HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 93-060RESOLUTION NO. 93-60
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS IN
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS,
COMMUNICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
PROJECT AREA NO. 4 OF THE PALM DESERT
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT HEREBY
FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. A proposed redevelopment plan (the
"Redevelopment Plan") for Project Area No. 4(the "Project Area")
of the Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") has been
prepared by the Agency. On June 10, 1993, a duly noticed joint
public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan was conducted
by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert (the "City
Council") and the Agency, and such joint public hearing was
continued to June 24, 1993 (the "joint public hearing"). Any and
all persons having any objections to the proposed Redevelopment
Plan or who deny the existence of blight in the Project Area or
the regularity of any of the prior proceedings, were qiven an
opportunity to submit written comments prior to the commencement
of or at the joint public hearing or to give oral testimony at
the joint public hearinq and show cause why the proposed
Redevelopment Plan should not be adopted. Written objections,
communications and sugqestions were received before or at such
joint public hearing and are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 2. Having reviewed such written objections,
communications and suggestions, the City Council, pursuant to
Health and Safety Code Sections 33363 and 33364, hereby adopts
written findings, attached hereto as Exhibit B, in response to
each written objection, communication and suggestion, which
written objections, communications and suggestions are set forth
in Exhibit A, attached hereto. The City Council has not accepted
specified written objections, communications and suggestions for
the reasons set forth in the attached written findings in
f
RESOLUTION NO. 93-60
response to such written objections, communications and
suggestions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 8th day of July, 1993
by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CRITES, KELLY, SNYDER, WILSON, BENSON
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ATTEST:
. �- �
�/_ . i, i� - /�" � ' �,�
Sheila R. Gi ligan, C� y Clerk
bJ
� ��z �
��
M. Benson, Mayor
.
- 2 -
RESOLUTION NO. 93-60
Exhibit A
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS, COMMiJNICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN
CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
PROJECT AREA NO. 4 OF THE PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
RESOLUTION N0. 93-60
tAiRL ACO�M�MC 1���♦ - i�Q71
.�nuw�C[ C s.�RA���
o► c�...-.
��3- ti Ir M4CAA�.,.•
:�c�.�.� � s•.o•�
O�.t* C 4E=� Rr�
GL4Al^ 'M CA.(:A.N;�
G�I�C�I� . OAMN.�O
Tw.Or..i L �w�.�NE[�.
!*svtti • v�SOT'
RA'�MG�J ^ M..LL�O�►ro
RO�[r*� vNC[AtCh JA
[ M�C��►C. SOCC�O
�V'F� � �CAR[
JOM+v �� fACWv
•ocr.o+sa ��:...yy,c�•� cc�son�� ��.,
Mr. Carlos Ortega
Czty of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Warinq Dr.
Palm Desert, CA 92260
June 24, 1993
iH0 MnAKCT s�:+c[*
RIVLKMIDL GALI►nnN{A 91SOi
�wE� GOCt •00
TC.C���pN[ •�� �3=�-
►�x ee+-fls.,
F�X 37a-�C07
�:7!� w �AVT� �NA •IVD. SViTC •i�
�AN7A ANA. ,r.wL1FORNIA fl27U1
�R�� C00� 7'4
TELC�`MOhC SLi'.�j4
IAR s�� �7�0
l►C►LY TO Riverside
RE: Redevelopment Aqency Project Area No. 4
Public Kearing - June 24, 1993
Dear Mr. Ortega:
I am general counseZ to the Coachella Valley Water District.
The District's General Manager, Tom Levy, has advised me that the
continued public hearing is to be held toniqht, June 24, 1993,
and that you have �dvised him that the Redevelopment AqenCy will
continue to discuss a rQsolution of the Oistrict's concerns about
the validity of the project and th� District�B request for a
"pass through" of the taxes it would roceive if the project does
not qo forward. I further understand that you have advised him
that in ths event that agreement betwecn the City Redevelopment
Agency and the District is not reach�d within b0 days, you wou].d
�`agree that the Diatrict would still be able to fi2e a leqal
challenge to the projtct dnd that the City would not raise the
defense ot nonexhaustion of adr..inistrative remedies.'�
I appreciate your position and certainly the district is
willing to cooperate r�nd to continue discussing resolutivn of its
concerns but, from a legal standpoir.t, I fecl it n�cessary to go
or► record, on behalt of thc District, as opposinq the project as
presently proposed, basod upon our conclusion that the subject
area or the project is not blighted as r�quired by redavelopmant
?aw. I would appreciate you placing �► copy oi this letter which
will be �axed to you in t�e record at toniqht�s public hearing.
L`w Orr�GCf
REDWINE AND SHERRILL
• ��i�ra[��w�r �NCwoiN�:
�wtt.c�s�•ibl�� eGn�pllnri0"•
This "objection" is in no way to be taken as a sign that the
District will not continue to cooperate and to meet and discuss
RESOLUTION N0. 93-60
�r. Carlos Orteqa
Page 2
June 24, 1993
the issues with city ataff in the hopes that a resolution will be
achieved.
Very truly yours,
REDWINE AND SHER.RILL
By
Gerald D. Shoat
GDSijfv
cc : Mr . To�n Levy
�sw pFr�cc�
REDWINE AND SHERRILL
RESOLUTIO�� N0. 93-60
� +`\
- � — �E
: - - ;,
.
� e
e �
u
r ,�i 1 .
\\ / ' `'' /
/
County Administratiue Office
June 10, 1993
I�Ir. Carlos Orteqa
Executive Director
Pal� Desert Redevelop�ent agency
73-510 Fred i�arinq Drive
Pal� Desert, C1� 92260
RE: Pals Desert Redevelop�ent l�gency - Pro ject Pirea No. 4
County of Riverside Co�ents
Dear Mr . orteqa :
The County of Riverside has reviewed and evaluated Pals Desert
Redevelop�ent Aqency's proposed Pro ject l�irea Mo. 4. iie find the
proposed redevelop�ent plan, related enviror�ental doc�ents and
the City General plan lackinq in several vital areas. In addition,
the proposad redevalop�ent plan causes extrase fiscal detri�ent to
the County Genaral lund. Consequently, the County ot Riverside
■ust opposa adoption of the proposed plan at this tiae.
f�e hava praviously aub�itted to the l,qency the report prepared by
the Fiscal Raviev C�ittee for Project �rea No. 4, the County's
independent fiacal analysis, and a vide array of intor�ation which
docu�ants tha liscal i�pact of this proposal on County finances.
In addition to thase previous sub�ittals, the County herevith
provides coaents and infor�ation relativa to the follovinq: i)
financial burden and detriaent; 2) validity of the proposed
redevelop�ent plan; 3) ooapliance �rith the Calilornia �viron�ental
Quality l�ct; 4) adequacy of the City's qeneral Plan; and 5) si�ary
and recoaendations.
Robert T. Andersen Administrative Center
4080 LEMON SZREET • 12TH FLOOR • RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA 92501 • 17141 787•2544
�ESOLUTION N0. 93-60
� . . 1: � :�� � �!� � ai�Y; �.��+.Y
Section 33012(a) of the California Health and Safety Code defines
financial burden or detrisent as either of the followirig:
1. "a net increase in the quality or quantity of a service
of the affected taxing entity caused by the redevelopsent
project" or
2. "a loss of property tax revenues by the affected taxing
entity produced by a change of o�mership or new
construction which would have been received, or was
reasanably expected to have been received, by the taxinq
entity if the redevelopaent project aas not established".
The County provides health, welfare, crisinal juetice and other
services to residents of Pal� Desert and the proposed project area.
1�►�ccordinq to the Dralt �vironaental I�pact Report for the
Redevelop�ent Plan for Pro ject Area No. 4, 3tate Clearing House I%.
93022044, the plan will cause an increased deaand for these
services by stianletinq popu2ation qrovth, Dousinq qrovth and
eaploysent qrovth in and around the project area. The County �rould
concur vith this assesssent, financial burden or detri�ent as
defined pursuant to 33012(a)(i), and request that the Aqency
pravide app�ropriate aitiqation as specffied in the Report ot the
Fiscal Reviev Coa�ittee.
The County relios on prnperty ta�c revenua producad by chanqes in
property ovnership and lro�a nev construction to financo aervices to
PaI� Desart and the P�P�� Project area. County budgets
subaitted into th� reaord de�onstrate the County's reliance on
these revenuee in tba past and establish tLa County's expectation
to receive aaid revenue in the tuture. T'8� proposed plan will
divert thia revenue tro� the County to the Pala Desert
Redevelop�ent l�qoncy; as a result, the County vill hava inadaquate
resourc�s to linanc� the escalating oost o! services currently
provided in the proj�ct area. T'his linancial burdan or datrisent,
aa det fned in 33012 (a )( 2), aleo requiraa �itiqation as spacilied in
tha Report ot the liscal Reviev Coa�ittse.
v�►T.te7TY O! 'Pi� P't�OP'OS� R�SV�rOPM�l' Pt��ill
The County i�ss s�rious concerna reqardinq the validity o! the
proposed redevelop�snt plan in it'a presant lor�. our concerns
includ�, but are not liaited to, the lollovinq:
1, Th� proposed project area is not preda�inantly urbanized as
required by Heslth and 3alety Code Sectian 333Z0.1.
2. � findinq o! bliqbt by City and jrqancy cannat be supPcrted
by the available evidence.
RESOLUTION N0. 93-60
3. The proposed project area includes aany parcels which are
obviously not blighted, and vhich are unnecessary for the effective
redevelopaent of the area.
4. There is a lack of supportinq evidence to 'ake the findinqs
required by Health and Safety Code 33367 reqardinq the iapact of
tax incresent financinq on taxinq entities which derive property
tax revenue fro� project area No. 4.
5. The �,gency has not adequately de�onstrated 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 suppc>rt a findinq that the
redevelop�ent plan vill pro�ote "the pliblic peace, health, saiety
and welfare" as required by Realth and Safety Code Section 33367.
7. The proposed redevelop�ent plan does not confor� to the
City's General Plan.
8. The plan does not provide strict tiscal li�its as required
by the Cosunity Redevelopaent Lay.
k�;.�J , y� ./ 4: V��- a�);�, -'.\'/1;,�:,�.�!.Y �.�.. MV . h+
The Environaental Iipact Report ( BIR) !or t,i�e propcsed plan appears
inadequate in a variety o! areas. TDe spacitic deiiciencies
include, but are not liaited to, the tollo�rinq:
1. Ttie EIR does not adequately aasess or provide for
aitiqation ot the proposed redevalopaent plan's iapact on the
County.
2. Tlie EIR do•s not adequately distingnisD betMssn sitiqation
required by t.� Calilornia �viron�antal Quality 1�ct and the
Caaunity R�ad�valop�ent La�.
3. T'!ie BIR does not identily bo�r tDe C�ovnty Mould provide
increased services vitDout the tax revenu�s lro�a tha project area.
4. T'�e EIR does not adequately discuss the tiainq for
iapleaentation o! th� propoaed redevelop�ent plan.
5. Th� EIR doas not adequately addr.ss t�Le iapect ot
ca�pliance vith t.ba plan's lov and soderate-inco�s requiresents•
6. TDe BIR does not adoquat�ly consid�r tDe alt�rnative of
private entsrprise actinq alone to develop th� p�op�osecl Project
aroa.
7. The BIR doee not adequately addreaa �iqration into the area
as a reeult o� the proposed redevelop�ant plan.
QESOLUTION N0. 93-60
�iD�QQ�iCY OF CITY' S GENffii�iL PL�iN
r,s a prerequisite to the adoption of a redevelop�ent plan, Health
and Safety Code Section 33302 requires the City to have adopted a
General Plan which �eets the requireaents containad in Governaent
Code Section 65302. The City's General Plan fails to subBtantially
coaply vith Governsent Code section 65302. The deficiencies
include, but are not liaited to, the folloMinq:
1. The General Plan tails to adequately specify develop�ent
policies, objectivea, principles and standards.
Z. The General Plan is out of date, faila to accurately
reflect current conditions, and inoorporates incorrect and obsolete
data.
3. The land use elesent contains the lollaving deficiencies:
(a) fails to adequately desiqnate the proposed qeneral
distribution and generel location and srtent ot uses
of the land for housing, businesa, industry, open
apece, agriculture, natural rasourcee, recreation,
acenic beauty� aducation, public baildinqs, solid and
liquid vaste facilities, and other catagories of
public and private uses o! land.
(b) lails to adequately set standards !or population
and buildinq density.
(c) fai2s to edequately identity arees subject to
floodinq.
4. Z'!ie circulation elesent lails to ad�quately correlate vith
the land use ele�ant.
5. The houaing elesent contains the tollarinq deficiencies:
(a) lails to provide an adequate aaaeassent o! housinq
n�ads and an adequate inventory ot r�aources.
(b) contafns an inadequate analysis o! household
charactariatics.
(c) c�anta3ns an inadequate analysis o! popnlation and
e�ployaant trends.
(d) laila to adequately project and Quantify the housinq
needs !or all inco�e levels.
(e) faila to adequately analyse spscial housing needs-
RESOLUTION N0. 93-60
'11.�. . : . .!� : " �s�..�.�.�.1�..' • .
The County of Riverside has several areas of concern relative to
the proposed redevelopsent plan. First, ve w�ould point to the
fiscal detri�ent issues outlined in the Report of the Piscal Revier�+
Coaittee and ask the J�i�qency to adopt the sitigation seasures
contained therein. Second, the legal and enviroriaental issues
raised in this docuaent should be discussed and resolved by County
and 1�qency staff prior to adoption of the proposed plan.
Consequently, Mre are urqinq the lhqency to postpone adoption of the
proposed redevelop�ent plan at this ti�e to allov staff to resolve
the various fiscal, leqal and enviror�ental concerns relative to
this project.
i1e apprecinte the opportunity to
and look lorvard to v�orking vith
these outstandinq issues.
coaent on the proposed aaendaent
City and Aqency staff to resolve
pectfully sui�ai ted,
I
,
Bradley J
Deputy Coun y l�inistrative oliicer
RESOLUTION NO. 93-60
Exhibit B
WRITTEN FINDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS,
COMMUNICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS PREPARED PURSUANT TO
CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 33363 AND
33364 IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 4
RESOLUTION N0. 93-60
RSSPQNSS R.EGARDING CONCERNS
OF THE COACiiBLLA VALLBY WATSR DISTRIGT
TO PROJFCT ARSA NO. 4
This response is prepared by the Palm Desert Redeveloomen�
Agency pursuant to Section 33364 of the Health and Safety Co�e
regar3ing concerns of the Coachella Valley Water District in regard
to the existence of Blight in the Pro7ect Area. The Redeveiopmen�
Plan as incorporated in the Report to the Legislative Body
adequately documents the existence of Bliqht in the Pro�ec� Ar=a
and is sufficient to warrant the establishment of the Pro;ect Area.
RESOLUTION N0. 93-60
RSSPONSS FOR TH$ R$CORD
The following text is in response to letter received from Bradley
J. Hudson, Deputy County Administrative Officer, dated June 10,
1993, reqarding County's concerns on the Redevelopment Plan for
Project Area No. 4. This response is being generated pursuant to
Section 33364 of the Health and Safety Code related to written
objections of the Redevelopment Plan.
The County of Riverside has reviewed and evaluated the
Redevelopment Plan and finds concerns with the Plan related to
environmental documents and the City's General Plan. With regard
to the specific concerns for the Redevelopment Plan, the County
indicates that:
� �! •- 4:' ':•'• "� :."�" /� •'ti�� .�
1. The proposed project area is not predominantly urbanized as
required by Health and Safety Code Section 33320.1.
Ave cv Response: The
regardinq urbanization
the Redevelopment Plan
Leqislative Body.
2.
3.
Project Area meets all the criteria
and that such criteria is evident in
as incorporated in the Report to the
A findinq of blight by City and Agency cannot be supported by
the available evidence.
Acencv Resvonse: The Redevelopment Plan as incorporated in
the Report to the Leqislative Body has sufficient
docwnentation of bliqht to warrant a findinq for the Project
Area.
The proposed project area includes many parcels which are
obviously not blighted, and which are unnecessary for the
effective redevelopa�ent of the area.
Aaencv Resoonsa: The Redevelopaent Plan and the Report to
Leqislative Body docua�ents sufficiently the evidence of blight
in all areas of the Project Area.
4. There is lack of supportinq evidence to a�ake the findings
required by Health and Safety Code 33367 reqardinq the impact
of tax incre�ent financinq on taxinq entities which derive
property tax revenue from Project Area No. 4.
Acencv Res�on�e: The Redevelops�ent Plan as incorporated in
the Report to Leqislative Body does provide sufficient
documentation.
0
RESOLUTION N0. 93-60
The Agency has not adequately demonstrated the need for public
participation or provided substantial evidence that private
enterprise acting alone cannot eliminate the alleged blight.
Avencv Response: The Redevelopment Plan as incorporated in
the Report to Legislative Body provides sufficient and
adequately documents the need for the Plan to alleviate
blight.
6. The available evidence fails to support a findinq that the
redevelopment plan will promote "the public peace, health,
safety and welfare" as required by Health and Safety Code
Section 33367.
Avencv Resoonse: The Redevelopment Plan as incorporated in
the Report to Leqislative Body provides sufficient supporting
documentation to make a finding that the Redevelopment Plan
will promote public peace, health, safety and welfare as
required by said Section.
7. The proposed redevelopment plan does not conform to the City's
General Plan.
Acencv Res�onse: The Redevelopment Plan as incorporated in
the Report to the Legislative Body provides evidence that the
Plan does in fact conform to the City's General Plan.
8. The plan does not provide strict fiscal limits as required by
the Community Redevelopment Law.
Acencv ResDonse: The Redevelopa�ent Plan as incorporated in
the Report to the Leqislative Body does include fiscal limits
as evidenced in the Plan.
• Y ' : . 4� y. V.�- " � � . - .\ : • .l.�-1.M . • . 1� : �1!
The CBQA required 45 days public review period for the Draft EIR
ended on May 21, 1993. All public aqencies and individuals had
until that date to submit written comn�ents to the Draft EIR to the
City of Palm Desert. The written coma�ents to the Draft EIR
received fro■ the County of Riverside are dated June 10, 1993 which
is after the date that written comments were to be received by the
City. In an effort to comply with the intent of CEQA and provide
as much environ�ental information for the project as possible, the
City has provided the following responses to the County' s cownents .
2
RESOLUTION N0. 93-60
Responses to the County of Riverside letter dated June 10, 1993 to
the Draft EIR for Project Area No. 4:
1. Comment: The EIR does not adequately assess or provide for
mitigation of the proposed redevelopment plan's impact on the
County.
Response: The Draft EIR adequately addresses all of the
potential environmental effects that have been identified to
date associated with adoption and implementation of the
proposed redevelopment plan. The EIR addressed all impacts
that could be anticipated to occur to the County of Riverside
with Plan adoption. CEQA does not require that impacts to the
County of Riverside be discussed separately from other
impacts.
2. Comment: The EIR does not adequately distinquish between
mitigation required by the California gnvironmental Quality
Act (CEQA). Even if a measure is otherwise required by law,
it can serve as mitiqation under CEQA.
Res�onse: All of the mitigation measures in the Draft EIR are
provided in co�pliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (C$QA).
3. Comment: The EZR does not identify how the County wot�ld
provide increased services without the tax revenues from the
project area.
Res�onse: Fiscal issues are not required to be addressed in
an EIR as stated in Section 15131 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Fiscal issues and impacts are addressed by the Aqency during
the fiscal review process of the adoption of the redevelopment
plan.
4. Co�ent: The $IR does not adequately discuss the timing for
implementation of the proposed redevelopment plan.
Resnonse: The Draft $IR states on page 2 that the Plan would
take effect once adopted and the Plan would be in effect for
40 years.
5. Couent: The 8IR does not adequately address the impact cf
coepliance with the plan's low and moderate incose
require�nents .
Resvonse: Section 4.1 Population and Housinq, of the Draft
EIR adequately addresses the potential impacts associatedr+ith
the use of set-aside tax increaent revenue to provide,
preserve and protect loN and ■oderate incoae housinq with
project imple�entation.
3
RESOLUTION N0. 93-60
6. Comment: The EIR does not adequately consider the alternative
of private enterprise acting alone to develop the proposed
project area.
Response: The EIR is not required by the CEQA Guidelines to
discuss or evaluate whether or not private enterprise could
develop the Project Area. A reasonable range of alternatives
to the Redevelopment Plan are set forth in the EIR.
7. Comment: The EIR does not adequately address migration into
the area as a result of the proposed redevelopment plan.
Resoonse: The EIR adequately addresses on page 35 the
potential effects associated with additional people moving
into the Project Area. As stated on paQe 35 there could be an
increase in the number of people livinq in the City due to
development within the Project Area. The EIR also analyzes
growth-inducing impacts of the Project.
s� • • -, - i: :,
1. The General Plan fails to adequately specify development
policies, objectives, principles and standards.
Aaencv Resoonse: we disaqree with the County's findinq that
the General Plan does not adequately specify development of
policies, objectives, principles and standards.
2. The General Plan is out of date, fails to adequately reflect
current conditions, and incorporates incorrect and obsolete
data:
Aaencv ResDons�e: we disaqree with the County's finding. The
General Plan is updated and does reflect adequate current
conditions, and does not incorporate incorrect and obsolete
data.
3. The land use ele�ent contains the followinq deficiencies:
a. fails to adequately desiqnate the proposed qeneral
distribution and qeneral location and extent of uses of
the land for housinq, businesa, industry, open space,
agriculture, natural resources, recreation, scenic
beauty, education, public buildinqs, solid and liquid
waste facilities, and other cateqories of public and
private uses of land.
Aaencv Regoon�e: iie disaqree with County's findinq. The land
use elesent is updated and adequately designates the proposed
qeneral distribution and qeneral location and extent of uses
of the land for housinq, business, industry, open space,
!�
RESOLUTION N0. 93-60
agriculture, natural resources, recreation, scenic beauty,
education, public buildings, salid and liquid waste
facilities, and other categories of public and private uses.
b. fails to adequately set standards for population and
building density.
AQencv Response: We disagree with County's finding and find
that the General Plan does set standards for population and
buildinq density.
c. fails to adequately identify areas subject to flooding.
Avencv Response: we disagree with County's finding and find
that the General Plan does adequately_identify areas subject
to flooding.
4. The circulation element fails to adequately correlate with the
land use element.
Avencv Response: we disaqree with County's findinq and find
that the General Plan does adequately correlate with the land
use element.
5. The housinq element contains the following deficiencies:
a. fails to provide an adequate assessa�ent of housing needs
and an adequate inventory of resources.
Avencv Response: �le disaqree with County's findinq and find
that the housinq element does provide adequate assessment of
housing needs and adequate inventory of resources.
b. contains an inadequate analysis of household
characteristics.
Acencv ResQonse: f�e disaqree with County's findinq and find
that the General Plan's Housinq 8lement does contain adequate
analysis of household characteristics.
c. contains an inadequate analysis of population and
employment trends.
Acencv Resvonse: we disaqree with County's findinq and find
that the General Plan's Housinq 8lement does contain an
adequate analysis of population and employment trends.
5
RESOLUTION N0. 93-60
-. .
d. fails to adequately project and quantify the housinq
needs for all income levels.
AQencv Res�onse: we disagree with the County's finding and
find that the General Plan's Housing Element does adequately
project and quantify the housing needs for all income levels.
e. fails to adequately analyze special housing needs.
AQencv Response: We disaqree with the County's finding and
find that the General Plan's Housinq Element does adequately
analyze special housing needs.
We file this response to the County's concerns regarding Project
Area No. 4 in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33364.
In addition, we have been meeting with the County in an effort to
determine any fiscal detriment it may experience from the Project
Area, and will continue to make every effort to identify any fiscal
detriment that County may experience, and work with the County if
such is found to mitiqate that detriment.
DATE: June 16, 1993
�-/��
Carlos L. Orteqa
Executive Director
� 6