HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 97-50RESOLUTION NO. 97-50
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING WRITTEN FINDINGS IN
RESPONSE TO ORAL AND WRITTEN OBJECTIONS,
COMMUNICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA OF
THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR HEREBY FINDS,
DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency (the
"Agency") has prepared a proposed Redevelopment Plan (the
"Redevelopment Plan") for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization
Area (the "Project Area"). On May 20, 1997, the Agency and the
City Council of the City of Diamond Bar (the "City Council") held
a duly noticed joint public hearing (the "joint public hearing")
on the proposed Redevelopment Plan, and such joint public hearing
was continued to June 3, 1997 (and subsequently continued to June
10, 1997) for the sole purpose of considering the exclusion of
property from the proposed Project Area. Any and all persons
having any objections to the proposed Redevelopment Plan or who
deny the existence of blight in the proposed Project Area, or the
regularity of any of the prior proceedings, were given an
opportunity to submit written comments prior to the commencement
of or at the joint public hearing and to give oral testimony at
the joint public hearing and show cause why the proposed
Redevelopment Plan should not be adopted. In addition, any and
all persons having any objections to the exclusion of property
from the proposed Project Area were given an opportunity to
submit written comments prior to the commencement of or at the
joint public hearing and the continuance thereof and to give oral
testimony at the joint public hearing and continuance thereof.
The City Council has heard and considered all evidence, both
written and oral, presented in support of and in opposition to
the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan.
Section 2. Written objections, communications and
suggestions received before or at such joint public hearing or
continued joint public hearing are attached hereto as Exhibit A
and incorporated herein. 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 and
incorporated herein, in response to each written objection,
communication and suggestion set forth in Exhibit A. The City
Council has not accepted specified written objections,
communications and suggestions for the reasons set forth in the
attached written findings.
Section 3. Oral testimony presented at the joint public
hearing is summarized in Exhibit C, attached hereto and
970530 10572-00001 rdh/qp/sas 1672881 2
97-50
incorporated herein. Having reviewed such oral testimony, the
City Council hereby adopts written findings, attached hereto as
Exhibit C in response to such oral testimony. The City Council
has not accepted specified objections, communications and
suggestions for the reasons set forth in the attached written
findings.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 1st day of July ,
1997.
ATTEST:
CITY rL
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar,
California do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution as
duly and regularly passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar, California, at its regular meeting held on
the 1st day of July , 1997, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Werner, MPT/Herrera, M/Huff
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ansari, Harmony
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
-E y Clerk, City o Uianond. Par
California
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 — 2 —
97-50
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS,
CONNECTION WITH THE
DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
EXHIBIT A
COMMUNICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
REVITALIZATION AREA OF THE DIAMOND BAR
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2
ROSEMEAD PROPERTIES. INCx7'
May 20, 1999
97 MAY 2Q °;' 14. 7r
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond an CJ
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Dknmd Bar Redwdop"an Wnt Agency
21660 But Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Sas, CA 91765
Rae Written Objections to Proposed Redevelopment Plan
22uM to Exclude Assessor Parcel Not. 15717.025-5t and x717 -015-'3.f'
02 2W Golden Springs Drive, DWrmd Der
Dray Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Couadl and
Horamble Chair and Members of the Diannond Bar Redevelopummd Agency:
EXHIBIT
A - I
The buowft written objections are hereby submitted by Rosemead Properties, Ins.
in opposition -soldtA t( Redevelopment Plan for dw Diamond Sar Economic
M-• Am (%* 4� W' Are-).
Nsidw phyd W nor eomwaiic conditione of WJfK nor any COnnbi"dw thereof, oast
at the site of Rosemead's property it Diamond Bar Wnth ie proposed b be iwluded in the
Project Area. Moreover, there is no apparent reladonsldp between the proposed public
iltnpat forth in the Report to the City Cowug and the aDevlatkm or impnavement
of blighting conditions described in dw Report as required by Health A Safety Code Section
33344M.
Rownted properties, Inc. owns property within the proposed Project Area and pays
reel property mase, part of which benefit the City of Diamond Bar, WA is affected as a
property owner by the proposed adoption of the proposed RnWvelopment Plan.
Far these iwaone, RoeemeW Properties, Inc. hereby re pwo that YOU refwe to adopt
the Redweiopment Plan for deo DWnond Der Economic Revitelintion Ares Plan Or in the
altemdv% a dude the above described property awned by Rosenwid, Prop, Inc. hm
any such ye&dopownt p4a that is w1upted,
Q&1)
.4)'
Robert W. Nkttoyoa
Vice PrOWAUM
RWN:k
1114ti OAgM AVMig • l.O. BOX 0010 • nI. MOSM CALgk)& QA oil" • (ell) 446410e
TOTAL P.01
ROSEMEAD PROPERTIES, INC.
April 29, 1997
City of Diamond Bar
City Clerk
21660 E. Copley Drive, Ste. 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Subject: Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area
Gentlemen:
EXHIBIT
A — 1
This is in response to the Notice of Joint Public Hearing of the
Diamond Bar City Council and the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
on the Proposed Adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar
Economic Revitalization Area and Final Environmental Impact Report
Prepared in Connection Therewith.
Our office building located at 22632 E. Golden Springs Drive
(Assessor's Parcel Nos. 8717-052-54 and 55) has been included in the
Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (DBERA). Our building is
relatively new, in excellent condition, and well maintained. We, therefore,
deny the existence of blight on our property and hereby request to be
excluded from the DBERA.
Very truly yours,
po�kk 1,) '
alal�
Robert W. Nicholson
Vice President
RWN:cis
'r
C �
c•i
11142 GARVEY AVENUE • P.O. BOX 6010 0 EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA 91734 • (818) 448-6183
Philip &- Frances Kemdge
PO Box 203
Lakeshore. Ca. 93633
TeUFax 209-893-3216
97 MAY 14 F11
2: 58
May 12, 1997
EXHIBIT
A
- 2
City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
J
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765
Re: Diamond Bar Economic Redevelopment Plan
-, -
As Diamond Bar Ig r-operty owners we are opposed to the
11P ; =
Redevelopment Plan f9k the following reasons:
1. The breadth of the Agency's control. From reading the
Revitalization Plan, it appears that the Agency is
attempting to gain the power of dictating whatever it
wants to dictate in the area of land use, building
design, and property confiscation. The plan discusses
"voluntary owner participation" and then alongside such
discussion, uses words such as "enforcement" (522) and
the threat of "acquiring" property if the "owner fails
or refuses to participate" in the plan (502). This is
not voluntary participation.
Further, there is no mention of who will shoulder the
financial burden of such "participation." Grants and
loans are broadly and vaguely mentioned. Are these
loans also "voluntary?"
2. Based on general conscience, we are adamantly opposed
to any entity, government or otherwise, forcing the
sale of or the taking of property by eminent domain or
any other means.
This plan gives the Agency far too much control over
the rights of individual property owners. Based on that fact
and those mentioned above, we are opposed to the proposed
Redevelopment Plan.
Re ards,
Philip & Frances Rerri e
EXHIBIT
A - 2
Philip & Frances Kerridge
PO Box 203 `
- , !i Lakeshore, Ca. 93634
17 � 7' TellFax 209.893-3216 97 PiHY I g F;1 IG 51
May 18, 1997 _=
The Honorable Mayor
and members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar _
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Re: Written Objections to Proposed Redevelopment Plan
for Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, and
Honorable Chair and Members of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment
Agency:
The following written objections are hereby submitted by
Philip and Frances Kerridge in opposition to the Proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Economic Revitalization
Area (the "Project Area"):
1. The Project Area is not predominantly urbanized as
that term is defined in Section 33320.1 of the
California Health 6 Safety Code.
2. The Project Area is not an area in which the
combination of conditions set forth in Health & Safety
Code Section 33031 is so prevalent and so substantial
that it causes a reduction of, or lack of, proper
utilization of the area to such an extent that it
constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on
the community, which cannot reasonably be expected to
be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or
governmental action, or both, without redevelopment.
3. The physical conditions in the Project Area set in
the Report to the Ctiy Council are general and
conclusory, regurgitating the language of Health 6
Safety Code Section 33031(x), but does not specify
if the condition set forth in the section is exist
in the Project Area and where they may be found. -
4. The discusoion concerning economic conditions in the
proposed Pro act Area (Health & Safety Code Section
is 33344.4(b)) general and conclusory, repeating the
language of the statue. Data and analyses regarding
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and
of the Diamond
May 18, 1997
Page 2
the City Council
Members
Bar Redevelopment Agency
depreciated values or impaired investments show no
direct relationship to the Project Area and blighted
conditions.
S. Neither physical nor economic conditions of.blight,
nor any combination thereof, predominate throughtout
the proposed Project Area.
6. The data concerning assessed valuation including the
Report to the City Council is out-of-date and
misleading and contradicted by more current data
supplied by the County of Los Angeles.
7. There is no apparent relationship between the proposed
public improvements set forth in the Report to the City
Council and the alleviation or improvement of the
blighting conditions described in the Report as
required by Health & Safety Code Section 33344.5(f).
We own real property within the proposed Project Area and
pay -read property taxes to the City of Diamond Bar and.are
affected as property owners by the proposed adoption of the
proposed redevelopment plan.
For these reasons and for reasons offered by any other
objecting party herein, Philip and Frances Kerridge hereby
request that you refuse to adopt the Redevelopment Plan for
the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization area.
Regard$,
Philip & Frances K ridge
I�
ao
`1Y
O
wm
M
Ac
1�
UAE-+
III
EXHIBIT
A - 3
o
71
0
1
.r
f8 ,
PON*
o Q
Lb
C72
con
` ww�''
- W i
V
CITY CLE'u\'
97 MAY 29 PM 2:58
4
Izz-
EXHIBIT
A — 4
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
The Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Re: Written Objections on behalf of Affected Property Owners and Others
To Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, and
Honorable Chair and Members of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment
Agency:
The following written objections are hereby submitted on behalf of a number of affected property
owners and other interested persons represented by the undersigned in opposition to the Proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the "Project Area").
Each written objection requires the conclusion that the Project Area fails to qualify as a legal and
valid redevelopment project. In combination, these written objections overwhelmingly require
this proposed redevelopment project to be rejected by the City Council.
These written objections are based on the oral testimony and videotape evidence to be presented
by the undersigned at the joint public hearing scheduled for the above -referenced proposal as
well as the contents of this letter. A resume of the undersigned is attached as Exhibit A. Maps
are attached labeled Exhibits B and C depicting those portions of the Project Area shown and
described in the said videotape evidence, both as to the full-length (28 minute) and the condensed
(7 minute) versions (the "Videotapes").
1. The Project Area is Not Predominantly Urbanized
The Environmental Impact Report prepared for this proposed project (the "EIR") flatly states that
"the Project Area ... contains approximately 1,454 acres of land ... and 309 acres are vacant
land...." (at page ES -1). The Draft Report to the City Council prepared for this proposed project
HANE, BALLMER & BERKI-qAN
A LAW CORPORATION
SIS SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 1850
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TELEPHONE 42131 617-0480
MURRAY O. KANE
FAX (213) 62S-0931
ROBERT P. BERKMAN
BRUCE D. BALLMER
RETIRED
GLENN F. WASSERMAN
R. BRUCE TEPPER. JR
May 20, 1997
EUGENE B. JACOBS
JOSEPH W. PANNONE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ROYCE K. JONES
- --OF COUNSEL
STEPHANIE R. SCHER
PRINCIPALS
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
The Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Re: Written Objections on behalf of Affected Property Owners and Others
To Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, and
Honorable Chair and Members of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment
Agency:
The following written objections are hereby submitted on behalf of a number of affected property
owners and other interested persons represented by the undersigned in opposition to the Proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the "Project Area").
Each written objection requires the conclusion that the Project Area fails to qualify as a legal and
valid redevelopment project. In combination, these written objections overwhelmingly require
this proposed redevelopment project to be rejected by the City Council.
These written objections are based on the oral testimony and videotape evidence to be presented
by the undersigned at the joint public hearing scheduled for the above -referenced proposal as
well as the contents of this letter. A resume of the undersigned is attached as Exhibit A. Maps
are attached labeled Exhibits B and C depicting those portions of the Project Area shown and
described in the said videotape evidence, both as to the full-length (28 minute) and the condensed
(7 minute) versions (the "Videotapes").
1. The Project Area is Not Predominantly Urbanized
The Environmental Impact Report prepared for this proposed project (the "EIR") flatly states that
"the Project Area ... contains approximately 1,454 acres of land ... and 309 acres are vacant
land...." (at page ES -1). The Draft Report to the City Council prepared for this proposed project
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
May 20, 1997
Page 2
(the "Draft Report") discloses that 316.87 of the Project Area's 1454.3 acres are undeveloped (at
Table 3-1).
This establishes that less than 80 percent of the land in the Project Area is urbanized in violation
of the requirements of Sections 33320.1 and 33030(b) of the California Health & Safety Code
(the California Community Redevelopment Law) (all references to statutes herein are to the
California Health & Safety Code unless otherwise indicated).
The Draft Report somehow designates 190 acres of vacant undeveloped land as "urbanized" and
"an integral part of an area developed for urban uses" (at Appendix 4-1). No facts are given in
support of this proposition, which is belied by the Videotapes (see large undeveloped parcels in
Videotapes at Brea Canyon Road, in the Gateway Center and on Diamond Bar Boulevard at the
60 freeway, all preposterously referred to without factual basis as "urbanized" on "Urbanization
Map- Map 3-1 " in the Draft Report). Stand alone parcels as large as 13, 24, 35 and 41 acres are
incredibly included in this category.
Of the Project Area's 1454 acres, 550 acres are freeways and streets, approximately 100 acres are
parks. If these areas are not counted, fully 40% or more of the Project Area is vacant land. If the
parks are counted as vacant land, especially Sycamore Canyon, but the streets are included,
almost 30% of the Project Area is vacant land. Under any calculation, the maximum 20% vacant
land limitation of the statute is violated.
2. The Proposed Project Area is Not a Blighted Area
The Draft Report relies heavily on deterioration and dilapidation to support a finding of blight (at
Table B-1 and throughout). Even though deterioration and dilapidation are legally irrelevant to a
finding of blight unless bad enough to cause buildings to be unsafe or unhealthy for persons to
live or work, (Section 33031(a)(1) not one unsafe or unhealthy building is identified in the Draft
R=ort. Table B-1 also establishes the following:
Only one (1) building in the entire Project Area was found to require extensive rehabilitation.
Only twenty one (21) buildings in the entire 1454 acres was found to require "moderate
rehabilitation" (a term never defined in the Draft Report).
Only 8.8% of all buildings require moderate or extensive rehabilitation. 91.2% of all buildings
are just fine or only require things like a coat of paint.
The Honorable :Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
May 20, 1997
Page 3
Yet the Draft Report claims that 62% of all Project Area buildings are suffer from "deterioration
and dilapidation", a clearly unsupported claim.
Table B-1 also establishes:
76% of all building have standard design and no design defects (the other 24% are simply
buildings built under older codes and are fully lawful non -conforming uses).
Over 95% of all improvements are compatible with surrounding uses.
80% of all buildings have adequate parking, even under the questionable criteria used in the
Draft Report.
Over 83% of all lots are free of defective design conditions.
Hazardous waste is mentioned as a blighting condition, yet is never linked to hindering the
economically viable use of a property as required by Section 33031(a)(2). The EIR demonstrates
that only 6 underground storage tanks in the entire City leak (Initial Study at page 19), a record
that would make Beverly Hills envious.
Geologic concerns are cited as a blighting condition. Yet the EIR flatly states that Geological
Problems are not an issue (Initial Study at p. 7 and Appendix p. 7) and does not even bother to
discuss the issue at all in the EIR.
NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL BLIGHT IS OFFERED!
As to economic blight, the Draft Report relies heavily on an "11%" decline is assessed values in
the Project Area, and the economic obsolescence of the retail centers in the Project Area.
First, even this erroneous figure is a five-year or three year figure (depending on which section of
the Draft Report is consulted). Justifying a 1454 acre redevelopment project based on a claimed
2-3% annual decline in assessed values in the middle of the worst real estate recession in decades
is ludicrous.
Second, the claimed 11% decline is just plain wrong and is based on totally discredited figures.
The figures used in a table on page B-20 of the Draft Report have been shown to be in error by as
much as $62 million based on the County Report on Project Area Assessed Values prepared as
required by Health & Safety Code Section 33328 (found at Section L of the Draft Report):
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City- of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
May 20, 1997
Page 4
Table B-20 says there was a $13,000,000 drop in assessed value, 95-96 to 96-97. The County
Report establishes only a $3,000,000 drop in assessed values, a 510,000,000 error.
Unsecured assessed values are mysteriously ignored by the Agency's consultants in the entire
Draft Report. The County Report shows an increase in unsecured assessed values of over
$3,500,000 from 95-96 to 96-97.
Table B-20 says 95-96 secured assessed values were $403 million; the County Report shows
them to really have been $341 million, a $62,000,000 error.
Table B-20 says 96-97 secured assessed values were $390 million; the County Report shows
them to really have been $334 million, a X56,000,000 error.
The "11% drop" in assessed values so heavily relied upon by the Draft Report is totally
discredited and cannot be relied upon. After the County Report was issued, the Agency
consultants have made NO EFFORT to explain their errors or correct their work. Applicable law
requires an analysis of the County Report to be included in the Draft Report (Section
33352(n)(1)), yet that part of the Draft Report has no such analysis.
The Draft Report, so bereft of factual support for physical or economic blight, resorts to
unsupported broad -brushed generalizations, culminating in the following ridiculous assertion,
totally belied by the Videotapes and other testimony:
"The majority of the retail properties in the Project Area fare] obsolete ... and
are no longer economically viable." (Page B-11)
It is incomprehensible that this statement be made in the face of the Draft Report's own statistics
(only 1 building requires extensive repair work; only 8.8% of all buildings require moderate or
extensive work; 75% of all buildings and 83% of all lots are free of any other conditions of
physical blight) and in the face of the reality of the Videotapes and other testimony showing busy
and thriving retail centers anchored by almost every conceivable nationally recognized and
financially strong tenant.
3. The Project Area Fails to Meet Other Eligibility Requirements
In order to qualify as a redevelopment project, the proposed Project Area must not only be
predominantly urbanized and blighted, but Section 33030 also requires that:
The Honorable "vlayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
May 20, 1997
Page 5
• The combination of conditions of blight must be so prevalent and substantial (and
must predominate and injuriously affect the entire area, Section 33321);
• As to cause a lack of proper utilization;
• To the extent of being a serious physical and economic burden on the community;
• Which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise and/or governmental action without redevelopment.
The proposed Project Area flunks all of these requirements, each of which is necessary in and of
themselves for the Project Area to be valid and legal.
Blight conditions do not even exist in any significant way in the Project Area, let alone in
prevalent and substantial and predominate form, as shown above.
No lack of proper utilization can be shown to be caused by blight. Of the 1450 acres:
550 acres are properly utilized as freeways and streets;
100 acres are properly utilized as parks;
50 acres are properly utilized as schools;
320 acres are vacant non -urbanized property and are not suffering from any blight;
400+ acres are, with rare exception in a handful of cases, thriving retail and commercial
properties, overwhelmingly new or in excellent condition with strong nationally
recognized tenants.
No physical or economic burdens of any kind are identified on the community in the Draft
Report, let alone serious ones.
There is no blight to reverse or alleviate. Private enterprise will do just fine. For example, the
vacant parcels shown on the Videotapes in the Gateway Corporate Center will be built out when
it makes economic sense for their owners to do so. In the meantime, the ready to build vacant
parcels are not a burden to anyone.
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
May 20, 1997
Page 6
4. The Public Hearing Should Be Continued Due to Lack of Required Documentation
The notice of this public hearing said the Report to the City Council would be available to the
public for review. In fact it has not been. As late as May 16, the Friday before the hearing, only
the "Draft" Report was available, and the finalized Report has never been publicly available.
The hearing should be continued to allow proper preparation by the public and meaningful input.
Also Section 33352 has been violated, in that the final Report is required to accompany the
submission of the proposed Redevelopment Plan to the City Council. This was not done.
5. Owner Participation Rules Not Timely Adopted
Sections 33339.5 and 33345 require these crucial rules to be adopted a reasonable time before the
public hearing to give the public adequate time for review. This was not done.
6. Eminent Domain Not Clearly Explained
Section 33350 requires the Agency's power of eminent domain to be clearly explained in the
notice of public hearing. This was not done.
7. Project Feasibility Not Shown
Page C-6 of the Draft Report shows a substantial negative balance in the first three years of the
Project of as much as $138,000. There is no explanation of where this money is coming from.
The proposed method of financing in the Draft Report does not comply with Section 33352(e).
There is no year by year comparison of revenues and expenditures. It is impossible to determine
in any given year if the project is feasible.
8. No Description of Alleviation of Blight
The Implementation Plan in the Draft Report does not contain a description of how the proposed
projects will alleviate conditions of blight, as required by Section 33352. There is only a quote
of the statutory definition of blight (at pp. C-3/4) and a half page outline simply listing claimed
generalized categories of_claimed blight in statutory terms (at p. C-5).
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
May 20, 1997
Page 7
9. No Explanation of Why Private Enterprise Incapable of Removing Any Blight
Without Redevelopment
The requirements of Section 33352(d), to explain why private enterprise acting along is not
sufficient to alleviate any conditions of blight that may be show to exist, are not satisfied.
The prohibitive cost of rehabilitation is mentioned in this section of the Draft Report. Yet only 1
building is identified as requiring extensive rehabilitation in the entire Project Area, and only
8.8% of all Project Area buildings are cited as needing moderate to extensive rehabilitation.
Difficulty and the high cost of assembling parcels is cited. This is ludicrous. The Project Area is
strewn with 1, 3, 5, 10, 20, 30, and even 50+ acre vacant parcels, many in ready to build
condition, such as the Gateway Center, and many in large single ownership, such as the huge
vacant parcels on Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon. There is no shortage of already
assembled single -ownership parcels available for development.
QUESTIONS
Please provide me with answers to the following questions which I could not find in the EIR and
the Draft Report:
• Are any crops planted or grown anywhere in the Project Area for commercial
purposes?
• What is the breakdown of land uses in the Project Area by acreage, including
residential, commercial, industrial, school, parks and other, with a separate
calculation for each category?
• Exactly how many dwelling units are located in the Project Area and how many
people reside in those dwelling units?
• How much land and what land in the Project Area is owned by the City of
Industry?
• Is a copy of the redevelopment plan, resolutions and adopting ordinance
available?
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
May 20, 1997
Page 8 _
For the many reasons demonstrated in this letter, the Videotapes and otherwise during the joint
public hearing, it is overwhelmingly clear that the proposed redevelopment project would be an
illegal and invalid project.
The proposed redevelopment project must be rejected by the City Council because it is illegal
and because it is harmful to the City:
• Eminent domain will be hanging over the head of every business -person in
Diamond Bar for no reason for 12 long years;
• The City will lose millions of dollars of general funds it would have otherwise
received in the absence of the redevelopment project;
• 20% of all tax increments must be spent on very -low, low and moderate income
housing in the City of Diamond Bar
• Diamond Bar will be known to the State Legislature as a "rogue city" ready,
willing and able to break the law.
I have been advised by your City Attorney that videotapes are made of all City Council
Meetings. It is hereby formally requested that the videotape of all City Council and Agency
meetings concerning the consideration of the proposed Project Area, including but not limited to
the joint public hearing, be saved and reproduced and made a part of the administrative record of
this matter.
It is respectfully requested that the Proposed Redevelopment Project be rejected by the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar.
Sincerely,
/111"� o . K.',
Murray O. Kane
KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN
Counsel for Affected Property Owners
And Other Interested Persons
MURRAY O. KANE
Born Middlesex County, England, on July 14, 1946.
Admitted to the California Bar, January, 1971.
University of California at Los Angeles
A. B. 1967
J. D. 1970
Mr. Kane is a nationally prominent lawyer specializing in the practice of redevelopment law.
Mr. Kane joined the firm in 1973 and has been a principal of the firm since 1978. He has
obtained extensive experience in the handling of all phases of redevelopment, including the
creation, organization and administration of agencies, creation of projects, relocation and owner
participation, public improvements, and land disposition. He served as General Counsel for the
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles for over fifteen (15) years and is
also primarily responsible for the firm's representation of the Culver City, Lynwood, Hawthorne,
Moreno Valley, San Jose and Whittier redevelopment agencies.
Mr. Kane also served as litigation counsel on validating actions involving the Central Business
District Redevelopment Project of the City of Los Angeles, the Alpine Redevelopment Project of
the City of Tulare, the Village Redevelopment Project of the City of Claremont, the
Redevelopment Plan of the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Ana, and
other projects.
Among his other most noteworthy accomplishments have been:
• Creator of concept of insurability of Orders of Immediate Possession to permit conveyance
and construction financing prior to Agency ownership of fee title to property.
• Advised on fust use of tax increment for affordable housing. 1974-75 (Mission Inn,
Riverside and Airport Move -On Program, Los Angeles).
• Drafted redevelopment plan language as the basis for redevelopment affordable housing
set aside legislation.
• Successful adoptions of redevelopment plans under Disaster Redevelopment (Including
1*0*91� 1011�I_1
Whittier plan, adopted six weeks after October, 1987 earthquake, and Santa Monica and
1 five Los Angeles Earthquake Recovery Pians adopted after January, 1994 earthquake).
• Lead attorney in the negotiation and documentation of such projects as:
• Fox Hills Mall, Culver City.
• Central Library Revitalization Project
Maguire/Thomas Library Tower Project.
.0 County of Los Angeles First Street Properties.
• Whittier Quad (Earthquake Recovery Project)
• San Jose Convention Center Hotel
• Corporate Pointe, Culver City
• Cloverleaf Project, Hawthorne
Mr. Kane is a frequent lecturer on redevelopment topics to such organizations as the League of
California Cities, the Los Angeles County Bar Association and the California Redevelopment
Association, as well as serving as periodic guest lecturer of the Schools of Law and Business (Real
Estate) of the University of Southern California. Mr. Kane has testified on the financing of
redevelopment projects before Legislative Committees of the States of California, Colorado and
Kansas. Mr. Kane has also testified as an expert witness of the subject of redevelopment in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles and the County of Napa.
His expert testimony was recently relied upon by the California Supreme Court in Napa v. Marek,
a major case decided in favor of redevelopment agencies of the State of California.'
Before joining the firm, Mr. Kane served as City Prosecutor, Assistant City Attorney and Acting
City Attorney for the City of Culver City, California.
In those capacities Mr. Kane had personal and primary responsibility for providing legal services
to all levels of city government on all aspects of municipal law. He sat as legal counsel to City
Council and Planning Commission, and prosecuted all misdemeanors occurring within the City
(both State and Municipal Code) and advised and defended the police department and its officers
in civil and criminal matters. He drafted all revisions to the Municipal Code and all City
ordinances, resolutions and contracts, and represented City and its officers and employees in state
and federal courts in many civil litigation matters, including police department matters, attacks' on
validity of City ordinances and regulations, municipal finance, and personnel matters.
i
EXHIBIT A
,'RR RR
General Plan Land Use Designation RM
RR. RuralResr,W City of Pomona Y"
0 RL - Law Oersity Reside-" = 1
CO RMH ' 91,I1
I� RW- L ow Medrrq R hal 5 R!A
0 RM • Medium Density ReaderWaf
RW - Me*n KO penalty ReWdeneai ♦� R �+ RL p��
RH - FIM DerWty Residential O"U PK F
_ C Gwerat(b wacial n�t��SMA '
CO Ca nymcid Office R1N R RL
OP RofesdorkwO(fke [ R.
i R�°. RR �v
® l Lot kKkotrwRt
® PF Rt& Faa ft 4W Water F Fire S: Sdxod
PK Park
GC GdtCaase „*
OS oma+ Spam
PR ftWe Recreation
` RL
AG Agricrltue a PI -1/SP
r—S—P-1, SP $O=k Plan Ovular a + \ x
City of Indust ry os
PA %mwgArea
::.:...
RL ?JSBI
,rte. ��• _
RSM F&' �E►
ALN i .F K 3
R#t PK I
RL RL
` siu QS
RL`� r
RLII,P
K
RL .RE•Ilf
RLM'; P!E RL
RL
Av
R
e.
O � � R PK ,ee
RL x `'
s
� a
c
��, i`a� City of =�
Chino Hills
RL r
i�
J
r'r e
RL RR i
J/
♦; 7 3 Ga �� QBfiCllfi`^`7 B011ld�l(
I� P PtoJe�t
� EM t
-•t, * t3u'WiWn Area
U NOftli +�ht,_ 'M.� } '
RL
!M�!„ �[x4J!,�!4r! V�lllla M�... .., r.-ci`�'-.. � . i�s.�-5�� ,-� •ti.� _ ...;� t ''
_ Figure I4
km gat General Plan Designations for
Economic Revitalization Area and Adjacent Areas
, as
City of Di=ond Bar Economic Revitalization Area
Redevelopment Agency 1-14 Emironmental Impact Report
EXHIBIT B -
,s
�- 1.4 PHASING
No phasing has been established for redevelopment within the Project Area. This EIR
anticipates that buildout of the Project Area will occur over a 10- to 20 -year period.
1.5 RELATIONSHIP TO LOCAL PLANS _
Land uses allowed under the proposed redevelopment plan will be thosepermtted by the
General Plan and City zoning ordinances as they exist today or are amended in the future.
The proposed redevelopment plan therefore, conforms to the City's General Plan and
proposes a consistent pattern of land uses, and includes all highways and public facilities
as indicated in the General Plan. As illustrated in Figure 4, the City's General Plan land
use map shows a variety of land use designations for the Project Area, as follows:
RL -'Low Density Residential (mas. 3 dwelling units per acre)
• C - GeneralCommercial (max. 1.0 floor area ratio FAR)
• CO Commercial/Office (max. 1.0 FAR)
• OP - Professional Office (max. 1.0 FAR)
• I - Light Industrial (max. 1.0 FAR)
• PF Public Facility
• F - Fire Station
• S - School
• PK - Park
• PA/SP Planning Area/Specific Plan Overlay
The City is currently in the process of revising its Zoning Map for consistency with the
existing General Plan.
Development limits and standards established by the City's General Plan and zoning
ordinances will apply to future development in the Project Area. In addition, the
proposed redevelopment plan allows for the Agency to establish building heights, mass,
setbacks, and other standards to further define limits and development standards for the
Project Area
1.6 RELATED PROJECTS
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR address the impacts of the
proposed project plus "past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects producing
related or cumulative impacts." For the purposes of this EIR, related projects are a 40 -
acre industrial park project in the City of Industry, and a280 -unit residential project north
of Grand Avenue and east of Diamond Bar Boulevard in Diamond Bar.
Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area
Redevelopment Agency I-13 Environmental Impact Report
i
i
Diamond Bar City 8ow�dary
Diamond Bar Sphe v of k*wnce
® Redewtopment StudyAraa
SOURCE City of D/am W Bar, Rederebpm wAaency
Tivom, Figure y
r Project Location
Initial Study Diamond Bar
3 Economic Revitalization Area
�R
General Plan Land Use Designation
_„I D RR -p„rd '
D FL-I�rOm* %Wwaa City of Pomona ..:;
au.+. pow-Meamnerm;y aesae„eW
0 RM - Medium Mr=V RezadarGsf
RIY4+ - M.�. FW Density Residential
RH- KO Ndty Resiaentlei
C GerieralCmvnuoel-
ao awMMW orke 5"R' � . �-
1
OP PwfesaonW orficeRR
PF Puhfic Fw ty W V*W F: Fae S: Sdwd w;
PK Pedi w'
GC Ca Qum
D OS open Speoe
® PR RMM Aweeborf Li =ice' RL
AS VWbnm
ii
FSP
sp So-fic Plan pvslsy,
PA City of Industry
ri< _
x
Fh 4 L
RL 1y
OK
RL
_ RL PK
ML
a` RR PK Ave
�aa c4 City Of
OMF
_ K 5 Chino Hills
RR
f l
. � D�rnorideerCi�f eor+aa,r
Wft Aepoeed Acied Am
RL
f;
F Figure 2
General Plan Designations for
Economic Revitalization Area and Adjacent Areas
Initial Study Diamond Bar
4 Economic Revitalization Area
EXHIBIT C
LAW OFFICES
TRAINUM, SNOWDON & DEANE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
SUITE 550
1317 F STREET. N.W.
WASHINGTON. D.C. 200091
12021783-5488
FACSIMILE {2022 783-5502
JOHN RUSSELL DEANE 111'. \
RICHARD W. SNOWDON III � •`,
CHARLES A..TRAINUM. JR. /
EXHIBIT
A 5
VIRGINIA OFFICE
(540:):,371-9.419
MARYLAND OFFICE
(4! O1 268-9182
^G -
v
xe: unliaations of SEMA'Pursuant to the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Plan
Dear Mr. Belanger
I am writing on behalf of the S ecialt E i merit
P Y qu P Market
Association (SEMA), for which this firm serves as general
counsel. SEMA has ilits headquarters located at 1575 South Valley
Vista Drive, Diamond Bar,! California 91765 The SEMA building is
located within the "Revit'aiization Areal' identified by the
Preliminary :Rannrt- fn -r- *t,'b Dva.,...t __-.__i ,,, __ -- _ _ .
awiium.ic xevicaiization Area. The .SEMA building is a modern,
attractive, fully -utilized structure.
Per our conversation this afternoon I have expressed tollyou
SEMA's concern that it may have to make costly improvements to
its property in order to comply with the terms of the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Plan, despite the fact that its building is modern
and attractive. You informed me that any actionl,taken by the
Redevelopment Agency must be made pursuant to an, agreement
between the Agency and the property owner. You then stated that.
SEMA would not have to make any improvements to its property-;
because of the fact that its building is already incompliance
with the terms of the Redevelopment Plan. You told me that I
could take your statements "to the bank."
Per
s hereby requestthat send
me l a
letter acknowledging that theboe statements are
accurate and
true. I intend to advise SEMA that they can rely on your
statements, and that SEMA will not have to make any improvements
to its 'property.
As you are aware, the hearing for this matter is on May 20,
1997, so I would appreciate it if you could send the letter as
soon as possible.
Thank you.very much for your attention to this matter. If
you have any questions, please call me at the above numbers.
Sincerel
Steven Lust' Esq.
CC: Linda A. Czarkowski
Vice President, Administration
Specialty EquipmentMarketAssociation
EXHIBIT
-
KANE, BALLMEI3 & BERKMAN A 6
- - A LAW CORPORATION
SIS SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE IBSO
y.
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TELEPHONE (213)617-0480
t1 °i
MURRAY O. KANE FAX 1213) 625-0931 ROBERT P. BERKMAN
-
BRUCE D. BALL:MER RETIRED
GLENN F. WASSE'RMAN
R. BRUCE TEP.PER, JR.
JOSEPH PAN NONE June 3, 1997 EUGENE B. JACOBS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
. ROYCE K. JONES
OF COUNSEL
- STEPHANIE R. SfiHE.R '.
PRINCIPALS ,.
The Honorable. Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
The Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Re: Written Objections on behalf of Affected Property Owners and Others
To (1) The Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bard Economic
Revitalization Area and (2) The Exclusion of Certain Properties, as set forth
In Resolution No. R-97-10
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, and
Honorable Chair and Members of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment
Agency:
The following written objections are hereby submitted on behalf of a number of affected property
owners and other interested persons represented by the undersignedin opposition to (1) the i
Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the "Project
Area') and (2) the exclusion of certain, properties from the proposed Project Area, as set forth in
Resolution No. R-97-10 (the "Exclusion"'). Each written objection requires the conclusion that
the Project Area fails to qualify as a legal and valid redevelopment project and that the Exclusion
is invalid in that (a) it leaves the Project Area after the Exclusion as a non -blighted and non -
urbanized project area and therefore without legal justification to be validly adopted as a
redevelopment project area, and (b) no criteria have been advanced to rationally explain the
Exclusion while simultaneously leaving in the proposed Project Area a large number of equally
non -blighted and non -urbanized areas.
Since the public hearing on this matter was not closed (oral statement of Chairman at May 20,
1997 public hearing) and was continued "only on the question of excluding property from the
Project Area" (statement of Agency Counsel at May 20, 1997 public hearing), and since the
question of excluding property from the Project Area is inextricably linked to whether the Project
Area is blighted and urbanized and to the criteria used for the Exclusion, written objections to the
Project Area are now timely. In any event, this written objection is also a written objection to the
=r
Exclusion made on behalf of affected property owners and other interested persons.
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
�. Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 3, 1997
Page 2
The affected property owners and other interested persons represented by the undersigned and on
whose behalf this written objection is made and on whose behalf the written objection filed by
the undersigned dated May 20, 1997 was made (including for both the May 20 and June 3, 1997
written objections, attachments and oral and videotape testimony and exhibits) include but are
not limited to: Joyce K. Birrell, David R. Busse, Mary F. McCormick -Busse, William G. Smith,
Norman and Barbara>Beach-Courcusne and Louis J. Marcellin, Walnut Valley Trailers.
This written objection is based on the oral testimony and videotape and photographic evidence to
be presented by the undersigned at the continued joint public hearing scheduled for the above
referenced proposal as well as the contents of this letter. A map is attached and labeled Exhibit
A depicting those portions of the Project Area shown and described in the said videotape
evidence (the "Videotape'). The Videotape is the same videotape filed with the City Clerk and
refused to be shown by the Chairman at the May 20 joint public hearing on this matter, but has
been edited down from its original 28 minute length to its present 24 minute length by removing
all footage of the six parcels excluded in the Exclusion. The edited Videotape now displays well
over 80% of the Project Area, and clearly depicts the complete absence of physical or economic
blightthroughout.
1. The Project Area (before or after the Exclusion) is Not Predominantly Urbanized
The Supplemental Report to the City Council prepared by the Agency staff and consultants for
this proposed project to provide Exclusion -related data (the "Supplemental Report") discloses
that either 266.12 or 314 of the Project Area's 1300.41 acres (after the Exclusion) are
undeveloped °(depending on whether, Revised Table 3-1 or 3-2 is consulted).
No matter which Revised Table in the Supplemental Report is used, each table's statistics
establishes that less than 80 percent of the land in the Project Area is developed for urban uses or
an integral part of an area developed for urban uses in violation of the requirements of Sections
33320.1 and 33030(b) of the California Health & Safety Code [the California Community
Redevelopment Law; all references to statutes herein are to the California Health & Safety Code
unless otherwise indicated], and that the proposed Project Area is clearly not predominantly
urbanized, as required bylaw..
Revised Table 3-1 somehow designates 190.8 acres of vacant undeveloped land as "urbanized"
and "an integral part of an area developed for urban uses No facts are given in support of this
�.
proposition; which is belied by the Videotape (see, tg_, large undeveloped parcel in Videotape
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 3, 1997
Page 3
at Brea Canyon Road, much of which has been designated "wilderness area", other parcels in the
Gateway Center and on Diamond Bar Boulevard at the 60 freeway), as well as the photographic
evidence submitted at the continued joint public hearing (the photographs were copied from the
Videotape). These parcels are either wilderness or parkland areas, or large stand alone never
developed vacant parcels, yet all are preposterously referred to without factual basis as
"urbanized on "Urbanization Map- Map 3-1" in the Report. Stand alone parcels as large as 13,
24, 35 and 41 acres and larger are incredibly included in this category, including the wilderness .
area referred to above, which is restricted by covenants as not to be developed, the parkland
promised to residents known as Area D in the Report to the City Council, and many others. The
acreage figures in Revised Table 3-2 are inconsistent with the Exclusion documents and
description and the rest of the Supplemental Report; hence there is literally no way of identifying
the parcels constituting the supposed "urbanized" vacant land. For example, Revised Table 3-2
shows 314.12 acres,of undeveloped property and Revised Table 3-1 shows 266.12.
Of the Project Area's 1300 acres, '550 acres are freeways and, streets. If these areas are not
counted, almost 40% or more of the Project Area is vacant never developed land.
2. The Proposed Project Area (before or after the Exclusion) is Not a Blighted Area
The Report to the City Council prepared by the Agency's staff and consultants (the "Report")
relies heavily on deterioration and dilapidation to support a finding of blight (at Table B-1 and
throughout). _Yet even though deterioration and dilapidation are legally irrelevant to a. finding of
blight unless bad enough to causebuildings to be unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work,
(Section 33031(a)(1) not one unsafe or unhealft building is identified in the Report. In the
proposed response to my May 20 written objection, staff indicates that the category of "deferred
maintenance" includes items such as a sagging roof or "exposed wiring." Yet staff is unable to
identify a singe building with a'sagging roof or exposed wiring, despite being asked to do so
at the joint public hearing on this matter. Based on simply listing items supposedly included in
this category, they claim that the "deferred maintenance" should be counted towards the required
finding of blight.
Table B-1 establishes the following:
Only. one (l b� g in the entireProjectArea was found to require extensive rehabilitation.
Only twenty one (21) buildings in the entire 1454 acres was found to require "moderate
q
11
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 3, 1997
Page 4
rehabilitation" (a term never defined in the Draft Report).
Only 8.8% of all buildings require moderate or extensive rehabilitation. 91.2% of all buildings
are just fine or only require things like a coat of paint.
The Report cannot claim widespread deterioration in the Project Area, a fact now admitted at p.
B-4-4 in the staff's proposed response to the May 20 written objections (the "Response"):
"Mr. Kane also incorrectly states that the Report to City Council claims that 62% of all
Project Area buildings suffer from deterioration and dilapidation. Rather, the Report to
the City Council states that 62% of all Project Area buildings are in need of
maintenance...." (emphasis added).
This is a crucial admission, because "need of maintenance" is simply not blight. The statute
clearly calls for deterioration and dilapidation causing unsafe or unhealthy buildings that are a
' serious burden on the community which private enterprise acting alone cannot alleviate. That
91.2% of buildings require no rehabilitation of any substance does not begin to meet this test and
instead supports a finding that the Project Area is predominantly non -blighted. -
Table B-1 also establishes:
76% of all building have standard design and no design defects (the other 24% are simply
buildings built under older codes and are fully lawful non -conforming uses).
Over 95% of all improvements are compatible with surrounding uses.
80% of all buildings have adequate parking, even under the questionable criteria used in the
Draft Report.
Over 83% of all lots are free of defective design conditions.
These statistics, developed by the Agency staff and consultants, corroborate the absence of
physical blight shown above. Despite the fact that each of these statistics, without exception,
shows that the overwhelming majority of buildings and parcels in the Project Area have no
problem and cause no burden to the community, these numbers are somehow shown as support
for a showing of a predominantly blighted project area. Instead, without exception, they clearly
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council n
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 3, 1997
Page 5
support a finding of a predominantly non -blighted project area.
Hazardous waste is mentioned as a blighting condition, yet is never linked to hindering the
economically viable use of a property as required by Section 33031(a)(2). The EIR demonstrates
that only 6 underground storage tanksintheentire City leak (Initial Study at page 19), a record
that would make Beverly Hills envious.
Geologic concerns are cited as a blighting condition. Yet the EIR flatly states that Geological
Problems are not an issue (Initial Study at p. 7 and Appendix p. 7) and does not even bother to
discuss the issue at all.
NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL BLIGHT IS OFFERED!
As to economic blight, the Report relies heavily on an "11%0" decline is assessed values in the
Project Area, and the economic obsolescence of the retail centers in the Project Area. .
First, even this erroneous figure is a five-year or three year figure (depending on which section of
the Report is consulted). Justifying a 1300 acre' redevelopment project based on a claimed 2-3%
annual decline in assessed values in the middle of the worst real estate recession in decades is
ludicrous and would qualify most of Southern California for redevelopment.
Second, the claimed 11% decline is just plain wrong and is based on totally discredited figures.
The figures used in a table on page B-20 of the Report have been shown to be in error by as I
much as $62 million based on the County Report on Project Area Assessed Values prepared as
required by Health & Safety Code. Section 33328 (found at Section L of the Report):
Table B-20 says there was`a $13,000,000 drop in assessed value, 95-96 to 96-97. The County
Report establishes only a $3,000,000 drop in assessed values, a $10.000.000 error.
Unsecured assessed values are mysteriously ignored by the Agency's consultants in the entire
Draft Report. The County Report shows an Lsecured assessed values of over
$3.500.000 from 95-96 to 96-97.
Table B-20 says 95-96 secured assessed values were $403 million; the County Report shows
them to really have been $341 million, a $62.000.000 error:
m°'
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 3, 1997
Page 6
Table B-20 says 96-97 secured assessed values were $390 million; the County Report shows
them to really have been $334 million, a $,56.000.000 error.
The "11% drop" in assessed values so heavily relied upon by the Report is totally discredited and
cannot be relied upon.- Applicable law requires an analysis of the County Report to be included
in the Draft Report (Section 33352(n)(1)), yet that part of the Report has no such analysis.
In their Response, staff attempts to explain these major errors away by saying that some
identified person at the County told them there had been errors in assessed valuation numbers for
some other project and there were problems with the assessment roll figures. On June 3, 1997
the undersigned spoke to Manuet Valenzuela, Deputy County Counsel for the County of Los
Angeles in an attempt to confirm the representations made by staff. On the contrary, Mr.
Valenzuela indicated that he had consulted on June 2 and 3 with both the office of the Chief
Administrative Officer -and the Assessor for the County of Los Angeles, and that based upon
such inquiries he was not aware of any such problems with the assessment roll figures or with the
County assessed valuation report for this proposed Project, nor was he aware of the alleged
conversation cited by staff in their Response.
The Report, so bereft of factual support for physical or economic blight, resorts to unsupported
broad -brushed generalizations, culminating in the following ridiculousassertion, totally belied
by the Videotapes and other testimony:
"The majority of the retail properties in the Project Area [are] obsolete ... and
are no longer economically viable." (Page B-11)
It is incomprehensible that this statement be made in the face of the Report's own statistics (only
1 building requires extensive repair work; only 8.8% of all buildings require moderate or
extensive work; 75% of all buildings and 83% of all lots are free of any other conditions of
physical blight) and in the face of the reality of the Videotape and other testimony showing busy
and thriving retail centers anchored by almost every conceivable nationally recognized and
financially strong tenant.
Staff now admits (at Response, p. B-4-6) that 73% of the projectArea's commercial buildings do
-r not suffer from any vacancies. Staff also admits they could only find 150 tenant space vacancies
in the entire Project Area of 1300 acres and 250 buildings, and that these vacancies are
_, concentrated in three retail centers comprising less than 1% o of the property in, the Project Areal
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 3, 1997
Page 7
Again, every statistic corroborates the absence of blight. The Report makes no attempt -to find
out why the anomaly of the vacancies at these three centers exists in the context of dozens of
thriving retail centers shown in the Videotape throughout the Project Area.
In their proposed response to the May 20 written objections, the staff relies heavily on the
"consumer preference survey" set forth in the Report. Incredibly, this data also destroys and
undercuts any possible finding of blight for the Project Area. According the this survey:
Less than 1 out of 4 Diamond. Bar residents think of their retail shopping areas as "unattractive".
nl 8° of the residents felt the appearance or services of their Diamond Bar retail businesses
needed improvement)
Only 6% of the residents felt any need to improve traffic control.
These statistics ort at Graph B-4 also corroborate the absence of predominant blight from
(Rep P ) P �
the Project Area shown in the Videotape and Table B-1.
3. The Project Area Fails to Meet Other Eligibility Requirements
In order to qualify as a redevelopment project, the proposed Project Area must not only be
predominantly urbanized and blighted, but Section 33030 also requires that:
The combination of conditions of blight must be so prevalent and substantial (and
must predominate and injuriously affect the entire area, Section 33321);
• As to cause a lack of proper utilization;
• To the extent of being a serious physical Md economic burden on the community;
• Which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise and/or governmental action without redevelopment.
The proposed Project Area flunks all of these requirements, each of which is necessary in and of
themselves for the Project Area to be valid and legal.
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 3, 1997
Page 8
Blight conditions do not even exist in any significant way in the Project Area, let alone in
prevalent and substantial and predominate form, as shown above.
No lack of proper utilization can be shown to be caused by blight. Of the 1300 acres:
550 acres are properly utilized as freeways and streets;
50 acres are properly utilized as schools;
300 acres are vacant non -urbanized property, including wilderness and parkland areas;
400+ acres are with rare exception in a handful of cases thriving retail and commercial
properties, overwhelmingly new or in excellent condition with strong nationally
recognized tenants.
No physical and economic burdens of any kind are identified on the community in the Report, let
s
alone- serious. ones. Conditions of blight must be so predominate throughout theProject Area as
to cause a serious physical and economic burden on the community. The Report's data, as
shown above, only supports the opposite conclusion.
The Report does not even begin to explain why the mere maintenance required of some
buildings, the anomalous tenant vacancies concentrated in a tiny percentage of the Project Area
and the lingering effects of the major Southern California real estate recession or depression will
not be handled by private enterprise and the generally improving economy. There is�no evidence
in the Report whatsoever to indicate the contrary. For example, the vacant parcels shown on the
Videotape in the Gateway Corporate Center will be built out when it makes economic sense.for
their owners to do so. In the meantime, the -ready to build vacant parcels are not a burden to
anyone, and certainly not the serious physical n economic burden on the community required
to establish blight. _
The May 20, 1997 written objections previously submitted by the undersigned are hereby
incorporated herein by this reference, including all exhibits and Videotape evidence referred to
therein.
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar ;{
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 3, 1997
Page 9
For these and many other reasons demonstrated in the Videotapes�es and otherwise dunngthe joint
public hearing and continued joint public hearing, it overwhelmingly clear, that the proposed
redevelopment project would be an illegal and invalid project and that the Exclusion does not
result in.a legally valid proposed Project Area.
The proposed redevelopment project and the Exclusion must be rejected by the City Council
because it is illegal and because it is harmful to the City.
It is respectfully requested that the Proposed Redevelopment Project be rejected by the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar.
Sincerely,
KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN
Murray Q, Kane
R. Bruce Tepper
Y
Murray O. Kane
Counsel for Affected Property Owners
And Other Interested Persons
r -
- TEPKEN and JANET NICD;
2621 Qisin8 (-S[.ar Drive EXHIBIT
Diamond Bar, Ca., 91765 A -I
w.
June 3, 1997
To: Diamond Bar City Council
Diamond o d Bar Redevelopment Agency �
All Members of both City Council and Redevelopment Agency
I wish to address the issue of two commercial centers in the redevelopment project area.
Specifically, the Country Hills Town Center and the Ralphs/Boston store center at the
corner of Grand Ave. and Diamond Bar Blvd. These are both active and thriving centers.
There are some vacancies, but those vacancies are not the result of blight but are the
result of greedy landlords. I am personally friends with both current and former tenants
at both of these centers. In most cases, the vacancies have occurred due to the increase
of rents in these centers. How, can you consider these centers i blighted. They are
continually being upgraded, and this pis evidenced by increasing rents charged to both new
and existing tenants. I request that you exclude both of these commercial centers from
the redevelopment project area. r N y, Net— G ALL 7"141c caMMC�c.�lgL
GC S Zvi DjA:+wu� avwt r-ALL ;m7i>
S>f-14k3O> ALLq�
Stephen E. Nice
2621 Rising Star Dr.
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
KANE, BALLMER Rc BERKMAN
--"'. A LAW CORPORATION
f515 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 1850
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA[90071
TELEPHONE (213) 617-0480
MURRAY O: KANE FAX (213) 6250931
_.. BRUCE O. BALLMER
GLENN F. WASSERMANN
R. BRUCE TEPPER. JR. June 10, 1997
JOSEPH W. PANNONE
ROYCE K. JONES
STEPHANIE R. SCHER
PRINCIPALS
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
The Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California91765
EXHIBIT
A — 8
ROBERT P. BERKMAN
RETIRED
EUGENE B. JACOBS
A PROFrSSIONAL CORPORATION
OF COUNSEL
Re: Written Objections on behalf of Affected Property Owners and Others
To (1) The Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area and (2) The Exclusion of Certain Properties, as set forth
In Resolution No. R-97-10
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, and Honorable Chair and
Members of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency:
The following written objections are hereby submitted on behalf of a number of affected property
owners and other interested persons represented by the undersigned in opposition to (1) the
Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the "Project
Area") and (2) the exclusion of certain properties from the proposed Project Area, as set forth in
Resolution No. R-97-10 (the "Exclusion'). Each written objection requires the conclusion that
the Project Area fails to qualify as a legal and valid redevelopment project and that the Exclusion
is invalid in that (a) it leaves the Project Area after the Exclusion as a non -blighted and non -
urbanized project area and therefore without legal justification to be validly adopted as a
redevelopment project area, and (b) no criteria have been advanced to rationally explain the
Exclusion while simultaneously leaving in the proposed Project Area a large number of equally
non -blighted and non -urbanized areas.
Since the public hearing on this matter was not closed (oral statement of Chairman at May 20,
1997 public hearing) and was continued "only on the question of excluding property from the
Project Area" (statement of Agency Counsel at May 20, 1997 public hearing), and since the
question of excluding property from the Project Area is inextricably linked to whether the Project
Area is blighted and urbanized and to the criteria used for the Exclusion, written objections to the
Project Area are now timely. In any event, this written objection is also a written objection to the
Exclusion made on behalf of affected property owners and other interested persons.
The Honorable
.Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 10, 1997
Page 2
The affected property owners and other interested persons represented by the undersigned and on
whose behalf this written objection is made and on whose behalf the written objection filed by
the undersigned dated May 20, 1997 was made (including for both the May 20 and June 3, 1997
written objections, attachments and oral and videotape testimony and exhibits) include but are
not; limited to: Joyce K. Birrell, David R. Busse, Mary F. McCormick -Busse, William G. Smith,
Norman and Barbara Beach-Courcusne and Louis J. Marcellin, Walnut Valley Trailers.
This written objection is based on the oral testimony and videotape and photographic evidence to
be presented by the undersigned at the continued joint public hearing scheduled for the above
referenced proposal as well as the contents of this letter. A map is attached and labeled Exhibit
A depicting those portions of the Project Area shown and described in the said videotape
evidence (the "Videotape'. The Videotape is the same videotape filed with the, City Clerk and
refused to be shown by the Chairman at the May 20 joint public hearing on this matter, but has
been edited down from its original 28 minute length to its present 24 minute length by removing
all footage of the six parcels excluded in the Exclusion. The edited Videotape now displays ''I ell
over 80% of the Project Area, and clearly depicts the complete absence of physical or economic
blight throughout.
1. The Project Area (before or after the Exclusion) is Not Predominantly Urbanized
The Supplemental Report to the City Councilprepared by the Agency staff and consultants fpr
this proposed project to provide Exclusion -related data (the "Supplemental Report') discloses
that either 266.12 or 314 of the Project Area's 1300.41 acres (after the Exclusion) are
undeveloped (depending on whether Revised Table 3'-1 or 3-2 is consulted).
No matter which Revised Table in the Supplemental Report is used, each table's statistics
establishes that less than 80 percent of the land in the Project Area is developedforurban uses or
an integral part of an area developed for 'urban uses in violation of the requirements of Sections
33320.1 and 33030(b) of the California Health & Safety Code [the California Community I
Redevelopment Law. all references to statutes herein are to the California Health ,& Safety Code
unless otherwise indicated], and that theproposedProject Area is clearly not predominantly
urbanized, as required by law..
Revised Table 3-1 somehow designates 190.8 acres of vacant undeveloped land as "urbanized"
and "an integral part of an area developed for urban uses". No facts are given in support of this
proposition, which is belied by the Videotape (see, e.g., large undeveloped parcel in Videotape
at Brea Canyon Road, much of which has been designated"wilderness area", other parcels in the
Gateway Center and on Diamond Bar Boulevard at the 60 freeway), as well as the photographic
11
Oi
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 10, 1997
Page 3
evidence submitted at the continued joint public hearing (the photographs were copied from the
Videotape). These parcels are either wilderness or parkland areas, or large stand alo I ne never
developed vacant parcels, yet all are preposterously referred to without factual basis as
"urbanized' on "Urbanization Map- Map 3-1" in the Report. Stand alone parcels as large as 13,
24, 3 5 and 41 acres and larger are incredibly included in this category, including the wilderness
area referred to above, which is restricted by covenants as not to be developed, theparkland
promised to residents known as, Area D in the Report to the City Council, and manyothers. The
acreage figures in Revised Table 3-2 are inconsistent with the Exclusion documents and
description and the rest of the Supplemental Report; hence there is literally no way of identifying
the parcels constituting the supposed "urbanized" vacant land. For example, Revised Table 3-2
shows 314.12 acres of undeveloped property and Revised Table 3-1 shows 266.12.
Of the Project Area's 1300 acres, 550 acres are freeways and streets. If these areas are not
counted, almost 40% or more of the Project Area is vacant never developed land.
2. The Proposed Project Area (before or after the Exclusion) is Not a Bli I ted Area,
The Report to the City Council prepared by the Agency's staff and consultants (the "Report')
relies heavily on deterioration and dilapidation to support a finding of blight (at Table B-1 and
throughout). Yet even though deterioration and dilapidation are legally irrelevant to a finding of
blight unless bad enough to cause buildings to be unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work,
(Section 33031(a)(1) not one unsafe or unhealthy building is identified in the E=od. In the
proposed response to my May 20 written objection, staff indicates that the category of "deferred
maintenance" includes items such as a sagging roof or "exposed wiring." Yet staff is unable to
identify a single building with if or exposed wirin , despite being asked to do so
at the joint public hearing on this matter. Bas I ed on simply listing items supposedly included in
this category, they claim that the "deferred maintenance" should be counted toward, the required
finding of blight.
Table B-1 establishes the following:
Only one (1) building in the entire Project Area was found to require extensive reh�bilitation.
Only twenty one (2 1) buildings in the entire 1454 acres was found to require "moderate
rehabilitation" (a term never defined in the Draft Report).
Only 8.8% of all buildings require moderate or extensive rehabilitation. 91.2% of all buildings
are just fine or only require things like a coat of paint.
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Barg
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 10, 1997
Page 4
The Report cannot claim widespread deterioration in the Project Area, a fact now admitted at p.
B-4-4 in the staff s proposed response to the May 20 written objections (the "Response"):
"Mr. Kane also incorrectly states thatthe Report to City Council claims that 62% of all
Project Area buildings suffer from deterioration and dilapidation. Rather, the Re ort to
the Ci ouncil states that 62% of all,Project Area buildings are in need of
maintenance... "(emphasis added).
This is a crucial admission, because "need of maintenance" is simply not blight. The statute',
clearly calls for deterioration and dilapidation causing unsafe or unhealthy buildings that are a
serious burden on the community, which private enterprise acting alone cannot alleviate. That
91.2% of buildings require no rehabilitation of any substance does not begin to meet this tes and
instead supports a finding that the Project Area is predominantly non -blighted.
Table B-1 also establishes:
76% of all building have standard design and no design defects (the other 24% are simply
buildings built under older codes and are fully lawful non -conforming uses).
Over 95% of all improvements are compatible with surrounding uses.
80% of all buildings have adequate parking, even under the questionable criteria used in the
Draft Report:
Over 83% of all lots are free of defective design conditions. -
These statistics, developed by the Agency staff and consultants, 'corroborate the absence of
physical blight shown above. Despite the fact that each of these statistics, without exception
shows that the overwhelming majority of buildings and parcels in the Project Area have no
problem and cause no burden to the community, these numbers are somehow shown as support
for a showing of a predominantly blighted project area. Instead, without exception, they clearly
support a finding of a predominantly non -blighted project area.
Hazardous waste is mentioned as a blighting condition, yet is never linked to hindering the
economically viable use of a property as required by Section 33031(a)(2). The EIR demonstrates
that only 6 underground storage tanks in the entire City leak (Initial Study at page 19), a record
that would make Beverly Hills envious.
The Honorable Mayor
' and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 10, 1997
Page 5
Geologic concerns are cited as a blighting condition. Yet the EIR flatly states that Geological
Problems are not an issue (Initial Study at p. 7 and Appendix p. 7) and does not even bother to
discuss the issue at all.
NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL BLIGHT IS OFFERED!"
As to economic blight, the Report reliesheavily on an "11 %" decline is assessed values in the
Project Area, and the economic obsolescence of the retail centers in the Project Area.
First, even this erroneous figure is a five-year or three year figure (depending on which section of
the Report is consulted). Justifying a 1300 acre redevelopment project based on a claimed.2-3%0
annual decline in assessed values in the middle of the worst real estate recession in decades is
ludicrous and would qualify most of Southern California for redevelopment.
Second, the claimed 11% decline is just plain wrong and is based on totally discredited figures.
The figures used in a table on page B-20 of the Report have been shown to be in error by as
much as $62 million based on the County Report on Project Area Assessed Values prepared as
required by Health & Safety Code Section 33328 (found at Section L of the Report):
Table B-20 says there was a $13,000,000 drop in assessed value, 95-96 to 96-97. The County
Report establishes only a $3,000,000 drop in assessed values, a%1 0,000,000
error.
Unsecured assessed values are mysteriously ignored by the Agency's consultants in the entire
Draft Report. The County Report shows an increase in msec ured ` assessed values of over
S3,500.000 from 95-96 to 96-97.
Table B-20 says 95-96 secured assessed values were $403 million; the County Report shows
them to really have been $341 million, a . 61,000000 error,
Table B-20 says 96-97 secured assessed values were $390 million; the County Report shows
them to really have been $334 million, a $56.000,400 error.
The "11 % o drop" in assessed values so heavily relied upon by the Report is totally discredited and
cannot be relied upon. Applicable law requires an analysis of the County Report to be included
in the Draft Report (Section 33352(n)(1)), yet that part of the Report has no such analysis.
In their Response, staff attempts to explain these major errors away by saying that some
identified person at the County told them there had been errors in assessed valuation numbers for
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the CityCouncil
City of Diamond Bar
hlll li
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 10; 1997
Page 6
�
some. t
o her project and there were problems with the assessment roll figures. On June 3, 1997
the undersigned spoke to Manuel Valenzuela, Deputy County Counsel for the County of Los
Angeles in an attempt to confirm the representations made by staff. On the contrary, Mr.
Valenzuela indicated that he had consulted on June 2'and 3 with both the office of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the Assessor for the County of Los Angeles, and that based upon
such inquiries he was not aware of any such problems with the assessment roll figures or with the
County assessed valuation report for this proposed Project,, nor was he aware of the alleged
conversation cited by staff in their Response.
The Report, so bereft of factual support for physical or economic blight, resorts to unsupported
broad -brushed generalizations, culminating in the following ridiculous assertion, totally belied
by the Videotapes and other testimony:
"The majority of the retail properties in the Project Area [are] obsolete ... and
are no longer economically viable." (Page B-11)
Y
It is incomprehensible that this statement be made in face of the Report's own statistics only
1 building, requires_ extensive repair work; only 8.8% of all buildings require moderate or
extensive work; 75% of all buildings and 83% of all lots are free of any other conditions of
physical blight) and in the face of the reality of the Videotape and other testimony showing busy
and thriving retail centers anchored by almost every conceivable nationally recognized and
financially strong tenant.
Staff now admits (at Response, p. B-4-6) that 73% of the ProjectArea's commercial buildingsdo
not suffer from any vacancies. Staff also admits they could only find 150 tenant space vacancies
in the entire Project Area of 1300 acres and 250 buildings, and that these vacancies are
concentrated in three retail centers comprising less than 1% of the property in the Project Area!
Again, every statistic corroborates the absence of blight. The Report makes no attempt to find
out why the anomaly of the vacancies at these three centers exists in the context of dozens of
thriving retail centers shown in the Videotape throughout the Project Area.
In their proposed response to the May 20 written objections, the staff relies heavily on the
"consumer, preference survey" set forth in the Report.' Incredibly, this data also destroys and
undercuts any possible finding of blight for the Project Area. According the this, survey:
Less than 1 out of 4 Diamond Bar residents think of their retail shopping areas as "unattractive".
Only 8% of the residents felt the appearance or services of their Diamond Bar retail businesses
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 10, 1997
Page 7
needed improvement!
Only 6% of the residents felt any need to improve traffic control.
These statistics (Report at Graph B-4) also corroborate the absence of predominant blight from
the Project Area shown in the Videotape and Table B-1.
3. The Project Area Fails to Meet Other Eligibility Requirements
In order to qualify as a redevelopment project, the proposed Project Area must not only be
predominantly urbanized and blighted, but Section 33030 also requires that:
The combination of conditions of blight must be so prevalent and substantial (and
must predominate and injuriously affect the entire area, Section 33321);
• As to cause a lack of proper utilization;
• To the extent of being a serious physical and economic burden on the community;
Which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private
enterprise and/or governmental action without redevelopment.
The proposed Project Area flunks all of these requirements, each of which is necessary in and of
themselves for the Project Area to be valid and legal.
Blight conditions do not even exist in any significant way in the Project Area, let alone in
prevalent and substantial and predominate form, as shown above.
No lack of proper utilization can be shown to be caused by blight. Of the 1300 acres:
550 acres are properly utilized as.freeways and streets;
50 acres are properly utilized as schools;
300 acres are vacant non -urbanized property, including wilderness and parkland areas;
400+ acres are with rare exception in a handful of cases thriving retail and commercial
properties, overwhelmingly new or in excellent condition with strongnationally
�1 recognized tenants.
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council,'
City of Diamond Bar,��',�;�
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 10, 1997
Page 8
No physical and economic burdens of any kind are identified on the community in the Report, let
alone serious ones. Conditions of blight must be so predominate throughout the Project Area as
to cause a serious physical and, economic burden on the community. The Report's data, as
shown above, only supports the opposite conclusion.
The Report does not even begin to explain why the mere maintenance required of some
buildings, the anomalous tenant vacancies concentrated in a tiny percentage of the Project Area
and the lingering effects of the major Southern California real estate recession or depression will
not be handled by private enterprise and the generally improving economy. There is no evidence
in the Report whatsoever to indicate the contrary. For example, the vacant parcels shown on the
Videotape in the Gateway Corporate Center will be built out when it makes economic sense) for
their owners to do so. In .the meantime,. the ready to build vacant parcels are not a burden to
anyone, and certainly not the serious physical and economic burden on the community required
to establish blight.
The May 20, 1997 written objections previously submitted by the undersigned are hereby
incorporated herein by this reference, including all exhibits and Videotape evidence referred to
therein.
For these and many other reasons demonstrated in the Videotapes and otherwise during the joint
public hearing and continued joint public hearing, it is overwhelmingly clear that the proposed
redevelopment project would be an illegal and invalid project and that the, Exclusion does not
result in a legally valid proposed Project Area.
The proposed redevelopment project and the Exclusion must be rejected by the City Council
because it is illegal and because it is harmful to the City.
i
t
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
June 10, 1997
Page 9
It is respectfully requested that the Proposed Redevelopment Project be rejected by the City
Council of the. City of Diamond Bar.
Sincerely,
KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN
Murray O. Kane
R. Bruce Tepper
By
Murray 0. Kane
Counsel for Affected Property Owners
And Other Interested Persons
EXHIBIT B
WRITTEN FINDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR 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 THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA
The preceding Exhibit "A-1," which is incorporated herein by
reference, are written communications from Mr. Robert W.
Nicholson, Vice President, Rosemead Properties, Inc., addressed
to the City Clerk and the Mayor and Members of the City Council
(the "City Council") of the City of Diamond Bar (the'"City"),
datedApril29, 1997, and May 20, 1997, in connection with the
proposed adoption of the Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment
Plan") for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the
"Project Area") .
In such communications, Mr. Nicholson states that their
office building located at 22632 E. Golden Springs Drive
(Assessor's Parcel Nos. 8717-052-54 and 55), which has been
included in the proposed Project Area, is relatively new, in
excellent condition and well-maintained and they, therefore, deny
the existence of blight on their property.
In addition, Mr. Nicholson states that there is no apparent
relationship between the proposed public improvements set forth
in the Report to City Council and the alleviation or improvement
of blighting conditions described in the Report as required by
Health and Safety Code Section 33344.5(f).
Finally, Mr. Nicholson states that Rosemead Properties, Inc.
owns property within the proposed Project Area'and pays real
property taxes, part of which benefit the City and is affected as
a property owner by the proposed adoption of the Redevelopment
Plan. Rosemead Properties, Inc. requests the City Council"to
refuse to adopt the Redevelopment Plan or, in the alternative,
exclude the above-described property from the Project Area.
The following is the written findings of the City Council in
response to such communication:
With respect to the condition of the office building, the
City's redevelopment consultant, Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc.
("RSG") conducted a filed survey of existing physical and
economic conditions in June, 1996 and December, 1996. During
these surveys, conditions observed on the Rosemead property
included defective design (inadequate vehicular access) and
irregular lot shape (See attached Los Angeles County Assessor
Parcel Map book 87X17, page 25). In addition, an analysis of the
secured assessed property value of this property was conducted
shortly after the first survey was completed. Information
obtained from TRW Redi-Data, MetroScan in September 1996
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2
(representing the fiscal year 1996-97 equalized assessment roll)
indicates that the value of this property has decreased by
approximately 300 over the last five years. The Report to City
Council (including the supplemental report) approved by the
Agency on May 20, 1997 (the "Report to City Council") addresses
these conditions on pages 3-8, 3-9, B-16 and B-19.
With respect to the relationship between the proposed public
improvements and the alleviation or improvement of blighting
conditions, the Report to City Council at pages A-9, A-10, B-27
and B-28 detail the public improvement deficiencies throughout
the Project Area, such as traffic and circulation deficiencies,
and identify blighting conditions in the Project Area which will
be alleviated by these improvements. For example, page A-10 ,
states that intersection modifications and the construction of
turn lanes will correct the awkward alignment, street widths and
traffic patterns on the arterials, alleviate current traffic
congestion and safety hazards, and improve inadequate access to
commercial areas of the City, thereby correcting defective
design.
Mr. Nicholson indicates that Rosemead Properties, Inc. is a
property owner which pays property taxes and.will be affected by
the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. Based upon information
in the Report to City Council, including Section M, the City
Council believes that property owners, businesses and residents
in the Project Area will all benefit from implementation of the
Redevelopment Plan. Redevelopment will assist in eliminating the
existing conditions of blight and preventing their reoccurrence.
This will increase property values and employment opportunities
within the Project Area.
The City Council finds that on the basis of information in
the record and the foregoing specific responses, the objections
of Mr. Nicholson to the proposed Redevelopment Plan are hereby
overruled and his request for the City Council to refuse to adopt
the Redevelopment Plan or, in the alternative, exclude the above-
described property from the Project Area is hereby denied.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B -1 - 2
The preceding Exhibit "A-2,1' which is, incorporated herein by
reference, are written communications from Philip and Frances
Kerridge, addressed to the City Clerk and the Mayor of Diamond
Bar, dated May 12, 1997 and May 18, 1997, in connection with,the
proposedadoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area.
In such communications, Philip and Frances Kerridge indicate
that, as Diamond Bar property 'owners, ,they are opposed to the
Redevelopment Plan for the following reasons:
(1) They are concerned that the Agency is attempting to
gain the power of dictating whatever it wants in"the -area of land
use, building design and property' confiscation. They are
concerned that "voluntary owner participation" as discussed in
Section 522 of the Redevelopment Plan is not voluntary
participation because of 'the provisions of Section 522 and 502 of
the Redevelopment` Plan. They also question if loans are
voluntary.
(2) Based on general conscience, they are opposed to any
entity forcing the sale of or the taking of property by eminent
domain or any other means
In addition, they contend the following:
(1) The Project Area is not predominately urbanized in
accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 33320.1.
(2) The Project Area is not an area in which the
combination of conditions set forth in Health and Safety Code
Section 33031 is so prevalent and so substantial that it causes a
reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such
an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and economic
burden on the community, which cannot reasonably be expected to
be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental
action, or both, without redevelopment.
(3) The physical conditions in the Project Area set forth
in the Report to City Council are general and conclusory,
regurgitating the language of Health and Safety Code Section
33031(a), without specifying if the conditions set forth in the
section are existing in the Project Area and where they may be
found.
(4) The discussion concerning economic conditions in the
proposed Project Area is general and conclusory, repeating the
language of the statute. Data and analyses regarding depreciated
values or impaired investments show no direct relationship to the
Project Area and blighted conditions,.
(5) Neither physical nor economic conditions of blight,'i nor
any combination thereof, predominate throughout the proposed
Project Area.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-2-1
[a
(6) The data concerning assessed valuation is out of date
and misleading and contradicted by more current data supplied by
the County of Los Angeles.
(7) There is no apparent relationship between the proposed
public improvements set forth in the Report to City Council and
the alleviation or improvement of the blighting conditions
described in the Report as required by Health and Safety Code
Section 33344-5(f).
They conclude that the Redevelopment.Plan gives the Agency
far too much control over the rights of individual property
owners and that they are opposed to the proposed Redevelopment
Plan.
The following is the written findings of the City Council in
response to such communication:
The Kerridges express a concern that the Agency may dictate
whatever it wants in the area of land use, building design and
property confiscation. No rezoning is contemplated by the
proposed Redevelopment Plan. Instead, Section 601 of the
Redevelopment Plan provides that the land uses permitted by the
Redevelopment Plan shall be those permitted by the City's General
Plan and zoning ordinances. In addition, Section 609 provides
that the type, size, height, number and use of buildings within
the Project Area will be controlled by the applicable City
planning and zoning ordinances. Section 620 provides that
subject to the provisions of Sections 601 and 609, the Agency is
authorized to establish heights of buildings, land coverage,
setback requirements, parking requirements, design criteria,
traffic circulation, traffic access and other development and
design controls necessary
essary for proper development of the Project
Area.
The Kerridges, express a concern that owner participation in
the conservation and rehabilitation of buildings as set forth in
Section 533 of the Redevelopment Plan is not voluntary because of
the provisions of Section 502 of the Redevelopment Plan. Section
502 of the Redevelopment Plan provides that the Agency may
acquire property in the Project Area by any means, including
eminent domain. However, Section 502 also provides that the
Agency shall not acquire 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) the 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 the Redevelopment Plan and the owner
fails or refuses to participate in the Redevelopment Plan by
executing an owner participation agreement.
Any loans by the Agency to a property owner are voluntary.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 13-2-2
The Kerridges are opposed to the use of eminent domain by
the Agency. The Redevelopment Plan 'contains authority for the
Agency to exercise the power of eminent domain because the type
ti%iF
'h
and extent of parcel assemblage required cannot always be
accomplished by private developers without Agency assistance.' In
0`
addition, the provision of needed public improvements; may require
eminent domain. Therefore, the City Council believes it is
_-
necessary to include the power of eminent domain in the
Redevelopment Plan. However, the Agency intends to accomplish
all redevelopment with as little displacement as possible andl
will make every effort to accomplish the redevelopment of the'I
Project Area without the use of eminent domain. A goal of the
Agency and the City Council is to accomplish the retention and ,
expansion of as many existing businesses as possible and there
are no current plans to condemn any property. If the occasion
arises where property in the Project Area is to be acquired by
the Agency by eminent domain, this may occur only after proper'
notice and the payment of just compensation, including relocation
assistance, as required under the Community Redevelopment Law.
The Kerridges contend that the Project Area isnot
predominately urbanized in accordance with Health and Safety
Code
Section 33320.1. Health and Safety Code Section 33320.1 defines
a project area as a predominantly urbanized area of a community.
"Predominantly urbanized" means that not less than 80 percent,of
the land in the project area (i) has been or is developed for
urban uses, or (ii) is characterized by the existence of
subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size
w
for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple
ownership, or (iii) is -an -integral part of one or more areas
developed for urban uses which are surrounded or substantially
surrounded by parcels which have ben or are developed.for urban
uses. As set forth in Appendix 3 of the Report to City Council,
the Project Area is predominantly urbanized. The Project Area
contains 1,300 acres and approximately 1,225 (or 940) of these
acres are developed for urban uses or are an integral part ofian
area developed for urban use. Approximately 75 acres (or 6%)'Fare
nonurbanized. Thus, the Project Area meetstherequirements of
Health and Safety Code Section 33320.1.
The Kerridges allege that the Project Area does not meet ',the
requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law. Substantial
evidence has been presented to the City Council to support a
finding that the Project Area is blighted to such an' extent >that
it causes a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the
area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and
economic burdenonthe community, which cannot reasonably be
to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or
governmental action, or both, without redevelopment. Data
presented'.i.n Section B and Appendices 2"and '4 of the Report to
City Council document that conditions of blight predominate the
Project. Area and cause a reduction of and lack; of proper
utilization of the Project Area to such an extent that it causes
a serious physical and economic burden on the City.- Table B-1
970530. 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672991 2 B-2-3
indicates that 65.20% of the buildings (58.07% of the parcels) in
the Project Area suffer from one or more physical blighting
conditions; 49.20% of the buildings (38.511 of the parcels)
suffer from one or more economic blighting conditions; and 89.60%
of the buildings (71.120W of the parcels) suffer from one or more
physical and/or economic conditions of blight_ Section D of the
Report to City Council documents why the elimination of blight
cannot be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone or
through financial alternatives other than tax increment
financing. As documented in Section D of the Report to City
Council, the conditions of blight in the Project Area have
continued to worsen over time despite the City's efforts to
encourage commercial and industrial property owners to
rehabilitate properties to facilitate the removal of physical and
economic impediments to economic development. Private
development has been hindered by the risks,associated with
investment in the Project Area. Property owners tend to be
dissuaded from rehabilitating their property unless the
surrounding property owners also do so. Absent this assurance,
individual property owners assume that their' individual efforts
will not affect the area and they will lose their investments.
The lack of incentive to develop or rehabilitate property in the
Project Area is evidenced by the extremely low numbers of
building permits issued from 1992 to 1994, compared to
surrounding Cities,. and high vacancies. Section D of the Report
to City Council cites the following, reasons for the inability of
�.., private enterprise to eliminate blighting conditions in the
Project Area: 1) the prohibitive cost of rehabilitation,
especially when property values and lease rates are declining due
p. to high business vacancies; (2) the difficulty of assembling
parcels by private developers without Agency assistance when
dealing with multiple property owners; and (3) the high cost of
assembling parcels that often outweigh benefits of such activity
given current conditions in the Project Area. As documented in
the Report to City Council, other sources of revenue, including
state and federal funds, general obligation bonds, general funds
of the City, special assessments, development fees and special
taxes are insufficient to implement redevelopment of the Project
Area.
The Kerridges allege that the physical "conditions in the
Project Area set forth in the Report to City Council are general
and conclusory, regurgitating the language of Health and Safety
Code Section 33031(a), without specifying if the conditions set
forth in the section are existing in the Project Area and where
they may be found. While the Report to City Council describes
,physical conditions that fall within the statutory definition of
physical blight contained in Health and Safety Code Section
33031(a)(such as substandard design), the Report does not merely
recite the statute. Instead, Section H describes all of the
physical blighting conditions in the Project Area and describes
where these conditions exist. For example, the Report describes
j the instances of substandard design in the Project Area,
including obsolescence, outdoor storage and inadequate loading.
970S30 lOS72-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672981 2 B - 2- 4
In addition, Appendix 2 contains a map of the blighting
conditions and Appendix 4 contains photographs of the blighting
conditions.
0
The Kerridges make the same allegation with respect to
economic conditions in the Project Area. Further, they allege`'
that data and analyses regarding depreciated values or impaired'
investments show no direct`' relationship to the Project Area and
blighted conditions. Again, the Report to Council describes
economic conditions that fall within the 'statutory definition of
economic blight contained in Health and Safety Code Section
33031(b),but does not merely recite the statute." Instead,'
Section B describes all of the economic blightingconditions in
the Project Area and describes where these conditions"exist. In
addition, Appendix 2 contains a map of the blighting conditions
and Appendix 4 contains photographs of the blighting conditions.
Regarding data in Connection with depreciated values or impaired
investments, the'data contained in the Reports td city Council
provides secured :assessed 'property.values for the current fiscal
year (fiscal year 1996-97) and for prior fiscal years, including
fiscal years 1993-'94 through 1995-96 for the 'Project Area:' The
data for the current fiscal year was obtained from TRW Redi-Data,
MetroScan, a service which provides current property information,
including secured assessed values, and reflects the official
equalized Los Angeles'County assessment roll as of August'10 of,
each year. Based on converstations with the Los Angeles Couny
Assessor's Office and the Auditor-Contoller's Office; property
values may change after the assessment roll is equalized as a
,.{
result of recordation of property transfers, assessment' appeals,
etc.
Information from the County regarding secured assessed
valuation for fiscal years 1993-94 through 1996-97 was not
available prior to the receipt by the Agency of the County's base
year report on March 25, 1997 (nearly.60 days later than the time
precribed by the Community Redevelopment Law for preparation of
the base year report by the County). The Community Redevelopment
Law provides that if the base year report is not recevied by the
Agency within the time prescribed, the Agency may proceed with
the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. Because the County did
not provide the base year report within the prescribed time, TRW
Redi-Data MetroScan information was utilized in order to provide
a reasonable analysis of property values in recent years. After
the base year report was received, this information was not
incorporated into the analysis for the following three reasons:
a. As shown in Section L of the Report to City Council, the
base year report, provided secured and unsecured property
values for the Project Area for fiscal years 1995-96 and
1996-97 only.
b. To avoid comparing inconsistent data (i.e., "apples and
oranges"). The secured andunsecuredvalues are current
as of March 1997. In contrast, the TRW data reflectsi
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-2-5
values (which are updated each year based on county data)
as of the date the assessment roll is equalized, or
August 10. In order to keep this analysis consistent in
terms of the date the secured values are reviewed, it is
inappropriate to look at the secured assessed valuation
of the Project Area as of August 10, 1994 for fiscal year
1994-95 and then look at the secured assessed valuation
of the Project Area as of March 1997 (which is not a
meaningful date for the Assessor's Office as these values
are still subject to change before the next equalization
date) .
C.- Recent discussions with staff from the. Los Angeles County
Auditor -Controller's Office (which prepares the base year
report) indicate that the County Assessor's Office has
submitted incorrect secured and unsecured valuation
information to the Auditor's office for use in base year
reports for other redevelopment projects. During phone
conversations (in February and March 1997):between RSG
and the County regarding the lateness of the base year
report, a staff person in the Auditor's Office stated
that secured and/or unsecured valuation data had been
recently rejected and sent back to the Assessor's Office
for correction. The Auditor's staff indicated that
during this fiscal year, a number of discrepancies in the
Assessor's reports of base year values were found by the
Auditor's office. This type of error has been prevalent
in recent years as several Los Angeles County
jurisdictions, including the City of Long Beach, have
either filed lawsuits or are in the process of joining
other law suits against Los 'Angeles County due to errors
in base year value information.
It should be noted, however, that the total secured and
unsecured valuation pursuant to the base year report was
inadvertently included in error in Table B-4 of the Report to
City Council) in fiscal year 1996-97 only. However, a
corrected Table B-4, attached hereto, shows the correct
secured valuation, based on TRW.data, for fiscal year 1996-97.
As shown on Table B-4, the net effect of this change is
minuscule as secured property values continue to show an 1101
decrease over this time period. [NOTE- THE VALUES SHOWN IN THE
ATTACHED TABLE B-4 WERE THE SAME VALUES WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN
THE PRELIMINARY REPORT AS TABLE 3-21
The Kerridges' concern regarding the relationship between
the proposed public improvements and the alleviation or
improvement of the blighting conditions was addressed in the City
Council's written response set forth in B-1, which is
incorporated
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-2-6
6
v n a
v
e
o e a
Cli
I
a
'U
E„ggC�
b h
�
v o
ai
r► rD o0
m
0.
p
44 605 Gn
.T
Y
0
Q
10 H , M
AI
00 M O
Q
i
N VD
N
1114
6 C4
u �
N
h CiQ
6A
a'
.o
N..
a
O
Qi
h k-4
41 64 44
'
Q
n
o
ac 7
O
F �
ZO'd TTO'ON
V2:9i
5100 ,t.HW
8VIT-928-VTL:QI
`)NI °ne?I
The City Council finds that on the basis of information in
R the record and the foregoing specific responses, the objections
of the Kerridges to the proposed Redevelopment Plan are hereby
overruled.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-2-7.
The preceding Exhibit "A-3,11 which is incorporated hereiln by
reference, is_a written communication from Mr. Dale Yoder
received by the City Council and the Agency at the Town Hall
Meeting held on the Redevelopment Plan on May 3, 1997.
In such communication, Mr. Yoder'contends that the
Preliminary Report cites real estate brokers as a source
indicating that the City is more severely impacted than other',
surrounding cities and that this is a general statement not
backed by statistics. Further, Mr. Yoder contends that Brea,
Industry and Pomona have large malls, Industry is a "completely
different animal" and what is happening in Pomona has not been
fully established at this time. Mr. Yoder contends that the main
loss by investors is occurring because of the building of large
office buildings and the high rent asked by some of the local
owners. Mr. Yoder also contends that the main factor in
declining lease revenues was overbuilding and changes in use and
ways of use. Mr. Yoder contends that no one will want to use the
buildings no matter what they look like or how easy they are to
see from the freeway and that a "pretty building" does not
guarantee more income. Mr. Yoder expresses concern regarding
putting existing businesses out of business because of higher,
taxes. He suggests to "leave it alone" and economics of supply
and demand will control and that keeps government out of business
too.
Mr. Yoder requests information"regarding the actual increase
in revenues in San Dimas and Fullerton and downtown Pomona.
l
Mr. Yoder asks about the new development of Diamond Bar
areas which are presently vacant land. He contends that a great
amount of the "blighted" area is on or directly adjacent to
freeways and is not suitable for redevelopment due to grading)
deficiencies and the size of plots.
Mr. Yoder concludes that the pay back of funds used for
redevelopment is to come from taxes on successful business
operations and that this is a "crapshoot."
The following is the written findings of the City Council in
response to such communication:
Real estate brokers which provided information for the
Report to City Council include representatives from CB
Commercial, Seeley and Company, City Investments and Pacific
Realty. All of these brokers are licensed in the State of
California as real estate professionals. Brokers representing
specific vacant properties in the Project Area provided site
specific data, such as the total number of vacant square feet and
the length of time a property has been vacant. The brokers also
discussed their personal experience with vacancies in the Project
Area and other cities, if applicable. Additionally, CB
Commercial, one of the largest commercial real estate brokerage
firms in the state, produces quarterly reports every year which
97053.0 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-3-1
contain statistics regarding vacancies by city, county and region
for the entire state of California. Not only was a broker at CB
Commercial contacted, but information from their quarterly
reports was provided on page B-25 of the Report to City Council.
The City Council is unable to respond to Mr. Yoder's
contendion regarding Brea, Industry and Pomona because of the
nonspecific nature of his comments.. However, the City Council
agrees that these cities have large malls.
Regarding Mr. Yoder's contention in connection with
declining lease revenues, after extensive data gathering and
analysis, as well as research into a wide spectrum of issues
pertaining to the physical and economic conditions in the Project
Area (cited throughout Section B of the Report -to City Council,
with data sources identified in Appendix l), RSG did not uncover
any information indicating that declining lease revenues have
resulted from overbuilding and changes in land uses.
Mr. Yoder's contention that no one will want to use the
buildings in the Project Area regardless of what they look like,
is mere speculation. In addition, this contention is
contradicted by the results of the consumer preferences survey of
Diamond Bar residents set forth in Section B of the Report to
City Council (pages B-22 through B-24 of the Report to City
Council, with corresponding tables and graphs). This survey
indicates that 70% of the respondents shop outside of Diamond
Bar. Nearly 240 of respondents indicated that the shopping areas
do not provide an attractive environment in which to shop. In
addition, in response to a question regarding what can be done to
improve retail buinsess in Diamond Bar, a number of residents
suggested that the appearance of retail businesses should be
improved. Additional information on page B-24 of the Report to
City Council, regarding discussions with real estate
professionals from the firms stated above, directly addresses the
reasons that the appearance and design of commercial areas in the
Project Area negatively impact income earning opportunities.
With respect to the suggestion to allow private enterprise
to correct the blighting conditions in the Project Area, there
has been substantial evidence presented to the City Council that
private enterprise acting alone could not be expected to reverse
or alleviate the conditions of blight in the Project Area. This
was addressed in the City Council's written response set forth in
B-1 and is incorporated.
Increases and/or decreases in revenues for Pomona and Los
Angeles County as a whole are contained on page B-22 of the
Report to City Council. Information for San Dimas and Fullerton
is not available.
Mr. Yoder provides no support for his contention that areas
adjacent to freeways are not suitable for redevelopment.
Regarding the development of vacant land, in implementing the
970530 10572-00001 rdk/gp/sas 1672681 2 B-3-2
Redevelopment Plan, the Agency will have the flexibilty to work
with propety owners to overcome factors which prevent the I
economically viable use of the properties. However, no specificLI
plans are in lace to undertake these
' P p types of activities at this
time: The Agency will review the needs of the Project Area and
these issues on a case by case basis over the life of the Plan.
With respect 'to the concern regarding higher taxes on
businesses and the pay back of funds, redevelopment projects will
be funded by tax increment financing, as authorized by Section
33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law. Tax increment'
financing does not mean that taxes will be raised. A
redevelopment agency has no power to levy a taxa-- Rather, as
property is improved throughout the Project Area ''and the taxes
collected from the Project Area increase, the Agency receives the
increase (called tax increment). Individual property owners are
still protected by Proposition 13, however, and will not be
subject to higher taxes unless the 'property is reassessed as a
result of a transfer or substantial improvement. Also, in no
case will individuals be co -signors or will a lien be placed on
individual property owners to repay Agency debt.
The City Council finds that on the basis of information in
the record and the foregoing specific responses the objections
of Mr. Yoder to the proposed Redevelopment Plan are hereby
overruled and his suggestion to not adopt the. Redevelopment Plan
is not accepted.
970530 10572-00001rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-3.-3 i
i
The preceding Exhibit "A-4," which is incorporated herein by
-, reference, is a written communication from Mr. Murray Kane of
Kane, Ballmer & Berkman,addressed to the Mayor and Members of
the City Council and the Chair and Members of the Agency, dated
May 20, 1997, in connection with the proposed adoption of the
Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area
In such communication, Mr. Kane contends as follows:
(1) The Project Area is not predominantly urbanized. Mr.
Kane contends that the Report to City Council's characterization
of 190 acres of vacant undeveloped land as urbanized and.an
integral part of an area developed for urban uses is not
supported. Mr. Kane contends that freeways, streets and parks
should not be counted as developed land.
(2) The Project Area isnot a blighted area. He contends
that the Report to City Council relies heavily on deterioration
and dilapidation to support a finding of blight, but that not one
unsafe or unhealthy building is identified in the Report. He
contends that the Report claims that 62% of all Project Area
buildings suffer from deterioration and dilapidation and that
this.is unsupported. He recites that the Report establishes that
91.2% of the buildings are just fine or only require things like
a coat of paint; 76% of all buildings have standard design and no
design defects and that the other 24% are simply buildings built
under older codes and are fully lawful non -conforming uses; over
95% of all improvements are compatible with surrounding uses; 8001
�.zyw of all buildings have adequate parking; over 83% of all lots are
free of defective design conditions; hazardous waste is not
linked to hindering the economically viable use of a property as
required by Health and Safety Code Section 33031 (a)(2) and only
6 underground storage tanks in the City leak; and that while
geologic concerns are cited as a blighting condition, the EIR
states that geological problems are not an issue and does not
discuss this.
As to economic blight, Mr. Kane contends that the Report to
City Council relies heavily on an Ilk decline in assessed values
in the Project Area over a number of years (3 or 5) and the
economic obsolescence of the retail centers in the Project Area.
He disagrees that a 2-3% annual decline in assessed values in the
middle of one of the worst real estate recessions in decades
justifies establishing the Project Area. He alsoalleges that
the ll% decline is based on discredited figures and are in error
by as much as $62 million based on the County report on the
Project Area. Mr. Kane alleges that the Report to City Council
does not cite unsecured, assessed values, while the County report
shows an increase in unsecured assessed values of over $3.5
million from 1995-96 to 1996-97.
Mr. Kane alleges that the Report to City Council resorts to
I unsupported generalizations which are not supported by other
testimony or Mr. Kane's videotape (submitted by Mr. Kane to the
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B.- 4- 1
City.Council on May 20, 1997atthe joint public hearing),
including the statement that "The majority of the retail
properties in the Project Area [are] obsolete ... and are no
„j
longer economically viable. °
(3) Mr. Kane alleges that the Project Area fails to meet
other eligibility requirements, including the, requirement that
the combination of conditions of blight must be so prevalent and
substantial (and must predominate and injuriously affect the
entire area) as to cause a`lack of proper utilization to the
extent of being a"serious physical and economic burden on the
community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or
alleviated by private enterprise and/or governmental action
without redevelopment. Mr. Kane asserts that blight conditions
do not exist in any significant way in the Project Area.
Mr. Kane asserts that the lack of proper utilization, of the
Project Area has not been shown to be caused by blight because
550 acres are properly utilized as freeways and streets; 100
acres are properly utilized as parks; 50 acres are properly
utilized as schools; 320 acres are vacant non -urbanized property
and are not suffering from any blight; and 400+ acres are, with
rare exception, thriving retail and commercial properties.
(4) Mr. Kane asserts that the public hearing should be
continued due to a lack of required documentation because the
Report to City Council was not available for public review. He
also asserts that HealthandSafety Code Section 33352 was
violated because the final Report did hot accompany the
t
submission of the proposed Redevelopment Plan to the City
Council.
(5) Mr Kane asserts that owner participation rules were not
adopted a reasonable time before the public hearing.
(6) Mr. Kane asserts that the notice of the joint public
hearing did not clearly explain the Agency's power of eminent
domain.
(7) Mr. Kane asserts that the Report to Council shows a
negative balance in the first three years of the project of as
much as $138,000, without explaining where this money is coming
from. He also asserts that the proposed method of financing in
the Report does not comply with Health and Safety Code Section
33352(e) because there is no year by year comparison of revenues
and expenditures and it is impossible to determine in any given
year if the project is feasible.
(8) Mr. Kane asserts that the Implementation Plan does not
contain a description of how the proposed, projects will alleviate
conditions of blight, as required by Health and Safety Code
Section 33352.
{yY
970530 10572-00601 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-4-2
(9) Mr. Kane asserts that the Report does not explain why
private enterprise acting alone is not sufficient to alleviate
any conditions of blight. He contends that while the Report
indicates that the cost of rehabilitation is prohibitive, the
Report only identifies one building which requires extensive
rehabilitation and only 8.8% of all Project Area buildings as
needing moderate to extensive rehabilitation. He also asserts
that while difficulty and the high cost of assembling parcels is
cited, the Project Area contains 1 to 50+ acre in size parcels,
many in ready to build condition and many in large single
ownership. He concludes that there is no shortage of already
assembled single -ownership parcels available for development.
Mr. Kane contends that the proposed redevelopment project
must be rejected by the City Council because it is illegal and
because it is harmful to the City for the following reasons:- the
power of eminent domain will be a threat to every business person
for 12 years with no reason; the City will lose millions of
dollars of general funds it would have otherwise received in the
absence of a redevelopment project; 200 of all tax increment must
be spent on very low, low and moderate income housing in the
City; and Diamond Bar will be known to the State Legislature as a
"rouge city" ready, ,willing and able to break the law.'
Mr. Kane requests that the videotape of all Agency and City
Council meetings concerning the consideration of the proposed
Project Area be made a part of the administrative record on this
j matter. He also requests the City Council to reject the proposed
.,. project.
The following is the written findings of the City Council in
response to such communication:
With respect to Mr. Kane's first contention, substantial
evidence has been presented to the City Council that the Project
Area is predominantly urbanized. This was addressed in the -City
Council's written response contained in B-2 and is incorporated.
The Project Area includes 190.80 acres of undeveloped land which
is an integral part of an area developed for urban uses. Each
undeveloped property was analyzed by a -review of the Los Angeles
County Assessor parcel maps and land use information from the
field surveys conducted in June and December 1996, in order to
determine the developed status of surrounding properties.
Undeveloped properties were designated as urbanized if they were
an integral part of one or more areas which are surrounded or
substantially surrounded by parcels which have been or are
developed for urban. uses. In the event that parcels were
separated by only an improved right-of-way, those parcels were
deemed adjacent, pursuant to section 33320.1(b)(3) of the
Community Redevelopment Law. Pursuant to the Community
Redevelopment Law, those vacant properties which are adjacent to
an area developed for urban uses on multiple sides of the given
property were deemed as undeveloped, but urbanized and an
integral part of an urban area. For example, several of the
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672991.2 B - 4..- 3 -
vacant parcels in the Gateway ;Center were deemed as an integral
part of an area or areas developed for urban uses because these
properties are either completely surrounded or surrounded on
multiplesidesby existing office buildings which, are developed,
urban uses. Parks have been eliminated from, the Project Area. -k
Mr. Kane offers no reason or evidence why freeways and streets
should not be counted as developed land. Streets and freeways
are not raw, undeveloped land; they are developed for 'roadway
purposes. In addition, Health and Safety Code Section 33320.1
includes publicly owned land within the 80% of land which must be
urbanized.
With respect to Mr. Kane's second contention that the
Project Area is not blighted, this was addressed in the City
Council's written response set forth in B-2 and is incorporated.
Contrary to Mr. Kane's assertion, the Report to City Council does
identify unsafe or unhealthy buildings. For example, the Report
cites buildings with deteriorated roofs, exposed wiring and {
outdoor storage of materials and other debris. Further, it is
incorrect that the Report relies heavily on deterioration to
establish blight as this is just one of numerous blighting
.conditions rioted in the Project Area asdiscussed in Section B of
the Report. Mr. Kane also incorrectly statesthat the Report to
City Council claims that 620-o of all Project Area buildings suffer
from deterioration and dilapidation. Rather, the Report to City
Council states that 6296 of the buildings in the Project Area are
in need of maintenance ranging from deferred maintenance to
extensive,`rehabilitation. The breakdown of the number of
buildings and parcels within this range is provided on Table B-1
of the Report to City Council. As cited in Section B, structures
in. the Project Area were observed to exhibit more significant
condtions than simply requiring a coat of paint. Many of these
62% of buildings also suffer from other physical and/or economic
blighting conditions.
In citing the percentage of buildings which do not suffer
from a particular blighting condition (e.g., 7696 of buildings'
have standard design), Mr. Kane fails to, recognize that the
Community Redevelopment Law does not require every building or
parcel in the Project Area to be characterized by each condition
of physical blight set forth in the Community Redevelopment Law.
In fact, the Community Redevelopment Law only requires that a
I roject area to be characterized by one of the conditions of
physical blight set forth in the Community Redevelopment Law. l In
addition, Mr. Kane fails to recognize that buildings which are of
standard design suffer from other physical and/or economic
blighting conditions. Overall, 65.2% of the buildings and 56.107%
of the parcels in the Project Area suffer from one or more
physical blighting conditions.
With respect to the buildings identified as suffering from
substandard design, the Report to City Council documents that the
Project Area contains strip retail centers and shopping centers
p
which are obsolete, and, as a result, suffer from high vacancies.
970530 10572.-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-4-4
Mr. Kane's statement that the buildingsobservedto exhibit
substandard design are "simply buildings built under older codes
and are fully lawful" has no significance with reagrd to the
information presented in Section B of the Report to City Council.
The blighting condition inwhichsubstandard design is included
is "factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically
viable use or capacity of buildings or lots." The legal status
of structures does not influence the economic use of the
structures.
With respect to hazardous waste, the Report to City Council
contains a discussion of the manner in which the presence of
hazardous materials negatively affects potential private
investment in the Project Area in Section B of the Report. The
Report also includes a full discussion of geotechnical problems.
With respect to Mr. Kane's contentions regarding economic
blight, the decline in assessed values is not the only factor
justifying the establishment of the Project Area. In addition,
the Report to City Council indicates that the Project Area
experienced an 11% decline while the City experienced a 31
increase and the County only experienced a 2% decline.
With respect to the allegation that the figures in the
Report to City Council are in error, this was addressed by the
City Council in the City Council's written response contained in
B-2 and is incorporated.
✓ With respect to the allegation regarding unsecured values,
unsecured valuation information for any fiscal years was not
available prior to the receipt of the base year report in late
March 1997. Secondly, analyzing changes in unsecured assessed
value is often extremely misleading due to the fact that these
values can increase and decrease significantly (unrelated to
value changes on an annual basis). These dramatic changes often
result from the movement of fixtures and equipment in and out of
an area, and from the practices of the assessor's office in the
assignment of values between the secured and unsecured rolls.
For example, the assessor's office may initially assign the value
of _a long term lease to the unsecured assessment roll, and then
subsequently transfer the value in the next year -to the secured
assessment roll based upon the assessor's determination that the
leasee.has a vested interest in the property.
With respect to Mr. Kane's allegation that the Report to
City Council does not support the statement that "The majority of
the retail properties in the Project Area [are] obsolete and
are no longer economically viable," the Report to City Council in
Section B cites real estate trade and business journal articles,
statements made by representatives of Koll Development and CB
Commercial, real estate professionals, an economic study prepared
by ERA, taxable retail sales per capita as provided by the
California State Board of Equalization and a consumer preferences
survey of residences in Diamond Bar by PRS as support for this
970530 10572-00001 idh/9P/sas 1672881 2 B-4-5
statement. Appendix 1 to the Report to City Council lists j
information sources relied on by RSG. Mr. Kane gives no other`
examples of what he deems to be unsupportedstatements.
With respect to Mr. Kane's third contention that the Project
Area fails to meet other eligibility requirements, this was
addressed in the City Council's written-response'set forth in B-2
and is incorporated. Mr. Kane's assertion that blight conditions
do not exist in any significant way in the Project Area is
contradicted by the evidence contained in the Report to City
Council. The Report indicates that 65.2% of the buildings and
58.07% of the parcels in the Project Area suffer from one 'or more
physical blighting conditions; 49.2% of the buildings and 38.51%
of the parcels suffer from one or more economic blighting
conditions; and 89.6% of the buildings and 71.120-. of the parcels
suffer from one or more physical and/or economic blighting
conditions.
With respect to Mr. Kane's assertion that the lack of proper
utilization of the Project Area has not been shown, the Report
documents that blighting conditions predominate the Project Area
and injuriously affect the entire Project Area. For example, the
Project Area is characterized by high business vacancies,
declining property values, low per capita sales tax revenues,
sales tax leakage, and declining building permit value This has
led to a reduction of and lack of proper utilization of the
Project Area and a serious burden on the City. In addition, the
Project Area is characterized by traffic circulation
deficiencies.
Mr. Kane's characterization of retail and commercial.
properties as thriving ignores evidence in the Report to City
Council of abnormally high business vacancies in the Project f
Area. Of the 250 buildings in the Project Area, a total of 67
buildings (or 27% of all buildings) and over 150 tenant space's,
are partially or 100 percent vacant. The Ranch Center has a
vacancy rate of 56%. The Golden Springs Plaza has a vacancy rate
of 50% and the County Hills Town Center has a vacancy rate of
44%. Overalls the average vacancy rate for all Project Area',
retail centers is 24%_
Mr. Kane's assertion that private enterprise will do just
fine is discussed in the City Council's written response set
forth in B-3 and is incorporated.
With respect to Mr. Kane's allegation that the vacant
parcels in the Gateway Corporate Center will be built out; whein it
makes economic sense and that, in the meantime, they are not a
burden, as referenced on page B-19 of the Report to City Coun il,
the vacant property in Gateway Center suffers from depreciate
property values, as indicated by a representative of the Seeley
Company, a real estate firm representing vacant property in the
.Gateway Center. This representative recently confirmed that land
prices for all of the vacant land in Gateway Center have dropped
970530 10572-00001.rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2. _ B-4-6
by 50% per square foot in the last year alone. Additionally,
given the freeway visibility and the grading of the lots (which
translate into minimal preparation costs by a potential
developer), the lack of interest in the area appears to be caused
by the negative economic climate which covers the Project Area.
Section B-1 of the Report.to City Council provides information
regarding the sources of this negative climate. The fact that
there is private sector interest.and significant building permit
activity occurring in cities as close as a few miles away (see
page B-20 and B-21 of the Report to City Council) provides a
strong indicator that investment in the Project Area is impaired.
The lack of development in this commercial area has also
contributed to the stagnation and decline in retail sales tax
revenues, which has resulted in a financial burden on the City,
despite their efforts to attract investment and businesses to the
Project Area.
With respect to Mr. Kane's allegations regarding the Report
to City Council, the final Report to City Council accompanied the
submission of the proposed Redevelopment Plan to the City
Council. Prior to opening the joint public hearing on the
Redevelopment Plan, the Agency adopted its Resolution No. R-97-09
approving the Report to the City Council and authorizing its
transmittal, all in accordance with Health and Safety Code
Section 33352. In addition, prior to its approval of the Report
to City Council, the Agency made the draft report available for
public inspection.
With respect to the Owner Participation Rules, the Agency by
its Resolution No. R-97-02, adopted on March 18, 1997, approved
draft owner Participation Rules and made such Rules available for
public inspection. On May 20, 1997, the City Council finally
approved the Owner Participation Rules with no changes. The
public was provided with ample opportunity to review the Owner
Participation Rules.
With respect to the notice of the joint public hearing, Mr.
Kane alleges that the notice did not clearly explain the Agency's
power of eminent domain, but does not provide any specific
criticisms of the notice. Therefore, the City Council is unable
to respond to Mr. Kane's comment further because of the
nonspecific nature of Mr. Kane's comments: he failed to identify
any ambiguities, misleading statements or lack of facts. The
Agency followed all notice procedures required by the Community
Redevelopment Law in connection with the joint public hearing of
the City Council and the Agency on the proposed Redevelopment
Plan. Each notice of the joint public hearing was accompanied by
a statement that property in the Project Area would be subject to
acquisition by eminent domain in accordance with Health and
Safety code Section 33350 and the Agency and City Council fully
complied with Section 33350.
With respect to Mr. Kane's concern regarding the negative
balance in the first three years of the project, the negative
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-4-7
balance shown in the Implementation Plan (Section C of the Report
to City Council) is indicated to reflect the Agency's desire to
embark upon improvement projects prior to the receipt of tax
increment (estimated in fiscal- year 1998-99). This action would''r'
be -accomplished through anadvance of necessary funds from th,e
City.
With respect to Mr. Kane's assertion that the proposed
method of financing in the Report does not comply with Health
and
Safety Code Section 33352(e), this Section does not require a'
year.by year comparison of revenues and expenditures. Section E
of the Report to City Council establishes a reasonable match
between project, costs and revenues over the life of the:
RedevelopmentPlan and discusses bonding capacity. The
Implementation Plan in Section C of the 'Report includes a year
by
year comparison of revenues and expenditures for the first five
years of the Redevelopment Plan. The Report to City Council
fully complies with Health and Safety Code Section 33352.
With respect to Mr. Kane's allegations regarding the
Implementation Plan, the Implementation Plan contains a.
discussion of the blighting conditions in the Project Area, the
proposed projects and the blighting conditions addressed by the
projects. Page C-5 of the Report to City Council states that'the
"specific projects and programs contained in. Section C are
designed to alleviate and/or eliminate conditions pursuant tol
Section 33031 and lists those conditions found in the Project
Area". Pages C-8 and C-9 state the programs to be implemented,
and thespecificactions to be carried out as part of the
redevelopment program including: rehabilitation of 'commercial
and industrial buildings, improvements to business facilities,
investment into Project Area businesses, the attraction of
businesses to the ProjectAreaand needed improvements to public
facilities. Page C-9 states that site improvements, property
rehabilitation, economic incentive programs and business
attraction activities will be implemented. Page C-11 lists the
conditions pursuant to Section 33031 which will be addressed by
the programs. Page C-12 states that the Agency will implement a
housing program to rehabilitate and improve housing stock city-
wide and to implement Objective 3.2 of.the Housing Element of!the
General Plan to provide for the elimination of substandard
.housing. Page C-13 lists all conditions pursuant to Section
33031 which will be addressed by this program.
Mr. Kane's allegations regarding private enterprise have,
been addressed in the City Council's written response contained
in B-3 and incorporated.
Mr. Kane alleges that the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan
is harmful because the power of eminent domain will be a threat
to every business person for 12 years with no reason; the City
will lose millions of dollars of general funds it would have
otherwise received in the absence of a redevelopment project;'20%
of all tax increment must be spent on very low, low and moderate
+
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-4-8
income housing in the City; and Diamond Bar will be known to the
.-,
State Legislature as a "rogue city ready, willing and able to
break the law.
With respect to the Agency's power of eminent domain, the
Agency intends to accomplish all redevelopment with as little
displacement as possible and will make every effort to accomplish
the redevelopment of the Project Area without the use of eminent
domain.A goal of the Agency and the City Council is to
accomplish the retention and expansion of as many existing
businesses as possible. There are no current plans to condemn
any property. Contrary to Mr. Kane's assertion, there are valid
reasons for including the power of eminent domain in the
Redevelopment Plan. These reasons are, discussed in Section D of
the Report to City Council. Further, the Agency may not exercise
the power of eminent domain for no reason; the taking of property
by eminent domain must be for a public use.
With respect to Mr. Kane's allegation that the City will
lose millions of dollars of general funds it would have otherwise
received in the, absence of a redevelopment project, the financial
analysis and projections contained in Section E'of the Report to
City Council estimate future growth and new development under the
scenario in which a redevelopment project area is in place. It
is inappropriate to use any part of this analysis when attempting
to analyze revenues if no redevelopment project is in place.
(- This is due to the fact that the Agency would not have the tools
required for revitalization activities, the conditions in the
Project Area would continue to worsen, and property values in the
Project Area would likely continue to decrease.
It is difficult to predict the revenues the City would
receive without redevelopment. A review of the analysis of
secured property values contained in Section B of the Report to
City Council indicates that property values in the Project Area
have decreased by 11% during the East five years. Given this
decline, it is likely that that property values will continue to
decline or, at best, bottom out and remain stagnant. This
situation would result in the continuation of historically low
levels of property tax revenue for the City's general fund. If
property values continue to decline, it is likely that the City
will collect less of the local property tax revenues for its -
General Fund without redevelopment.
Additionally, it is important to note that the City is
eligible to receive a pass through payment of tax increment in
each year that tax increment is collected.
Finally, adoption of the Redevelopment Plan would not lead
to the Agency "capturing" what belongs to other taxing agencies,
including the City. On the contrary, the Redevelopment Plan will
not affect the property tax revenue currently available to the
City from the Project Area because only the incremental tax which
.970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881.2 B-4-9
results from an increase in assessed valuation, above the -prese'nt
level can be allocated to the Agency.
With respect to affordable housing, the Community
Redevelopment Law requires that twenty percent of all tax
increment revenues derived from the Project Area be spent on very
low, low and moderate income housing in the City, unless certain
findings can be made. Mr. Kane fails to specify how this will
harm the 'City_
Mr. Kane provided the City with a copy of his resume, which
was attached to his letter to the City and Agency. His resume
indicates that he specializes in the practice of redevelopment
law and represents a number ofredevelopment agencies'. His
resume also indicates that he "[d]rafted'redevelopment plan
language as the basis for redevelopment affordable housing set
aside legislation." Thus, it appears that Mr. Kane was
instrumental in helping to draft the provisions of the Community
Redevelopment Law which require redevelopment agencies to spend
20 percent of tax increment revenues on affordable housing and
.which he now claims would harm the City to comply with._WithIhis
claimed experience, Mr. Kane surely must be aware that the State
Legislature has found that decent housing for all the people �f
California is vital to the State's future peace and prosperity
(Health and Safety Code Section 33070) and that a fundamental
purpose of redevelopment is to expand the supply of low and
moderate income housing (Health and Safety Code Section 33071).
In fact, the State Legislature has declared that the provision of
housing is 'a fundamental purpose of the Community Redevelopment
Law, that an inadequate statewide supply of decent, safe and
sanitary affordable housing threatens the accomplishment of the
primary -purposes 'of,the Community Redevelopment Law.(including
job creation, attracting new private investmentsand creating)
physical, economic, social and environmental conditions to remove
and prevent the recurrence of blight); and that the provision of
affordable housing by redevelopment agencies is of statewide.
benefit and of particular benefit and assistance to all local
governmental agencies in the areas where the housing`is being
provided (Health and Safety Code Section 33334.6)
The Agency may use housing fund moneys for a variety of
purposes, including rehabilitating existing housing and assisting
first time home buyers with financial assistance, all to the
benefit of the health, safety and welfare of residents of thei
City.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672981 2
I],
I],
Mr. Kane`s allegation that DiamondBarwill be known to the
-_
State Legislature as a "rogue city" ready, willing and able to
break the law is pure speculation on Mr. Kane's part.
The following are questions posed by Mr. Kane and the City
Council's answers to such questions.
1. Are any crops planted or grown anywhere in the Project
Area?
Answer: City staff has verified that no crops are planted
or grown anywhere in the Project Area.
2 What is the breakdown of land uses in the Project Area
by acreage, with a separate calculation for each category?
Answer: This information is not available.
3. Exactly how many dwelling units are located in the
Project Area and how many people reside in those dwelling units?
Answer: Two dwelling units are located in the Project Area.
The exact number of people residing in those units is not known.
However, based on an average of 3.28 persons per household,
obtained from the State of California Department of Finance for
Diamond Bar, the total number of persons residing in the Project
Area could be estimated at 6.56.
4. How much and what land in the Project Area is owned by
the City of Industry?
Answer: According to the County Assessor's records for
1996-97, no land in the Project Area is owned by the City of
Industry.
5. Is a copy of the redevelopment plan, resolutions and
adopting ordinance available?
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 2-4-11
i
Answer: The proposed Redevelopment Plan is onfile in the
office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection.
Mr. Kane does not specify which resolutions he is inquiring
about. Nonetheless, all resolutions adopted by the City Council,
the Agency or the Planning Commission in connection with the
proposed Redevelopment Plan are on file in the office of the City
Clerk and available for public inspection. An adopting ordinance
has tot been considered by the City Council.-
With respect to videotapes, the City Council and Agency do
not make videotapes of their meetings p g partof the record of the
proceedings of the City Council and Agency. It is the policy of
the Agency and the City Council to tape over videotapes. Und¢'r
the Ralph M. Brown if
Act, Mr. Kane requests to view or purchase
a videotape of any meeting of the Agency orCityCouncil within
30 days of the meeting, he is welcome to do so.
The City Council finds that on the basis of information in
the record and the foregoing specific responses, the,objections
of Mr. Kane to the proposed Redevelopment Plan are hereby
overruled and his suggestions are not accepted.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 - B-4.-12..
The preceding Exhibit "A-5," which is incorporated herein by
-j reference, is a written communication from Mr. Steven Lustig,
Esq., of the Law offices of Trainum, Snowdon & Deane, on behalf
of Speciality Equipment Market Association ("SEMA"), 1575 South
Valley Vista Drive, Diamond Bar, Inc., addressed to the City
Manager of the City , dated May 13, 1997, in connection with the
proposed adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area.
In such communication, Mr. Lustig expresses a concern that
SEMA may be required to make costly improvements to its property
even though SMEA's building is a modern, fully -utilized,
attractive structure.
The following is the written findings of the City Council in
response to such communication:
The City Council is satisfied that following a dalouge
between Mr. Lustig and the City Manager, Mr. Lustig"s fears have
been allayed
910530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B — 5 — 1
EXHIBIT
B. - 6
The preceding Exhibit A-6, which is incorporated herein
by reference, is a written communication from Mr. Murray Kane of
Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, addressed to the Mayor and Members of
the City Council and the Chair and Members of the Agency, dated
June 3, 1997.
In such `communication, Mr. Kane asserts that the -
written objections set forth in the above-described letter are in
opposition to the "proposed`Redevelopment Plan and the 'exclusion
of p',roperty from the Project Area (as described in the Agency's
Resolution No. 97-10) He contends`that'each written objection
requires the conclusion that the Project Area fails to qualify as
a valid and legal redevelopment project and that the exclusion} of
property is invalid in'that (a) it leaves the Project Area, after
exclusion, as a nonblighted and 'nonurbanized project area 'and
therefore without legal justification to be validly adopted as a
redevelopment project area 'and (b) no criteria have been advanced
to rationally, explain the exclusion while simultaneously leaving
in the proposed Project Area a large number of equally
nonblighted and nonurbanized areas. Mr. Kane alleges that they
question of excluding property from the Project Area is
inextricably linked to whether the Project Area is blighted and
urbanized and to the criteria used for exclusion and that his
written objections are objections to the exclusion.
Mr. Kane asserts that the written objection is based,,
in part, on his videotape which he submitted to the City Council
on May 20, 1997, edited by him to remove footage of the six -
excluded parcels. He asserts that the edited videotape displays
well over 80% of the Project Area and depicts the complete
absence of physical or economic blight.
Mr. Kane raises a number of issues which he previously
raised in his letter dated May 20, 1997, which is included in
Exhibit A attached hereto and his oral testimony at the joint
public hearing on May 20, 199,71, which is summarized in Exhibit C,
attached hereto:
He repeats his allegation that less than 80% of the
land in the Project Area is developed for urban uses or is an
integral part of an area developed for urban uses in violation;of
the Community Redevelopment Law and that the Report to City
.Council incorrectly characterizes 190.8 acres of undeveloped land
as an integral part of an area developed for urban uses.
He repeats his allegation that the Project Area is not
a blighted area. He repeats his allegation that the Report to
City Council does not identify any unsafe or unhealthy buildings.
He repeats his allegations that statistics contained in the
Report to City Council (regarding substandard design,
incompatible uses, parking and defective design) establish the;
absence of blight, that the presence of hazardous waste is not'
linked to hindering the economically viable use of a propertyand
that geologic concerns are not discussed in the EIR.
970604 10572.00024 gp 1672903 0 B-6-1
He repeats his allegation that the statement in the
Report to City Council regarding an 11% decline in property
values is erroneous and does not support a finding of economic
blight. He repeats his allegation that the Report to City
Council does not support the assertion that the majority of
retail properties in the Project Area are obsolete and no longer
economically viable.
He repeats his allegation that the Project Area fails
to meet the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33030.
Mr. Kane's letter of June 3rd also includes some new
allegations in response to the city Council's responses to Mr.
Kane's letter of May 20th, which responses are set forth in this
Exhibit B, commencing at page B -4-1e
Mr. Kane alleges that there is no way of identifying
the parcels characterized as urbanizedvacant land.
Mr. Kane alleges that staff is unable to identify a
single building with a sagging roof or exposed wiring.
Mr. Kane alleges that the need for maintenance is not
blight, because the statute calls for deterioration and
dilapidation causing unsafe or unhealthy buildings.
Mr. Kane attempts to discredit the explanation (set
forth in the City Council's response in Exhibit B to Mr. Kane's
May 20th letter) regarding the assessed values used in the Report
to City Council by summarizing an alleged conversation between
Mr. Kane and a Deputy County Counsel for the County of Los
Angeles in which the Deputy County Counsel supposedly indicated
that he was not aware of any problems with the assessment roll
figures or with the County assessed valuation report for the
Project Area or of the conversation between the Agency's
consultant and a -County representative.
Mr. Kane -alleges that the City Council's response set
forth on page B-4'-6 hereof admits that 73% of the Project Area's
commercial buildings do not suffer from any vacancies. He also
alleges that tenant vacancies are concentrated in three retail
centers' comprising less than 1% of the Project Area.
Mr. Kane alleges that the consumer preference survey
cited in the Report to City Council destroys any possible finding
of blight.
Mr. Kane concludes the proposed redevelopment project
would be an illegal and invalid project and that the exclusion of
properties identified in the Agency's Resolution No 97-10 does
not _result in a legally valid proposed Project Area. He requests
that the City Council reject the proposed project.
970604 10572-00024 sP 1672903 0 B-6-2
The City Council has already responded to allegations
previously raised by Mr. Kane (and summarized above), in the City
"
Council's responses set forth elsewhere in this Exhibit B and
in
Exhibit C. To the extent Mr. Kane''s written objections dated
"
June 3, 1997, restate his previous allegations, the responses
to
those allegations set forth elsewhere in this ExhibitB andin
Exhibit C are incorporated herein. In>addition,;on May 20, 1997,
the joint public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan was closed
except for the limited purpose of considering the exclusion of
certain property from 'the Project Area.` To the extent Mr Ka'e's
objections filed with the City on June 3, 1997 go beyond that
scope, the City Council has no 'obligation to' res pond.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following is the written
findings of the Cit y Council in response to such communication;:
It is unclear on what basis Mr. Kane objects to th*
exclusion of property from the Project 'Area (as described in the
Agency's Resolution No. 97-10). He states that the exclusionlof,
property is invalid because it leaves the Project Area, after]
exclusion, as a nonblighted and nonurbanized'project area an&
therefore without legal justification to be validly adopted as a
redevelopment project area. However, this appears to bean
objection to the Project Area and not to excluding property from
the Project Area. Mr. Kane does not set forth any information
which would lead to the conclusion that in order 'to be valid, the
Project Area must include the territory deleted from the 'Proj ct
Area. In fact, in Mr. Kane's letter dated May 20,, 1997, included
in Exhibit A'attached hereto he asserts that parks should not
1.
be considered''develoa,
ped (and therefore urbanized). He also
asserts that vacant parcels should not be considered urbanized.
Therefore, Xr'. Kane's ,assertion in his June 3rd letter that the
exclusion is !invalid because it leaves the"Protect
'project
Area as a
nonurbanized P 3 area is without merit in that
onlyand
P arks
one vacant arcel',were e xcluded.
p
The City Council has already addressed the requirement
that the Project Area be predominately urbanized and blighted in
its written responses set forth in Exhibit B'and 'Exhibit C,_
attached hereto and incorporated herein; which responses,
together with theinformationset forth in the Report to City
Council, document that the Project Area meets the requirement of
the Community Redevelopment Law, including requirements of Health
and, Safety Lode Section 33320.1 and Health and Safety Code
Section 33630.
I"t is not true that there is no way of identifying the
parcels characterized as urbanized vacant -land. Appendix 3
Table 3-2 of the Reportto City Council lists (by assessor's
parcel number) all vacant parcels in the Project Area and
designates whether or not the parcels are an integral part of an
area developed for urban uses.' In ,addition, Appendix 3 contains
a map which shows all developed parcels, all vacant, urbanized
parcels and all vacant, nonurbanized parcels.
970604 10572-00024 gp 1672903 0 B-6-3
With respect to Mr. Kane's allegation that staff is
unable to identify a single building with a sagging roof or
I exposed wiring, while a response is not required, the City
Council notes that it has not simply listed a building with &
sagging roof or exposed wiring as alleged by Mr. Kane. Based on
RSG's field surveys, a structure was observed with exposed wiring
on Brea Canyon Road (Assessor's Parcel No. 8719-010-007) and a
structure with a sagging roof was observed on Via Sorella
(Assessor's Parcel No. 8763-001-034), both of which conditions
cause the structures to be unsafe and unhealthy to occupy.
Mr. Kane's assertion that buildings in need of
maintenance are not blighted because they are not identified as
dilapidated or deteriorated is without merit. While ,not required
to respond to this allegation, the City Council notes that the
Community Redevelopment Law defines buildings which are unsafe or
unhealthy as blighted. Buildings which have not beenadequately
maintained can cause the buildings to be unsafe or unhealthy.
For example, the building located on Grand Avenue (Assessor's
Parcel No. 8293-002-800), which the Report to City Council
identifies as suffering from deferred maintenance, was observed
during the field surveys conducted by RSG to have inadequate
utilities (including exposed and damaged electrical wiring and
plumbing), thus causing the building to be unsafe and unhealthy.
While the City Council is not required to respond to
Mr. Kane's allegations regarding evidence of declining property
values, the City Council notes that Mr. Valenzuela's alleged
statements, as reported by Mr. Kane, are not dispositive. Mr.
Kane asserts that Mr. Valenzuela spoke with someone in the office
of -the Chief Administrative Officer and someone in the Assessor's
office regarding the matter. However, the County base year
report; is prepared by the Auditor's office; the Assessor's office
merely provides the assessed values of the Project Area.
Therefore, it would not be surprising if persons in the office of
the Chief Administrative Officer and the Assessor's office were
unaware of problems with the assessment roll figures or with the
base year report. The Agency's consultant, on the other hand,
spoke with a staff person in the County Auditor's office which
prepared the County base year report. The Report to City Council
analyzes information in the County's base year report regarding
each taxing entity's share of the one percent property tax base
in the Project Area and calculates their percentage share of the
tax base, in compliance with Health and Safety Code Section
33352.
While the City Council is not required to respond to
Mr. Kane's allegations regarding vacancies, (the excluded parcels
do not even contain any commercial buildings), the City Council
notes that Mr. Kane's contention that vacancies are concentrated
in three retail centers is without merit. The City Council's
written responses set ,forth in Exhibit B and Exhibit C, attached
s hereto and incorporated herein, and the Report to City Council
.' documents that 12 of the 15 retail centers in the Project Area
970604 10572-00024 9P 1672903 0 B-6-4
have business vacancies ranging in
g g fro m 4% to 56$.- The City Council
cited three retail centers in its written response contained on
page B-4-5 as examples `of centers'suffering from high vacancies.
However, this listing of the three centers was for illustrative
purposes only and was not meant to imply that only these three-'
centers suffer from high vacancy rates.
While Mr. Kane's'comments'.regarding the consumer'
preferences survey do not require a`response''from the City
Council, the City''Council disagrees with 'Mr. Kane's assertion
that the survey destroys any possible finding of blight in the lI
Project Area. First, the survey does not address every type of
blight existing in the'ProJect area. Secondly, this assertion
ignores the evidence of blight presented in the Report to City,'
Council, 'such as declining iproperty values and declining sales
tax revenues.' The resultslof the survey',indi"cate that 70% of the
respondentsi shop outside of Diamond Bar and nearly 2'4% of the
respondents peel that, the shopping areas, 'dq 1 not provide an,
attractive envirdn� lent in whish' tal shop. In � esponse to �a
question re4ard�.ngl what "is (needed! to ��mpr-ove 'iritail businesses in
Diamond Bar, the need for improved appearancesyservice!s of stores
ranked 6 out' pf l3 choices G'as I�the�'�mostilimportant) mprovement.
Mr. Kane 's assert�j h that only, 8%'I Bio f the ��� resi�debts felt that
appearance or 'servli'ces�''of retaii�Il� business musf���ie��iimprovedis a
misstatement of fact. What the survey actually shows is that 8%
of the �re` spondents'I!to the survey felt that'the best way to
improve retail busine'ss is `to improve appearance and services.)
The Report to City Council, including the
supplemental
report, and the'Ci'ty Council's written responses get,forth in
Exhibit B and Exhibit C, incorporated herein, document that th
Project Area meetslthe'requirements of the Community
Redevelopment" i�a�i �I�I The City Council finds that lon i the basis of
_information in"t$a'record and the foregoing specific 'responsesl,
the objeldtions olidNir. Kane to the proposed'Rea+eVelopment Plan re
hereby ovlerruled ndl'his suggestion to rejeetlthe,proposed,
'project is not' accepted.
EXHIBIT
B - 7
The preceding Exhibit A-7 which is incorporated herein
by reference, is a written communication from Stephen Nice, 2621
Rising Star Drive, Diamond Bar, addressed to the Members of the
City Council and Agency, dated June 3, 1997.
In such communication, Mr. Nice contends that the
Country Hills Town Center and the Ralphs/Boston centers are
active and thriving centers, and that vacancies are not the
result of blight. He contends that the vacancies are caused by
the increase in rents in these centers. He also contends that
the centers are continually being upgraded. Mr. Nice requests
that these centers be deleted from the Project Area. He also
indicates his belief that all the commercial centers fall into
this category and should be excluded from the Project Area.,
The following is the written findings of the City
Council in response to such communication:
Although the City Council is not required to respond to
Mr. Nice's letter because he does not object to the exclusion of
territory from the Project Area, the City Council notes that the
Report to City Council and the City Council's responses 'set forth
in Exhibit B and Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated
herein, document the existence of physical and economic blight in
the Project Area, including declining property values, abnormally
high business vacancies, and retail sales tax leakage, and
refutes the contention that the retail centers are thriving.
k Overall, the Project Area suffers from abnormally high business
vacancies, which are higher than in surrounding communities. The
Ralphs/Boston Store Center (the Diamond Bar Towne Center) suffers
from declining property values and a vacancy rate of 26% and the
Country Hills Towne Center suffers from a vacancy rate of 43.46%.
Mr. Nice has not presented any data regarding the lease rates for
these centers and fails to recognize that the,problem of high
vacancies is not limited to these two centers.
The City Council finds that'on the basis of information
in the record and the foregoing specific responses,Mr. Nice's
suggestion to exclude the commercial centers from the Project
Area is not accepted.
970604 10572-00024 9p 1672903 0 B-7-1
The preceding Exhibit A-8, which is incorporated herein
by reference, is a written communication from Mr. Murray Kane of
Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, addressed to the Mayor and Members of
the City Council and the.Chair and Members of the Agency, dated q,
June 1`0, 1997. Ir G,
SGV
Except for its date, such letter is exactly the same as
Mr. Kane's letter dated June 3, 1997, which is attached hereto as
Exhibit
The following is the written findings of the City
Council in response to such communication::
The City Council's written findings in response to Mr.
Kane's letter dated June 3, 1997, set forth in this Exhibit B,
commencing with page B-5-1, are incorporated herein.
970511 10512-00024 s4h 1672909 0
TOTAL P.02
EXHIBIT C
WRITTEN FINDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR IN RESPONSE TO ORAL TESTIMONY IN CONNECTION WITH THE
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA
Mr. Clyde Hennessy, 22702 Sunset Crossing Road, Diamond Bar
Question: Who repays advances from the City's General Fund
for redevelopment purposes in the event that insufficient tax
increment is generated?
Answer: Advances from the City's General Fund will be repaid
from tax increment revenues as they become available.
Mr. Murray Kane
Testimony: Mr. Kane alleges that the Agency failed to adopt
the owner participation rules a reasonable time before its
consideration of the Redevelopment Plan and the joint public
hearing on the Redevelopment Plan.
Response: Mr. Kane raised this issue in his letter to the
City and the City Council's response is set forth in B-4 and is
incorporated.`
Question: Mr. Kane asks how the Agency can transmit the
Report to City Council if the public has not had a chance to see
the final version. Mr. Kane also alleges that the Assistant City
Manager refused to give Mr. Kane a copy of the Report to City
Council the afternoon of May 20, 1997 or to tell Mr. Kane which
parcels were proposed to be excluded.
Response: Mr. Kane raised the issue issue in his letter to
the City and the City Council's written response is set forth in
B-4 and is incorporated. The Assistant City Manager has
indicated that, to his knowledge, Mr. Kane never requested a copy
of the Report to City Council from him. In addition, the
Assistant City Manager was informed by City staff that Mr. Kane
wished to obtain a copy of the Agency resolution proposing the
deletion of land from the Project Area and he instructed staff
that copies should be made for purchase by Mr. Kane. On the
afternoon of May 20, 1997, the Assistant City Manager observed.
Mr. Kane looking at a binder which contains a map of the parcels
deleted from the Project Area and the Report to City Council and
he pointed out to Mr. Kane that the map shows properties which
staff was recommending for deletion from the Project Area.
Testimony: Mr. Kane suggests that additional parcels should
be excluded from the Project Area, as evidenced by Mr. Kane's
videotape.
�y
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 16.72881 2. C—.1 -
Response:, Pursuant to Section 33352 of the Community
Redevelopment Law, the Report to 'City Council provides
information regarding the inclusion of properties within ,the
Project Area.: it should be noted that many of the properties)
shown on Mr.'Kane's 28 minute tape were excluded from the Project
Area, including all of the parks within the 'Project Area and the
property commonly referred to as Sun -cal.
Testimony: Mr. Kane alleges that the Agency will have $450
million to use to take people's property by eminent: domain for no
reason.,
Response: Mr. Kane raised this issue in his letter to the
City and the City Council's response is set forth in-B-4_and is
incorporated.
Testimony: Mr. Kane alleges adoption of the Redevelopment
Plan is illegal and will harm the City for various reasons.
Response: Mr. Kane raised these issues in his letter to the
City and the City Council's responses are set forth in B-4 and
are incorporated.
Mr. Richard Toones, 760 North Golden Sprincrs, No. D
Testimony: Mr. Toones indicates that he is upset with the
elimination of the parks from the Project Area because the City
of Diamond Bar does not have a dog park. He suggests that the
City have a dog park
Response: The City Council appreciates Mr. Toones input.
Ms Burrell
Testimony: Ms. Burrell suggests that Sandstone Canyon be
deleted from the Project Area and that parks are not urbanized.
Response: The City Council has deleted parks .from the
Project Area.
Testimony: Ms. Burrell alleges the Project Area includes
large tracks of land which have never been developed and
therefore cannot be redeveloped and also large areas of land
which are in perfectly good condition. She suggests excluding
parcels which are up to standard.
Response:, The Community Redevelopment Law provides that the
Project Area,may contain some vacant land. The Report to Council
documents that the Project Area is predominately urbanized as
required by the Community Redevelopment Law. Ms. Burrell does
not specify which parcels she is discussing so a specific
response is not possible. However, it should be noted that the
Community Redevelopment Law provides that parcels which are not
blighted may be included in the Project Area if their inclusi'In
970530 10572700001rdh/gp/sas.167288.1 2 -C-2 .
N
is necessary for effectiv
parcels in the Project Ar
they may suffer from blig
design or depreciated val
redevelopment. Further, while certain
a may appear to be in good condition,
ting conditions such as substandard
es.
Testimony: Ms. Burrell alleges that Via Sorrello is the
only evidence of physical deterioration.
Response: _ As stated in Section B of the Report to City
Council, 62 percent of all buildings and 46 percent of all
parcels in the Project Ara are in need of some form of
maintenance ranging from eferred maintenance to extensive
rehabilitation. It is important to note that it is unclear what
Ms. Burrell means by "physical -deterioration While all of the
parcels and buildings whi h need moderate rehabilitation to
extensive rehabilitationnearly 10 percent of buildings and over
6 percent of parcels, as shown on Table B-1 of the Report), many
of the properties designated as in need of deferred maintenance
(53 percent of all structures and 39 percent of all parcels) were
also observed with conditions of damagedexteriorbuilding
material, deteriorated roofing material, and non-structural
damage, which are also conditions which contribute to the
deteriorated appearance o� properties. Map 2-2 in Appendix 2 of
the Report indicates the location of properties were observed
with deteriorated conditions during the field survey..
The results of the field survey indicate that the properties
located along Via Sorrella do contain a large concentration of
structures and parcels which are in need of moderate to extensive
rehabilitation and exhibit a number of other conditions
identified in the. Report
Testimony: Ms. Burr ll alleges that the Golden Springs
Plaza has been significan ly upgraded since RSG's survey and that
the real problem with tha property is that the corner site was
developed and blocked the view to all the rest of the center and
that the center does not laave a major anchor to draw in traffic.
Response The only upgrade to Golden Springs Plaza known at
this time is that the cener has been repainted. However, this
property exhibits a number of conditions including deferred
maintenance, moderate rehabilitation, defective design, business
vacancies, and declining property values.
Testimony: Ms. Buri
eminent domain and appeal
sites proposed to be acgi
Response: As set fo
written objections include
are valid reasons to incl
Redevelopment Plan. As t
acquire any properties by
identify particular sites .
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas;1672881 2
11 appears to object to the power of
to request the Agency to identify the
red by eminent domain.
th in the City Council's responses to
d in Exhibit B and incorporated, there
de the power of eminent domain in the
e Agency has no current plans to
eminent domain, it is not possible to
C-3
Question: Ms. Burrell asks whether the Agency is going to
pay to paint everybody's building in the City.
Response: The Agency does not intend to paint all the
buildings in the City.
Testimony: Ms. Burrell alleges that the Agency will
mishandle funds.
Response This allegation is not supported.
Mr. Eric Stone, Darrin Drive
Testimony: Mr. Stone alleges that the Project Area
boundaries divide his parcel.
Response: Mr. Stone owns two adjacent, but separate parcels
and one of these two has been included in the proposed Projec�
Area. Mr. Stone only wanted to know why one parcel was included
and one was nota Agency staff and consultants spoke with Mr.
Stoneimmediatelyfollowing the joint public hearing and
addressed his questions and concerns In response to his
concerns, he was told that the physical and economic conditions
on his property determined inclusion in the Project Area, not
ownership. Mr. Stone appeared to be satisfied with the
information provided to him and did not raise any other questions
or concerns.
Mr. Louis Marslin, 850 Brea Canyon Road, Diamond Bar
Testimony: Mr. Marslin wishes the Agency would eliminate
the power of eminent domain from the Redevelopment Plan.
Response: As set forth in the City Council's responses to
written objections included in Exhibit -B and incorpated, there
are valid reasons to include the power of eminent domain in the
Redevelopment Plan.
Mr. Wilbur Smith, citizen of Diamond Bar
Testimony: Mr. Smith alleges the Agency only intends to
make insufficient cosmetic changes and that it is probably not
within the Agency's ability to change the identified conditions.
Response: The Report to City Council discusses the programs
and projects the Agency proposes to undertake to alleviate and
reverse the conditions of blight in the Project Area. These
include much more than cosmetic changes, such as traffic and
circulation improvements.
Testimony: Mr. Smith contends that putting facades on
buildings will not change the pattern of purchasing of Diamond
Bar citizens
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 C-4
Response: As discussed in. the City.Council's written
responses set forth in Exhibit B and incorporated, Diamond Bar
residents have indicated that the shopping areas in Diamond Bar
donotprovide an attractive environment in which to shop and -a
° number of residents suggested that the appearance of retail
businesses should be improved. The Agency's hope is that
improvements will encourage people to shop in Diamond Bar.
The City Council finds that on the basis of .information in
the record and the foregoing specific responses, the objections
set forth in Exhibit C are hereby overruled and the suggestions
set forth in Exhibit C are not accepted.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/qp/sas 1672861 2 C-5
Videotape Submitted by Mr. Murray O. Kane on May 20 1997
As with the oral continents, the Community Redevelopment Law does not require the
City Council to respond to videotapes or other tangible evidence
provided to it in
connection with the adoption of a redevelopment plan. The following is a brief summary
of a 28 minute videotape, including the 7 minute condensed version of the same video
tape, submitted by Murray O. Kane during the joint public hearing on the Redevelopment
Plan and related Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Project Area on May 20.
1997.
It should be noted that many of the buildings shown on the videotape were difficult to see
due to the angles in which these structures were shot or due to the distance from which
they were shown. For example, some of the, buildings within shopping centers were
difficult to see because they were filmed at an angle where trees or other obstacles were
blocking the view. Additionally, in some cases, only one or two structures in a shopping
center or an area were shown when comments or objections were being narrated by Mr.
Kane about the entire area, without showing all structures within that area. Finally,
because the specific location of a property was not always provided in the videotape,
responding to any comments or claims for that given property was extremely difficult.
First, the following discussion provides several overall responses to the claims and
comments made in the narration of the videotape and oral comments made by Mr. Kane
during the joint public hearing with regard to the videotapes:
Claim: The proposed Project Area is not blighted
• Issues regarding blight in the Project Area were addressed in the City Council's
written responses to written communications set forth in Exhibit B and incorporated
herein.
•
The Report to City Council provides a more comprehensive analysis and discussion
of the blighting conditions referenced in this response. As shown below, the
responses list conditions found on specific parcels and properties. It should be noted
that the Report to City Council should be reviewed regarding a more detailed
description of blighting conditions and how these conditions have negatively
impacted properties and the Project Area as a whole.
• The dataresented in Section B of the Report to Cit Council establishes that 90
P P Y
percent of all structures and 71 percent of all assessor parcels in the proposed Project
Area exhibit at least one or more physical conditions of blight pursuant to Section
33031 of the Community Redevelopment Law, or at least one or more .economic
conditions of blight pursuant to Section 33031 of the Community, Redevelopment
Law, or both.
C-6
• As indicated in Section B of the Report to City Council, the Community
Redevelopment Law does not require that every property in a redevelopment project
exhibit blighting conditions, and that properties that do not exhibit blighting
conditions may be included in a redevelopment project for the purposes of effective
redevelopment. Section B of the Report to City Council addresses this requirement
and provides reasons for including properties for effective redevelopment.
• The comments and claims made in the videotape regarding certain Project Area
properties are based only on a view from a right-of-way. Not all blighting conditions
can be observed via pictures or videotape. Many of the conditions of blight, as
defined by the. Community Redevelopment Law, cannot be depicted in a photograph
or a videotape, but rather involve comprehensive research activities involving a great
deal more than a few hours of field work. For example, blighting conditions
identified in the Project Area which are difficult or impossible to observe from the
right-of-way include:
• Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use of
buildings or lots
• Declining property values
• Declining retail sales tax revenues
• ' Declining building permit activity
• Hazardous materials
The Report to City Council cites numerous data sources other than the two field
surveys conducted, including economic studies, official documents and research
conducted by the City's Planning Department, real estate brokerage firms, a
survey of Diamond Bar residents, articles from professional periodicals, and
information from other governmental entities. These data sources are listed in
Appendix 1.
• In response to every comment and objection regarding obsolescence, the discussion of
the obsolescence of retail properties in the Project Area that is contained in the Report
to City Council cites many sources including the following: ERA, the Orange County
Business Journal, local and regional real estate brokerage firms, and studies prepared
for the City of Diamond Bar in recent years. The Report to City Council specifically
states that pursuant to information obtained from these sources, these retail centers are
obsolete based on current market standards for retail properties. These statements are
also evidenced by other factors noted during the field surveys, such as high business
vacancies, and other sources such as data showing retail sales tax leakage and
declining per capita retail sales tax revenues. Moreover, statements regarding
obsolescence in the Report to City Council are supported by data from real estate
professionals, -a professional real estate economics firm, and other numerous data
sources.
C-7
i
• The videotape only depicts certain properties in the Project Area during .one dayof
field work conducted by Mr. Kane, as indicated by Mr. Kane. In contrast, the Report
to City Council cites that two field surveys of every property in the Project Area were
conducted to observe blighting conditions. These surveys involvedmultipledays of
field work for each survey conducted, spanning over several weeks. In addition'to
these surveys, numerous other data gathering activities regarding this Project Area
were conducted to analyze blighting conditions in the Project Area.
• The videotape depictscertain retail and office uses, nearly all parks which were
previously included in the Project Area but have since been excluded. It also shows
vacant properties (one of which that has since been excluded), but fails to show any lof,
the industrial uses or the two residential properties Iocated within the Project Area.
Additionally, the following areas of the Project Area (which' include commercial,
retail or other uses) were not shown on the video tape:
South of Pathfinder Road and Brea Canyon Road to the southernmost Project
Area boundary (including retail properties which are directly adjacent to the
57 Freeway)
=:> East of the Gateway Corporate Center to the 60 Freeway (including V�a
Sorella)
=> East of the 60 and 57 Freeways, with the exception of the one property (all
industrial properties are located in this area)
West of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Golden Springs Drive (commercial
office and retail properties)
Commercial properties located along Golden Springs Drive, northeast of Brea
Canyon Road to the 57 / 60 Freeway merge
These areas contain commercial office, retail and all industrial uses within the Project
Area. Conditions noted in these areas include: buildings exhibiting deteriorated
roofing, deteriorated eaves, damaged; exterior building material, exposed wiring, and
broken windows, that are in need of moderate or extensive rehabilitation, defective
design; incompatible uses; substandard design; inadequate parking; business vacancies
and declining property values. Photographs contained in Appendix 4 of the Report to
City Council show examples of these conditions in the areas mentioned above.
• It should be noted that Table B-2 of Section B of the Report to City Council indicates
site problems for retail shopping centers in the Project Area, as analyzed by Economic
Research Associates ("ERA"), a real estate economics firm who prepared an
economic study for the City.
C-8
Claim: The Proiect Area is not predominantly urbanized
This assertion has been addressed in the City Council's written responses to written
communications, set forth in Exhibit B and incorporated herein. As stated previously, the
Community Redevelopment Law does not prohibit 'inclusion of vacant property within a
redevelopment project area other than limiting the inclusion of non -urbanized vacant
property no more than 20%0 of a project areas total acreage. The Project Area does
contain vacant properties. However, an analysis of urbanization pursuant to the
Community Redevelopment Law (contained in Appendix 3 to the Report to City Council)
indicates that only approximately. 6 percent of the Project Area is comprised of vacant,
non -urbanized property. As shown in Appendix 3 to the Report to City Council, most of
the vacant properties within the Project Area are an integral part of an area or areas
developed for urban uses and are, therefore urbanized. The videotape, in its scan of the
vacant parcels, fails to show the surrounding developed parcels when -depicting vacant
properties.
Claim: Additional parcels should be deleted from the ProiectArea
All parcels included within the Project Area are blighted or necessary for the effective
redevelopment of the Project Area. Section B of the Report to City Council provides a
discussion of both blighting conditions in the Project Area, and the inclusion of properties
within the Project Area.
Properties Shown on Videotape
The following discussion provides written responses with regard to the objections and/or
comments made for each property shown on the 28 minute videotape.
Honda dealership and Burger Kine on Grand Avenue - this property was observed to
have defective design (inadequate vehicular access) and inadequate parking during the
field surveys. With regard to vehicular access, the property has limited access points; one
of which involves a U turn at the traffic signal at the 60 Freeway and Grand Avenue. The
videotape does not address, show or indicate access points to the property. Inadequate
parking was also noted on the property. Visitor parking is extremely limited and
employee. parking is insufficient, as evidenced by what appears to be the utilization of a
vacant lot located east of the property, between Burger King and the 60 freeway, as a
parking lot. The cars parked on this vacant lot can be observed in Mr. Kane's video
where he shows the Burger King property:
Grand Avenue Median, south of 57 / 60 Freeways the only property depicted in this
section of the videotape is the median an the street.` There are no buildings shown. This
street has been included in the Project Area for effective redevelopment because it is a
major thoroughfare in the City which links many of the commercial and retail properties
with conditions of physical and economic blighting conditions. There was no clear
objection made regarding this property, The Report to City Council cites the need for
C-9
circulation improvements in order to improve circulation problems within the Project
Area.
Corner of Golden Springs Drive and Grand Avenue - This property is necessary for the
purposes of effective redevelopment to provide for uniform and comprehensive planning
guidelines over the commercial areas and corridors of the Project Area and the City. This
property is one part of a primary commercial/retail intersection in the City and within the
heart of the Project Area. The Golden Springs 'Drive and Grand Avenue intersection is
primarily developed with retail and office uses, with the exception of the excluded golf
course property located on one corner. The Report to City Council cites the reasons for
inclusion of properties for the purposes of redevelopment.
22632 Golden Springs Drive -' The property on which the large commercial office
building shown on the videotape has been noted to have the following conditions : a
subdivided lot of irregular shape, defective design, and declining property values. This
building has no primary, un -shared vehicular access points and can only be accessed by
entering the Mobil station property or the restaurant property. The buildings located
immediately west of the office building, Chamber of Commerce building and the
restaurant building, were observed to have deteriorated eaves and non-structural damage.
The restaurant building has been vacant for at least 10 months. The La Petite Academy
exhibits incompatible uses, inadequate access and declining property values. This
property is located next door to, and shares its only access point with, a busy Mobil
station. According to the California State Environmental Protection Agency as of
December 1995, the Mobil station property contains a leaking' underground storage tank.
`
The videotape did not indicate or clearly show the access points to this center.
Intersection of Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard
Vineyard Bank Plaza area Conditions observed on these properties: include deferred
maintenance, defective design (inadequate access), inadequate parking, irregular lot
shape, business vacancies and declining property values. (Note: the Report to City
Council identifies that a total of 53, percent of all buildings and 39 percent of all parcels in
the Project Area exhibit deferred maintenance. Eighty-three percent of the buildings and
72 percent ofthe parcels which exhibit deferred maintenance also exhibit at least one o
more other blighting conditions.) Access points into the property and within the property
are inadequate. During the field surveys (conducted on weekdays), both in the ]at
morning hours and at approximately 3:00 pm., there was little or no available parking in
the Vineyard Bank Plaza. The parking lot for the majority of the center is very narrow,
causing potentially hazardous situations as drivers enter in and exit from the property, as
well as when drivers pull in or out of parking spaces. As stated in Section B of the
Report to City Council, this center was observed to have a 10% vacancy rate. Again, the
videotape did not indicate or clearly show the access points to this center. However, a
"for lease" sign indicating vacancies in the center was clearly visible in the videotape. As
mentioned above, conditions noted on these properties,' such as declining property values
cannot be observed by videotape. See photographs 17 and 18 in Appendix 4 to the
C-10
Report to City Council for examples of access deficiencies and design problems observed
in this retail center.
Diamond Bar Towne Center - conditions observed on this property include declining
property values and a vacancy rate of 26%.
Diamond Bar Town Center (different retail center than above) - conditions observed on
these properties include deferred maintenance, irregular lot shape, and depreciated
property values.
Village Town Center - the videotape showed buildings from quite a distance and in many
cases, trees or moving traffic substantially blocked the view of structures.. Conditions
observed on these properties include deferred maintenance (non-structural damage,
deteriorated roofing material and deteriorated eaves), irregular lot shape, declining
property values, and business vacancies (4%). On the videotape, Mr. Kane refers to this
retail center as "bustling" and other comments on the videotape suggest that Mr. Kane
views the retail centers located near this intersection as thriving. In contrast, information
presented in Section B of the Report to City Council shows retail sales tax leakage,
abnormally high business vacancies, declining property values, and declining per capita
retail sales tax revenues.Additionally, it has been implied that the Project Area contains
nearly every nationally recognized retail chain store. With the exception of drive-thru,
fast food restaurants and a few' grocery stores and drug stores, the only major, nationally
°a recognized retail establishment is the K -Marton Diamond Bar Boulevard. Section B of
the Report to City Council cites the Economic Study prepared by ERA, which provides
examples of nationally -recognized retail establishments that are not in the Project Area,
but are located in surrounding areas.
Summitridge Park - This property has been excluded from the Project Area.
Sycamore Canvon Park - This property has been excluded from the Project Area.
Sun -Cal property on Diamond Bar Boulevard - This property has been excluded from the
Project Area.
Diamond Bar Shopping Center, Diamond Bar Boulevard (Von's Center) - The videotape
does not show a clear picture of the buildings in this center. The buildings are difficult to
see as the camera tends to focus on the parking lot and ' landscaping. Nevertheless,
conditions observed in this retail center include deferred maintenance (including
deteriorated roofing material), defective design (inadequate vehicular access), an
irregularly shaped lot, business vacancies (17%) and declining property values. The
videotape did not indicate or clearly show access points for this retail center. See note
regarding deferred maintenance above.
C-11
K -Mart Center, 249 through 315 Diamond Bar Boulevard Conditions noted on these
properties include deferred maintenance, substandard design, business vacancies (the
center has a 27 ` percent vacancy rate overall),and declining property values.
Additionally, the gas station in this center has a leaking underground storage tank,
according to information obtained from the California Environmental Protection Agency. -
Intersection of Diamond Bar- Boulevard and Gentle Springs Lane / PalominoDrive-
Conditions noted on properties located on the south side of Diamond Bar Boulevard
include deferred maintenance and defective design (inadequate vehicular access).
Conditions noted on properties located on the north side of Diamond Bar Boulevard
(Sizzler strip center) include deferred maintenance, defective design (inadequate
vehicular access), business vacancies and declining property values. These retail
properties located by the freeway network do not provide adequate access opportunilies
for business patrons. Finally, as stated above, the gas station located on the north side) of
Diamond Bar Boulevard contains a leaking underground ,storage tank, according to
information obtained from the California Environmental Protection Agency.
Oak Tree Lanes Plaza - Diamond Bar Boulevard and Highland Valley Road'- Again, the
videotape does not clearly show the buildings; or the condition of the buildings, because
this location was filmed from across Diamond Bar Boulevard and these properties are set
back from the street. Some of the previous video footage of retail centers was taken from
the parking lot of the property in question, rather than from across a busy street. The
parking lot and the landscaping of the properties are the only characteristics of this ;
property which can be seen clearly. Conditions noted on these properties include
deferred maintenance and business vacancies (this center was noted to have a 20%
vacancy rate). A "for lease" sign indicating business vacancies is visible in the videotape.
See photograph 3 in Appendix 4 of the Report to Council for an illustration of deferred
maintenance on this property.
Ranch <Center - Diamond ,Bar Boulevard,_ immediately south of Oak Tree Lanes Plaza
Again, the buildings in this retail center are not clearly visible. Same note as above
regarding the visibility of the property. Conditions noted on this property include
deferred maintenance (deteriorated eaves and non-structural damage), business vacancies
and declining property values. This retail center was observed with a vacancy rate of 157
percent. A "for lease" sign is visible in the background on the videotape:
Midas - Diamond Bar Boulevard, immediately south of Oak Tree Lanes Plaza - Due to
the location in which this was filmed, the property is blocked by trees and are not clearly
visible. Same comment as above regarding the visibility of the property. Conditions
noted on this property include deferred maintenance, defective design (inadequate
vehicular access), inadequate parking and declining property values.
750 Diamond Bar Boulevard (Diamond Bar Professional Center) - Same note as above
regarding visibility. The sign indicating the names of businesses within the Diamond Bar
Professional Center is clearly visible and is nearly empty due to vacancies. A "for leas"
C -I2
sign is visible. Conditions noted on the DiamondBar Professional Center property,
include business vacancies and declining property values.
Diamond Bar Executive Park immediately south of Diamond Bar Professional Center -
Conditions noted on these properties include business vacancies and declining property
values.
MKB Group building located adjacent to Diamond Bar Executive Park - Same comment
as above regarding visibility. Conditions noted on this property include deferred
maintenance, business vacancies (over 30%) and declining property values.
Diamond Bar Automotive and Tire Center, 554 Diamond Bar Boulevard It is important
to note that one commercial retail strip center, located between the MKB building and the
Diamond Bar Automotive and Tire Center, was passed over quickly in the videotape, not
mentioned and not clearly visible. This commercial property was noted with conditions
including damaged exterior building material, defective design (inadequate vehicular
access), inadequate parking, and business vacancies (approximately 33% vacant)_
With regard to the Diamond Bar Automotive and Tire Center, conditions noted on this
property include deferred maintenance, defective design, inadequate parking, irregular lot
shape, and declining property values.
Commercial and Retail Properties south of 554 Diamond Bar Boulevard Again, the
videotape passes over these properties quickly, providing very little or no visibility of the
buildings in question. The videotape primarily shows the signs of these buildings, rather
than the buildings themselves. Conditions noted for the commercial office building
include defective design, incompatible uses and business vacancies. This office building
is crowded into this triangular shaped area behind other buildings and is surrounded by
retail uses that generate significant vehicular traffic, such as the fast food restaurants and
the gas station. The building is set back from the Diamond Bar Boulevard': behind
buildings and lacks adequate vehicular access from Diamond Bar Boulevard. Other
conditions noted for the remaining properties in this area include buildings in need of
moderate rehabilitation or deferred maintenance, defective design, irregularly shaped lots
and business vacancies. In total, three structures within this area were observed to be in
need of moderate rehabilitations with conditions such as deteriorated roofing, deteriorated
eaves and damaged exterior building material. Only one retail property, the gas station,
was observed to be in sound condition; requiring no maintenance or repairs. See
photographs 1, 4 and 16 in Appendix 4 of the Report to City Council for examples of
blighting conditions in this part of the Project Area,
Vacant parcel on the east side of Diamond', Bar Boulevard, north of the 60 Freeway This
property is a steep, sloped property has been included for the purposes of effective
redevelopment to ensure uniform and comprehensive planning guidelines and
requirements for the commercial portions of the Project Area and the City.- This propertyJr' links the primary retail and commercial corridor on Diamond Bar Boulevard to the south
C-13
of the 60 Freeway with the retail and commercial corridor on Diamond Bar Boulevard to
the north of the 60 Freeway. This property is completely surrounded by developed.
property, and therefore qualifies as urbanized pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
33320.1. pu
Peterson Park - This property has been excluded from the Project Area.
Gateway Corporate Center - First, it is ;important to note that the videotape does not
provide an address or an assessors parcel number for any of the properties shown in the
approximately 8 minutes. of the videotape which are dedicated to this portion of the
Project Area. While the SCAQMD and' -the Raddison Hotel are landmark properties to
some extent, due to the original design and signage on these buildings, it is unclear in
several instances which office building in Gateway Center is being shown. The build'ns
are commonly referred to as ``a new office building" with almost no other description
offered. This is particularly problematic with regard to the vacant properties in th'e
Gateway Center. When these vacant properties are shown; there is no indication of
street name or general location for any of them.
Given that individual properties are not described adequately and that the same comments
and claims are repeated during this portion of the videotape, the response will remain
similarly general.
First, as clearly; indicated on the blight maps included as Appendix 2 to the Report to City
Council, properties within the Gateway center were found to exhibit physical and , up
economic blighting conditions including irregularly . shaped lots under ,multiple
ownership, declining property values and high business vacancies. As stated in both the
Report to City Council, and also evidenced by data contained in the economic stud
prepared by ERA, vacancy rates in the Gateway Center are as high as 40%; the highest
among all office properties in the City. Additionally, a representative of Seeley ano
Company, a firm which represents nearly all of the vacant land in the Gateway Center,
stated that land prices for all 'vacant property in the Gateway Center had dropped by 50%
within the lastyear alone. Overall, each property within the Gateway Center, with the
exception of two, exhibit at least one physical blighting condition or one economic
blighting condition, or both. It should be noted that one of the two aforementioned
properties houses a federally. -owned structure with restricted security .access, in which no
data regarding property values or vacancy rates was available.
Second, it is not refuted that there are vacant properties located within this area. ; The,
Community Redevelopment Law does not prohibit the inclusion of vacant properties
within a redevelopment project. However, all of the properties in the Gateway Center
except two (including the vacant properties) were found to exhibit at least one blighting
condition. With regard to the issue . of urbanization as it relates to the vacant properties
within the Gateway Center, it is important. to note that there are properties within. the
Gateway Center which have been designated as non -urbanized, as shown on Map 3-1 in
Appendix 3 of the Report to City Council. The remaining vacant property in Gateway
C- 14
Center is substantially surrounded by developed properties, including, but not limited to
_ golf course property (not included within the Project Area), commercial development
located west of the 57 Freeway (which is directly adjacent to many of the Gateway Center
properties), or developed buildings within the Gateway Center itself
Third, as mentioned above, most of the Gateway Center properties exhibit conditions of
blight, and these properties, both vacant and developed, are part of a legally subdivided,
corporate park sharing a one primary access point off of Golden Springs Drive.
According to documentation regarding the Gateway Corporate Center, and as evidenced
by the limited access points, this subdivided area .is envisioned to be a cohesive, stand
alone development. Therefore, all properties within the Gateway Center, rather than just
a portion, were included in the Project Area both as a result of blighting conditions found
on properties and for the purposes of effective redevelopment for comprehensive and
cohesive planning. The two properties specified above have been specifically included
for the purposes of effective redevelopment.
Diamond Creek Village Center - Conditions noted for this retail center include deferred
maintenance, business vacancies and declining property values. The properties
containing the other retail properties referred to, and shown, in this segment of the
videotape were found to have the following conditions; deferred maintenance, defective
design, substandard design, inadequate parking, irregularly shaped lots, a gas station
with a leaking underground storage tank (according to information obtained from the
California Environmental Protection Agency), and business vacancies.
Brea Canyon Road and Pathfinder Drive - Conditions noted for the commercial office
and retail developments on both sides of Brea Canyon Road include inadequate parking,
deferred maintenance, defective design, business vacancies and declining property values.
See photograph 6 of the Report to City Council for an example of deferred maintenance,
in this portion of the Project Area.
Upper Sandstone Canyon Area - As stated in Section B of the Report to City Council,
information obtained from the City indicates that the properties in this area are subject to
serious geo-technical problems, including landsliding, (inadequate drainage, and flooding.
These problems have caused a reduction in the economic viability of this area, as
evidenced by information contained in the Report to City Council. With regard to the
urbanization designation of the property, because this area is a canyon with steep sloping,
the videotape failed to show the numerous residential developments that substantially
surround this property. Brea Canyon Road and the 57/60 Freeways are located directly
east of this property. Additionally, another large residential subdivision located directly
east of the right-of-way and freeway properties which are directly adjacent to this area.
In conclusion, it should also be noted that many properties with physical blighting
conditions which can be clearly viewed by way of photograph and/or videotape,
including properties located along Via Sorrella, Washington Avenue, Brea Canyon Road,
Golden Springs Drive, and Pathfinder Road, were not depicted on the videotape. It
L.
C-15
should also be noted that not all retail properties were shown, and no industrial or
residential properties were depicted at all.
The City Council findsthat on the basis of information in
the record and the foregoing specific responses, the objections
set forth in Exhibit C are hereby overruled and the suggestions
set forth in Exhibit C are not accepted.
J
,y
C-16