Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20971 - RESOLUTIONS - 6/2/2004 RESOLUTION NO. 20977 ' OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS FOR THE TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO THE MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California ("City Council") and the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs("Agency')desire to amend the Merged Redevelopment Plan for Merged Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 ("Plan"), and have prepared the Tahquitz-Andreas Eminent Domain Amendment ("Amendment"), as on file with the City Clerk, and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein; and WHEREAS, at the joint public hearing, the Mayor, as the presiding officer, called for public testimony, and all persons present were afforded the opportunity to testify and submit materials; and, WHEREAS, on May 5 and May 19, 2004, the Agency and City Council held a joint public hearing on the proposed Amendment and received and considered all evidence and testimony pertaining thereto, and; WHEREAS, written objections were presented at the joint public hearing; and, ' WHEREAS, Section 33363 of the Health and Safety Code provides that,wherewritten objections are received at or prior to the hearing concerning the adoption or amendment of a redevelopment plan, the legislative body: "...shall...respond in writing to the written objections...The written responses shall describe the disposition of the issues raised. The legislative body shall address the written objections in detail, giving reasons for not accepting the specified objections and suggestions. The legislative body shall include a good-faith, reasoned analysis in its response"; and, WHEREAS,Citystaff has reviewed the objections presented atthejoint public hearing, and has participated in the preparation of a response to said objections ("Response'), in the form submitted herewith as Exhibit"A"; and, WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed in detail the objections presented atthejoint public hearing and the Response,togetherwith all testimonyand reports presented atthejoint public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Springs as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council approves and adopts the Response to Written Objections, in the form submitted herewith, as their findings and response to the objections presented at the public ' hearing: Resolution 20971 Page 2 SECTION 2. The City Council hereby overrules the objections to the Amendment to the Merged Redevelopment Plan for Merged ' Redevelopment Project Area No. 2. ADOPTED this 2nd day of June , 2004. AYES: Members Foat, McCulloch, Mills, Pougnet, and Mayor Oden NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA City Clerk City aria REVIEWED & APPROVED 1�� EXHIBIT"A" ' RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT TO MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 2 Amendment to the Merged Redevelopment Plan ' for Merged Redevelopment Project No. 2 (Tahquitz-Andreas Eminent Domain Time Limit Extension) Response to Written Objections June 2, 2004 City of Palm Springs 3200 E.Tahquilz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 217 North Main Street, Suite 300 Santa Ana, California 92701-4822 PhoFax: ( : 4) 836 174585 Fax: (714) 836-'1748 / E-Mail: info@webrsg.com for Introduction On May 5, 2004 the City Council of the City of Palm Springs ("Council') and Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs(`Redevelopment Agency") held a joint public hearing on the proposed Tahquitz-Andreas Eminent Domain Amendment to the Merged Redevelopment Plan for Merged Redevelopment Project No. 2. The public hearing was continued to May 19, 2004 and closed that same date. The City Council received two (2) written objections for the proposed Amendment which were filed at the public hearing. The California Community Redevelopment Law("Redevelopment Law") requires that before considering an amendment to a redevelopment plan, the legislative body (City Council) shall evaluate all evidence and testimony, both for and against the adoption of the amendment, and make written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity. Further, the legislative body is to respond in writing to the written objections received before or at the noticed public hearing and that these responses shall describe the disposition of the issues raised and addressed in detail the reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions. ReportContents of this The two written objections were filed at the public hearing. This document is the written response of the City Council to the written objections submitted at the public hearing (`Response"). The objections were received from the following individuals: • S. Calvin Riley, believed to be a resident of property at 277 E. Alejo Road, #106 • Keith McCullough, Attorney at Law on behalf of Palm Springs Plumbing Co., Inc. and Ted Mandinach and Yvonne Roodberg, owners of property at 208- 226 N. Indian Canyon Drive. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -1- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS S.Calvin Riley ' 277 E.Alejo Road,#106 j'• a26aq. Palm Springs,CA 92262 And 219 West 1st Avenue Denver,CO 80223 April 19,2004 City Clerk City ofPalm Springs 3200 E.Tuhquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs,CA 92262 RE: Proposed Socond Ameudmettto Me4M Redevelopment Plan for Merged Redevelopment Project Number 2 Dear Madam: The City of Palm Springs used Eminent Domain to run out the Negroes in Section 14 in the 1960's. With the subject proposal,the City of Palm Springs will now be ' able to nm out the Gay and Lesbian businesses in Section 14,namely those businesses on the north side ofArenas Road between Indian CanyooDfive and Encilia Street. Hasn't the City of Palm Springs been shamed enough? LmincatDomain is a toot for the dole use of Ccrnrpt Politicians. This proposal should not be approved. sincerely, . l�Xl S.Calvin Riley ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -2- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS Responses to S. Calvin Riley Under the policy of the state and Section 33050 of the Redevelopment Law declares that undertaking community redevelopment projects under said section there shall be no discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry. In 1976, the City Council of the City of Palm Springs adopted Ordinance No. 1021 amending its Municipal Code relating to the powers and duties of the City's Human Relations Commission to include investigation of complaints of prejudice of any kind including but not limited to sexual orientation occurring within the City of Palm Springs. In 1992, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 1426 which established a Human Rights Commission whose duties included investigating incidents of discrimination, including discrimination because of sexual orientation. In 2000, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 1578 establishing a policy extending to unmarried domestic partners certain rights afforded to married couples and which restated the definition of "discrimination" in the Palm Springs Municipal Code as including discrimination because of sexual orientation. The City has shown through these actions a clear and consistent pattern of non-prejudicial actions based on sexual orientation. The Redevelopment Agency will not utilize eminent domain or any means to displace Tahquitz-Andreas area residents, businesses, or property owners on the basis of sexual orientation, race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry. Finding Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before the City Council, the City Council hereby finds that the use of eminent domain will not be utilized to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. The objections presented by S. Calvin Riley are unfounded and overruled. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -3- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS Keith McCullough, Attorney at Law on behalf of Palm Springs Plumbing Co., Inc. ' and Ted Mandinach and Yvonne Roodberg MCCORMICK, KI➢MAN BE BEHRENS, LLP LAWYERS N L (MIKEI M COq MILK^ 695 TOWN CENTCR ORIVE SACRAMENTO OFFICE AFIHUR c K SUITE 10 0 A. N,NTX STRICT RUSSCLL O }EHRCNS- ID'^FLDDR SVZ.LNNC M TAGUE^ COSTA M89A.,CA&xFOnmA 92626-7187 SACRAMCHTO. CALIFORNIA 96614-2736 JANET R MDfl XIRCSTgR^ TCLEPHONEE"'AI 165-3100 TELCPHb NE 11I61 N9-9533 KEITH E MCCULLOU1.1 IBOOI J56 3125 FA%191611f6-TID1 Artl GAVIC L O XILLN-L . A.ITI41166-3110 RAXEL+ VAYNE NWNmkblLWyaa Dgll rwbrvD c FALMDacI R euTKAM MICH MICHAEL J ALTO 'A..FESNO .cDIMDRwnD. May 4,2004 Via Facsimile and Overnight Mail Fax Number: 760/322-8332 Board of Directors Community Redevelopment Agency of the City it Palm Springs C/o City Clerk-City of Palm.Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs,CA 92262 Re: Proposed Amendment to Merged Redevelopment Plan for Merged Redevelopment Project No.2,to Reinstate Community Redevelopment Agency's Eminent Domain Authority in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area Dear Members of the Board of Directors: This firm represents Palm Springs Plumbing Co.,Inc,and Ted Mandinach and Yvonne Roodberg owners of property located at 208-226 North Indian Canyon Drive, Palm Springs,California. Palm Springs Plumbing has done business in the designated Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area for several decades. Please allow this letter to act as objections to the proposed Amendment,proposed Ordinance and related documentation. We also request that this correspondence become part of the Administrative Record and be read and considered by the members of the Board of Directors in contemplation of the proposed Amendment,proposed Ordinance and related documentation. Our comments generally follow the order of the report from the Director of Community and Economic Development to the City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency dated May 5,2004. The order of our comments should not be deemed to place a priority or particular significance on one comment over another because of its placement in this letter. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -4- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS HtCoR xca:, KIDUAN & BEHRENS, I.I.P Board o`Mireclors Community Redevelopment Agency City of Palm Springs c/o City Clerk-City of Palm Springs Date: May 4,2004 Page: 2 A Joint Public Hearing is Inappropriate and Creates Confusion The entity empowered to conduct activities associated with redevelopment laws contained in the Health&Safety Code is the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs. While the City Council may convene itself as the Community Redevelopment Agency,Redevelopment powers can only be exercised by the Agency. Noticing and holding a joint public hearing between the City Council and the Community Redevelopment Agency simply causes confusion as to which entity is purporting to exercise Redevelopment Agency powers. Furthermore,as the proposed Amendment and Ordinance would suggest that eminent domain powers be asserted in the Tahquitz- Andreas Constituent Area,holding a joint meeting creates confusion as to which entity would purport to exercise such eminent domain powers. The exercise of eminent domain powers is of limited scope and jurisdiction. Conducting a joint hearing between the City Council and the Community ' Redevelopment Agency without specific designation and clear expression of which entity is purporting to act and which entity would purport to be empowered with eminent domain authority in the future,is beyond the scope of limited eminent domain powers and creates confusion with area constituents. There is no Authority to Revive Expired Eminent Domain Powers As set forth in the Director's Report to the City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency,"the Agency's authority to use eminent domain to acquire property in this area ex fired on July 19, 1995. If adopted the Amendment would extend the Agency's authority to use eminent domain... ." (Emphasis added). As is admitted, the eminent domain authority expired some nine years ago. The director's use of the term"extend"is entirely inappropriate and contrary to California law. More particularly, there is no authority for the"extension"of eminent domain powers within a redevelopment project area once those powers have expired. Nor is there authority to revive eminent domain powers once those powers have expired within an area. While Health&Safety Code Section 33333.2(a)(4)provides that eminent domain powers originally limited not to exceed twelve years from the adoption of the plan may be extended by amendment of the plan,there is no provision for a revival of eminent domain authority which has already expired. The time to have considered extension of the eminent domain powers under the plan would have been before those powers expired on July 19, 1995. Therefore the Agency and the City Council ate without authority to take the action of extending eminent domain powers when those powers have already expired. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHOUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -5- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MQCORMICK, MI)My{AN & BE$RENS. LLP Board OI Ln'eetors Community Redevelopment Agency City of Palm Springs c/o City Clerk-City of Palm Springs Date: May 4,2004 Page; 3 There is no,Proper Identification of`Blighted Conditions" The term`Blighted Conditions"is simply being used as a pretext for the power to condemn private property from one landowner and deliver it to another. As the report indicates,[his plan area has been in existence since 1983. Conditions of Blight,if any do actually exist,can now be said to relate to the very existence of a redevelopment plan area that has been designated for over twenty years and to date has apparently been completely ineffective to alleviate blighted conditions. , We are informed and understand that there are admittedly no projects currently proposed for the plan area. If there are no projects currently contemplated,are there truly "blighted"conditions requiring the exercise of the extreme powers of a public entity to take private property for some currently unplanned and undesignated future use? Furthermore,it is apparent from the director's own report that the Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians would be the beneficiary of any exercise of eminent domain ' powers in this area. Specifically,the Director reports: 'The Tahquitz-Andreas Area is fully contained within Section 14,and after consideration of the PAC's recommendation and concurrent input from tribal representatives who did not foresee the use of residential eminent domain authority as critical to their Section 14 development plans,Agency staff modified the proposed Amendment to be consistent with the PAC's recommendation." It is apparent from the Director's report that tribal representatives were specifically consulted as to the scope of the purported,eminent domain authority to be exercised,and when the tribe commented that residential properties would not be necessary to meet the Tribe's development plans,residential properties were dropped from this proposed Amendment and Ordinance. Indeed,it is apparent that the Redevelopment Agency and its staff has taken its lead from the Tribe,and by implication of the Director's own comments,it appears that the Redevelopment Agency's intent in designating the scope of eminent domain powers is to be solely consistent with the Tribe's desires and designated development plans. It is apparent from the comments that the proposed revival of eminent domain powers would be to favor the Tribe over existing private property owners within the plan area. The exercise of eminent domain powers under such terms and conditions would not be a legitimate public use within the jurisdiction and authority of the City of Palm Springs or the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs. Therefore,the basis for"revival"or"extension"of eminent domain powers is lacking. Additionally,the proposed Ordinance contains certain purported findings which cannot be supported with the record available. Specifically,proposed Finding No. 1 and ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -6- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MCCOBMICK, KIDM N & BEHRENS, r.LP LAWYERS Board of Directors Community Redevelopment Agency City of Palm Springs c/o City Clerk-City of Palm Springs Date: May 4,2004 Page: 4 its subparts is not consistent with the actual conditions experienced within the City. As an example,there is no description of investigation engaged in by staff of the ability of private enterprise to correct supposedly blighted conditions. Indeed since the plan has been in effect for over twenty years,the Redevelopment Agency has admittedly been ineffective in removing whatever blighted conditions may exist. The ability of private enterprise and private property owners to pursue plans,in-fill development,and/or coordinated and cooperative developments is hampered if the Redevelopment Agency is Hot willing to take the lead on such owner-initiated plans. Indeed the prospect of eminent domain authority in the hands of the Redevelopment Agency would further essentially preclude owner-initiated projects in the area because of the threat of having such efforts condemned for the benefit of other private entities whom the Redevelopment Agency favors more highly than existing owners. In this instance that favored entity appears to be the Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Certainly if the Redevelopment Agency possesses eminent domain powers, prudent property owners in the area,upon considering the prospects of sale or consolidation of their properties,would advise prospective purchasers of the Redevelopment Agency's revived power to condemn economically feasible development plans for the benefit of another private entity with whom the Redevelopment Agency desired to work. This requirement of disclosure and threat of eminent domain power thwarts the ability of existing private enterprise to purposely move forward with plans in the area due to the threat of having their investments condemned for the benefit of another. The Threat of Eminent Domain Creates a Cloud on Properties Within the Area Merged Redevelopment Project Area No.2 takes in vast blocks and tracts of land within the City of Palm Springs. The Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area encompasses many blocks in and of itself, Should the Agency and/or City Council proceed with the intended action,all the properties within the designated area would be clouded under the threat of eminent domain acquisition. As alluded to earlier,prudent property owners would advise prospective purchasers of the designation of their properties within a specified redevelopment project area and of the purported and specific powers of the Redevelopment Agency to condemn their properties. The Agency's contentions that there are.no current plans for the exercise of eminent domain powers are insufficient to remove the cloud on title that the threat of eminent domain would create. If the Agency truly has no plans for the exercise of eminent domain,then this begs the question of why the current Amendment and Ordinance are even being considered. ) SW /3 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHOUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -7- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MGCoRmicK. f{I mr w & FlErrxmNs, r.I.P LAWS tRS Board of Directors Community Redevelopment Agency City of Palm Springs c/o City Clerk-City of Palm Springs Date: May 4,2004 Page: 5 If indeed eminentdomain powers are necessary to correct blighted conditions,an identifiable plan and narrow geographic area should be designated for action. This- course of action is contrary to the present course the Redevelopment Agency is considering. There is No Consistency with the Timing of Eminent Domain Powers in Other Areas At the community meeting held April 19,2004,Redevelopment Agency staff and consultants indicated that one reason for pursuing the revival of eminent domain powers within the Tahquitz-Andreas Area is to be in timing sequence with eminent domain powers in other project areas. This purported reasoning is without foundation, Indeed the Redevelopment Agency has purported to revive eminent domain powers in otherproject areas for an additional twelve-year term,the last of which occurred over one year ago. Therefore,any purportedly revived eminent domain powers within the Tabquitz-Andreas Area would specifically not be in timing sequence and compatible with emnent domain powers purportedly exercisable in other redevelopment project areas within the City. At this juncture,it appears that the contemplated Amendment,Ordinance and related documents should not be further pursued by the City Council and/or Community Redevelopment Agency. Economic redevelopment within the Tabquitz-Andreas Area can be accomplished through other activities and cooperative joint plans with existing property owners without the heavy-handed means of taking private property through the use of eminent domain. Therefore,we encourage the City Council and/or Community Redevelopment Agency to refuse to adopt the proposed Amendment,Ordinance and related documentation. We thank you for your earnest consideration of these comments. Sincerely yours, CCame BEBRENS,L P LOU KETV1/dl cc: Palm Springs Plumbing Co.,Inc. z:\usersdata\dlee\P.S.Plumbruguetters\13ond of Directors ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHOUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -8- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS Responses to Keith McCullough, Attorney at Law on behalf of Palm Springs Plumbing Co., Inc,and Ted Mandinach and Yvonne Roodberg This letter delineated several objections to the procedures and justification for the proposed Amendment. These have been individually addressed below: 1) "Joint Public Hearing is Inappropriate": Both the Redevelopment Agency and City Council must participate in the amendment of redevelopment plans under state law, essentially because the Redevelopment Agency is the custodian of the Redevelopment Plan, and any amendments can only be enacted by adoption of an ordinance of the legislative body (City Council). Sections 33451 and 33454 of the Redevelopment Law require that both the Redevelopment Agency and the legislative body(City Council) conduct public hearings on the Amendment. Pursuant to Section 33458, as an alternative to separate public hearings, the Redevelopment Agency and City Council may conduct a joint public hearing with the consent of both entities. On March 17, 2004, the Redevelopment Agency and City Council adopted separate resolutions consenting to the joint public hearings, and the joint public hearing was duly noticed as such. Said notice of joint public hearing clearly stated that the purpose of the amendment was to provide the Redevelopment Agency (and not the City Council) the authority to use eminent domain on property within the Tahquitz-Andreas constituent area with certain limitations. While it is unfortunate the author found confusion in the procedure of the ' Amendment, the method is consistent with Redevelopment Law. 2) "There is no Authority to Revive Expired Eminent Domain Powers": It is notable that the author references Section 33333.2(a) of the Redevelopment Law, which is only applicable to redevelopment plans adopted on or after January 1, 1994, or amendments that add territory and that are adopted on or after January 1, 1994. (The Tahquitz-Andreas Redevelopment Plan was adopted in 1983, and is not subject to these particular requirements) The authority to amend redevelopment plans is provided to redevelopment agencies under Section 33450 of the Redevelopment Law, Section 33333.4(g)(2) establishes a 12-year time limit on the commencement of eminent domain for redevelopment plans adopted on or after October 1, 1976 and prior to January 1, 1994. This section also provides that "this time limit may be extended only pursuant to an amendment of the redevelopment plan". However, Redevelopment Law does not prohibit extensions of eminent domain authority simply because the previous time limit expired. Nor is there a prohibition against amending the plan to add eminent domain power either for the first time or for a subsequent time if all the procedures have been followed. The fact that the original power had expired is immaterial because all required noticing and a PAC was formed to study the issue and make recommendations concerning the proposed amendment adding eminent domain back to the plan. In fact the ability to extend the time by ' amendment is not a limiting rule by the legislature but rather allows a continuation of the power if the amendment process is followed. If the I ��4;I ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -9- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS legislature had wanted the expiration to be absolute with no ability to ever enact it again, it would have specifically so stated. Instead by allowing extensions by amendment, it merely requires that periodically the need for the power be reevaluated by conducting an amendment process and hearing. 3) "There is no Proper Identification of 'Blighted Conditions"': The authority to use eminent domain to remediate blight and redevelop property has been established by the State courts as a legitimate public use. Persistent blighting conditions that may require the use of eminent domain, as well as the inability of the private sector to remedy these conditions, were documented in the Redevelopment Agency's Report to the City Council submitted into the record at the joint public hearing. The author provides no basis to support the claim that blight continues to exist in the Tahquitz-Andreas area due to the existence of the redevelopment plan itself. Indeed, the Tahquitz-Andreas Redevelopment Plan (incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Redevelopment Project No. 2) has a 41-year duration, consistent with most redevelopment plans adopted at its time. Several successful redevelopment projects have been completed since its adoption in 1983, but to assume that redevelopment should arbitrarily be complete in the entire Tahquitz-Andreas area approximately halfway through the legitimate duration of the Redevelopment Plan is unrealistic and contrary to the statutory provisions granted to redevelopment agencies in Redevelopment Law. ' The fact that the Redevelopment Agency has not established a timeframe or plan for using eminent domain has no bearing on the authority to amend the Redevelopment Plan pursuant to Sections 33333.4(g)(2) and 33450 of the Redevelopment Law, contrary to the author's allegations. , The Redevelopment Agency may indeed use eminent domain in the future, but it cannot proceed without the authority effective in the Redevelopment Plan, and therefore the Amendment was proposed. Consulting representatives of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians is appropriate given the unique nature of tribal land ownership in the United States. The Tribe has fee ownership over much of the Tahquitz-Andreas area, and several additional parcels are owned by allottees associated with the Tribe. In light of this, the Redevelopment Agency saw it appropriate to discuss the proposed Amendment with the Tribe. In addition, when the Agency amended its plans to create Merged Project Areas No. 1 and No. 2 in May, 2000, it also approved a Memorandum of Understanding between the Agency and the Tribe that ensured that the Tribe would be notified and consulted on matters affecting Merged Area No. 2,which is largely located on the historic reservation. Though the Tribe does not exercise any control over the activities of the Agency, like the City, the Agency has a government-to- government relationship with the Tribe that is unique and may differ from other land owners. III V9/6 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -10- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS It is also notable that the Redevelopment Agency consulted with the duly elected Tahquitz-Andreas Project Area Committee, comprised of residents, business owners, and property owners, none of who were associated with the Tribe. As documented in the Redevelopment Agency's Report to the City Council, the removal of eminent domain authority on residential property is a direct result of the direction of the Project Area Committee, not the Tribe. Evidence of the private sectors inability to correct blighting conditions in the Tahquitz-Andreas area is included in the Redevelopment Agency's Report to the City Council. Even the author suggests that owner-initiated projects are hampered if the "Redevelopment Agency is not wiling to take the lead". For the past 20 years, the Redevelopment Agency has been actively involved in working with property owners on redevelopment of property, not only in the Tahquitz-Andreas area, but also throughout other redevelopment areas in the City. 4) "The Threat of Eminent Domain Creates a Cloud on Property Within the Area": For a 12 year period following the adoption of the original Tahquitz- Andreas Redevelopment Plan in 1983, the Redevelopment Agency had eminent domain authority on virtually all privately owned property; yet there is no evidence suggesting that any property suffered a decline in value as a result of eminent domain authority. Neither the City nor the redevelopment consultant (RSG) is aware of any detrimental impact of eminent domain authority on property values, either in the Tahquitz-Andreas Area or other redevelopment areas throughout the State of California. Extending eminent domain authority in the Tahquitz-Andreas area adds no more "cloud" on the title of property than the ever-present ability of other public agencies, such as a parking authority, City, or school district, to condemn property for a public use. Redevelopment agencies are mandated by state law to provide fair market value compensation for property based on an independent appraisal, provide relocation assistance to eligible businesses, and provide opportunities for owners to participate in redevelopment projects involving their property. These requirements not only ensure protection for affected property owners and businesses, but also protect the value of property. 5) "There is No Consistency with the Timing of Eminent Domain Powers in Other Areas": The author is incorrect that any statements were made, in the record, at the public hearing, or at the April 19, 2004 community meeting suggesting that a reason for pursuing the Amendment"is to be in timing with the sequence with eminent domain powers in other project areas." Sequencing the timing of eminent domain authority among the other project areas is not a reason for the Amendment. Finding Based on the information contained in the above response, the testimony received at the public hearing and other evidence contained in the record before /sX/7 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -11- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS the City Council, the City Council hereby finds that the use of eminent domain may be necessary to facilitate the redevelopment of the Project Area, and that the proposed Amendment complies to the requirements mandated within the Community Redevelopment Law, The City Council also hereby finds that no evidence in the record suggest that eminent domain authority has detrimental impact on property values, or that the Amendment is intended to be sequenced with eminent domain authority in other project areas. The objections presented by Keith E. McCullough, Attorney at Law, representing Palms Springs Plumbing Co., Inc. and Ted Mandinach and Yvonne Roodberg are overruled. 1 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -12- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS