Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-06-14MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 2001 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER I. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairman Kelly convened the meeting at 4:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Excused Absence: Member Jean M. Benson Member Buford A. Crites Member Robert A. Spiegel Chairman Jim Ferguson Vice Chairman Richard S. Kelly Also Present: Sheila R. Gilligan, Asst. City Manager for Community Services/City Clerk David J. Erwin, City Attorney Richard J. Folkers, Asst. City Manager for Development Services Phil Drell, Director of Community Development Teresa La Rocca, Director of Housing Martin Pinon, Director of Human Resources Joseph S. Gaugush, Director of Public Works/City Engineer David Yrigoyen, Director of Redevelopment J. Luis Espinoza, Finance Operations Manager Rachelle D. Klassen, Deputy City Clerk III. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS None MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 14, 2001 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of May 24, 2001, and the Adjourned Joint Meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency of May 25, 2001. The Minutes of the Adjourned Joint Meeting of May 25, 2001, were continued to the meeting of June 28, 2001, and the remainder of the Minutes were approved as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE AGENCY TREASURY - Warrant Nos. 101RDA, 102RDA, 101-Housing, and 102-Housing. Rec: Approve as presented. C. AGENCY'S PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT SUMMARIES for the Months Ending March 31, and April 30, 2001. Rec: Receive and file. Member Spiegel moved to continue the Minutes of the Adjourned Joint Meeting of May 25, 2001, to June 28, 2001, and to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Member Crites and Chairman Ferguson ABSENT. V. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None VI. RESOLUTIONS None VII. NEW BUSINESS None VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS None 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 14, 2001 IX. OLD BUSINESS None X. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND PALM DESERT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND ACTIONS RELATED THERETO (JOINT CONSIDERATION WITH THE PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL). Housing Manager Teresa La Rocca reviewed the staff report for the project on the 40-acre site purchased by the City in May of 1998 for future development of affordable housing. She said that in June of 1999, an initial preliminary site plan was presented to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency for consideration, and staff was directed to revisit the site plan and come back with alternative proposals. Numerous revisions to the site plan had occurred since June 1999 in order to accommodate the expansion of the City's Corporation Yard, a multi -family project, single-family for sale, and additional parking for the soccer park. The project was resubmitted in January of 2001; however, it was redesigned in order to incorporate energy - efficiency components in response to the current energy crisis. As a result, the project's physical layout and architectural design was reevaluated and changed in order to respond to and incorporate the Council's desire to make the project an award -winning, energy -efficient project. She said in August of 2000, the Redevelopment Agency entered into an exclusive agreement with Palm Desert Development to create a design for the multi -family site. She noted that the 162 units would assist the City in meeting its legally - mandated production goal, as required in the stipulation for entry of judgment between the City and the Western Center for Law and Poverty. They would be affordable to families at below 60% of the County median income, they would be owned and operated by Palm Desert Development through private management and would be counted toward the stipulation production numbers. She added that staff and the developer had met and corresponded with members of Portola Country Club since September of 2000 in an attempt to alleviate concerns and answer questions. Meetings had been held with residents of Portola Country Club and residents to the south of the proposed project. Ms. La Rocca said the Disposition and Development Agreement before the Council at this meeting would provide for a donation of the site to the 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 14, 2001 developer, a loan to the developer in the amount of $7,659,473, which would be amortized over 55 years and payable in 30 years. She said the developer would be required to apply for and receive tax credits, and the project would have 55-year affordability covenants and would consist of two-, three-, and four -bedroom units. She offered to answer any questions. Mr. Drell reviewed the history of the property. He noted that at the Planning Commission hearing, considerable testimony was offered by Mr. Henry McCarty, who felt the site was inappropriate for housing of any sort and that its location next to the industrial area makes it inappropriate. He said one of the concerns raised by Mr. McCarty was the use of hazardous materials in the industrial area. He noted that the City's Corporation Yard had collected household hazardous waste on a quarterly basis, with one more collection scheduled. He said the industrial area had been in that location and had operated for approximately 35 years, and it was adjacent to the Leslie/Merle housing development for that same amount of time. Staff had spoken with the County Fire Marshal and asked if there had been any history in that time of any incidents, hazards, or health problems relative to the use of hazardous materials. He said they were unable to find a single incident or any evidence of the occurrence of a hazardous waste problem. Another issue raised was that the project was too dense with 162 rental units and 117 single-family units. He said the overall density of the apartments was 13 units per acre, with the density of the single-family units being five units per acre. He noted that both One Quail Place and San Tropez were 22 units per acre, and Desert Rose was seven units per acre. The overall density with the combined rental units and single-family was 7.4 units per acre, just slightly more than the density of Desert Rose. With regard to traffic, Mr. McCarty felt the traffic study was inadequate because it was done on April 10th and 11th, not during peak traffic season in Palm Desert. Mr. Drell noted that the traffic study was done during Easter week, which historically was the highest traffic volume period in the City during the year. He stated that this project was unique in that it would have access to three separate signalized intersections. He said Mr. McCarty also felt it was necessary for the City to study the intersections at Hovley/Portola and Hovley/Cook Street. He said typically, when it is found that the nearest intersections do not have an impact, the impacts on intersections further away lessen because of the distance and the disbursement of the traffic. He said that was why those intersections were not studied to begin with. He noted that the traffic generated from this project would constitute one percent 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 14, 2001 of the volume going through those intersections and would result in a statistically insignificant half -second delay. Another issue was that in the plan as presented to the Planning Commission, the access from the project to Merle was not to be developed in phase one and, therefore, all the traffic would be funneled toward 42"d and Corporate Way. He said he agreed with Mr. McCarty, and staff was recommending that the main road connecting the project with Merle should be installed with phase one, and this was now being required as a condition of approval. He said another issue pointed out by Mr. McCarty was that the City did not do an analysis of pedestrian access to the project, and Mr. McCarty's feeling was that pedestrians and children would be forced to walk through the industrial area to reach most of their desired destinations. The project itself was designed with internal sidewalks, which would directly access the soccer fields. This would then allow access to Hovley Lane through the soccer fields, and a temporary asphalt sidewalk had been put in on Hovley to get the children to Carter School, with permanent sidewalks to be put in as part of the project. He noted that the project had been designed in such a way that there were many destinations that could be reached from this site without ever having to cross a major street. He said there was one area where there was a deficiency, and that was down 42"d to Cook Street, with no sidewalks currently on 42"d. He said one of the conditions was a requirement that sidewalks be installed on 42"d, the City Engineer was confident that a sidewalk could be installed at least on the north side of 42"d and possibly the south side as well, although the south side presented a significant number of existing physical barriers that would make said construction a substantial endeavor. Mayor Pro-TemNice Chairman Kelly said he felt it would be preferable to have a sidewalk on the south side, and he asked staff what kind of obstacles would prevent such an installation. Mr. Gaugush responded that there was a large drainage structure toward the Cook Street end of the street. In addition, a number of the facilities constructed along Hovley Lane with various driveway locations made it challenging to construct an ADA-compliant sidewalk. Mr. Drell stated that an issue raised by Mr. McCarty and a resident of Merle Street dealt with the phasing of the project. He said the precise plan before the Council now involved only the apartments. There was also before the Council a master plan that involved the entire project, including the single- 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 14, 2001 family portion. He said staff felt very strongly that this is one project, and it needs to be developed as such. He added that there had been a great deal of effort to integrate, visually and functionally, the multi -family units with the single-family units. Therefore, conditions had been added as follows: the investment to put in the single-family serving roadway; requiring that prior to the opening of the multi -family project in approximately 18 months, that the Housing Authority process a tentative map and record it; that within one year of the opening of the project, construction shall be initiated on the single- family portion of the development. He noted that the goal of this project was to integrate this neighborhood with the existing neighborhood on Merle. With regard to the issue of integration, a Planning Commissioner expressed interest in seeing the individual two-story apartment building spread and sprinkled among the single -story single-family. However, the tax credit program requires all of the project to be on a contiguous piece of property. The design was done so as to blur the line between the single-family and multi -family. Upon question by Councilman/Member Spiegel, Mr. Drell responded that this would not be a walled community, although there would be six-foot walls along the back yards of the houses. In addition, there would be a six-foot wall along the interface with the industrial area and a wall along 42"d up to the entrance. He said there would not be a wall between the single-family and multi -family uses. Councilman/Member Spiegel also questioned the views for people living on the second story on the east side of the project near 42' Street and asked what they would see other than the City's Corporate Yard. Mr. Drell responded that it would most likely be rooftops. Upon question by Councilman Spiegel relative to pedestrian access to Carter School along the south side of Hovley, Mr. Drell responded that a temporary asphalt sidewalk had been installed, and a permanent sidewalk would be installed. MR. REUEL YOUNG, President of Interactive Design Corporation, Palm Springs, reviewed the site plan and architectural concept of the project. Mayor Pro-TemNice Chairman Kelly asked what had been done, other than awnings, to address energy conservation. MR. YOUNG responded that the project would exceed Title 24 by 15%. He said that would be accomplished by two things: The coatings on glass is a low E coding, and the efficiency of the compressors is higher than standard. Each of the buildings has awnings over the windows where there are no 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 14, 2001 overhangs, and the orientation of the buildings was such that the broad expanse was primarily to the south and the north, with the end units primarily to the east and west. He noted that Pat Conlon had made a presentation regarding micro generators or fuel cells for the entire site, although it was not yet known whether they would be incorporated in this project. He reviewed the proposed landscaping for the project as well, noting that the plans would be brought to the Landscape Committee, Architectural Review Commission, and City Council for final approval. Councilman/Member Spiegel asked if the project would include a community garden. Ms. La Rocca responded that this was something that had been discussed with the developer and would be looked at more closely as the project design is being done. She agreed there was room in the project to incorporate such a community garden. Mr. Drell agreed and said ideally, such a community garden would be shared and common to the whole project and not kept exclusively for the multi- family. He added that some of the Tots would be retention Tots, and they could be designed as part of the community garden. Mayor Pro-Tem/Vice Chairman Kelly declared the public hearing open and invited testimony in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to this project. The following individuals spoke in FAVOR of the project for the following reasons: it is a good project, it has been in the planning stage for about three years, the deadline for approval would cause significant impacts to everyone concerned, it is important for people who work in the community to have decent places to live, easy access to the schools. MS. KATHLEEN KOPP, 44-870 Cabrillo, Palm Desert. MR. ALIBABA FARZANEH, Newcastle Drive, Palm Desert. MS. KATHLEEN BROWN, 46-575 Clinton Street, Indio Desert Palms Apartments, employed in Palm Desert. MR. ROGER DASH, member of and speaking on behalf of the City's Housing Commission. The following spoke in OPPOSITION to the project not because they were opposed to affordable housing as such but for the following reasons: they felt the project had been pushed through hurriedly, impacts on the schools with increased numbers of students, safety of the children, lack of large recreational area in the project for the 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 14, 2001 children to give them something to do after school, incompatibility of the residential project with the adjacent service industrial properties to the north, the project is too dense, the project does not provide adequate pedestrian access to surrounding destinations, the two residential components were not adequately integrated, the project is not properly planned and does not guarantee the residents of the project a safe neighborhood and wholesome quality of life, the traffic study was incomplete and did not include a study of the intersection of Hovley Lane and Portola, all of the traffic generated by the project must access 42"d Street to Corporate Way or Cook Street, the findings in the traffic study of Merle and Sheryl are not applicable until the second phase of the project, the traffic study was during done during the week on April 10-11 and not a high traffic period in Palm Desert, the traffic study did not make reference to the pedestrian traffic generated in the industrial area with hazardous wastes. MR. HAROLD MALABY, resident of Palm Desert. MR. TOM MAGUIRE, resident of Portola Country Club. MR. HENRY McCARTY, 74-409 Angels Camp Road, Palm Desert, reviewed his letter of June 12, 2001 (on file and of record in the City Clerk's Office). MS. LUCILLE WILLIAMSON. MS. MARILYN LOWIE, resident of Portola Country Club. MR. BOB ALLSOPP, resident of Portola Country Club. MR. MURRAY JENSEN. MS. JO ELLEN CLARK, resident of Chaparral Country Club, stated that although it was said that the surrounding areas were notified of this public hearing, those at Chaparral had heard nothing about it until this morning. MR. DAN HORN, Palm Desert Development, developer of the project, disagreed that this project had been rushed and said his original conversations with the City started almost three years ago; this was the third site plan. He noted that the project would have been before the Council in February or March; however, he was directed in March to start making some accommodations for the energy crisis and include them in the design and layout. With regard to the schools, he said the District did write a letter indicating it would be impacted; however, that was the standard letter put out to justify the school fees paid by the developer. Those fees do mitigate the impact. In addition, this particular school had been redistricted, and the school would actually be losing students as a result. He said his staff had been in contact with representatives at the school, and they were in favor of the project. He noted that students could access any of the schools without crossing any major streets. He said there would be after school programs at the school 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 14, 2001 run by the YMCA, and there would also be some on -site programs at the project itself. With regard to the comment about not enough recreational facilities nearby, he said this site was adjacent to a 21-acre park with basketball courts, soccer fields, swings, and other play equipment. The site itself would have a pool and several recreational areas. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Pro-TemNice Chairman Kelly declared the public hearing closed. Councilman/Member Spiegel stated that he had met with the Superintendent of Desert Sands Unified School District and three of her staff members to discuss this development. He said there was an elementary school planned on Country Club near Washington, and that would take the impact from that part of the City off of Carter School. This development would not, therefore, have a negative impact. With regard to there being nothing for the youth to do, he noted that there are many programs in the City, including barbecues at the soccer facility, basketball courts, tot lots, etc. He felt it was important to have sidewalks installed on 42"d Street and on Hovley Lane. With regard to his comment about the single story units, he said he was talking about the one building that overlooks the City's Corporate Yard, not the whole project. He noted the memorandum from Tom Theobald and said there was no hazardous waste at the Corporation Yard, nor has there ever been. He said it was disturbing to hear that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was incomplete. Mr. Drell responded that the EIR was complete and had been signed. Councilmember/Member Benson said this project had been sent back so many times for revision, and the developer finally came up with a design that was acceptable to the committee. The committee had also toured other projects in the Coachella Valley done by Dan Horn to see how they were maintained and kept up. She felt that, like Palm Desert's Desert Rose project, people would be pleased to live in them. She noted that there was more for kids to do in Palm Desert than in any other city in the Coachella Valley. She expressed concern that if this project does not go forward now, she did not know when it would ever go forward. Mayor Pro-TemNice Chairman Kelly said he had served on the committee because of his concern that affordable housing be done properly. He felt the City of Palm Desert had done an excellent job with its affordable housing. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 14, 2001 He noted that most people did not even know where the affordable housing was in Palm Desert because it had been done so nicely. He stated that his idea about the single-family units was that the row of houses next to Portola Country Club be senior affordable housing. If the City is successful in doing that, he did not see how there could be a better project to be adjacent to than senior affordable housing. He said a lot of time had been spent in this process to make sure that the project did not impact the existing neighborhoods and that it is a complex that will be safe for the people who live there. He agreed that there needed to be sidewalks along 42nd Street and Hovley Lane. He added that he felt this project when completed will be an asset to the City and to the existing neighborhoods. Councilman/Member Spiegel moved to: 1) By Minute Motion, authorize execution of a Grant Deed transferring title of 40 acres of real property within the area of the City known as Sectionl6 and being located between Avenue 42 and Merle Drive west of Cook Street, Palm Desert, California, to the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency; 2) waive further reading and adopt City Council Resolution No. 01-77, approving the sale of property by the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency to Palm Desert Development Company for development of multifamily affordable housing units pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 3 and loan by the Agency for construction and development costs of the project; 3) waive further reading and adopt Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. 418, approving the sale of property by the Agency to Palm Desert Development Company for development of multifamily affordable housing units pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 3 and loan by the Agency for construction and development costs of the project; 4) by Minute Motion, approve the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Agency and Palm Desert Development Company, providing for the transfer of the property and authorizing the Chairman to execute all necessary documents. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Councilman/Member Crites and Mayor/Chairman Ferguson ABSENT. XI. REPORTS, REMARKS, AND AGENCY BOARD ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION A. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR None B. AGENCY COUNSEL Request for Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 14, 2001 1) Property: APN 632-030-003 (South of Hovley Lane, east of Beacon Hill) Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: Frank Keenan Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment Mr. Erwin asked that the following item be added to the Closed Session Agenda: 2) Property: APN 653-020-062 (Approximately 11.48 acres) Negotiating Parties: Agency: Carlos L. Ortega/City of Palm Desert/Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency Property Owner: A. J. Lazar Under Negotiation: x Price x Terms of Payment Member Spiegel moved to add this item to the Closed Session Agenda. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Member Crites and Chairman Ferguson ABSENT. Upon motion by Spiegel, second by Benson, and unanimous vote of the Agency _ Board, Vice Chairman Kelly adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m. to Closed Session. He reconvened the meeting at 7:08 p.m. C. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY None XII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING JUNE 14, 2001 XIII. ADJOURNMENT Member Benson moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 3-0 vote, with Member Crites and Chairman Ferguson ABSENT. EST: .. r SHEILA R. GILt1GAN, " PALM DESERT RED CRETARY TO THE OPMENT AGENCY 12 R7CHARD S. IKELLY, VIC'CHAIRMAN