The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20544 - RESOLUTIONS - 2/5/2003 RESOLUTION NO. —2.004 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, ' CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 1 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. 1 ("Plan"), and has prepared the First Amendment to the Plan ("First 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 January 15, 2003, the Agency and arty Council held a joint public hearing on the proposed First Amendment and received and considered aft 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,where written 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 specked objections and suggestions. The legislative body shall include a good-faith, reasoned analysis in its response"; and, WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the objections presented at the joint public hearing, and has participated in the preparation of responses to said objections("Responses"), in the init i submitted herewith as Exhibit"A; and, WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed in detail the objections presented at the joint public hearing and the Responses, together with all testimony and reports presented at the joint 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 Written Responses to Written Objections, in the form submitted herewith, as their findings and response to the objections presented at the public hearing. 1 Kesolutlon 20544 Page 2 ' SECTION 2. The City Council hereby overrules the objections to the First Amendment to the Merged Redevelopment Plan for Merged Redevelopment Project Area No. t. ADOPTED this Stb day Of Februaru 2003. AYES: Members Hodges, Oden, and Mayor Kleindienst NOES: None ABSENT: Members Mills and Reller-Spurgin ATTEST:-� CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA r y ClerlManager City REVIEWED&APPROVED Page 4_. _. FirstAmendment to the Merged Redevelopment Plan for Merged Redevelopment Project No. 1 Written Responses to Written Objections January 23, 2003 Community RedevelopmentAgency of the City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, Califomia 92262 MA Rosenow Sp waaek Group,Inc. 217 North Main Street,Suite 300 Santa Ana,Cal'ifomia 92701 ' Phone;(714)541-4585 Fwc (714)836-1748 F-Mail; info@webrsg.com 12 Resolution 20544 Page 5 Responses to ft tten Mjec&lns FirstAmendments to the Merged Redevelopment Plan for Merged Redevelopment Project No. 1 and 2 Table of Contents Introduction .......................................................................I Written Objections and Responses...................................'I FredBurton.........................................................................................2 WalterRoger Smith............................................................................4 (`9TC��p{RFftGf1RLCFR nnn. Resolution 20544 Page 6 ' Respomse5IO Written Objections FirstAmendments to the Merged Redevelopment Plan for Merged Redevelopment Project No. 1 and 2 Introduction On January 15, 2003 the City Council of the City of Palm Springs ("Council") and Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs ("Agency") conducted a joint public hearing on the proposed First Amendments to the Merged Redevelopment Plan for Merged Redevelopment Project No. 1 and 2. At the public hearing, the City Council received ten letters in response to the public hearing notice, of which two could be considered written objections to the First Amendment to Merged Project No. 1. There were no written objections to the First Amendment to Merged Project No. 2. 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. Written Objertions and Responses Two written objections were fled at the public hearing, both pertaining to the proposed First Amendment to Merged Project No. 1- The objections were received from the following individuals:. r Fred Burton, owner of property at 180 and 194 W. San Rafael Place Walter Roger Smith, owner of property at 200 San Rafael Place This document is the written response of the City Council to the written objection submitted at the public hearing ("Response"), ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. PAGE 7 a AL Resolution 20544 }age 7 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS FIRST AMENDMENTS TO THE MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND 2 Fred Bultm Fred Burton 1437 Morena Blvd,#203 San Diego,CA 92110 619-276-5360 Fx 619-276r2330 Fred Button City of palm Springs Z:7, mrely2d N 2o3 Phone(519)2 &$W and A' 110 FIV(fits)2762= City of Palm Springs Redevelopment Administration Att. curt Watts 3200 E. Tahquitz Carryon WaE Po hox 2743 Palm Springs,Ca, 92263 Dear Sirs. , I own the property at 180 and 194 W. San Rafael Place_ I obtained a copy of the notice of hearings to reestablish the use of eminent domain in this area. Since I recently purchased these properties and have spent considerable time and money refurbishing them,2 would like to oh3ect to any measures that would change or downgrade the zoning for this area.. .or hurt the property values in any way. My neighbors that I have talked to all are in the process of improving their property.2 think +his is what Palm Springs wants, am I Correct?? Sincerely / „ ,T[ �l;h.✓ fixed Burton"_�/ Q I(j0 "tt {1d f0• I D JAA�N 1 A Vapp(i16 n I ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT , ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. Resolution 20544 Page S RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJEOTIONS FIRST AMENDMENTS TO MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 Responses to Fred Burton's Letter 1) The author of the objection resides in Merged Redevelopment Project No. 1 and implies that eminent domain could change or downgrade zoning and decrease property values. Neither the proposed Amendment nor the authority to use eminent domain will change zoning. Land use controls in the Redevelopment Plan would continue to be those established by the City's General Plan and zoning. For a 12 year period following the adoption of each constituent redevelopment project area of Merged Project Area No.1, the Agency had eminent domain authority on virtually all pnvately 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 Project Area or other redevelopment areas throughout the State of California. The author's implication that properties located within the authority of eminent domain are valued less than other properties is based on assumption and not factual evidence, Additionally, the eminent domain authority does not prohibit any property owner from improving their property. In fact, eminent domain is considered a rare tool by the Agency to be implemented when all other measures fail, including owner- initiated improvements. 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 may be necessary to facilitate the redevelopment of the Project Area, and that the proposed Amendment does not alter zoning or land use patterns. The City Council also hereby finds that no evidence in the record suggest that eminent domain authority has detrimental impact on property values. ROSENOW SPEVACEKGROUP,INC. Re5oluLion 20544 Page 9 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN 0I3.lECTIONS FIRST AMENDMENTS TO MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO,9 Walter Roger Smith city ofilili� #n8 7 o}in utiity3tc¢evcTulpieatetcy 31 2O1;. .. AwtA Wpitcr:Xfof cSbiffi �aa s�lt�Cw1 rl�gc� ' '•I�alm Sprag�Ca s3.26x ,. :: . . To the terirXee4tj4is itek: . .Tldv.i�in iefctierae;toyottF}riiudatcd gcca�hcr:5`7A0�-iegnniieG the p5opetty`nt'2l}0;"� '' " ' "an.Ri:ilueli'!Uce;I:fcliint, Liejoot,zlutS:tampegsci4allYhcopextyatvtiersia,Uia` utc'iged"rw4W,PIM, loafpG wudld:l fakSPy'taiuruisii°us vttiat}y,dnd;•eFI'',-_. :''idfur ithiirrnt 'pould,p d'n9'1ts.P A X ar4ticts t t4e.Piit LicYtEarmyluid wo ,p daW1 Den 17 2ti02 epidsatV 1'5.360 . t�rgri ry.lp;e nt damn n efforts io utualeA I " . laeltliat syich4rifirz aEion glieu(d:hQ ivc'le tks:tiejBk the public l<6prugs u<se`eait,_. 1p�jaolidWith4lie.FRtiP Yi�isaatiIlkpu61iciiartigshtlPdAbgpgattl3ituVccuciE 1�Carms:'I.ftid�tlist#'ts.g?w3uty�u.s}tn�et''.��°;nnd�il•i}tfhimeticuyout+r�,Pn't'Y�'uF: : : ' .. .. •4ef{`YCntyC"tQ wty�utprorcdtplyclupfire}tt RyC�B(C IIutpR('y-tI1.1�C b6k.'�QlS17L5bCCNV$l:6'�'- - . aSenteticainyoSrIfinerfhal'oogldhiitdel,oiyrPuri'AFtinn aCoosienotw*b_ advised;of ' 'fact;:tliatonlythecit`y"6oiljari+.Stier:"5liuuldi+obxwh,fare�Yallangeuuyectidn#aleeu>a3', : R�te tigamcy aGcity'eaut�cil'an+}ny�ftlto nl oec'ttittccs"tal�tShirydlhc;Puhtic;fic You ..' 'liu}�l�e'��nrited-1pSaisi�B,;n.cn�ttanly-tlsysa,wswatyouu�.souicaactd&etnised7lettib..' - ptibhc'hs "g 6 M written 6bjcptidr s-u(ihiditicd cP i o citycladc rt ur.prior id:tltc Ptihlic ems,;. ...., .: : '.: • .. ::.. ., :.:. :,> arycalsftie.ftl;hati�aUit�aui'�cirl#?u�'trr?en:zonedzarideotiaLop,anttiilx:routLAltcxa . 4o�k,fth}rbougliCtdtivYcnnt7171sahtd"oiit:l?i,)h*'pntlicsL*A,UtcAvinu�VALporvut(d uicd a vagae o cow i 5:npuco.1)Fmipg fdtss t : dflc# Ytc Proliert3'wd5.nn , yes puy,. ?utnF�a t . tue.sLwnit u�c�.cd itimthed aysttduscvvIC1PYozvo wto16, nev - . caminethia(c Fdcs . . " caWd"tiic'cdyvhatGtfie tdldi t,sad;ojenittipsdacAabaOmcdutdb}rytUuproperty: fotxlre^le+id velyc.YdYul ;ti 'fo all the aWiats'att tn:skixt•Xt'lti ad udmnyoudble'h ttd5h k . rat tu=auq�ir lie tup It .tu7it y .�s+esyJerel.:,tlit[u t%bt to Rituluci n snpili p'nureswtutliiArit>;apiie ;4vhiieot}a - >imecttythczeiynfi:va+stu'. pgitnr�ctcihl` nl1i rtotr}c o tho strACt is's(tuckurally sgttnd•kd k d i Scd i s a 1. _ �;�rtSitichiFF?ilAtC4�tclil[1[YlkCrtVi,D�:tQ:111c gt3tKl�nlhef 41ad91^.Pk�Y11,C.`�r4pC[ty;"bCI{�. . used,=resuXeitti-J;roT.wrilsilgrYc ls;il7Wubld'tp}ttdutwlrca9o�alilC;htf[dshipptx,al[but'(�ne' aWuei�oatf[t',xtr; ;,Sn��indl;klalvl2uleslxcQtis$n cvsed.asona p6aL vpz fcatthaitf}e'str�CSFio4belts d'`as'uSUiCPati t�sitlzaYieloa,wniutcicsl' . . .I'nt a Sbdy'ffM)V1gt;olYit9uki�f egipen litho iiVW oµ t(!incited i bneotrw„1 wasfoxu6tc cuortgh io'.Ix*a1rYo tapnYck>ay�tt�,nliovc;pt�w•rty'pr 2P0.5an R's}facif+ldcc:at a'ptici thiU I coald-�Huxd,&tft i faok poss'ssstau of'lEiv properly l d6Y gwicd tbA We city had .. . •.,ivit�rlu;d anarfien to ictlmrrotti[�S hmt$a cntcmcrcial afirh:311c pYQp�,[tpwA-v Yactibt for . six tliontFu:•I have seen z}Qlh z g iri w�iliny:but Ida think iFwkt�c nt w praperty bwncr sluodld bc;triadt?°dvatF pt�ox ufilnv such aeiimby the cFty,Miptwel'Xtnir lived lit 200 Sad RtU3el Plare tar sbrgcer SiitilitgbilLs win show:It:was zondd aq iesidi�'t sL- . ROSENOW 5PEVA05K GROUP,INC. Resolution 20544 Page 10 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS FIRST AMENDMENTS TO MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I ' emnt=dal pmperfy.He was evicted in odober 2001.I purchased the property in D0u3Iihnr 200 L InNovembcr uf2001 the ciry Lad Edisoar cut t]te power nt the pole.I qucskian the sawn as Edison said$could lave been cut at the to mt I think that it was tbo dti-*way to a-%v=that The property would go camumohl.I have one item left to take care ofall'6PA code vioWom Wben I bought the property tttc city was getting ready to abate the bWdmga fit twasory<s lake the metal welding gtuegc with a Nitta in mist tad some black malls were put up Wilk no pc-mjh.It took roe five nidnates at the buddimg depanntent to obtain a copy of the pertnit rakenout im 1982.'11tc code viola6mis on the house were muter YiGWia4s that w3 ba caV to take care of ocac I contake out the pcmft'This spring 1 asked the city For a walk through aid gave thear a drawk-and a husia=plan for the proltany hot have heard nothing from than in wrkinjq Since Fhe city My want to auglire die entire stt+eet lot emixi t domala or allow a contcaclor to buy the properly at ft Iaatd value ailtx abotetneiil I now wonder If this cotdd bcttto reasoaa tltty are so de"vi iued in trying to convert each ptoperty to comencrclal.The wniog stator that the prulierty is ttsidewe on cwtranercinl laud,vNich should not interfsee With eminent dom*In reftrcme to comttnc eW hud.I*0 that the property on dos sheet shmid be used far the highest and best interest ofthc property owner msidential on ccmnrccial uutd the apoc'sah itttetrsts wants to o¢trite cmarmt doiram or develop the c4dw sheet at its Nr marlml value. wsiter Roger Smith Responses to Walter Roger Smith's Letter 2) The author of this letter raises several concerns in regards to zoning and eminent domain and own in Merged Redevelopment Project No.1. The author requests information regarding the proposed Amendment, which was made available to the general public at the Community and Economic Development Department and City Clerk offices as described in the notice of public hearing. The author also implies that the City attempts to convert the zoning of his property from residential on commercial to commercial so that the property would be subject to eminent domain. Neither the proposed Amendment nor eminent domain authority will change zoning on any property. In addition, the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan prohibits the use of eminent domain on a parcel that is devoted to residential use if a residential structure has been legally constructed on such parcel, and such structure continues to be legally occupiable for a residence. ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. f 09l �1t+ Resolution 20544 Page 71 RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS FIRST AMENDMENTS TO MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PRWECT NO.1 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 may be necessary to facilitate the redevelopment of the Project Area, and that the proposed Amendment does not alter zoning or land use designations, and prohibits the use of eminent domain on a parcel devoted to residential use if a residential structure has been legally constructed on such parcel, and such structure continues to be legally occupiable for a residence, The City Council also hereby finds that information pertaining to the Amendment was available for pubiic inspection at City Hall, as described in the public hearing notice transmitted to all Project Area property owners, residents, business tenants, and affecting taxing agencies. ROSENOW$PEVACEKGROUP,INC. An A ,# i