Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/2/2004 - STAFF REPORTS (23) DATE: JUNE 2, 2004 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATION OF THE WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS, THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION,AND THE AMENDING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT OF THE MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following: 1. That the City Council adopt the resolution adopting written responses to the written objections to the Tahquitz-Andreas Eminent Domain Amendment to the Merged Redevelopment Plan for Merged Redevelopment Project No 2; 2. That the City Council adopt the resolution approving the Negative Declaration for the Tahquitz-Andreas Eminent Domain Amendment to the Merged Redevelopment Plan for Merged Redevelopment Project No. 2; and 3. That the City Council introduce and conduct the first reading of the Ordinance adopting the Tahquitz-Andreas Eminent Domain Amendment to the Merged Redevelopment Plan for Merged Redevelopment Project No. 2. SUMMARY: With the completion of the joint public hearing on May 19,2004,the City Council may now consider approval of the proposed Tahquitz-Andreas Eminent Domain Amendment to the Merged Redevelopment Plan for Merged Redevelopment Project No. 2 ("Amendment"). On June 2, the City Council will consider its final procedural actions and the first reading of the amending ordinance. Upon approval of all resolutions and ordinance(as well as a second reading of the amending ordinance on June 16, 2004), the Community Redevelopment Agency would have eminent domain authority to acquire nonresidential property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area for 12 years from the date of adoption. BACKGROUND: On May 5, 2004, the City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency opened the joint public hearing on the proposed Amendment to reinstate the Agency's authority to use eminent domain to acquire nonresidential property within the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area of Merged Project Area No. 2. Similar authority was reinstated in February 2003 for all other constituent areas of Merged Project Area No. 1 and Merged Project Area No. 2. The joint public hearing was continued at the request of the City Attorney, and reconvened on May 19, 2004, where staff presented the Negative Declaration and provided a brief presentation on the Amendment. Several items were submitted into the record, including the Community Redevelopment Agency's Report to the City Council and proof of mailing and publication of the notices of joint public hearing. Two written objections to the Amendment were received in advance of the hearing and entered into the joint public hearing. During the hearing the public was given the opportunity to submit oral or written comments to the Amendment. No oral or additional written objections were presented at the hearing. Redevelopment Law requires the City Council to respond in writing to both written objections to the Amendment not less than seven days following the joint public hearing. Accordingly, staff and consultants prepared the Response to Written Objections to address these objections, provide factual information refuting the objections raised, and making findings overruling the objections. The City Council is to consider the Response,and adopt the resolution approving the Response before proceeding with any further action on the Amendment. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the Amendment was prepared and along with the Notice of Availability,forwarded to the State Clearinghouse and other appropriate agencies on March 31, 2004. The review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse started April 2, 2004 and ended May 3, 2004. On April 4, 2004 the Notice of Availability was published in The Desert Sun. A Notice of the Joint Public Hearing was also published once each week in The Desert Sun beginning on April 10, 2004 for three consecutive weeks. Since the Amendment does not change any zoning designation or current land use,the Negative Declaration did not identify any significant environmental impacts. On April 28, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve the proposed Amendment. Once the resolutions relative to the Response to Written Objections and the Negative Declaration are approved, the City Council may consider adoption of the Amendment by conducting the first of two readings of the amending Ordinance. The Amendment would be approved upon completion of its second reading, scheduled for June 16, 2004, and would be effective 30 days thereafter. 't JOHN S. RAYMOND Director of Community& Economic Development le APPROVED ---- 'r➢ 9 City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Amendment 2. City Council Resolution Approving Response to Written Objections 3. City Council Resolution Approving Negative Declaration 4. Negative Declaration 5. City Council Ordinance AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2 (TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN EXTENSION) The Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for Merged Redevelopment Project No. 2, previously amended on February 19, 2003 by Ordinance 1624(`Plan"), is hereby further amended as follows: Section 502 and 503 of the Plan are hereby amended to read as follows: (502) Property Acquisition 1. (503) Acquisition of Real Property The Agency may acquire real property by any means authorized by law, including by purchase, lease, obtain option upon, acquire by gift, grant, bequest, devise, exchange, cooperative negotiations, or eminent domain subject to- the The following limitations;-shall aftpty4e-the-Ageneys c,.,..,e en aiA authority in the-Rrej.,,.tt Arew a. Eminent domain may be used to acquire any real property in the Baristo-Farrell and Canyon Constituent Areas, except for properties legally devoted to a residential use. A parcel is devoted to a residential use if a residential structure has been legally constructed on such parcel, and such structure continues to be legally occupiable for a Residence. Except as otherwise provided by law, no eminent domain proceeding to acquire propertywithin the Baristo-Farrell and Canyon Constituent Areas shall be commenced after February 19 2015 (twelve (12)years following the date of adoption of this amended and restated Plan by Ordinance No. 1624). b. Eminent domain may not be used to aequiFe any real_propeFty in the Tahq it Andreas 1-ons+iluen', reaEminent domain may be used to acquire any real property in the Tahauitz Andreas Constituent Area, except for properties legally devoted to a residential use. A parcel is devoted to a residential use if a residential structure has been legally constructed on such parcel, and such structure continues to be legally occupiable for a Residence. Except as otherwise provided by law, no eminent domain proceeding to acquire property within the Tahquitz Andreas Constituent Area shall be commenced after 2016(twelve(12)years following the date of adoption of the amendment to this amended and restated Plan by Ordinance No. c. The power of eminent domain may not be used to acquire any parcels or interests in lands held in Trust by the United States for any individual Indian or for the Aqua Caliente Band itself. However, the power of eminent domain may be used to acquire a leasehold or other interest from the lessee or holder(but not the fee interest of the allottee)which is on land held in Trust by the United States, but only with the written consent of the Tribal Council of the Agua Caliente Band. d. Eminent domain may not be used to acquire property owned by a public body without the consent of that public body. e. To the extent required by law, the Agency shall not acquire real I03 property on which an existing building is to be continued on its present site and in its present form and use without the consent of the owner, unless: (1) such building requires structural alteration, improvement, modernization or rehabilitation; or (2)the site or lot on which the building is situated requires modification in size, shape or use; or (3) it is necessary to impose upon such property any of the standards, restrictions and controls of this Plan and the owner fails or refuses to participate in the Plan pursuant to Sections 506 through 509 of this Plan and applicable provisions of the Redevelopment Law. f. E. +as +ham hi provided b la .. :,mine t ..... eA.,;__ to aeqUiFe preperty-';+k;-+he Projeet Area-shall-hbe commenced after twelve(12' ..e F..II..u: n fhn date of aden+'n Of this amended and .tirvo�z�y�sar�--rvnm.ri�cJ�-n�aa�ravopnvr�r-vnrn�omei�ucvvr�u ...ra�tate•I�rOlan h..-v]_Ordinance '' F G.`7-r�v--j Cv'v'on_time 1'..�'+..+'.. ..be extended enly bya r-endmen+ei+K �.�cccnacwrn)-v�--crt„c:nvrr�crrtvrn-rr$-,-,urr • 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, Califomia 92262 �` `t•�+ 11 IY\\ Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 217 North Main Street, Suite 300 Santa Ana, California 92701-4822 PhoFax: (7 ( )836-11-4585 Fax: (714)836-1748 S ,//�•I/� E-Mail: info@webrsg.com Introduction 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. Contents of this Report 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 B.Alejo Road,#106 !'"tiPN2 6 2CJ,, Palm Springs,CA 92262 And �'If 219 West 1st Avenue Denver,CO 80223 April 19,2004 City Clerk City ofPahn Springs 3200 B.Tshquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs,CA 92262 RE: Proposed Second Amendment to Merged 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 run out the Gay and Lesbian businesses in Section 14,namely those businesses on the north side of Arenas Road between Indian Canyon Drive and Encilia Street. Hasn't the City of Palm Springs been shamed enough? Eminent Domain is a tool for the sole use of Corrupt Politicians. This proposal should not be approved. Sincerely, p y, 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. 1 S-11Nq ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -3- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS Keith McCullough, Attomey at Law on behalf of Palm Springs Plumbing Co., Inc. and Ted Mandinach and Yvonne Roodberg MCCORMICK, KIDMAN & BEEIRENS, LLP LAWYERS L IMII(EI MCCORMICIt` 695 TOWN CENTER OflIVE SACgAMENTO O F RTNVR G IRMAN• SVITC 100 9MC NINTX 5 T G qG ENR ENS' 6UZANNE M TAGVE' COSTA MESA,CALIFOE A 9 2 52 0-7187 s.aCCAMCHTO,ICALI FLOflM1A 9sa14-zT36 JAN ET R MORNINGSTAR' TELEPHONES I T 141T55-3100 TELEPHONE 19161 H9-953] XEITH E cCVLLOUSN' (BOOT J55-W1 S FAX 19 HH 4{6->104 O O C L MILILI. FAX I>I.1>55-]IIO RAY.. qxw mkdawnra cam RAYMONo C CI Eoov R SELTMA 6 MICHAEL J ALTI A INHIM55101wL CORRORANOR May 4,2004 Via Facsimile and Overnight Mail Fax Number: 760/322-8332 Board of Directors Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of 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 properly 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. I to ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -4- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MCCORMICR, HIDMAN & B=RENs, LLP Board o`Mire'Rors 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 are without authority to take the action of extending eminent domain powers when those powers have already expired. � s� lr ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -5- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MCCORMICK, KIHMAN & HEHRENS, LLP Board ' bifeclors 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,this 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. I and ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -6- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MCCORMICK, KIDMAN & H&AMENS, LLP 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 not 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. Son /3 ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -7- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS MCCORMICA, KIDMAN & BEDRENs, LLP LAWYERS Board of Directors Community Redevelopment Agency City of Palm Springs c/o City Clerk-City of Palm Springs Date: May 4,2004 Page: s If indeed eminent domain 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 other project 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 Tahquitz-Andreas Area would specifically not be in timing sequence and compatible with eminent 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 Tahquitz-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 continents. Sincerely yours, MCCO r C BEHRENS,L P H E.McC � LOU KEM/dl cc: Palm Springs Plumbing Co.,Inc. z:\usersdata\dlee\P.S.PlumbmgUetters\Board of Directors / 5W/y ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHQUITZ-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: i) "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 If continuation of the power if the amendment process is followed. the vow 150 is 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. 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 sector's 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 / s47�/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. / SA I V ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP,INC. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS JUNE 2,2004 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT -12- RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DEPARTMENT of PLANNING AND BUILDING INITIAL STUDY Application No(s): Case No. 5.1002 (Redevelopment Plan Second Amendment) Date of Completed Application: March 25, 2004 Name of Applicant: Palm Springs Redevelopment Agency Project Description and Location: REDEVELOPMENT PLAN SECOND AMENDMENT - The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs ("Agency") is proposing a Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Redevelopment Project No. 2 ("Second Amendment'), as recently amended February 19, 2003 by Ordinance No. 1624 ("Plan"). The Plan consists of three (3) constituent areas: Baristo-Farrell; Canyon; and Tahquitz-Andreas. The proposed Second Amendment would establish the Agency's authority to use eminent domain to acquire nonresidential property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area. Figure 1 is a regional map showing the location of the City of Palm Springs in relation to the Coachella Valley. Figure 2 shows all three constituent areas of Merged Redevelopment Project Area No. 2. Highlighted in red in Figure 2 is the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent; Area, which is the focus of the proposed Second Amendment. There are no changes proposed to the Baristo- Farrell and Canyon areas. A larger scale map of the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area is shown in Appendix A. The authority for the Agency to use eminent domain in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area expired in 1995. The Second Amendment would reestablish eminent domain authority in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area with the following limitations: 1) Eminent domain may be used to acquire any real property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area, except for properties legally devoted to a residential use. A parcel is devoted to a residential use if a residential structure has been legally constructed on such parcel, and such structure continues to be legally occupiable for a residence as defined in the Plan. Except as otherwise provided by law, no eminent domain proceeding to acquire property within the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area shall be commenced twelve (12) years following the date of adoption of the Second Amendment; 2) the power of eminent domain may not be used to acquire any parcels or interests in lands held in Trust by the United States for any individual Indian or for the Aqua Caliente Band itself. However, the power of eminent domain may be used to acquire a leasehold or other interest from the lessee or holder (but not the fee interest of the allottee) which is on land held in Trust by the United States, but only with the written consent of the Tribal Council of the Aqua Caliente Band; 3) eminent domain may not be used to acquire property owned by a public body without the consent of that public body; 4) to the extent required by law, the Agency shall not acquire real property on which an existing building is to be continued on its present site and in its present form and use without the consent of the owner, unless: a) such building requires structural alteration, improvement, modernization or rehabilitation; or b)the site or lot on which the building is situated requires modification in size, shape, or use; or c) it is necessary to impose upon such property any of the standards, restrictions and controls of the -1- ,0lq 13 tl IS vicforviAe ie to 1s is acho Tww#yme Patna money San Samarcow Yucca VaYey Is 10 Redlands IS Plverside NIVOWVdley e2 Palm Springs vl eea.n«1r 6annnp : : San Jcal o itf'j4YR'I .1 1 Raaah ira,.J_ Palm Eit to Yhdlm ea CoadwAa IS U3 Qunfa Thelmd 7q r Soltcn O 3 70 Y� Figure 1 Source: GO,of Pabn Springs Regional Map 1. Tahquitz-Andreas - Proposed Second Amendment 2. Baristo-Farrell 3. Canyon ti w D z > RACQUET LUB ROAD z O ? VISTA CHINO w Z ; % U ALEJOROAD N p 9G w T Q. LL 2 RAMON ROAD F1 PAIM( CANYON 3 - QR/VF Figure 2 Source: City ofPaln:Springs Redevelopment Project Areas Plan and the owner fails or refuses to participate in the Plan pursuant to Sections 506 through 509 of the Plan and applicable provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. General Plan Land Use Designation: The Palm Springs General Plan Land Use designations for the property within the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area are presented below in Table 1. The proposed Second Amendment will not change any existing general plan land use designations of any property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area. TABLE 1 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS CONSTITUENT AREA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN NO.2 PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Tahquitz-Andreas CBD (Central Business District), M8 (Medium Density Residential - 8 units/acre), RC (Resort Commercial), H 43/30 (High Density Residential — 43 units/acre (Apt. 30)). Present Land Use(s): The existing land uses in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area are listed below in Table 2. The proposed Second Amendment does not propose to change the existing land uses in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area. TABLE 2 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS CONSTITUENT AREA EXISTING LAND USES MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN NO.2 1 EXISTING LAND USES Tahquitz-Andreas Commercial, hospitality, government, residential, vacant land Existing Zoning(s): The existing zoning designations of the property within the Tahquitz- Andreas Constituent Area are shown below in Table 3. The proposed Second Amendment will not change any existing zoning designations of any property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area. TABLE 3 TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS CONSTITUENT AREA EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN NO.2 EXISTING ZONING DESIGNATIONS Tahquitz-Andreas C-1 (Retail Business), C-I-A-A I.L. (Large Scale Retail Commercial, Indian Land), R-G-A (8) (Garden Apartments and Cluster Residential ), R-4 I. L. (Large Scale Hotel and Multiple Family Zone, Indian Land), R-4 VP I.L. (Vehicle Parking, Large Scale Hotel and Multiple Family and Limited Commercial Retail, Indian Land), R-4 VP (Vehicle Parking, Large Scale Hotel and Multiple Family and Limited Commercial Retail), Convention Center P.D. 164, C-I-A-A (Large Scale Retail Commercial), W (Watercourse), C-2 I.L. (General Commercial, Indian Land), P.D. 180 (Planned Development), C-2 General Commercial). Yes No I. Is the proposed action a "project' as defined by CEQA? (See section ■ ❑ 2.6 of State CEQA Guidelines. If more than one project is present in the same area, cumulative impacts should be considered). �� -4- 1 11. If"yes" above, does the project fall into any of the Emergency Projects ❑ ■ listed in Section 15269 of the State CEQA Guidelines? III. If"no" in ll, does the project fall under any of the Ministerial Acts listed ❑ ■ in Section 15268(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines? IV. If "no" on III, does the project fall under any of the Statutory ❑ ■ Exemptions listed in Article 18 of the State CEQA Guidelines? V. If "no" on IV, does the project qualify for one of the Categorical ❑ ■ Exemptions listed in Article 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines? (Where there is reasonable probability that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances, a categorical exemption does not apply). VI. Project Description (Redevelopment Plan Second Amendment): The Plan consists of three (3) constituent areas: Baristo-Farrell; Canyon; and Tahquitz-Andreas. The proposed Second Amendment would establish the Agency's authority to use eminent domain to acquire nonresidential property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area. No changes to the Baristo-Farrell and Canyon areas are proposed. The authority for the Agency to use eminent domain in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area expired in 1995. The Second Amendment would reestablish eminent domain authority in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area with the following limitations: 1) Eminent domain may be used to acquire any real property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area, except for properties legally devoted to a residential use. A parcel is devoted to a residential use if a residential structure has been legally constructed on such parcel, and such structure continues to be legally occupiable for a Residence as defined in the Plan. Except as otherwise provided by law, no eminent domain proceeding to acquire property within the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area shall be commenced twelve (12) years following the date of adoption of the Second Amendment; 2) the power of eminent domain may not be used to acquire any parcels or interests in lands held in Trust by the United States for any individual Indian or for the Aqua Caliente Band itself. However, the power of eminent domain may be used to acquire a leasehold or other interest from the lessee or holder (but not the fee interest of the allottee) which is on land held in Trust by the United States, but only with the written consent of the Tribal Council of the Aqua Caliente Band; 3) eminent domain may not be used to acquire property owned by a public body without the consent of that public body; 4) to the extent required by law, the Agency shall not acquire real property on which an existing building is to be continued on its present site and in its present form and use without the consent of the owner, unless: a) such building requires structural alteration, improvement, modernization or rehabilitation; or b)the site or lot on which the building is situated required modification in size, shape, or use; or c) it is necessary to impose upon such property any of the standards, restrictions and controls of the Plan and the owner fails or refuses to participate in the Plan pursuant to Sections 506 through 509 of the Plan and applicable provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. -5- VII. Is the proposed project consistent with: (If answered "Yes" or "Not Applicable", no explanation is required) City of Palm Springs General Plan ■ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A Applicable Specific Plan ■ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance ■ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A South Coast Air Quality Management Plan ■ Yes ❑ No ❑N/A Airport Part 150 Noise Study ■ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A Draft Section 14 Master Development Plan ■ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A VIII. Are there any of the following studies required? 1. Soils Report (prior to permit issuance) ❑ Yes ■ No 2. Slope Study ❑ Yes ■ No 3. Geotechnical Report ❑ Yes ■ No 4. Traffic Study ❑ Yes ■ No 5. Air Quality Study ❑ Yes 0 No 6. Hydrology ❑Yes ■ No 7. Sewer Study ❑ Yes C No S. Biological Study ❑ Yes ■ No 9. Noise Study ❑ Yes ■ No 10. Hazardous Materials Study ❑ Yes ■ No 11. Housing Analysis ❑ Yes ■ No 12. Archaeological Report ❑ Yes ■ No 13. Groundwater Analysis ❑ Yes ■ No 14. Water Quality Report ❑ Yes ■ No 15 Other ❑ Yes ■ No IX. Listed below are the documents that were referenced in the preparation of this Negative Declaration: a. City of Palm Springs 1993 General Plan; b. City of Palm Springs 1993 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report; -6- I' Smy C. First Amendment to the Merged Project Areas No.1 (Central Business District, South Palm Canyon, Ramon-Bogie, Oasis, North Palm Canyon, Highland- Gateway, Project N0.9) and No.2 (Baristo-Farrell, Canyon, and Tahquitz- Andreas); d. Negative Declaration for the First Amendment to the Merged Redevelopment Plans for Merged Redevelopment Project Nos.1 and 2. e. Second Amendment to the Merged Project Area No. 2 (Baristo-Farrell, Canyon and Tahquitz-Andreas). All of the documents listed above are incorporated by reference in their entirety. -7- Environmental Analysis: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Sigrificant Millgalion Significant No Item Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1. LAND USE PLANNING Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ❑ ❑ ❑ In established community (including low-income or minority community)? 1. a-e NO IMPACT. The Second Amendment would not change the existing zoning or general plan land use designations of any property, residential or non-residential, within the Tahquitz- Andreas Constituent Area. The Second Amendment proposes to reestablish the Agency's authority to use eminent domain in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area, with certain limitations, and does not propose to change any existing land use or zoning designations of property as presently designated by the Palm Springs General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Second Amendment would not have any impact or conflicts with either the general plan or zoning ordinance. The Second Amendment does not propose any development (public or private) as part of or in conjunction with the adoption of the Second Amendment. Thus, the Second Amendment would not result in any conflicts with regards to applicable environmental plans or policies of property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area, result in any incompatible land uses that do riot presently exist, affect agricultural resources or operations, or disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with the Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential land use impacts. All development (public and private)would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential impacts to land use as applicable. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Item Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ housing? �I�,�, -8- 15 l) Y�f/ 2. a-c NO IMPACT. The Second Amendment would not change or impact any official regional or local population or housing projections as presently estimated for the City of Palm Springs by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). The Second Amendment would not change any existing land use or zoning designations, therefore the Second Amendment wound not change or affect future population or housing projections for the City as a result of changers in land use or zoning designations. The Second Amendment would not make any changes to the existing redevelopment plan that would directly result in an increase or decrease of housing or population. The Second Amendment would not directly displace any existing housing units, including affordable housing. The City of Palm Springs had a population of 42,807 people with 30,823 housing units in 2000.' The adoption and implementation of the Second Amendment does not propose any land use changes or modifications that would change the City's population or future estimated housing needs. The use of eminent domain, with limitations, to acquire nonresidential property within the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area could indirectly result in an increase in employees in the City by encouraging new commercial development. An increase in employees due to increased commercial development could indirectly increase the demand for additional housing in Palm Springs, if the existing housing inventory in the City cannot meet the demand at the time. Thus, the acquisition and development of nonresidential property could indirectly increase the demand for the construction of additional residences, increasing the City's population. The Second Amendment would allow the use of eminent domain to acquire nonresidential property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area with certain limitations, and does not propose any development or elimination of housing. The Second Amendment would not directly result in the removal of any affordable housing in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with the Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential impacts to population and housing. All future development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential impacts to population and housing as applicable. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Signlficanl Mitigation Significant No Item Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ❑ ❑ ❑ • b) Seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ • c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ d) Seiche,tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ e) Landslides or mudflows? ❑ ❑ ❑ 111 f) Erosion, changes in typography or unstable soil ❑ ❑ ❑ 01 conditions from excavation, grading and fill? g) Subsidence of the land? ❑ ❑ ❑ • h) Expansive soils? ❑ ❑ ❑ • i) Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ • j) Is a major landform, ridgeline, canyon, etc. involved? ❑ ❑ ❑ • 1 Census 2000. -9- 3. a-j NO IMPACT. The Palm Springs General Plan Final EIR addresses geologic, seismic, and other similar geologic issues. The General Plan Seismic Safety Element establishes policies and programs by which all existing and future public and private projects are to be evaluated. The Palm Springs General Plan Final EIR includes mitigation measures, which addresses all of these geologic issues. There are Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones designated by the State of California located within the City of Palm Springs. City protocols require future development to submit a precise grading plan and soils report for review and approval by the City prior to issuance of development permits. Future soils reports for individual projects would address the potential for subsidence of land and the possibility of expansive soils on the property. When required, mitigation measures would be recommended in the soils report and incorporated into the grading plan to mitigate soils impacts. Since the City of Palm Springs is located within an active seismic area, the City also mandates that the construction of all structures be designed to comply with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and withstand the potential ground shaking associated with such an event. The proposed Second Amendment would not increase the exposure of people or buildings to geologic hazard beyond those already anticipated by the City's General Plan and zoning code. Establishing the use of the authority to use eminent domain by the Agency would have no direct or indirect impact one way or the other on residents, employees or buildings in the constituent area compared to existing geologic hazards and conditions in the City and the region. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with this Second Amendment could indirectly encourage development in the constituent area. All development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential geologic impacts prior to the approval of projects. Potenlially Signfiicanl Potenlially Unless less Than Significant Mitigation signmcanl No Item Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 4. WATER Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, rate ❑ ❑ ❑ IN and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards ❑ ❑ ❑ In such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of ❑ ❑ ❑ is surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water ❑ ❑ ❑ IN body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water ❑ ❑ ❑ IN movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through ❑ ❑ ❑ IN direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capacity? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ otherwise available for public water supplies? j) Are there any on-site or proposed wells? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ _1o_ I '� 4. a-j NO IMPACT. The proposed Second Amendment does not propose any development (public or private) that could cause a change in the quantity or quality of surface water or groundwater in any of the Constituent Area. The Second Amendment only reestablishes the authority to use eminent domain by the Agency to acquire nonresidential real property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area. Therefore, the Second Amendment would not impact changes in absorption rates, exposure of people or property to water related hazards, change surface water flows, etc. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with the Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential impacts to drainage, absorption rates, quality of runoff, etc. All development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential impacts to drainage and water quality as applicable. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Item Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 5. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ❑ ❑ ❑ IN existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ❑ IN c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause ❑ ❑ ❑ IN any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 5. a-d. NO IMPACT. The City is located in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Ozone and ozone precursors transported into the basin from the South Coast Air Basin across the mountain ranges and through the desert passes are responsible for the degree of occurrence of high ozone concentrations in the SSAB. Oxidants (90% of which are ozone) and PM10 (suspended particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 microns) represent the majority of air quality problems basin wide. The Coachella Valley is currently designated as a serious non-attainment area for PM10. Since it was designated as a PM10 non-attainment area, Coachella Valley governments, agencies and private and public stakeholders, along with the Air Quality Management District (AQMD), have proactively worked to reduce unhealthful levels of PM10 dust. The SSAB has an adopted State Implementation Plan (SIP) that includes control measures for the Coachella Valley to become in compliance with PM10 emissions. The SSAB also is dependant upon the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and local jurisdictions such as the City of Palm Springs to implement and monitor the SIP program. The SIP requirements under Title I of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) depend on the severity of the non-attainment problem. The CAA requires that severe ozone non-attainment areas, such as Coachella Valley, demonstrate attainment of the federal ozone air quality standard by November 15, 2007 using a U.S. EPA-recommended photochemical grid model and EPA- approved modeling techniques. It is clear from available data that the federal ozone standard that is exceeded in the Coachella Valley largely results form pollutant transport from the upwind South Coast Air Basin. Photochemical grid modeling for the 1994 AQMP, using the U.S. EPA- approved Urban Airshed Model, shows that attainment of the ozone standard is possible with the proposed control strategy described in the 1994 AQMP for the South Coast Air Basin, and control of locally generated emissions via state and federal regulations. �i The proposed Second Amendment does not include any development (public or private) that could be constructed upon its adoption. The Second Amendment only reestablishes the Agency's authority to use eminent domain in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area. The use of eminent domain would not impact air quality emissions such as ozone or PM10, create objectionable odors, change air movements, or expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. Thus, the Second Amendment would not have any air quality impacts. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with the Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential impacts to air quality. All development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential impacts to air quality as applicable. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than significant Mdigatlon Significant No Item Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 6. TRANSPORTATION/C(RCULATION Would the proposal result in: a) Estimated Average Daily Trips generated by the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ project? (Average weekday trip ends per 100,000 gross leaseable area—Rate 74.31; Volume: 7,431). b) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■' c) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Inadequate emergency accesses or access to nearby ❑ ❑ ❑ ■' uses? e) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ f) Hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclist? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ g) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? h) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 6, a-h NO IMPACT. The Second Amendment does not include any development (public or private) that could be constructed upon its adoption. The Second Amendment would reestablish the authority to use eminent domain to acquire nonresidential real property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area. The Second Amendment would not generate traffic, affect emergency access, create hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclist, or result in any conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with this Second Amendment Could indirectly lead to development and potential impacts to transportation and circulation. All development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval to address potential impacts to transportation and circulation as applicable. Potentially sgnificant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mit igation Significant No Item Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ habitats (including, but not limited to plants,fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ forests, coastal habitat, etc.)? -12- 10 ,30 d) Wetland habitat(e.g., marsh, riparian, or vernal pools)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ f) Is consultation with the California Fish and Game or the ❑Yes ■ No Department of Fish and Wildlife Service, as a trustee agency required? 7. a-f NO IMPACT. The Second Amendment does not include any development (public or private) that could be constructed upon its adoption. The Second Amendment only reestablishes limited authority to use eminent domain in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area and does not propose any development projects. The Second Amendment would not have any biological impacts or affect biological resources that may exist in the Constituent Area. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with the Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential impacts to biological resources. All development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential impacts to biological resources as applicable. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Sigmficanl No Item Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal create: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state? 8. a-c NO IMPACT. The Second Amendment does not include any development as part of the project. The Second Amendment does not include the construction of any public or private projects. The Second Amendment only proposes to extend the authority to use eminent domain to acquire nonresidential real property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area with certain limitations as described in the project description and would not directly result in any energy and/or mineral resource impacts. Thus, the Second Amendment would not directly have any impacts to energy or mineral resources in the Constituent Area or the City of Palm Springs. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with the Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential impacts to energy and mineral resources. All development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential impacts to energy and mineral resources as applicable. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Item Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 9. HAZARDS Would the proposal: a) Be a risk or accidental explosion or release substances ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Create possible interference with an emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ In response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) Create any health hazard or potential health hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ IN d) Create exposure of people to existing sources of ❑ ❑ ❑ In -13- to potential health hazards? e) Increase the risk of fire hazard in areas with flammable ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ brush, grass, or trees? 9. a-e NO IMPACT. The Second Amendment extends the authority to use eminent domain to acquire nonresidential property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area. The Second Amendment would not result in the approval of any public or private development projects because no projects are proposed as part of the Second Amendment. Thus, the Second Amendment would not directly create any health hazards, expose people to existing health hazards, or increase the risk of fire hazards. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with the Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential impacts to hazards. All development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential impacts to hazards as applicable. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Item Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 10. NOISE Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ CI ■ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Will the project be compatible with the noise ❑ 13 ❑ ■ compatibility planning criteria according to Table 6F of the Palm Springs Municipal Code FAR. Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study? 10. a-c NO IMPACT. The Second Amendment does not include any development or other activities that could generate noise. The Second Amendment proposes to extend the authority for the Agency to use eminent domain to acquire nonresidential property in the Tahquiiz- Andreas Constituent Area with certain limitations for an additional twelve years from the date of adoption. There is no development activity included as part of the Second Amendment. Therefore the adoption of the Second Amendment would not result in the approval of any public or private development projects. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with this Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential noise impacts. All development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential impacts to noise as applicable. Potentially Signigcenl Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Miligation Significant No Item Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 11. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas? a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ n d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ❑ ❑ ❑ n e) Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ ❑ n -14- I.Q�� 11. a-e NO IMPACT. The City of Palm Springs provides several public services to its residents and businesses. The City of Palm Springs Police Department provides police protection services, which include emergency response, criminal investigation, traffic enforcement, and preventative patrol. The Palm Springs Fire Department provides fire protection services to the community. The Palm Springs Unified School District ("PSUSD") and the Banning Unified School District serve the City; the majority of the city is served by PSUSD. Another governmental service is the Palm Springs Public Library, which provides information services to the community through hard copy materials and its website. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with the Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential impacts to public services including fire protection, police protection, schools, maintenance of public facilities, and other governmental services. All development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential impacts to public services as applicable. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Item Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ b) Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ e) Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ f) Solid waste disposal? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 12. a-g NO IMPACT. The City of Palm Springs contracts with a private company for solid waste collection. Solid waste generated within Palm Springs is disposed at the Edom Hill landfill. The City has a recycling program that recycles glass, aluminum and plastic materials. Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the City of Palm Springs. SCE has major transmission lines as well as a distribution system in the area to serve the community. The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas to Palm Springs as well as other cities in the area. The Gas Company has both a transmission system and local distribution system in the area that serves the community. Verizon provides telephone service to the City of Palm Springs. Verizon has existing facilities throughout the area to serve the city. New facilities are constructed or existing facilities are extended as necessary to serve new development. Warner Cable of Palm Springs provides cable service to the community. Warner Cable has cable throughout most of the community to serve its customers. The Palm Springs Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plant provides wastewater treatment for the wastewater generated in the city. The treatment plant has a current design flow of 10.9 million gallons per day and provides primary mechanical and secondary biological treatment of the sewer. Secondary treated wastewater is sent to the Desert Water Authority (DWA) tertiary treatment plant for further processing and subsequent distribution for irrigation of -15- / S400033 parks and golf courses. Secondary treated wastewater that is not delivered to DWA for tertiary treatment is recharged to the local groundwater basin through the City's percolation ponds. Water service and storm drain facilities have been addressed above in Section 4.0. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with the Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential impacts to public utilities such as power, communications, water treatment, sewer treatment, storm water, solid waste, and water supplies, All development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential impacts to public utilities as applicable. Potentially s gnifcanl Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mil'galion SignilCanl No Item Impact Incoapamted Impact Impact 13. AESTHETICS Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ in b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ IN c) Create light or glare? ❑ ❑ ❑ in 13. a-c NO IMPACT. The Second Amendment does not include any development or other activities that would have aesthetic impacts. The Second Amendment proposes to extend the authority for the Agency to use eminent domain to acquire nonresidential property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area, and there is no development proposed as part of the Second Amendment. The adoption of the Second Amendment would not result in the approval of any public or private development projects. Thus, the Second Amendment would not directly have any aesthetic impacts. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with the Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential aesthetic impacts. All development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential impacts to aesthetics as applicable. Potentially Sigmficant Potentially Unless Less Than Significan! Mitigation Significant No Item Impacl Incorporated Impact Impact 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ is b) Disturb archeological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ IN c) Affect historic resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ In d) Have the potential to cause a physical change, which ❑ ❑ ❑ IN would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ❑ ❑ ❑ in potential impact areas? 14. a-e NO IMPACT. The Second Amendment does not include development or any activities that would result in cultural resource impacts. The Second Amendment proposes to extend the authority for the Agency to use eminent domain to acquire nonresidential property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area, and there is no development activity proposed as part of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not include any development that could be constructed upon its adoption. The Second Amendment would not result in the approval of any public or private development projects. Thus, the Second Amendment would not directly impact cultural resources. ,03V -16- The future acquisition of real property in compliance with the Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential impacts to cultural resources. All development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the tiime projects are proposed for approval and address potential impacts on cultural resources as applicable. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Item Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 15. RECREATION Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 15. a-b NO IMPACT. The Second Amendment does not include development or any other activities that would impact recreational facilities. The Second Amendment proposes to extend the authority for the Agency to use eminent domain to acquire nonresidential property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area, and no development activity is included in the Second Amendment. The adoption of the Second Amendment would not result in the approval of any public or private development projects that could directly impact recreational resources. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with the Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential impacts to recreation. All development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential impacts to recreation as applicable. Potentially significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Item Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 16. PUBLIC CONTROVERSY a) Is the proposed project or action environmentally ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ controversial in nature or can it reasonably be expected to become controversial upon disclosure to the public? 16. a NO IMPACT. The Second Amendment does not include any activity that directly could Ibe considered to be environmentally controversial. The Second Amendment proposes to extend the Agency's authority to use eminent domain to acquire property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area. There is no development activity proposed or included with the Second Amendment. Therefore, there is no action that could result in physical activity to the environment that could be controversial. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with the Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential impacts to public controversy. All development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential public controversy of a project as applicable. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Item Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve ❑ ❑ ❑ in short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually ❑ ❑ ❑ in limited, but cumulatively considerable ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the efforts of past projects;, the effects of other current projects, and effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects, which ❑ ❑ ❑ in cause substantial adverse effects on human beings? 17. a NO IMPACT. The Second Amendment does not directly include any development or other activities that would have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment with regards to fish and wildlife, or important examples of the history or prehistory of the City. The Second Amendment proposes to extend the authority for the Agency to use eminent domain to acquire nonresidential property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area, and there is no development activity included or proposed as part of the Second Amendment. Thus, the Second Amendment would not directly have any potential to degrade fish or wildlife species or habitat, or important examples of the history or prehistory of the City of Palm Springs. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with this Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential impacts to fish and wildlife. All development (public and private)would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential impacts to fish and wildlife as applicable. 17.;b No IMPACT.The Second Amendment does not include any, activities that would achieeve short-term; to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. The short-term goal of the Agency is to extend the authority for the Agency to use eminent domain to acquire nonresidential property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area for an additional twelve years from the date of adoption, as restricted. This short-term goal, if approved, would allow the Agency to acquire nonresidential property for redevelopment towards meeting the Agency's long-term goals of reducing and eliminating blight in the constituent area. The ability of the Agency to use eminent domain as a tool to reduce blight and improve the constituent area would have positive long-term impacts. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with the Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential short or long-term environmental impacts. All development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential short or long-term impacts as applicable. 17. c NO IMPACT. The Second Amendment does not include any activities that could be considered to have individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, impacts. The Second Amendment proposes to extend the authority for the Agency to use eminent domain to acquire nonresidential property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area for twelve years from the (late the Second Amendment is adopted, as restricted. There is no activity that directly could be considered to have individually limited, but cumulatively considerable, impacts. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with this Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential cumulative impacts. All development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential cumulative impacts as applicable. 17. d NO IMPACT. The Second Amendment does not include development or any activities that could have substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. The Second Amendment proposes to extend the authority for the Agency to use eminent domain to acquire nonresidential property in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area for an additional twelve years, and there is no development activity included as part of the Second Amendment. Thus, the Second Amendment would not directly have any potential adverse environmental effects on human beings. The future acquisition of real property in compliance with the Second Amendment could indirectly lead to development and potential environmental impacts to human beings. All development (public and private) would be required to prepare subsequent CEEQA documentation at the time projects are proposed for approval and address potential environmental impacts to human beings as applicable. 18. LISTED BELOW ARE THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO PREPARED OR PARTICIPATED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY Phil Martin, Phil Martin &Associates, Environmental Consultant Douglas R. Evans, City of Palm Springs, Director of Planning & Zoning Curt Watts, Redevelopment Administrator, Palm Springs Redevelopment Agency 19. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ■ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be,prepared;, ❑, I find,that although the .proposed, ;project, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be.a significant effect in this case because of the mitigation measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. ❑ 1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EPORT is required. ❑ 1 find that the proposed proje is consistent with the Program EIR. DATE: ( tat-A, aS�aONJ J HN S RAYM N C nity Rede opment Agency of the City of Palm Springs "Mn 40 DOU L S WEVANS Director of Planning &Zoning / '41 -19- APPENDIX A TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS CONSTITUENT AREA MAP /03? W O > O 4 z z a W a N z � IG ]{ W 3RFTti'� Y� JII, ALEJO RD �0r ' AMADORD yJIM ANDREAS RD . ��y�_y-•.— -•y�`�—'•� TAHQUITZ 4 ARENAS RD NaO, - J � f a 1 U J 9ARISTO PAR %- W 4 _ .. RAMON RD „ � Ur U — Project Area Boundary Source.' City of Palm Springs Tahquitz-Andreas 10 3�� RESOLUTION NO. 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,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 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"X; and, WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed in detail the objections presented atthejoint public hearing and the Response,togetherwith all testimony and 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. 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 day of , 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA By City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED &APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,APPROVING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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 ("Plans"), 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, the Amendment proposes to reestablish the ability to use eminent domain to acquire certain propertywithin the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area,except for properties legally devoted to a residential use; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared on the proposed Amendment ("Negative Declaration"), as on file with the City Clerk, and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein; and WHEREAS, a notice of the availability of the Negative Declaration for public review and comment was forwarded to the State Clearinghouse and other appropriate agencies on March 31,2004,the review period assigned by the State Clearinghouse started April 2,2004 and ended May 3, 2004, and the notice of availability was published on April 4, 2004 in The Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Palm Springs for three consecutive weeks and a Notice of Joint Public Hearing was published each week beginning April 10, 2004 for three consecutive weeks in the Desert Sun; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2004 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council order the filing of a Negative Declaration and approve the proposed Amendment; and WHEREAS, on May 2 and May 19, 2004, the Agency and City Council held a joint public hearing on the proposed Amendment and Negative Declaration and received and considered all evidence and testimony pertaining thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Springs as follows: SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein. SECTION 2. The City Council finds there is not substantial evidence that the proposed Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council based upon the whole record of the Negative Declaration, including the Initial Study contained therein, any comments received and evidence and testimony received at the joint public hearing on the Negative Declaration. SECTION 3. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Negative Declaration prepared for the Amendment and hereby approves the Negative Declaration. SECTION 4. The City Clerk is authorized to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of Riverside following adoption by the City Council of the Ordinances adopting the Amendment. ADOPTED this day of , 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA By City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED &APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MERGED REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 2 (TAHQUITZ-ANDREAS EMINENT DOMAIN AMENDMENT) WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area was amended by Ordinance 1583 adopted on May 31, 2000 resulting in the Merged Redevelopment Plan ("Plan")for Merged Redevelopment Project No. 2 ("Project Area"); and WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palm Springs("Agency') has and continues to conduct redevelopment activities in the Project Area, pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law, Health & Safety Code Section 33000, et seg. ("Community Redevelopment Law"); and WHEREAS,this Ordinance amends the Plan to extend the abilityto use eminent domain to acquire certain propertywithin the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area("Area"), exceptfor properties legally devoted to a residential use; and WHEREAS, after providing notice in accordance with all applicable laws, the City Council of the City of Palms Springs("City Council")and the Agency held a joint public hearing on May 5, 2004 and May 19, 2004 ("Public Hearing") to consider the adoption of this Ordinance and prepared and made available to the public all the reports and information required by Section 33349 of the Community Redevelopment Law prior to the Public Hearing; and WHEREAS,at the Public Hearing, the City Council and the Agency received oral testimony from all persons wishing to be heard, and in addition incorporated into the record of the Public Hearing the following documents, each of which is incorporated by reference into this Ordinance as though set forth fully herein, as are the minutes of the Public Hearing: 1. The affidavit of publication of Notice of the Public Hearing; 2. The certificate of mailing of Notice of Public Hearing to each business owner, property owner and resident in the Project Area to persons, and to firms or corporations which have acquired property within the Project Area; 3. The certificate of mailing of Notice of Public Hearing to the governing bodies of each taxing agency within the Project Area; 4. The Agency's Report to the City Council dated April 21, 2004; 5. The Negative Declaration; 6. The proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area; and 7. Public communications concerning the Amendment; and WHEREAS, the adoption of this Ordinance is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Recourse Code, Section 21000, et seq.; NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Section 33457.1 of the Community Redevelopment Law, which indicates that this Ordinance must contain the findings required by Section 33367 of ' t the Community Redevelopment Law Code, to the extent warranted,the City Council makes the following findings: 1) It has been determined previously the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area is blighted and that the redevelopment of said Area is necessary to effectuate the public purposes of Community Redevelopment Law, such conditions continue to exist in the Area. This finding is based upon the following conditions which characterize the Project Area: The subdividing and sale of lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development. Several obsolete commercial buildings with limited onsite parking and small infill lots have remained undeveloped for decades. Assembly of multiple parcels to create economically developable lots is difficult due to small lot sizes and the diverse ownership patterns. A lack of proper utilization of property, resulting in a stagnant and unproductive condition of land potentially useful and valuable. It is further found and determined that such conditions are causing and will increasingly cause a reduction and lack of proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social and economic burden on the City, which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City and the State. This finding is based on the fact that governmental action available to the City without redevelopment would be insufficient to cause any significant correction of the blighting conditions,and that the nature and costs of the public improvements and facilities required to correct the blighting conditions are beyond the capacity of the City and cannot be undertaken or borne by private enterprise, acting alone or in concert with available governmental action. 2) The Amendment,as described above,will permit the continuation of redevelopment in the area in conformitywith Community Redevelopment Law,and is in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare by aiding in the elimination and correction of the conditions of blight, providing for planning,development, redesign, clearance, reconstruction or rehabilitation of properties which need improvement, and providing for higher economic utilization of potentially useful land. 3) The adoption and carrying out of the Amendment is economically sound and feasible as no public redevelopment activity will be undertaken unless the Agency can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue to finance the activity and the Agency's Report to City Council pursuant to Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law, further demonstrates the economic soundness and feasibility of the Plan. 4) The Amendment conforms to the General Plan of the City of Palm Springs, including, but not limited to, the City's Housing Element,which substantially complies with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. This finding is based upon the Planning Commission's original findings that the constituent redevelopment plans conform to the General Plan for the City of Palm Springs. 5) The carrying out of the Amendment will continue to promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City,and will continue to effectuate the purposes and policy / Ir fir) of Community Redevelopment Law by correcting conditions of blight and by coordinating public and private actions to stimulate development and improve the economic,social and physical conditions of the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area. 6) Eminent Domain, as provided in the Amendment, is necessary to the execution of the Plan with respect to the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area to ensure that the provisions of the Plan will be carried out and to prevent the recurrence of blight, and adequate provisions have been made for the payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. 7) The Agency has a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons who might be displaced,temporarily or permanently,from housing facilities in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area as the Merged Redevelopment Plan for Merged Project Area No. 2 provides for relocation assistance according to State law. 8) There are,or will be provided,within the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area or other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who might be displaced from the Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment and no person or family will be required to move from any dwelling unit until suitable replacement housing is available. 9) Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33411 and 33411.1 of the Community Redevelopment Law, and dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to Sections 33334.5,33413 and 33413.5 of said Law. This finding is based upon the fact that the Amendment does not contemplate the imminent relocation of any households or businesses to accomplish its goals, a comprehensive and detailed relocation plan will be developed when relocation is imminent, and relocation of displaced persons, families and businesses within the Tahquitz- Andreas Constituent Area will be accomplished in full compliance with State guidelines as they currently exist or as they may be amended from time to time. 10)It has been determined previously that the inclusion of any lands, building, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part, and that all areas included are necessary for effective redevelopment and are not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such areas pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law without substantial justification for their inclusion;such determination continues to be correct in the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area. This finding is based upon the fact that the boundaries of the Area were chosen to include lands that were underutilized because of blighting influences,or affected bythe existence of blighting influences,and land uses significantly contributing to the conditions of blight,whose inclusion is necessary to accomplish the objectives and benefits of the Plan. 11)The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Tahquitz-Andreas Constituent Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. This finding is based upon the existence of blighting influences, including the inability of individual developers to economically remove these blighting influences without substantial public assistance in providing adequate public improvements and facilities, and the 15*03 inadequacy of other governmental programs and financing mechanisms to eliminate the blight including the provision of necessary public improvements and facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES FURTHER ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The City Council finds that all the facts and conclusions as set forth above in this Ordinance are true and correct. Section 2:Any and all written and oral objections filed with or presented to the City Council in regard to the adoption of this Ordinance are hereby overruled. The written responses to those written objections are hereby adopted by the City Council, which responses are incorporated by reference as though set forth fully herein. Section 3: The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Amendment to the Merged Redevelopment Plan for Merged Redevelopment Project No.2,Tahquitz-Andreas Eminent Domain Time Limit Extension, as on file with the City Clerk, which is incorporated by reference as though set forth fully herein. Section 5: If any section, subsection,sentence, clause, phrase,or portion of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person,firm, corporation, or circumstance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions thereof. The City Council of the City of Palm Springs hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portions be declared invalid our unconstitutional. Section 6: The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of this Ordinance to the Agency, which shall be responsible for carrying out the Amendment. Section 7: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty(30) days after passage. Section 8: The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance, and to cause the same or summary thereof, or a display advertisement, duly prepared according to law, to be published in accordance with law. ADOPTED this day of 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA By City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED &APPROVED 1�1 y