forward now. Matlock: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Altman, and Mr. Ortega, my name is Jack Matlock. I am here tonight on behalf of the Desert Sands Unified School District, the College of the Desert. I should rephrase that, they're the Desert Community College District now, the Palm Springs Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Mosquito Abatement District. In addition, I have been asked to speak on behalf of the County Superintendent of Schools who had a conflict and could not be here tonight, although I don't represent them. But all of these agencies have reviewed both the Environmental Impact Report and the Redevelopment Plan and speak in favor of both of those. It has been our pleasure to work with all of your staff, and especially we've enjoyed the relationship that has existed between the Council and all of these public entities. I'm very pleased to report to you that much of the help that you have given over the years is very visible in the schools. You have probably the nicest campus right here next door to you that you'll find up and down any parts of the State. It is undergoing, of course, a great deal of change and the hope is that it will be completely renovated one of these days with your help, and we look forward to that continued relationship. As I 15 MINUTES PALM DFSERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 27, 1991 Snyder: Van Slurp: Snyder: Horowitz: EXHIBIT 'A' have indicated, the staff has always been very cordial to us, answered our questions, visited with us, resolved our problems, and we are most appreciative. They do an excellent job on your behalf, and again, we thank you for the support of all the educational entities and we lend our support to the project. Thank you very much sir. We appreciate your report. Anyone else who would care to testify in favor? Hello Mr. Mayor, Council Members. My name is Steve Van Slurp. I represent R.K. Development. R.K. owns the majority interest in Cook Street Industrial Park. We support the plan, we support the idea of improved traffic circulation in the Cook Street area, and we do agree that this congested area will become worse if something isn't done in the near future. Our concerns in the area have been expressed to staff already. The properties in question. R.K.'sproperties, there are a number of properties there that may have to be realigned to accomplish the improved circulation, and we suggested alternatives that staff has not looked at yet. It has been represented to us that the proposed street alignments are tentative at this point, and we look forward to working with you and suggesting alternatives to accomplish your goals out there on Cook Street. Thank you very much for your testimony. Anyone else who would care to testify in favor? Seeing no one, I will hear or receive any statements or testimony from those present in opposition to the Redevelopment Plan or the Environmental Impact Report. You have an opportunity to pose questions to the staff and the consultants through the Chair. We ask that comments be limited to the subject at hand and no new issues. Staff responses to comments and questions will be held until all testimony has been received. Please identify yourself for the record. Honorable Mayor and City Council. My name is Leo Horowitz and I reside at 318 Tava Lane, Palm Desert, in the Mountainview Falls community. This community of 100 homes does not suffer from urban blight. Our community was completed about six years ago and through excellent management has retained the ambience and well groomed appearance equally or superior to any other community in Palm Desert. Most people would agree that our community is a nice place to live. Senior retired citizens, balanced with young families that reside in Palm Desert all year are elated to reside in upgraded homes affordably. My wife and I moved from Los Angeles to escape the traffic and unhealthful air pollution. Our City planners state they would divert our taxes from the State to utilize this income for the necessary improvements outlined in this plan. While, in fact, they cover up the real purpose of assessing homeowners for the benefit of subsidizing private business enterprises. The country clubs on Country Club Drive, the Marriott Desert Springs Hotel, land and properties owners of the Cook Street Industrial Parks, business interests on Highway 111, plus the City of Indian Wells will be the true recipients and beneficiaries of Cook Street improvements. Quoting from the Desert Sun, June 26 issue, quote redevelopment alters the picture for Valley. Continuing the quote, it was originally intended to help fight urban decay, but in California Redevelopment Law increasingly is being used to subsidize private enterprise by communities strapped by the tax revolt of the 1970's. Critics argue that redevelopment process is being abused. End of quote. I do not oppose the redevelopment process. As a critic, I only oppose the City 16 NNE 27, 1991 AIINLTTES ^ ' PALM DESERT REDEV t ?MENT AGENCY MEETING' 1 * * s* s* s* s * EXHD3IT 'A' planning devices of including single family and condominium communities within the Redevelopment Plans. All improvement costs should be borne by private interests and all of the City of Palm Desert to equitably improve the City. I vehemently am opposed to the inclusion of our Mountainview Falls community within this Redevelopment Plan No. 3. Council Persons are elected officials that should be represented, representing private as well as homeowner interests with honesty and integrity. Please do not sacrifice our inalienable democratic rights of choice. This would be a travesty of fairness and justice. I wish to retain my rights of home ownership and opt to whether I wish to live here permanently or whether I wish to relocate. If our homes and community are included within the Redevelopment Plan No. 3, we face eminent danger of losing our rights to the bureaucracy with a cloud over our heads by the City, of buying and/or destroying our homes, being unable to sell our properties to whomever we please and of a permanent cloud on our titles of eminent domain and/or condemnation or the City's right of future assessment on our properties. Finally, the City should address serious problems of blow sand onto all of our communities in north Palm Desert, which will depreciate the value of our homes considerably. Thank you very much. Snyder: Thank you sir for your comments. Anyone else who would care to testify in opposition? Barko: Your Honor, Members of the Council. My name is Robert L. Barko. I have been designated to represent the Mountainview Falls Homeowners Association, also the Vista Del Montanas Homeowners Association, and I had a phone conversation with the Carlotta Rest Home indicating their opposition to being placed in this Redevelopment Area. Incidentally, this lady, what is your name? Felice brought up a very pertinent fact that I wasn't aware of. I didn't realize that we were in a slum area. As she pointed out, the Redevelopment Area is a slum, and it wants to be rebuilt. Now let me point out one thing, if you will. According to this redevelopment map, I'm sure she didn't mean us, this is the industrial area that's the slum area she's referring to that wants to be rebuilt. This annexation, which is Mountainview Falls, Vista Del Montanas, the Carlotta, and everything in this area, is new and has been built within the last five to ten years. How can that be called a slum? How could it be? Why should it be put in a Redevelopment Area that it is not going to benefit from? It would not, it has it's own sewers, it has own facilities, it has all its, everything it needs. Yet we're being placed in this thing strictly as a tax base. And I, I, one minute please. To continue, I represent about 400 plus voters, Vista Montana, Vista Del, I mean Mountainview Falls, Vista Del Montanas, and others who object to being placed in this Redevelopment Area. They don't object to it, they demand that they be excluded from this area. I attended all of the redevelopment hearings, the meetings, and asked who would pay for the indebtedness that would be incurred assuming that the Redevelopment Project went through and the industrial area could not support its obligation, its bonds, its borrowing, its bank loans, whatever. And I was told by Mr. Ortega and his counsel that we would be assessed to make up for this. No. When I said, when I said assessment is taxation. Oh, no you'll be able to participate. What is the difference? Its all taxation. So they're telling us that they want us in the area so they can tax us in case they screw up or excuse me, if they don't get the money they expect to get from this development area. So then its going to become the homeowners' responsibility to carry this. I don't feel that we should be obligated that much. We're all working people and have very nice homes and want to keep them that 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 27, 1991 EXHIBIT "A" way. They also have condemnation procedures that they can hold over our heads which also lowers or questions our property values. If we go to sell, we have to disclose that we have condemnation procedures over our heads and that may make the difference between selling our property or not, for those that wish to do that. We have, incidentally, I don't know whether you're aware or not, but we, we and I'm talking about Mountainview Falls, Vista Del Montanas, and all of the agencies that are within that corner, this square corner, have been assessed for improvements on Cook Street, the signals that would go in, and the bridge on Whitewater. They were done when the development was built. And I asked Mr. Ortega and his counsel, or his panel, where the money was, and I was told at these meetings that it was in the transportation fund. And I'm quoting on this. And I says, well then I can find it, there's a record of it. No was the answer. Its buried in the fund. And I said in other words you don't have it. No, we've spent it. The last part was my comment. Anyhow, its not there. If we are placed in this Redevelopment Area, we'll have no recourse except to procure legal representation under the U.S. Code Title 42 and 43 of the U.S., of 1983, a law for violation of our civic rights to own property and due process under the 14th amendment. I highly recommend that we be removed from this Redevelopment Area. We can serve no benefit and the area definitely will not benefit us. In addition to that, as a representative of the Associations, I request minutes of the meetings and specifically the minutes of the meetings that continue from hereon out, including the closed meeting that is going to be held July 11, and I think I'm entitled to that according to the Brown Law. And I would like to know exactly how this issue is voted on by each member, who voted for and who against. As a representative of the Association, I am obligated to tell each and every one of our members, each one of our homeowners, who voted and how they voted. And to bring that up whenever necessary. You know people have a tendency to forget, so its nice to remind them once in awhile. Anyhow, my point, my main point is that, that we should not be in this development area. All of our facilities are new, and we have no reason to be in it and I whole, wholeheartedly hope that you can see to exclude us from it and let us keep our happy homes and be the happy families that we are. After all we don't, we're not contributing to crime, we're not contributing to juvenile delinquency, or anything else. We're the good old American home people, and we want to stay that way. Thank you very much. Snyder: Thank you for your testimony, sir. Barko: Oh, your Honor. I have petitions here of our homeowners, and I'm saying probably 200. I'm guessing, I did not count them. Husband and wives who show their displeasure at being in the Redevelopment Area, and I would like to give them to the Council. These are people that want to be excluded. Thank you. Snyder: They have been duly received and will be recorded. Hudson: Brad Hudson representing the County of Riverside. 46-309 Oasis in Indio. I want to preface my remarks by thanking the Council and Agency for allowing me to come here tonight and make a presentation. I would also like to congratulate City staff. I think they have worked hard on this plan, we've worked with them. I think you know from my previous appearances here we have some fundamental disagreements over basic 18 • -MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVEMENT AGENCY MEETING i ;* * * * * * * * * JUNE 27, 1991 EXHIBIT "A" redevelopment issues, but I think through our continued hard work we can resolve a lot of those. As you are well aware, the County of Riverside is the taxing entity that levies ad valorem property taxes within the project area. We finance the, our current services, with the increases in assessed valuations due to new development, transfers of property, and the annual two per cent levy that's allowed by law. When Redevelopment Agencies are formed, these increases that we would expect to finance our current services go to the Agencies, which makes it difficult for the County to continue to finance these services as the cost of living increases. Also, the various projects that the Agency endeavors to complete and if they're successful, create a lot of jobs, a lot of low income residences in the community as a result of the low and moderate requirements, and these folks require County services and without the property taxes that we would get from these increases in assessed valuations it is very difficult, not only to finance the existing services but also to financing, finance the additional services that are required by the growth and that the Project Area, if it is successful, generates. We, I was the Chairman of the Fiscal Review Committee, and we made several recommendations that all the taxing entities felt would help alleviate some of these problems that I've just mentioned. Of particular significance is, I think, would be cooperative agreements that would pass through certain amounts of the County's revenue so that we may be able to continue to provide the criminal justice, health, welfare, and other services that the residents of Palm Desert expect and certainly deserve. We would like the Agency to evaluate various projects within the Plan and try to come up with alternative funding sources in lieu of tax increment financing. To be more specific, I think the Cook Street project is a pretty good example. Its identified for funding through the Measure A Program. The City receives certain Measure A funds and also the City is in the process of forming an assessment district to help pay for some of these improvements, and we encourage that and we hope that you will look at all the improvements in the plan and where possible try to identify those alternative funding sources so that the schools and the County and other taxing agencies can hope to expect as favorable a pass through agreement as we can. We would, Mayor Snyder's laughing. In addition, I think we would like to see short term bond redemption schedules to minimize the impact of financing, and certainly I think the Agency already has reduced the, the limitations of the plan from what was initially stated in the preliminary report, and we appreciate that, and I think that goes along with the previous recommendation that the Fiscal Review Committee gave to the Agency. With regard to the EIR, we have a couple of concerns and primarily its, we feel that the EIR doesn't adequately assess what the impacts of the Plan would be to the County. How would the County continue to provide services in light of the diversion of tax increment? We would like you to consider that, consider that an impact as much as you do any other impact, air quality, transportation, housing, any of those impacts we think that the effect on the County in providing increased services with less revenue is significant and should be addressed both in the Environmental Impact Report and compliance with CEQA and also in the Redevelopment Plan, as is specified in the Redevelopment Law. I have here a, basically a list of some of our objections to the Plan in a letter that I composed, and also I would like to resubmit for the public record the report of the Fiscal Review Committee. And again, I've, I would like to congratulate the staff again. I think they've worked hard on this plan, and we've met with them, we've enjoyed working with them, and we want to continue to work with them. Unfortunately, we do have to register this objection at this time because we don't have a cooperative agreement right now, and I think we're close, 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 27, 1991 EXHIBIT "A' and I'd like to come back here in a couple of weeks and plan an agreement or have the Chairman sign an agreement and pick up one from you guys, so again, I appreciate the opportunity to comment and thank you for letting me be here today. Snyder: We appreciate your comments and we appreciate you coming. We're both in CVAG, so you know how hard we're working on other alternatives and will continue to do that. We do appreciate your working with us. It is important to us that the County and the City find a way to do things together. We have other problems, as you know, that we're working on, and I assure you our staff and our consultants will work with you in any objections or suggestions you have submitted. Hudson: Thank you. I almost forgot. I wanted to congratulate you on your Source Reduction and Recycling Element and your Household Hazardous Waste. I think that was a shining example of how the jurisdictions can really get together and knock something out in an unbelievable short time frame when they have to and when they work together. Snyder: Thank you very much. Hudson: Thank you. Snyder: We appreciate your... Anyone else who would care to testify in opposition? Augustine: My name is Wanda Augustine, and I live 74-861 Merle Drive. I'm concerned with respect to the redevelopment project about the maps we received by certified mail where it designates certain proposed streets. I have a number of signatures of concerned citizens and residents in the area who oppose the access street of Merle Drive to the industrial park and the extension of Rebecca to Hovley. If needed, I can provide more signatures with more time. Snyder: Thank you very much. They have been received and you will receive an answer. Does anyone else desire to present a statement concerning this Plan? Prince: Yes, my name is Jack Prince. I'm a property owner. Myself and my partner own parcel 624-290-042 in the Cook Business Park, and we oppose the annexation of our property. Snyder: Your comments have been duly recorded. Griffin: My name is Cody Griffin. I live at 74-716 Leslie. We're concerned about opening up of Rebecca Street and to the industrial area and another little small street, there would be a new one. We have a sand barrier of tamarisk trees that separates us from the industrial park and the only thing that's opening up Rebecca is going to put all those service trucks, 18-wheelers, down through a residential section. There are about 200 homes in there and there are no other out streets or anything, so why do we have to put up with all those 18-wheelers and service trucks coming down through a residential section? Thank you. 20 MI TIES• PALM DESERT REDEVEMENT AGENCY MEETING ellIN i •• i i• • i i i i NNE 27, 1991 EXHIBIT 'A' Snyder: Your comments will be recorded and we will attempt to analyze this situation. Any other testimony? Williams: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, my name is Michael Williams, 74-809 Merle Drive. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, however, the same issue of access into the industrial park from the residential area. It is my understanding as, from a statement by staff or consultants earlier that there are no specific plans, no specific plans. The question, however, is that if no specific plans exist obviously there are some tentative thoughts of plans. The question is, how will those plans be formulated and what will the role of residents and homeowners in the neighborhood be relative to those plans. Obviously, it is a matter of some concern on the basis just of the previous comments, and my concern as it is, I'm appreciative that no specific plans currently exist but how will those plans be formulated once this plan is already, the Redevelopment Plan as a whole is already intact? My concern is what right will we lose to participate in that decision making, once the plan is in effect? Snyder: Your questions are good ones, and the odds are that they'll be answered tonight or they'll be answered in the future. At the close of testimony here we will ask the staff and the consultants to answer some of these questions. Williams: Your Honor, may I address the Council one more minute? Snyder: I think we'll give you one minute. Williams: Okay. I neglected to say that the signatures I turned in, the petitions are a minor amount. We did not get the rest of them. There is a considerable amount more that could be forthcoming if needed, and I also would also like the, the homeowners that are present to stand up from Mountainview Falls and Vista Montanas showing their support at being taken out of the Redevelopment Area. Please stand, all of those opposed. Snyder: Thank you sir. Williams: Okay, thank you. Snyder: Is there anyone else who would care to present testimony? Sanchez: My name is Ignacio Sanchez, and I live at 74-821 Merle Drive. My wife and 1 are opposed to some of the effects of the Redevelopment Plan, like for instance, street connecting the Merle Drive to the industrial park and the (inaudible), and one thing that concerns me the most is like seems like nobody in the area, everybody there wants to be out of the Redevelopment Plan and it looks like we are the only one that are going to be a'sPssed for the improvements on Cook Street and that concerns me a lot. Thank you. Snyder: You bet. 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 27, 1991 Lane: EXHIBIT 'A" My name is (inaudible) Lane (female) and I live at 42-570 Christian Street. The Christian Street is connected from Sheryl Drive from Cook Street, and everybody seems to live at the end of the cul-de-sac, and everybody seems to come in, there's jogs and turns in the area and everyone comes up my cul-de-sac, and they don't see a through street so they make a turn. So if there is an opening to Rebecca or any one of these streets, everyone is going to get muddled up and there is, its a residential street or streets. Children are playing, children get off of the buses, there is no street sidewalks, so they are walking in the streets. So if any increase in traffic, it will be dangerous to the children. And Merle Drive I understand, is a raceway and there should be bumps put up there so people wouldn't go by it so fast. Thank you. Snyder: Thank you for your comments. Any other, anyone else care to testify? Then we will have staff and consultant responses. Ortega: Yes, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Mayor. There's some issues that throughout the meetings that we have had with the residents, apparently continue to be misunderstood. I would like for people other than myself to explain how tax increment works. Mr. Barko has been at every one of those meetings, and I'm sure that a lot of people that are here are here because of what he has reported to them about how we are going to assess them to finance the improvements. I would like to, at least for tonight, maybe not put that issue to rest, maybe we can't because its a tough concept to understand. There's also the issues that have been raised about the map that went with the notice about some alterhatives for some street improvements that would take inter -area traffic off of Cook, for example. Inter -industrial traffic off Cook Street. I think that's raised some concerns, and I would like to explain basically the process that we will use before we decide on any particular alternatives. The related issue is with regards to connection of the industrial area with the residential area. I think that's an issue that those citizens can put to rest because after analyzing it, I think the Public Works Director has some other alternatives that would not create those impacts. But first what I would like to do is, is for Mr. Barko again. He and I have had this discussion at every time about how his opinion is that we're going to assess those people. I would like to have the Agency legal counsel indicate to him that the Agency could not authorize to levy any assessments. At least not this Agency at this time as part of this project. Mr. Strauss. Strauss: A Redevelopment Agency has no power to levy an assessment, and it has no power to levy a tax. There is one qualification with respect to its power to levy an assessment. With respect to the Project Area that was formed before July 1, 1978, and bonds issued before July 1, 1978, and third if those bonds issued before July 1, 1978, and a Project Area formed before July 1, 1978, go into default, then a Redevelopment Agency has the power to levy assessments on property. Given the fact that we are now in 1991 and that's the earliest that this Project Area could be formed, of course, those assessment powers don't apply. Again, they have no power to levy a tax either and there is no qualification on that. A Redevelopment Agency derives its revenues from taxes that are already paid. In other words, each year property owners make tax, property tax payments. Those property tax payments are collected by the County Auditor and distributed to the taxing agencies, except if its a Redevelopment Project area a portion of those taxes are diverted to Redevelopment Agencies and that doesn't mean that you are paying any more or any 22 ,MINUTES. PALM DESERT REDEVE MENT AGENCY MEETING (Th s :s. * * * s s • * * JUNE 27, 1991 EXHIBIT 'A' less tax. It's taxes that are already paid. Let me say one other thing. The, both the letter that was, I can't remember the name of the firm, it was Peters, Peters and Kovalsky. The letter that was delivered from that firm and both the first two gentlemen that spoke, one of them standing at the microphone right now. Your objections to me sounded as if they were objections being made in connection with an assessment district proceedings, and that is not what this is. It's not what it is at all. And I think this letter is also written, its written as if it were protesting an assessment district proceedings. There is words like benefit the property owners and assessments and so forth and that just isn't what is happening here. Barko: Your Honor, Council, I, of course, am not an attorney and I'm just have to relate what my council, or our council stated that they can be assessed or as Mr. Ortega said participate, and he did that at all of the meetings, I shouldn't say that, at most of the meetings I attended. He said that, and his words were you will be assessed or participate. Any way you look at it, it is a taxation. If you have read the Desert Sun, they have had an article in the last day or two on redevelopment areas, and it points out in a nut shell how a redevelopment area can be manipulated to where developers can develop it to their own best interests and. Snyder: I have to tell you that the article in the Desert Sun is obviously one not of full confidence nor legal rights. It is an opinion of a very inexperienced reporter writing his, his thoughts. The thing that we have to live with here, and you have to live with is what is the true legal definition of what we are doing and what we are not doing and what can or can't happen. And we, of course, have two attorneys here to try to explain to you what the rules are and what the law says. Barko: Your Honor. Snyder: And we, we, and it is being recorded, and we will not mistake or what the law says. We will live within the law and we have no intentions of doing anything else. Barko: You're right, your Honor. Snyder: The problems of mixing assessment districts and Redevelopment Agencies actions is one of the problems that gets people confused. This is not an assessment district we're looking at the moment. We're looking at a Redevelopment pack. Wilson: Mr. Mayor, could I make a comment? All five members of the Council, the City Manager, and most of the staff live in a Redevelopment Area, a Project Area. There is not a stigma attached to living in this. There is no additional taxation that is levied on the property owners. I've lived in a Redevelopment Area for about ten years now, my property has benefitted greatly from that by the building of the Palm Valley Channel, which protects my home from flooding that wiped out my neighborhood just several years before that channel was built. I do not pay any more taxes than I did back before the Redevelopment Agency was established. What has happened is the money that went to the County, and that's why the County was here discussing this, and we do work out pass through agreements with them, but the money that is collected by the County stays in the 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 27, 1991 EXHIBIT "A' area to take care of improvements in that area rather than going to Riverside. And that's the basic issue that is before us. Do we want to retain that money locally to improve the general area, or don't we? And there is no, and I can give you my honest statement that there has been no impact on my property in ten years on the negative side. There has only been improvement from the fact that I am now living in a Redevelopment Area. Barko: I can appreciate your viewpoint, however, I was told by Mr. Ortega that we would be assessed and participate in the form, and that is of taxation, but. Wilson: I can assure you that will not happen. Barko: Just a minute. Wilson: Because that would have to come before this Council. We are not going to do that. Barko: I was also told by an attorney that there are loopholes in the law to where that can be done. Now I'm not an attorney, so I am not qualified to discuss that in depth. You do have two attorneys here. I'm at a disadvantage, but the attorney has told me that there are loopholes in the law where we can be assessed. And I'm only going by that. All I'm trying to do is protect the homeowners who have nice homes. I don't see where we should be in that Redevelopment Area. We are not a slum. The other area does. Wilson: Do you consider Vintage Country? Barko: I agree. I agree. Wilson: Could I ask you a question? Barko: Yes. Wilson: Do you consider the Vintage Country Club a slum? Barko: I beg your pardon? Wilson: Do you consider the Vintage Country Club a slum? That is in a Redevelopment Area. Ironwood Country Club, all of these areas are in Redevelopment Areas. They are not slum housing. They are part of a project area attempting to use the assessments from their area to improve local areas around them so slums do not develop in their neighborhoods and around 'their areas and that where there area run down sections in the general area, their tax money is being used there rather than to pay for County services in Riverside. Barko: Okay, I appreciate your viewpoint, but 1 also. Wilson: I understand. 24 IG@iUTES PALM DESERT REDEVEInMENT AGENCY MEETING ( JUNE 27, 1991 EXHIBIT 'A' Barko: Want to express the, what I have heard our Council and other people that the loopholes will allow that to happen, and I want to protect our associations. Thank you. This young. Wilson: I can give you the assurance that if that were ever to be, and I think you must have misunderstood Mr. Ortega, but you have heard from Mr. Ortega's attorney that we do not have the power to assess, but if we did it would have to become, come before this body, and I think, you can stand assured that you would have five votes against any assessments. We live in Redevelopment Areas, we're against any additional taxation for any, and if it applied to your Area it would have to apply to our Areas. We live in a Redevelopment Area. Barko: Let me ask you one, excuse me for one minute, let me ask you one other question. And I asked him and could not get an answer from he or his panel. Why the irregularity of this map? Wilson: Most of the rest of the City is already in a Redevelopment Area. That's part of it. Barko: But, Cook Street, which is up here, and this is just a golf course. Our area and the golf course of The Lakes Country Club, the Lakes homes are up in this area as is the Marriott Hotel. Why and, Cook Street goes, I mean Country Club goes right along here. Why was that not the dividing line? Why were they not incorporated, but we were? Look at the. Wilson: That's a good question. May 1 direct that to staff. Mr. Ortega. Barko: I've asked him, and I've not gotten an answer in all the meetings I've. Wilson: Where are boundaries of Project Area No. 2? Ortega: First of all, Mr. Chairman, when I wanted to have a discussion on the assessments, Mr. Barko's attended every meeting, and we have explained this to him, so its not a matter of not explaining it to him he just has problems understanding it. We've explained to him that the Marriott is in a Project Area. We've explained to him every, for the five times that we met, so we're saying that almost everybody there is in a Project Area. The EIR, particularly the traffic portion, with regards to the public improvements that the Plan proposes to build does benefit his area. We've explained to him five times. I think what we should do, what should be part of the requirement is that we address all these concerns in writing. I think I wanted to explain this for the purpose of other people that have not attended our meetings that still under the misconception that we plan to assess their properties additional taxes and as you heard tonight the areas definitely no. Mr. Barko, we've discussed this time and time again. Wilson: Did you get, did you understand that answer? The reason the area you pointed to is in another Redevelopment Project Area. That's why its not included in No. 3. Barko: The Lakes Country Club is in an area? 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 27, 1991 EXHIBIT 'A' Ortega: Yes. Barko: I asked him why. Wilson: The Marriott Country Club. Barko: The Lakes? Wilson: Is The Lakes in project? Ortega: The Lakes. Barko: They cut The Lakes in half. This part of The Lakes is their golf course. Wilson: Right. That's their new golf course. The old area is part of the old. Barko: No. This used to be part of our development. Mountain Falls. Wilson: Right and they have built a new course. Barko: That was sold to The Lakes. Wilson: Right. Barko: They made a golf course out of this. The Lakes itself, the physical property, the homes are up here. Why were they not included? Wilson: Keep your finger right there. Okay. Barko: Right there. Wilson: Is that area, Mr. Ortega, in a Redevelopment Project Area? Ortega: It is not in a Redevelopment Project Area and when we're, we were looking at a survey area, the reason we did not recommend that be included is because basically The Lakes has two other accesses besides those on Cook Street. We felt that we would really be stretching the law to include them when we felt that the benefits, particularly the traffic benefits, to that area are not as great as to the one that we recommended. Wilson: Okay, so you are correct, that is not, The Lakes is not in a Redevelopment Area. Is the Marriott across the street? Barko: The golf course is. The golf course is of The Lakes. And this street, which is Hovely is going to continue on to 42nd Street, which is an access area too. Why not the whole area? I mean, why just us? And that's what I still can't get out. 26 1R11\ V 11+7 PALM DESERT REDEVECINtMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 27, 1991 •'* • * • • • • • • s * ••• _ • • • • • • • • • • • • EXHIBIT 'A' Altman: Mr. Mayor, I think I can, I can give an explanation of part of it. Well, before Project Area No. 2, which is where the Marriott is, it runs from Country Club to just about to the freeway from Cook Street over to Monterey. It covers 2,200 acres. The area you're looking at here was in the County of Riverside, much of it at the time before Project Area 2. We've annexed part of the industrial area, part of the other area down there in the interim. We're also looking at. Barko: Why? Altman: Let me finish once. Barko: Go ahead. Altman: We're also looking at Project Area 4, which would be the other stuff you're talking about going out toward Palm Desert Country Club, etc. If you do those all separately to put together the districts that come into play. But there's no difference between Project Area 2 or 3, you said you wanted to be in 2. The powers are the same. You know? Barko: This looks like its being prejudential by, or being prejudiced, including this area without including the rest of the area and that's my opinion. Altman: Oh, yeah. But again, it doesn't, it doesn't impact. Let me give you one other example. The City of Palm Desert residents and businesses pay $36,000,000.00a year in property tax. You know how much we get of that? $360,000.00. That's what our budget is in property tax, that's our share. All the rest of it goes somewhere else. With a redevelopment project, we keep some of the money here to do some of the jobs that are necessary. Let's look at Cook Street bridge. You know the County built the industrial park. They didn't put any money in to put the bridge over the wash. Who's gonna do it? We do. Barko: How come its out of the Redevelopment Area? Altman: Let me finish a minute. In our budget, which is coming up after this, we have two and a half million dollars budgeted to build a bridge over Cook Street. Part of the money will come from this Project Area, part of it will come from CVAG, Proposition A. So that's where we derive the monies to do that. But it's not going to come out of your pockets, its money you're already paying in taxes, and we're keeping it here to build Cook Street bridge rather than having it go over the mountain to build something over there. A County hospital or a police station, or whatever. So I think that's the realism of the thing. And nothing is going to happen on streets or anything else without it going through our staff, the Planning Commission, the City Council. Barko: You brought up a very good point in the participation end of it. And the Redevelopment Area, this Redevelopment Area is going to build a on ramp to the freeway. The Lakes, the Marriott, the shopping center on Cook and Country Club, I mean Cook and 111 are going to all benefit from it, but they're not participating. That shows discrimination. Now when we had the last rain and that Whitewater Wash was closed, the merchants at 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 27, 1991 EXHIBIT -A' 111 and Cook screamed bloody murder because they were losing $10,000.00a day, yet they are not being approached to participate in the bridge. Why? Well I can't figure that out. Altman: Its because we're taking out of tax increment. The other people are participating in the bridge over the freeway, which is a heck of a lot more money. There you're looking at $13,000,000.00. We're not asking you folks to participate. Barko: What about the on ramp and the off ramp? Altman: Pardon me? Barko: The on ramp and the off ramp? Altman: Yeah. And the rest. Barko: Nobody's participating on that except this Redevelopment Area No. 3. Altman: No. There's an assessment district being formed, that's not true. Barko: He told me that we, that this was going to be built out of this area. Altman: Sir. That's a whole different issue. That has nothing to do with what's on the agenda. I'll be glad to sit down and explain the thing to you sometime too. But believe me, there is no money coming out of your pocket. Barko: But, Kelly: Just let me say one thing. If we don't have the Redevelopment District, then instead of building the bridge and fixing the streets and everything, that same money that you pay is going to go to Riverside and they are going to build a bridge in Riverside somewhere. The Redevelopment District allows us to keep our money here and build things here. The only thing we accomplish is doing it here instead of them taking the money to Riverside and using it. You don't pay a nickel more. All of us are in Redevelopment Districts and all of these things that we've done in the City of Palm Desert, all of the storm drains, Portola and Palm Valley, and all the streets and all of the parks that we do. All of those things, if we didn't have Redevelopment Districts, we wouldn't have one single one of those items. What you have to understand is you're going to pay exactly the same, not a nickel more, but instead of the money going to Riverside it stays here. Barko: To relay the fears. Kelly: Did you hear that? Barko: Yes, I heard that. But to relay the fears. Kelly: But you're not go;^g to accept it though, but you're nc oing to accept it are you? 28 • '440PI'TI'FS ^ PALM DESERT REDEVETMENT AGENCY MEETING ( l JUNE 27, 1991 '" • - * • • * • • • * • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • * • • • • • EXHIBIT 'A' Barko: No. I want to know one thing. Would you take and to relay the fears of this, the people within this Redevelopment Area, give them a letter stating that the taxes would not be raised at any time or that they would not be assessed. Assessed. Kelly: They'll be exactly the same, whether they're in the redevelopment or not. Barko: Yeah, but would you give us a letter stating that they would not be assessed because of the Redevelopment Area. Kelly: The County. Barko: The Council? Kelly: The County may raise the assessment as they do, but whatever. Barko: I'm talking about the Redevelopment Area giving us a letter stating that the Redevelopment Area would not a" s this area. Wilson: Mr. Strauss would you address this? Strauss: Mr. Barko. Barko: That would eliminate everything. Strauss: All you're looking for is something in writing to the effect that a Redevelopment Agency has no power to levy a tax or assess. Barko: That they will not. Strauss: Okay. Barko: And eliminate their condemnation powers too that they hold over the development. Kelly: We are all living in Redevelopment Districts. If we didn't all live in Redevelopment Districts, the City of Palm Desert would look just like it did 20 years ago. Barko: I know, but I want my place. Brent: Mr. Kelly, Mr. Kelly can I ask you a question? My name is Bob Brent, I live at 294 Tava Lane, Mountainview Falls. Was it a requirement in the report that they reported that this is a blighted area? I mean she made an absolute point of stating how blighted the area was. Was that a requirement to get this redevelopment? • Wilson: There is a requirement that there is blight in the area. Not each specific. Brent: You can understand how we feel if we're spending a lot of money for a house. 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 27, 1991 EXHIBIT "A'' Wilson: We can show you in Appendix C a number of conditions of blighted areas within that Project Area that is drawn. Yes. Brent: Yeah, but somebody coming to buy. Now the other side of the coin. Somebody coming to buy. Snyder: Let's don't keep this going on forever. Let me. Brent: I'm not. I just got up. Snyder: Let me, let me make a statement. As you pointed out, everyone of us, I live in a Redevelopment Agency area, my house is not depleted either but there are houses in the area that are and the object of this is to be able to try to improve our City and to use the taxes that you and I pay to improve our City. My taxes have never been raised, I've never been assessed, but we have completed one of the finest flood control areas in the State. In 1976 the golf club I belong to and live on was demolished from floods out of the mountains. There was no way we could create an assessment district or some way to tax people to build that flood control system which was $30,000,000.00. We applied and received the approval of creating a Redevelopment Agency and the taxes that came out of that Redevelopment Agency, the additional taxes was used to buy bonds and build the flood control. My taxes didn't go up a penny and now my home is free from that. In the area, we've put in streets and curbs and sewers with those taxations. The only thing that we're doing in a Redevelopment Agency is attempting to be able to use the taxes that we all pay to be used here and not over there. And I'll guarantee you that if it goes over there, you look at what we get now, its damn little. Barko: I agree with you except. Snyder: And I'm getting tired of this. Barko: If you could get a letter from this Council stating that the Redevelopment Area will not raise our taxes, that. Snyder: We'll give you a letter that the Redevelopment Agency will not raise your taxes because they couldn't if they wanted to. You'll get the letter. Wilson: I think that's the assurance Mr. Barko is looking for, and we would ask the Mayor with the help of the attorney, to prepare a letter that spells exactly out what your concerns are and address. Ortega: Mr. Chairman. Snyder: If there's no further testimony. 30 • MiNUTESe PALM DESERT REDEVE1nMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 27, 1991 • • • • • • • • • • s • • # # • • • • • • • * # # # # # # # # • • * * EXHIBIT 'A' Ortega: Then Mr. Mayor as I've indicated, all of the comments that have been submitted in writing will be addressed in writing per the requirements and we should have all of those to you for appropriate action at the next meeting, which will be July the 1 lth. Snyder: Are there any final questions by the Members of the Council or the Agency? If there are no further testimony on the Redevelopment Plan or the final EIR, the Chair will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Wilson: So moved. Kelly: Second. Snyder: Please vote. Gilligan: Motion carries by unanimous vote. Snyder: The Agency and the City Council will consider and act upon their proposed Redevelopment Plan and final EIR at the next Agency/City Council meeting scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Thursday, July the l l th. 31