HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 91-086RESOLUTION NO. 91-85
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDZNGS IN
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS AND
SUGGESTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROJECT AREA N0. 3 OF
THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAI,M DESERT HEREBY
FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Pursuant to California Health and Safety
Code Section 33363, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert
hereby adopts written findinqs, attached hereto as Exhibit B, in
response to each written objection and suqqestion of an affected
property owner or taxinq entity received before or at the joint
public hearinq on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for Project
Area No. 3 of the Palm Desert Redevelopment Aqency, which
writte� objections and suggestions are attached hereto as Exhibit
A. Th� City Council has not accepted specified written
objections and sugqestions for the reasons set forth in the
attached written findinqs in response to such written objections
and suqqestions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this llth day of
July , 1991 by the followinq vote, to wit:
AYES: KELLY, WILSON, SNYDER
NOES : NO�1E
ABSENT: N�NE
ABSTAIN: BENSON, CRITES
, y
MAYOR �
ATTEST:
r L /
i , •
_ � ;�- , ��--G �C ! �r'� _
CifiSf" CLERK /'
j
910617 syc C299.RON <0)
.\`.�'J:J� � a.i.� ���i • � _ S _
�!_i�T— 1
� . ., . . ,-y
COACHELL� VALLEY RECREATION AND �'AR,K DISTRICT
d5 't6 C:MMER�� STR��' SV,T�j �,g g. �YOIO CAL.FORN;A 92201 •�619� 347 3464
� L 1
��UI'1�' �b, i,�� — - ---- ---
Carlos Orte�a
Execut�ve Director
Falm Desert �edevelopment Agency
73-51� Fred �iaring Drive
Palm DeserL, ��A 92260
Re: Proposed Pro;ect r�rea No. 3
Dear ��ar 1 cs :
Tlu� ietter �rill confirm that the Coachella Valley Recreation and ParK
Di�tr�=� �,"Distr�ct") is prepared �o support the proposed Pro�ect Area
No. 3 of t!-:e Palm Desert RedevelepmP.nt Agency !"Agency") in return `or
the Aqency's coRmttment to early construct�on of the Recreati�n
��yrraiasi��n/Camnulity Center in the Palm Desert �ivic Center, pursuant
to �ne Lease Aqreemp.nt between the District and tne Agency dated May
�3, 1990.
In return �or =his ccemu tment by the Agency, the District is wzll�ng
t���orego :ecuesting a pass-throuqh agreement tor the District's share
uf tax �:c:��t generated with.in proposed Pr:.�ect Area No. 3, anci
oerr�� `.ne hgency to use the District's share of such tax ir.c:emPs.�
=�r the :��nding ot con�truction oT the Recreation ��yttmasi�an/Ca[mn,uiitY
�eIlter.
T!^.� s ar=3r:ganent is intended to be sinular to that existing
arrangerrpnt concerning Aqency Pro�ect Area No. 2, by wlucn tne Agency
:�a� agreea �o provide facilities to the DisLrict in lieu of a�ass-
chr�ugn �r tax increment generated within Pro�ect Area No. �.
Very t:uiy ;jours,
,/�� '/� �lc
' ^ rfc r an
Rec_eat:�n and ar uperint�ncient
SM/ ictis
cc: ?ndreTa Brocxs, Dye, Thomas. Luebs S Mort
_c�y,vG BE-�nI.CA JUYES • C�ACi.E_� • _� �_ `.'� . _�`.�ER vo��=� • �J'Ati .eE__5 • v� O • =°-�' -_=---
��^�♦ .-.. ♦• \'/�• _ � n
J ✓ L - - —� .v _ � � . . _
E::HZ3IT "B"
e. Summary and Recommendations:
The County of Riverside summarized the previously noted objections and
comments to the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 3. specifically,
pointing out the fiscal detriment issue that was outlined in the Fiscal Review
Committee Report which they have attached to their written correspondence
dated June 27, 1991. Legal and environmental issues were also summarized.
In reiterating these issues, the County recommends that the Agency consider
postponing the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan to allow staff to resolve
the fiscal, legal and environmental concerns they have raised.
Response: The fiscal detriment issue, as outlined in the Counry's written
correspondence of June 27 and in the Fiscal Review Committee Report has
been responded to in detail within this response, the Agency's response to
the Fiscal Review Committee Report and the Report. Adequate discussion
and documentation has been provided in the above cited documents that
fiscal detriment has not been proved by the County. Further, until such time
as the County can produce data and evidence that �iscal detriment and
burden will occur because of the adoption of Project Area No. 3, the Agency
must assume that no detriment will occur. The issues raised regarding the
adequacy of the Redevelopment Plan and of the Environmental Impact
Report within the Counry's written correspondence have been answered
previously in this response. Finally, in response to the County's request to
postpone adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the evidence provided at che
public hearing, the Report and in this response to the written comments
received at the public hearing is considered accurate, substantial and .
,P+Imdn\nP�omm G 1
.�J�., _ - - .. �:r ��'J . , _- : . .
� E:{HI3IT "B"
adequate for the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency to act upon
the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. Further, because of the adverse
conditions within the Project Area, it is of the utmost importance that the
Redevelopment Plan be adopted now so that redevelopment of the Project
Area can commence as soon as possible.
P�an�.���m 22
�';�___.., _ �. -
E(-._.
PE�xs & Kov�.sK�
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
�4227 'v10NTEREY AVENUE, SUITE 2
PAL�'vl DESERT, C� 9Z260
�619) "3--3463
FAX i619) 436-3442
OAVID M.PETERS
ROBERT ,'v1. KOVALSKY
June 26, 1991
� — __ _ - -
�; .
'. � 2 7
' --- - --- --- —
E�C��ir�� �F�:C�
�401 �tAtiCHE�TER �`-E`i,E �i '": _ ��
EvCI'vITAS C.� a'�'a
�619i 136-'s�ill
Ci�y Counsel 3oard af Directors
Palm Desert City Hall Palm Desert Redevelop�ent Agency
73-510 Fred Waring Drive 73-510 Fred Warinq Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260 Palm Desert, California 92260
RE: Mountain View Falls Homeowners & Vista Del Montanas Homeowners
Association\Joint Public Hearinq To Consider Adoption of
Redevelopment Plan - Project Area 3
Our File No. 1126.1
Dear Board Members:
Please be advised that the law firm of Peters &
the Mountain View Falls Homeowners & Vista Del
Association ("Associations") in thia matter.
letter is to demand that the Associations not
Piroposed Palm Desert Redevelopment Plan for
("Redevelopment Plan").
Rovalsky represents
Montanas Homevwners
The purpose of this
be included in the
Project Area No. 3
The Redevelopment Aqency's authority to establiah a Redevelopment
Zone is derived from California Health and Safety Code Section
33I�C ar.d ;333C. Wh�le the Redevelopment Aqency may be entitled
to establish a redevelopment zone, the selection and implementation
of any proposed Redevelopment Aqency must be fair, non-
discriminatory and rational. It is our belief that there is no
justification for drawinq a Redevelopanent Zone which includes a
selected few small residential homeowners aasociations within a
primarily connnercial Redevelopment Zone. There ia no reasonable
justification for imposinq the burden (such as to construct a
bridge over the Cook Street wash, which incidentally is not within
the Redevelopment Zone) which enures to other similar situated
residential projects on a few selected properties. Such a plan is
arbitrary and capricious in that many Homeowners Associations
outside of the project area, yet potential beneficiaries to such
a plan, face no adverse financial liability as does this
Association, see Leach v. City of San Marcos, 213 Ca1.App.3d 648,
261 Cal.Rptr. 805.
E;tn.�I � �;
June 26, 1991
RE: Opposition
Page 2
to Redevelopment Project Area No. 3
It is our understanding that a major purpose of the Redevelopment
Agency is to finance itnprovements within the Project Area by
selling '"ax Increment Bonds. Repayment of these bonds come from
increases above base year tax assessments of iunproved or resold
property within the Project Area. This section further provides
that if there is not enouqh incremental tax revenue to service the
bonds, the Agency may, in certain circumstances, pass a Special
Assessment against the properties within the Project Area.
Caii�. riealt:� anu �afa�y �aCa, Sec. 3382u states:
"Special Assessment Areas wholly within Redevelopment
Project areas may be established and Special Assessments
levied within such Special Assessment Areas pursuant to
t�is chapter."
Calif. Health and Safety Code, Sec. 33817 i.mplies that special
assessment areas mny be established only for project areas as they
existed on July 1, 19�8. It is our understanding that the City of
Palm Desert and the Redevelopment Agency concur with this
interpretation and agree that it does not have the right to le�ry
a special assessment against any of the properties within �he
Redevelopment Zone. We appreciate a letter from the City of Pa'_m
Desert and the Redevelopment Aqency statinq that it does not have
the power to pass a special assessment or any other direct or
indirect tax, revenue enhancing measure or action which would
r�sult in any incremental cost to the property owners within the
subject Redevelopment Zone.
Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 33363 the
Associations' request that each objection stated in this letter �e
responded to in writinq. Foz your reference the relevant por��ons
of �al�forn;a Kealtr. 3nd Safety Code Section 33353 are as fc�llows:
"At the hour set in the notice required by Section 3336I for
hearinq objections, the leqislative body shall proceed to
hear...all written objections. Before adopting the
redevelopment plan the leqislative body shall evaluate the
report of the aqency, the report and recommendation of the
pro j ect area committee, and all evidence and testi.mony f or and
against the adoption of the plan and shall make written
findinqs in response to each written obiection of an affec�ed
property owner or taxinQ entitv. The legislative body sha'_�
respond in writinc to the written obiections received before
describe the dis�osition of the issues raised. T::e
leQislative body shall address the written obiections �n
June 26, 1991
RE: Opposition
Page 3
E�Nlst� a
to Redevelopment Project Area No. 3
faith, reasoned analysis in its res�onse and, for this
pur�ose, conclusionary statements uns�p�orted by factual
information shall not suffice. (Emphasis by the California
State Legislature).
For the most part, the proposed Redevelop�ent Zone is comprised of
commercial properties. There is no legitimate reason to include
2�ounta�n V�ew Fal�s Homeowners & Vista Del Montanaa Homeowners
Association and exclude the Lakes Homeownera Association and the
Marriot Project. It is our understandinq that the Lakes and the
Marriot are within Project Area 2. The Mountain View Falls
Homeowners & Vista Del Montanas Homeownera Asaociation request to
either not be included in the proposed Redevelop�ent Project Area
3 or in the alternative, be included within Redevelopment Project
Area 2.
Finally, the Mountain View Falls Homeowners & Vista Del Montanas
Homeowners Associations feel that they are not beinq accorded due
process under U.S.C. Code Title 42 & 43 (1983) and the 14th
Amendment to the United Stntes Constitution.
Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any
questions, please do not heaitate to contact ma.
S�tncerely{'
� „' �" / _
., f� , /. ;,i, C�
David M. Peters, Esq.
Counsel for Mountain View Falls Homeowners Association
Dr� : � m
cc: Bob Barco, Prea. Mountain View Fall Homeowners Association
Hand Carried
++ O, f '`, .
O � �O
N 1, f�� I �
;��
' Gary N. �;oaieil
� ' Chuf �idmmucranvc O';�:ce.
�' E:(= .�.- ..
G 1^ V�' \
' , � `�
�'/
i ' �
�tscrteiie �immerman
Asstsrant C.�O
Counry Administrati�e Office
Jtu1e 27, 1991
City of Palm Desert Redevelopment Aqency
73-510 Fred Warinq Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: City of Pal� Desert Redevelopoent �,qency's Project �rea No. 3
County of Riverside Coaents
Ladies and Gentleaen;
The County of Riverside has reviewed and evaluated the proposed
Redevelopaent Plan !or Project l�lrea No. 3. we find that the
proposed Redevelop�ant Plan and related environaental docusents to
be leqally inadequate and not supportive of tha findinqs necessary
for the establishaent of the Redevelopsent Project P,rea. In
addition, the proposed plan causes extre'e fiscal detri�ent to the
County General Fund. �s a consequence, the County must oppose the
proposed Redevelop�ent Plan at this tiae.
We have previously sub�itted to the aqency the report of the Fiscal
Reviev Coaittee and the County's independant fiscal review. �Te
herewith forsnlly reaub�it both reports and request that the 1►qency
adopt the sitiqation �easures and reco�endations contained
therein. 1�ilso, the County herewith su�its testiaony for the
public record relative to the follovinq areas: 1) qeneral coaents;
2) validity o! tha propoaed Redevelop�ent Plan; 3) co�pliance with
the California Environ�sntal Quality �ct; 4) adequacy of City's
General Plan; and, 5) si�ary and recoaendations.
. : : • ��� �
The County relies heavily on property tax revenue to finance the
provision of services to residants of cities and unincorporated
areas. Such services include health, welfare, cri�inal justice and
a variety o! other people oriented services and proqraas. In fact,
the majority of County services are provided to city residents.
COUNTY ADMINiSTRATNE CENTFR
46-209 Oasis. Room 308 • Indio. Califomia 92201-5994 •(6191342-8340 • Fax (619) 342 S4'8
The increasing costs assaciated with many of these proqrams are
financed by increases in assessed valuation attributable to new
development, changes in ownership of property and the annual 2$
increase allos�ed by law. When city redevelopment areas are formed,
these increases are allocated to the redevelopment aqency thereby
leavinq the County inadequate revenues to finance the escalatinq
cost of existinq services. �lso, the increase in demand for County
services generated by cities' redevelopaent projects must be met
without the benefit of additional property tax revenue.
City redevelopaent aqencies must provide sufficient revenue, via
cooperative aqreeaents, to support existinq services and to finance
the provision of services to those attracted to the area by the
cities' projects, includinq those who �rork within the city but
choose to reside elsewhere.
Aside fro� the issue of fiscal detriaent, the County must also
question the size and scope of the redevelopaent project for a
wealthy resort coaunity with a 1990 population of 20,569. also,
the current conditions in this wealthy country club and executive
office area show no evidence of bliqht or need for urban renewal.
If this Plan is approved, virtually the entire City of Palm Desert
will be in a redevelopaent area. We do not believe that this is
the intent of the Co�unity Redevelop�ent Law!
VALIDITY OF REDEVELOPMENT P.�x
The County has serious concerns reqardinq the validity of the
proposed Redevelop�ent Plan in it's present form. Our concerns
include, but are not liaited to, the followinq:
1. The Redevelop�ent Projact l�irea is not predominantly
urbanized as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33320.1.
2. 2i findinq of bliqht by City and �,qency cannot be supported
by the available evidence.
3. The Project P,ren includes many parcels which are obviously
not bliqhted, and which are unnecessary for the effective
development of the area.
4. There is a lack of supportinq evidence to make the findings
required by Health and Safety Code 33367 reqardinq the impact of
tax incresent financing on taxing entities which derive property
tax revenue froa the Project area.
5. The 1�qency has not adequately deaonstrated the need for
public participation or provided substantial evidence that private
enterprise actinq alone cannot eli�inate the alleqed bliqht.
6. The available evidence fails to support a findinq that the
Redevelopment Plan will proaote "the public peace, health, safety
and welfare" as required by Health and Safety Code Section 33367.
i=�._.._��__, . ... _-.,
�X�.3:' ,�
7. The proposed Redevelopment Plan does not conform to the
City's General Plan.
•''_ • . .
: • � � � � � �1,� � . • .
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Project �,rea
is deficient in a variety of areas which include, but are not
lim.ited to, the followinq:
1. The EIR does not adequately assess or provide for
mitigation of the Plan's impact on the County.
2. The EIR does not adequately distinguish between mitiqation
required by the California Environaental Quality act and the
Community Redevelopa�ent Law.
3. The EIR does not identify how the County would provide
increased services without the tax revenues qenerated by the
Redevelopaent Project.
4. The EIR is lacking in its consideration of all
environsental iapacts includinq population growth, housing,
transportation, noise, recreation, bioloqical, air quality and
others.
5. The EIR does not adequately discuss the timinq for
implementation of the Plan.
• 6. The EIR does not adequately address the impact of
compliance with the Plan's low and �oderate-inco�e requirements.
7. The EIR does not adequately consider the alternative of
private enterprise actinq alone to develop the Project Area.
8. The EIR does not address migration into the area as a
result of the Redevelopaent Plan.
9. The mitigation monitoring plan outlined in the EZR is
inadequate.
� � • � ��•�����'��� �_�: , __' : .
as a prerequisite to the adoption of a redevelopsent plan, Health
and Safety Code Section 33302 requires the City to have adopted a
General Plan which aeets the requireaents contained in Government
Code Section 65302. The City's General Plan fails to substantially
comply with Governaent Code section 65302. The deficiencies
include, but are not limited to, the followinq:
� �. �
_����---�.� :;�. �_-3^
EXHIBIT A
1. The General Plan fails to adequately specify development
policies, objectives, principles and standards.
2. The General Plan is out of date, fails to accurately
reflect current conditions, and incorporates incorrect and obsolete
data.
3. The General Plan's circulation, land use, housinq, open
space, noise and safety elements are not in co�pliance with
Government Code Section 65302.
�V�V i ♦ � f � V�Y � � r �
The County of Riverside has several azeas of concern relative to
the proposed Redevelopaent Plan for Project area No. 3. First, we
would point to the fiscal detri�ent issues outlined in the report
of the Fiscal Review Coaittee (copy attached) and ask the aqency
to adopt the aitigation 'easures contained therein. Second, the
leqal and environaental issues raised in this docu�ent should be
discussed and resolved by County and aqency staff prior to adoption
of the Redevelopaent Plan. Consequently, we are urqinq the Aqency
to postpone adoption of the Plan at this tiae to allow staff to
resolve the various fiscal, leqal and environaental concerns
relative to this project.
We appreciate the opportunity to coaoent on the proposed
redevelopaent plan and look fo�ard to workinq with City and Aqency
staff to resolve these outstandinq issues.
ly submitted,
is,t.'ratJ3ve Manaqer
.,.....�.�_T_J�� _��. a _�,-,
LYN N D. CRAN DALL
A��v q V E�5 C� ��qyy
. . _ " �.''" ai ga5 ._ � _-_ a.r.,-,.,_ 5.. '_ _
_ . - '"� DGLM �ESEiT �4�.FCRNi4 92260
_� _ o='—
June 25, 1991
DELTVERED BY MESSENGER
Mr. Carlos Orteqa
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: RedeveloDment Proiect
Dear Mr. Orteqa:
C,�."i�.T ri
�
��.1r� 2 �
This letter concerns the public hearinq scheduled for
June 27, 1991, with reference to the redevelopment plan for
project area number 3. This letter is intended to be made a
part of the record of the proceedings.
My office represents RK Development and its principals,
Sam Russell and Frank Koenen, the owners of the industrial
properties known qenerally as Cook Street Business Park. My
client's buildinqs are located in the area bounded by Green
Way, Seqo Lane, Mayfair and Beacon Hill. Most of the
properties are improved but some of them are vacant.
My clients wish to make it clear that they do not oppose
the establishment of the plan or the project area. They agree
that various projects and public improvements might be
appropriate ior the area. However, the written public notice
sent with respect tc the hearinq indicated by hatched lines
that certain public street improvements miqht be contemplated.
The public notice further stated that objections should be
lodged now in order to remain effective. It is my client�s
understandinq that the proposed street aliqnments and the
necessity for their construction are not matters which will be
before the council at the hearing on June 27th
�
�
�
_t��...__.T�:`i .��. � _�
EXH:3I' ?.
Mr. Carlos Orteqa
Page 2
June 25, 1991
notwithstandinq that those streets are shown as possible
streets on the public hearinq notice. Nevertheless, my
clients desire to lodqe their opposition to the proposed
streets.
The two streets evidently serve no purpose other than tc
join the two industrial areas which are now separated except
by access via Cook Street. My clients believe that the street
improvements should not be considered in liqht of their very
su�7stantial cost without at least traffic studies beinq
conducted in order to determine the extent of traffic that
would flow between the two industrial areas. Common sense
would indicate that very little traffic, probably minuscule in
amount, would ever have a need to travel between the two
industrial areas. Althouqh traffic alleviation on Cook Street
is a major problem, traffic would not be lessen by the
proposed streets except for traffic that had as its
destination a location in the adjoininq industrial
subdivision. This is so because if the destination were
otherwise, the vehicle would necessarily end up on Cook Street
whether it left the industrial area via the present access or
left the area throuqh the adjoininq subdivision.
The hatched line indicatinq an extension of State Street
would be very expensive. The lots in my client's subdivision
and through which the propcsed street is designed to traverse
are improved with two buildinqs, each approximately 25,000
square feet in size. The buildinqs are presently occupiec3 by
tenants and are only about 6 years old. It is unclear whether
any of the buildinqs would have to be taken for the street
improvemant; but, certain2y the covered parkinq would have to
be taken. This is an important feature of these properties
and is critical to the occupancies. It seems self-evident
that it would be a foolish waste of public money to condemn
improved property tor the construction of a street designed to
provide access bstween two low density industrial areas.
Similarly, the street on the riqht oi the map, evidently an
alternative to the State Street extension, would also involve
a very substantial disruption of my client'� property and the
tenants who occupy it. Althouqh the proposed access at the
north end of the proposed street is not improved with a
buildinq, it is the area in which there is also covered
.i_.._ � .� _ _ � J, ./�✓ • . � � � .
E;tHi3IT A
Mr. Carlos Ortega
Page 3
June 25,.1991
parkinq for the building occupyinq the corner lot.
Your consideration of the foreqoinq as well as that of
the city council would be very much appreciated.
Very truly yours,
LAW OFFICES OF LYNN D. CRANDALL
�
; G'
Ly� D randall _
LDC:jls
5885.11
� _. J J .. _ L L C `V .1 '.,J . � � � J ^
r1AYEA
°�aT�w�
� �
, _ "_ `
_�'�Bl!ShE� N 9� aS �, a�B� GENCY
��_
✓ E;(��i3;` A
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 24
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92238 • TELEPMONE �6�91 J98265t
�iaEC'. �RS ,cc �cos
'EL_'S COOEKAS PQESIDENT TNOMAS E LEW GENERAL MANAGER CMiE� E'vG�hEE�
9AYMONO R RLMMONOS '��CE °RES'�DE"7'• BERNARDiNE SUT'CN SE�:.4E'sR�
AMN W MCfAD�EW OWEN MCCOOK. A$$i57ANT CENERAL MANAGE�
JORpTHY M 4iCMClS June 24 , 1991 REOWiNE AND Sh+ERRi�� q"T�RhE'S
iNE00�RE : ��SM
File: 1150.061
Carlos Ortega� Executive Director
Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency
73-SIO Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92264
Dear Mr. Ortega:
Subject: Palm Desert Redevelopment Project No. 3
The City of Palm Desert is proposing to form a redevelopment project area north
of the Whitewater River Stormwater Channel on both sides of Cook Street. The
Riverside County Auditor-Controller in its report dated January 2� 1991,
indicated that the Coachella Valley Water District's percentage of the genaral
purpose tax revenues from this project area is 6.94 percent. This revenue is
used for stormwater and general district functions. These needs continue even
with the improvements that the redevelopment agency will install.
Therefore, while supportive of the goals of the agency for Project Area *Io.
we believe that it is vital that we receive full pass through of our share
the tax revenue or that the agency acquire the property for a satellite
operating facility for us. As we discussed, the estimated cost of the land
in excess of S3 million. Given our plans for the facility, the acquisition
would need to be done soon or an agreement for the agency to reimburse the
Coachella Valley Water District the costs would be necessary.
3,
of
is
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me.
Yours very truly,
�/ �
/
��iL��`i !'�� �� ��' �
�vy Tom Levy
l General Manager-Chief Engineer
TEL:il/16
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
<_. .._ _ . ..-.� � � . . . IJ � � ,.
�\_.✓�J.� � � ��-1 -1� .
�
WRITTEN RESPONSES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS OF AFFECTED
PROPERTY OWNERS OR TAXING ENTITIES PREPARED
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
SECTZON 33363 IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 3
EXHIBIT B
910617 syc C299.RDN (0)
�......�.��T�..`� `IJ• J-��.
EXHIBIT "B"
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
1. Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District. (Written comments dated June 26,
1991) The Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District indicated their support
for the Project Area in return for the Agency's commitment to early construction of
the Recreation Gymnasium Community Center in the Palm Desert Civic Center
pursuant to the lease agreement between the District and the Agency dated May 23,
1990. The letter further stated that in return for this commitment, the District was
willing to forego any pass-through of tax increment from the Project Area.
Response: Agency staff and the Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District
have been working together to facilitate an agreement that would equitably address
any financial burden or detriment that may be imposed upon the Recreation and
Parks District by the adoption of Project Area No. 3. The District is aware that the
Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 3 includes a recreation center/park to
serve the Project Area. Agency staff and the Parks and Recreation Districts
continue to discuss these issues. Upon documentation of the financial impact and
the benefit to be gained by the District through the eventual funding of the
construcrion of the Recreation Center, an agreement will be drafted and presented
to the Agency for their consideration.
2. Coachella Valley Water District. (Written correspondence dated June 24, 1991).
Coachella Valley Water District's percentage of the general purpose tax revenues
from the Project Area is 6.94, This revenue is used for storm water and general
district functions. Their written correspondence states that in addition to the
P.����,��«�m 1
♦�._. �� . � �.. � _I�J • . .. . �
_ E.�HI3IT "B" —
3.
improvements the Agency may install in the Project Area, they continue the need
for all revenue generated from the Project Area. Although they indicate support for
the goals of the Recievelopment Agency for Project Area No. 3, they are requesting
a full pass-through of their share of tar revenue from the Agency, or that the Agency
acquire the property for a satellite operating facility for the Water District. It is
specified that the cost for the land for such a facility would be in excess of �3
million. Given the Water District's plans for such a facility, they are requesting an
agreement with the Agency to reimburse the Water District for the costs that would
be necessary for such a facility.
.•
Response: Agency staff will continue to meet with the Coachella Valley Water
District representatives in an attempt to confirm the existence of financial burden or
detriment and to evaluate the cost benefit of providing funds for the faciliry outlined
in their written correspondence. If the existence of financial detriment can be
confirmed and quantified, a mutual acceptable agreement will be worked out and
presented to the Agency for their approval.
Law Oftices of Lindy Crandall, Attorney at Law, representing RK. Development
and its Principals, Sam Russell and Frank Cohen, who are owners of industrial
property tocated within the Cook Street Business Park. (Written correspondence
dated June 25, 1991) R.K. Development does not oppose the establishment of the
Project Area and they agree that various projects and public improvements might be
appropriate for the area; however, they are concerned about the public hearing
notice which identified potential property that may be acquired to provide
additional access to Cook Street business properties. They are opposed to the
proposed access identified on the public hearing notice and question the need and
cost for such access. They also state that although traffic on Cook Street is a major
"�
,
�
,prlmdit\ispcomm 2
._.� �_ _� _ ��+ �.'� . _— _ i
EY?-?I3IT "B"
problem, traffic would not be lessened by the proposed access except for the traffic
that had, as its destination, a location adjoining the industrial subdivision. Thev
further state that it is unclear whether or not buildings they presently own which are
occupied by tenants would be acquired to provide such access, but certainly that the
covered parking which serves these buildings would have to be. They express the
opinion that such acquisition would be a foolish waste of public money and that
would also involve a substantial disruption of R.K. Development's property and
tenants.
Response: The Report to the City Council from the Redevelopment Agency on
the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 3(the "Report") clearly states that
there is a need for additional access in this area and that congestion does occur
between various industrial facilities that are located on the east side of Cook Street.
The Redevelopment Ptan for Project Area No. 3 speci�es that provision of such
access is one of the intended public improvement projects. Documentation
provided in the Report clearly demonstrates the need for the construction of a
roadway connecting businesses and industrial parks along the east side of Cook
Street to eliminate back-to-back left turns and improve overall access. Additionally,
further improvements in that area require construction of off-street parking areas to
reduce on-street parking and alleviate traffic and circulation problems, a need to
develop a staging area for truck drivers waiting to load and unload materials within
the business park, and the need to develop a remote parking facility for employees
that would allow patrons to park near the business facility. Although these specific
projects have been identified as part of the Redevelopment Plan's public
improvement list, the exact location of these improvements have not as yet been
identified. The purpose of identifying potential areas to be acquired in the public
hearing notices was to clearly divulge what, at the time, aQpeared to be the general
palmdn � rsp�omm 3
...�.�J.r _T..�.1 .I`� • �.�. �
E�HI3IT "3" �
�
4.
location of the required access. However, as stated at the public hearing, precise
location of such additional access has not specifically been identified. Further
studies will be conducted regarding access and parking problems within the general
vicinity of the Cook Street Business Park which will assist the Agency and the City in
pinpointing where such access should be provided. Both the City and the Agency
will provide to all property owners and businesses within the area adequate notice
and an opportunity to discuss and provide input on where such access should be
taken prior to making any decisions.
Peters and Kovalsky, Attorneys at Law, representing the Mountainview Falls
Homeowners and Vista Del Montanas Homeowners Association. (Written
correspondence dated June 26, 1991) The law �irm of Peters and Kovalsky,
representing the Mountainview Falls Homeowners and Vista Del Montanas
Homeowners Associations, requests their removal from the Project Area. It is their
belief that there is no justification for drawing Project Area No. 3's boundaries to
include their few residential developments because they believe the Project Area is
primarily commercial. They feel that including them would place an unreasonable
burden on their properties and that they would not benefit from the Project Area.
They expressed the opinion that if the Redevelopment Agency were to issue tax
increment bonds and they were unable to repay these bonds, an assessment could be
placed on their properties. They further cited the California Health and Safety
Code's requirement that any written objection placed into the public hearing record
be responded to in writing prior to the legislative body approving or disapproving
the Redevelopment Plan. In addition to objecting to inclusion of their two
residential developments, they express the opinion that they would not mind being
included in Redevelopment Project Area No. 2, but do not give any reason for this
', palmdsc \ nptomm
�
"'1
J
�:.J�.�:._ _ _��� .�v. : _— � :
�YHI3IT "3"
view. And finally they expressed the opinion that they are not being accorded due
process under liSC Code Title 42 and 43 in the 14th Amendment to the United
States.
Response: Section A of the Report outlines and documents the reasons for
selecting the Project Area boundaries. Section A documents that the Project Area
consists of many different land uses and a variety of adverse conditions. In addition
to residential, commercial and industrial structures that show signs of age and
obsolescence and deterioration, there are specific residential developments that lack
adequate access and are serviced by inadequate public infrastructure improvements
and contain poorly laid out circulation systems. In the case of the Mountainview
Falls and Vista Del Montanas developments, these projects maintain only one point
of ingress and egress; and are therefore deficient in access. As documented in the
traffic study of the Environmental Impact Report on the Redevelopment Plan, these
residential developments will benefit from the traffic and circulation improvements
which are being proposed as part of the Redevelopment Plan's public improvement
projects. Additionally, the construction of the Cook Street bridge will improve the
health and welfare of not only those residing within the Project Area, but the
community at large. It is fair to say that construction of the bridge will benefit the
residents of both developments.
In regard to their comments purporting that the Agency may at some point in time
assess their properties, the Redevelopment Agency cannot by law issue any kind of
special assessment. The Redevelopment Agency does not have the power to tax
property. The only revenue received by the Redevelopment Agency is taac
increment revenue which is generated from the (normal) property ta�ces paid by
property owners whose property is located within a project area.
palmart\ rsprocom �
. � 1 � � T � � `/ .1 J • � � � � J
_ EXHIBIT "3" --
Tax increment is generated after a redevelopment pr�ject area is adopted. At the
time of adoption, the County Assessor and Auditor-Controller add up the current
assessed value of all the property located within a project area. The total figure is
called the Base Year Vatue (the Base Year may change during the adoption
depending on how long the adoption process takes). As propeny is improved or
resold, the assessed value increases in accordance with the limitations established by
Proposition 13. The property tax revenue generated by the increase in valuation
(above the Base Year Value) is called tax increment revenue.
The Ciry Council, in the adoption of the Resolution of which this document is an
attachment, will comply with the requirements of CaIifornia Redevelopment Law by
�
�
responding in writing to every objection that was submitied at the June 27, 1991
public hearing. These responses have been made available to the public prior to
their consideration by the City Council.
The comment that there is no legitimate reason to include these two residential
developments in the Project Area is in error. The reasons for selecting and
including the properties located within the Project Area have been documented in
detai� within the Report. Specific reasons for the selection of the Project Area's
boundaries are found in Section A.
As to why these two developments should be included within Project Area No. 2, it
was determined at the time the Project Area boundaries were selected that these
developments should be included in Project Area No. 3 and, therefore, would not be
considered for inclusion in Project Area No. 2.
�
f
Pama�� �«am 6
.��_ �_��_�; '��. -3';
EXHIBIT "5"
Finally, in response to the allegation that these two residential communities are not
being accorded their due process under the laws of the United States, the
consideration and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 3 has
been conducted in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code and the
laws and codes of the State of California and the United States of America. All
property owners have been given due notice that this project is under consideration
and afforded the privilege to attend meetings, provide citizen input and testify at the
public hearing at which the Redevelopment Plan is being considered for adoption.
5. County of Riverside Administrative Of�ce. (Writren correspondence dated June 27
1941) Responses to the concerns raised by the Counry of Riverside (the "County")
will be responded to by the categories outlined in the correspondence.
a. General Comments
The County indicates that it relies heavily on property tax revenue to finance
operations of the County and that such services include health and welfare
and criminal justice and that a ma}ority of these services are provided to City
residents. They indicate that increasing costs associated with these programs
are paid for by assessed valuations attributed to new development and that
changes in ownership and the annual 2% increase allowable under law is
required by the County to be able to fund the services. T'hey also indicate
that increased demand for County services is generated by the City and must
be met without the benefit of additional property taxes that are taken by
redevelopment projects. The County stipulates that City redevelopment
agencies must provide sufficient revenue via cooperative agreements to
support existing services financed by the County. Additionally, the Counry
Paman �. �sp�000m /
? _. .�. �i .J - _ _ � .. \ i �.J . � , ' � �-
0
EYNIBIT "3"
questions the size and scope of the redevelopment projects for the Palm �
Desert communiry. They assert that the current conditions within the City
�
�
show no evidence of blight or need for urban renewal and that if the
Redevelopment Plan is approved, the entire City of Palm Desert will be in a
Project Area, and they do not believe this is the intent of the Community
Redevelopment Law.
Response: The majority of the area within Project Atea No. 3 was annexed
to the City after development as unincorporated territory under County
control. Many of the problems that currently exist within the Project Area
were created by the lack of County oversight, regulation, and provision of
adequate infrastructure. The Ciry, in annexing this area, assumed many costs
associated with servicing this area that the County no longer has to provide.
The Project Area, both in size and in assessed valuation, represents a
miniscule portion of the County. The assessed valuation for the Project Area
is a mere $152 million, whereas the assessed valuation for the entire County
is $58 billion. It is hard to understand how inclusion of this area within a
redevelopment project area representing only 2.5% of the total tax base of
the County, can have a signi�cant financial impact on County services.
Agency staff and County representatives have discussed the financial impacts
and aspects of Project Area No. 3. To date the County has not provided
adequate evidence of �nancial burden or detriment. It is expected, however,
that if such evidence can be provided, the Agency would consider a
cooperative agreement that would address such purported financial burden
or detriment.
palmCst'�rsptomm V
.�;..,J_._�..��� ��J. �'�'_-..
_ EYHI3IT "3"
T�he County's claim that impacts from other redevelopment agencies are in
some way connected to the adoption of Project Area No. 3 is inappropriate
and not a valid consideration in determining if Project Area I�1o. 3 places a
financial burden or detriment on the County. Each project area within the
County is adopted to address specific issues of blight, and each project area
should be evaluated on its own financial aspects and impact to the Counry
and other taxing agencies. The connection and impact of all of the project
areas within the County is not a consideration and is not an issue that should
be considered pursuant to California Redevelopment Law in the evaluation
' of fiscal detriment. Further, based on the analysis conducted during Project
Area No. 3's adoption process, the Redevelopment Plan has been revised to
reduce both the allowahle tax increment to be collected over the 40-year life
of the Redevelopment Plan and the limit to bond a debt. This has been done
in an attempt to limit whatever financial burden or detriment the Project
Area may have on the County and other taxing agencies.
The Project Area, as documented in the ReQort, is blighted and is in need of
redevelopment and revitalization. Only through the use of tax increment
revenues can the Redevelopment Plan be implemented and the conditions of
blight which affect the health, safety, and welfare of the Project Area
residents and the communiry at large be eliminated. Currently, the burden
and detriment is upon the Project Area because of the adverse conditions
now present. California Redevelopment Law does not limit the amount of
territory a City may include in a redevelopment project area, therefore the
County's remarks about the intent of California Redevelopment Law in
regard to Palm Desert is irrelevant.
P.,�����m 9
� �- •• �. • �•r �' _ 2�
..rJ'_.r _ _ ��.� _�-J. �
— EYHIBIT -�"
b. Validity of Redevelopment Plan
The County has expressed its concerns regarding the validiry of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan. However, these concerns are very general in nature
and are, therefore, very difficult to respond with specificiry. However, the
documentation provided in the Report regarding the Project Area meets the
requirements of California Redevelopment Law in detailing the specific
terms the adverse and blighting conditions present within the Project Area.
1) The County states that the Project Area is not predominantly
urbanized as required by the California Redevelopment Law.
Response: As documented in the Report Section B, the
Redevelopment Project Area is considered urbanized. Although
there are numerous vacant parcels scattered throughout the Project
Area, these are located for the most part within developed residential,
business or industrial areas. Other vacant parcels are surrounded on
at least three and most times four sides by urbanized development. A
survey of the Project Area conducted by the Agency's redevelopment
consultantl in November and then again the day of the public hearing,
confirmed that the Project Area is urbanized. Therefore, although
vacant parcels do exist within the Project Area, they are an integral
part of the developed Project Area and are gart of a greater
surrounding urbanized area.
1. Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc
�P.�,����m 10
W v �.... _ T �,`� ` 1 J• � �� J�
EXHI3IT "B"
2) The County has questioned the findings of blight and indicates that
such findings cannot be supported by available evidence.
Response: Within the Report Section B, it is documented that
numerous conditions of blight exist within the Project Area. Among
these conditions are age, obsolescence, deterioration, and
dilapidation. On page B-b of the Report, many examples of these
conditions are identified and documented by the survey conducted by
the Agency's consultant. The Project Area also contains
characteristics of defective design and character of physical
construction which are enumerated in pages B-9 through B-10 of the
Report. This documentation indicates that there are concentrations
of parcels that exhibit such conditions within the industrial area west
of Cook Street and along Joni and Vaile Drives. These identified
conditions have resulted in impeded traf�ic flow and reduced ingress
and egress for the business properties along Cook Street. Similar
conditions throughout the Project Area created arterial and site
circulation problems. Conditions of faulty interior anangement and
exterior spacing have also been documented within the Project Area
and in the Report on pages B-10 through B-11. These conditions
include parcels which are characterized by excessive lot coverage, lack
of off-street parking, and overall poor site planning. Conditions of
inadequate provisions for light, ventilation, sanitation and recreation
facilities are also present within the Project Area and are documented
within the Report on pages B-11 through B-12. The Report indicates
that this type of blight includes garages and other structures that have
been converted to residences, overcrowding of structures and excess .
P��������m 11
.�.�...�..._��..,r ,i-J. .1 �
.
3)
--- EXHIBI��',B"
number of occupants which impact and have a deleterious effect on
the entire residential neighborhood. An excessive number of cars are
parked on the street in the front yard of residential areas which are
littered with discarded items of junk. Deferred maintenance is
present and visible. These conditions have resulted in a direct affect
on properry values which have been noted in Table B-9 of the Report.
Further, insufficient and inadequate public improvements are
predominant within the Project Area. Such inadequate public
improvements have been enumerated in the Report on pages B-12
through B-15. All of the conditions cited within the Report are
further documented by Appendix C which presents a pictorial survey
of the blighting conditions present within the Project Area.
The area includes many parcels which are obviously not blighted and
which are not necessary for effected development of the area.
Response: The Report documents that blighted conditions within
the Project Area are prevalent and are dispersed in a manner which
has determined the Froject Area boundaries. As acknowledged by
California Redevelopment Law, within any project area there may be
individual properties that are considered non-blighted; however,
California Redevelopment Law allows the inclusion of such properties
for the effective redevelopment of the area. It has been documented
through the Report that the Project Area is blighted and that all the
properties within Project Area boundaries are appropriate for
inclusion within the Project �4rea.
1
�
�
i
L
P�a.,�.���m 12
,-, —- - -- a — ��
— ----��:� :��. _ _
E<`{�-?IBIT "B"
4) That there is a lack of supporting evidence to make findings required
by California Redevelopment Law regarding the impact on tax
increment financing on taxing agencies which will derive property tax
revenues from the Project Area.
Response: It is inappropriate for the Counry to comment on the
impact of the tax increment financing for Project Area No. 3 on other
taxing entities. The County is not privileged to the discussions and
negotiations between Agency staff and other taxing entities, nor do
they have the information to evaluate whether or not these taxing
agencies are suffering from financial burden or detriment. As
provided in the Report, there is adequate supporting evidence for the
City Council to make the findings required by the California
Redevelopment I.aw Section 33361 that the effect of tax increment
financing will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment on
any taxing agency deriving revenue from the Project Area.
5) The Agency has not adequately demonstrated the need for pubiic
participation or provided substantial evidence that private enterprise
acting alone cannot eliminate the alleged blight in the Project Area.
Response: The Agency has documented in the Report Section A,
and in the Agency's response to the Fiscal Review Committee Report,
that the need exists to redevelop the Project Area and that neither the
City or private enterprise acting alone can eliminate blight within the
Project Area. While it is the Agency's intent to utilize all of the
funding mechanisms allowed under the R�development Plan and
13
�-.,. ..�.. " ' � .. `� _��J . � � � _ .
� EXIiIBIT "B��
California Redevelopment Law, such funds and methods are
inadequate, insignificant, and may be inappropriate to accomplish the
redevelopment needs of the Project Area. In reviewing potential
development and impact fees that could be generated by new
development in the Project Area, it is evidenced in Exhibits A-1 and
A-2 of the Report that such funds are inadequate to meet the funding
needs required to revitalize the Project Area. Increasing development
fees are not an option, as this would have a negative impact on
property owners trying to improve conditions within the Project Area.
Additionally, Federal and State grant programs may not be available
to the City. These monies have signi�cantly declined and are
available under certain restrictions that may or may not be met by
many of the projects in the Project Area. The Ciry does not have the
resources available to address the needs of the Project Area. The
City's current budget situation is fairly strained in trying to meet the
service needs of the City. Accordingly, the City had to reduce its
1991-92 budget by approximately $2 million. Techniques such as
Mello-Roos, Community Facilities District, or Special Assessment
Bonds, when available, may be appropriate for specific redevelopment
projects. However, these require two-thirds voter approval and
consideration must be given to the fact that taxes would be assessed to
some property owners already suffering from economic hardship.
Such assessments would produce an adverse economic result on the
Project Area. Additionally, special taxes such as Measure A are only
available for specific voter approved projects. The only project
identified in the Redevelopment Plan that would qualify for such
funding would be the Cook Street project. The Cook Street project is
�
�
,P����«am 14
:�E�v�"� _ =�:� '�0 . � �- 3�
EYHI3IT "B"
receiving Measure A funds, however, it is such a costly project that it
will also include funding from Project Area No. 3. In conclusion, as it
has been documented both in the Report, Sections A and M, and the
Agency's response to the Fiscal Review Committee Report, that tax
increment revenue provisions must be included in the Redevelopment
Plan because other sources are not available, unreliabie, or
insufficient to finance the cost of redeveloping the Project Area. Only
through the use of tax increment financing can the Agency insure that
the Project Area will be redeveloped. Private enterprise acting afone
cannot and will not provide the financial ability to conect the adverse
conditions present in the Project Area ar fund the public
improvements necessary for its revitalization.
6) The County ctaims that the available evidence fails to support a
finding that the Redevelopment Pian will promote the public peace,
health, safety, and welfare as required by the Health and Safety Code.
Response: As documented in Section A and Section B of the
Report, adverse and blighting conditions within the Project Area
create health, safery and welfare hazards. These conditions include
deteriorated residential, industrial and commercial structures, the lack
of proper infrastructure, the lack of an adequate sewer system, the
lack of curbs, gutters and sidewalks and lack of adequate community
facilities. Adverse traffic and circulation problems predominate the
Project Area severely affecting the health and safety of those that
utilize the roadways or walk within the Project Area. 'I'!�e physical
blight which has been documented in Section B of the Report to Ciry
p���,.��m 15
:\ \T `.T.'1 J ' � l r.
�.=.JV�--_'�.� _��.
c.
` E�HI3IT ,�3��
7)
Council and illustrated in Appendix C cites specific examples of such
blight which cause unhealthy and adverse conditions which have
resulted in structures and buildings which are unfit or unsafe to
occupy that are conducive to ill health or the transmission of disease,
contribute to infant mortality and juvenile delinquency and crime.
The proposed Redevelopment Plan does not conform to the City's
General Plan.
Response: The Redevelopment Plan does conform to the City's
General Plan. The land uses permitted in the Redevelopment Plan
for Project Area No. 3 are the land uses pernutted by the City's
General Plan as it exists today or shall be amended in the future. "I'he
Redevelopment Plan has been reviewed by the Planning Commission
of the City of Palm Desert and its report and recommendation found
that it is in conformity with the City of Palm Desert's General Plan.
Such documentation is provided in Section F of the Report.
County's comments regarding compliance with California Environmentat
Quality Act (CEQA)
1) The EIR does not adequately assess or provide for mitigation of the
Plan's impact on the County.
pa�mCa \ �spcorom 16
.......v-�_��^�`1 `IJ• �L�J
EYHIBIT "3"
Response: Impacts on County services are discussed in each section
of the EIR where such impacts may occur such as police and fire
protection services.
2) The EIR does not adequately distinguish between mitigation required
by CEQA and the Community Redevelopment Law.
Response: Mitigation measures are listed appropriate to the specific
impact areas discussed. Specific mitigation (such as replacement
housing) which are required by redevelopment law are so identified
where appropriate (pgs. 82, 83 of FEIR).
3) The EIR does not identiPy how the County would provide increased
services without the tax revenues generated by the Redevelopment
Project.
Response: With the exception of police services, significant
environmental impacts with regard to County services are not
expected. 'The Agency expects to mitigate any potentially significant
impacts on police services through mitigation contained in the EIR.
4) The EIR is lacking in its consideration of all environmental impacts
including population growth, housing, transportation, noise,
recreation, biotogical, air quality and others.
palmdit�,r�p�omm 17
.. _.1.. `ji� . -' - � ^.
�.��_ _ _ __.
5)
6)
���iiI3IT "���
Response: The EIR addresses each of the listed issues, and identifies
specific project impacts and mitigation measures for these effects.
The following lists identifies the sections for each issue area listed
above:
Population
Housing
Transportation
Noise Section 3.6
Recreation
Biological
Air Quality
Section 3.11
Section 3.12
Section 3.13
Section 3.19
Sections 3.4 and 3.5
Section 3.2
The EIR does not adequately discuss the timing for implementation
of the Plan.
Response: The timing of development in the Project Area will
depend on market forces and is not known at this time. The EIR
assumes that development in the Project Area will occur gradually
over the project life.
The EIR does not adequately address the impact of compliance with
the Plan's low and moderate income requirements.
Response: Low and moderate income impacts and requirements are
addressed on page 85 of the Final EIR. The low and moderate
income housing fund and other programs that may be funded
throughout the life of the plan are discussed in the Report.
�
P.����,���m 1 g
�E�G:.:.':'=�`1 VJ. , _-��
EYHIBIT "3"
7) The EIR does not adequately consider the alternative of private
enterprise acting alone to develop the Project Area.
Response: Alternative 2 in the EIR considers the potential for
development in the Project Area without the Redevelopment Plan.
The feasibility of this alternative is discussed in the Report.
8) The EIR does not address migration into the area as a result of the
Redevelopment Plan.
Response: The EIR discusses the potential for rtugration into the area
as a result of the Plan under Population Impacts, page 79 of the Final
EIR. Because the potential immigration is not a significant part of
expected regional growth and because it is anticipated under local and
regional plans, the growth is not considered signi�icant. Furthermore,
the environmental impacts of growth in the Project Area are discussed
in each section of the EIR.
9) The mitigation monitoring plan outlined in the EIR is inadequate.
Response: The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been submitted
under separate cover. This monitoring program meets the
requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6.
P.������m 19
����':.---��� �:�. ?_-_.
m
E`Y:-II3IT "B"
d. Adequacy of the City's General Plan:
The Palm Desert General Plan does adequately describe policies,
objectives, principles and standards. Although the original text
was adopted in 1981, it has been updated and amended through
subsequent adoption of four specific plans, two housing element
revisions and over 20 minor amendments. The West Hills Specific
Plan (1983), Palma Village Specific Plan (1985), Commercial
Core Area Specific Plan (1987), and Housing Element (1984, 1989),
provide detailed descriptions of existing conditions,
development issues, objectives, policies and implementation
programs. The specific plans cover 60°0 of the city and over
90°S of the developable vacant land. The Housing �lement has
been approved by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development, who determined it to be in compliance with housing
element law.
While some of the data contained in the original text is out of
date, it was the best available at the time of adoption.
Instead of incorporating revised data of dubious reliability,
the city intends to update the entire text when accurate 1990
census data becomes available.
�p.�`,���m 2O