HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/10/1997cit" 0III'
couilcl."
AGENDA
Tuesday, June 10, 1997
Adjourned Regular Meeting
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Auditorium
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Mayor Bob Huff
Mayor Pro Tem Caro l Herrera
Council Member Eileen Ansari
Council Member Clair Harmony
Council Member
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Gary Werner
Terrence L. Belanger
Michael Jenkins
Lynda Burgess
Copies of staff reports, or other written documentation relating to agenda items, are on file in the Office of the
City Clerk, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item,
please contact the City Clerk at (909) 860-2489 during regular business hours.
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or
accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk
a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
T DIVION1��BAN, �
Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking �s,r The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper
in the Council Chambers.!, - and encourages you to do the same.
PUBLIC INPUT
The meetings of the Diamond Bar City Council are open to the public. A member of the public may address the
Council on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of which are within the subject matter
jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar City Council. A request to address the Council should be submitted in writing to the
City Clerk.
As a general rule the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chair. However, in
order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be requested to give their
presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit the public input on any Rem or the
total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the
business of the Council.
Individuals are requested to refrain from personal attacks toward Council Members or other persons. Comments
which are not conducive to a positive business meeting environment are viewed as attacks against the entire City
Council and will not be tolerated. If not complied with, you will forfeit your remaining time as ordered by the Chair.
Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
In accordance with Government Code Section 54954.3(a) the Chair may from time to time dispense with public
comment on items previously considered by the Council. (Does not apply to Committee meetings)
In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the City Council must be posted at least
72 hours prior to the Council meeting. In cases of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the
posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Council may act on an Rem that is not on the posted
agenda.
CONDUCT IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Chair shall order removed from the Council Chambers any person who commits the following acts in respect
to a regular or special meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council.
A. Disorderly behavior toward the Council or any member of the thereof, tending to interrupt the due and orderly
course of said meeting.
B. A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, tending to interrupt the due and orderly
course of said meeting.
C. Disobedience of any lawful order of the Chair, which shall include an order to be seated or to refrain from
addressing the Board; and
D. Any other unlawful interference with the due and orderly conduct of said meeting.
INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL
Agendas for the regular Diamond Bar City Council meetings are prepared by the City Clerk and are available 72
hours prior to the meeting. Agendas are available electronically and may be accessed by a personal computer
through a phone modem.
Every meeting of the City Council is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal
charge.
ADA REQUIREMENTS
A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public
speaking area. Sign language interpreter services are also available by giving notice at least three business days
in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 860-2489 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday.
HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS
Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Council, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 860-2489
Computer Access to Agendas (909) 860 -LINE
General Information (909) 860-2489
NOTE: ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ON ANY ITEM IDENTIFIED ON THE AGENDA.
THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY JONES INTERCABLE
FOR AIRING ON CHANNEL 12, AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM,
YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. THIS
MEETING WILL BE RE -BROADCAST ON THE SATURDAY FOLLOWING
THE COUNCIL MEETING AT 10:00 A.M. ON CHANNEL 12.
1. CALL TO ORDER:
Next Resolution No. 97-39
Next Ordinance No. 03(1997)
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Pro Tem Herrera
DUE TO AN ANTICIPATED LACK OF QUORUM AT 6:30 P.M. THE MEETING
WILL NOT BEGIN UNTIL 7:30 P.M., JUNE 10, 1997, IN THE AQMD
AUDITORIUM, (THIS CHANGE IS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54955).
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Huff
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony,
Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Herrera, Mayor
Huff
CONVENE TO JOINT MEETING WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
NEXT RESOLUTION R-97-11
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Werner
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Ansari, Harmony, Herrera,
VC/Huff, C/Werner
DUE TO AN ANTICIPATED LACK OF QUORUM AT 6:30 P.M. THE MEETING
WILL NOT BEGIN UNTIL 7:30 P.M., JUNE 10, 1997, IN THE AQMD
AUDITORIUM, (THIS CHANGE IS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54955).
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on
each regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for
members of the public to directly address the Agency on
Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to the public
that are not already scheduled for consideration on this
agenda. Although the Redevelopment Agency values your
comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the Agency generally
cannot take any action on items not listed on the posted
agenda. Please complete a Speakers Card and give it to the
Agency Secretary (completion of this form is voluntary).
There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the
Redevelopment Agency.
3. CONTINUED JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY - 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters can be
heard.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
JUNE 10, 1997 PAGE 2
Council/Redevelopment Agency reopen the joint public hearing
on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar
Economic Revitalization Area for the sole purpose of
considering the exclusion of certain territory from the
Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area; take public
testimony, close the joint public hearing. It is recommended
that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 97 -XX approving the
exclusion of certain property from the proposed Economic
Revitalization Area.
3.1 RESOLUTION NO. 97 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR OF THE EXCLUSION OF
CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM THE PROPOSED DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA -
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the
Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors adopt Resolution
No. 97 -XX recommending approval by the City Council of
the exclusion of certain property from the proposed
Economic Revitalization Area.
Requested by: Redevelopment Agency
3.2 RESOLUTION NO. 97 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE EXCLUSION OF
CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM THE PROPOSED DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA -
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 97 -XX approving the
exclusion of certain property from the proposed Economic
Revitalization Area.
Requested by: City Council
3.3 RESOLUTION NO. 97 -XX: 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. Continued from June 3, 1997.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 97 -XX adopting written
findings in response to oral and written objections,
communications and suggestions in connection with the
proposed Redevelopment Plan.
Requested by: City Council
3.4 RESOLUTION NO. R -97 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION
JUNE 10, 1997 PAGE 3
AREA; ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM;
ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS
REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND
APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the
Redevelopment Agency adopt Resolution No. R -97 -XX
certifying the final Environmental Impact Report for the
Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area adopting the
findings and facts in support of findings as required by
The California Environmental Quality Act, adopting a
Statement of overriding Consideration and approving the
Redevelopment Plan.
Requested by: Redevelopment Agency
3.5 RESOLUTION NO. 97 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA; ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM; ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 97 -XX certifying the
Environmental Impact Report for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area adopting the findings and facts in
support of findings as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act, adopting a Statement of
Overriding considerations, approving the Redevelopment
Plan and making certain findings in connection
therewith.
Requested by: City Council
3.6 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. XX (1997): AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council approve first reading by title only of Ordinance
No. XX (1997) approving and adopting the Redevelopment
Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area.
Requested by: City Council
4. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS:
5. AGENCY SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS:
JUNE 10, 1997 PAGE 4
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADJOURNMENT:
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
6. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS:
7 COUNCIL COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Councilmembers
are for Council discussion. Direction may be given at this
meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a future
meeting.
8. ADJOURNMENT:
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT
CITY CLERK
3-3
DATE: 6 - /,0 ^F 7
PHONE: ,PG/ -0;7>1?
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
W 'J �--
�f �
'
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
r
FROM: DATE:ri0.
a
ADDRESS: PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
"1 1G:Cl
�s � t
TO: CITY CLERK (l
FROM: ��J/' �r , sisi/ Thi DATE:
ADDRESS: p�/6 3 �8 PHONE: E46-1
ORGANIZATION: QQ
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: o� !_t 4-
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
W
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
x"11 <-- P- "f
TO: CITY CLERK j
FROM: TIC'AAd Ala✓I /egemk DATE: q %
ADDRESS: 760--b 44k 6oUm -brl-✓e PHONE: 3l b 41 y�-6
ORGANIZATION: k)yler / -Pr fvotJe 41 ill
J/
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: Lt
e <S D l ��O - % '- X / exc
CPr4aiv, Qra?,Qr�y -ffuk7l
t vhomCC eU,-�, 1,2a'4rcn/ ireGt
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: DATE: i /-,
r
ADDRESS: �c�t - �_,>.,- �.t -,�- / roti' PHONE: fs
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signe
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
DATE: f ,c d —1;7
PHONE:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
° f Z
Si6n2
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK J ,r
FROM:r,1�,_
ADDRESS: o?Z-z/ 1C' - ,� PHONE: S
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: a ,
a3
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK /� d
FROM: eGtt7' /"1 (iC�/5 " �!J x-55 �. DATE: — 7
n
ADDRESS:o� I S_5 1—TM'J' uShe/S �i. J PHONE: Cep 1-9 VE D.
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
rxr
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
r,A
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
%1 v 1 N DATE: ° —7 7
5''! f G l G o%� S[ l B S� PHONE:
Lo 71 z--7
vv
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Sig ture
r
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
L) 22A Y 1 �"�� DATE: —1 a_ %
l 7z /Li 3 PHONE:,?-/ S�� Z -"l2,
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
7ignature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
DATE: 6_lto. 77
PHONE: -24 3-4-Ir2_'J']
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
S' nature
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
DATE:(-., '7 7
4-S z -
PHONE: 2/1- 4t ` L01 z
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: 3 - _ c / I y cJ/v'e✓►-d 's-
j a cif/ /� ( (��✓ �� f G- G C o I1 -f
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
`'-cam -�..-
S' nature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
•r
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
Al UAJ214-y DATE: 69 ? 7
S l 3
PHONE:Z01
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
u
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
DATE:
DATE: 6— o 7
PHONE: 7-i 3-4 z�
f t y co /l/ c-/ L c -V -zZ4 ✓ iG 5 -
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
1-t OILL4
1 +
DATE: G /,,D q 7
PHONE: -24 1' �14'z" a/ i
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
fid
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
.T. /
DATE: 0/ " /D — -?.7
PHONE:,0415�/ 67l'?
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
'ef. - .40
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: DATE: G —10
ADDRESS: / PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
DATE: June 3, 1997
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chairman and Agency Members
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager / Executive Director
SUBJECT: ACTIONS RELATING TO CONTINUED JOINT PUBLIC HEARING IN
CONNECTION WITH THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES
FROM THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA,
CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AND APPROVAL OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA
Recommendation:
That the Diamond Bar City Council ("City Council") and the Diamond Bar Redevelopment
Agency ("Agency") take the following actions and adopt the following resolutions:
1. Open the continued joint public hearing of the City Council and Agency on the
Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area ("Redevelopment
Plan") to consider the exclusion of certain property from the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area, as set forth in Resolution No. R-97-10, Exhibit A.
2. If no written objections are received prior to or during the joint public hearing, take the
following actions:
City Council:
• Adopt the resolution approving the exclusion of certain property from the proposed
Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area.
• Adopt the resolution adopting written findings in response to written and oral objections,
communications and suggestions in connection with the proposed Redevelopment Plan.
• Adopt the resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR') for the
Redevelopment Plan.
Diambaryphact
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chairman and Agency Members
June 3, 1997
Page 2
• Introduce and provide the first reading of the City Council ordinance adopting the
Redevelopment Plan.
Agency:
• Adopt the resolution certifying the Final EIR for the Redevelopment Plan.
Background:
The City Council and the Agency are now in the final steps in the process of adopting a
redevelopment plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area. The City Council and
the Agency opened the joint public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan and related EIR on
May 20, 1997, for the purposes of taking public testimony on both of these documents. Prior to
the opening of the joint public hearing on May 20, 1997, staff recommended that the boundaries
of the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area ("Project Area") be changed to exclude
certain properties.
The Agency adopted Resolution No. R-97-10, prior to the opening of the joint public hearing,
requesting that the Diamond Bar Planning Commission prepare its report and recommendation
regarding the exclusion of certain property from the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area,
pursuant to the requirements of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and
Safety Code Section 33000, et. sec.. ("CRL"). The joint public hearing was then opened, public
testimony was taken, the joint public hearing with respect to the EIR was closed, and the joint
public hearing with respect to the Redevelopment Plan was continued to June 3, 1997, for the
sole purpose of considering the exclusion of certain property from the Project, as set forth in
Resolution No. R-97-10, Exhibit A.
The Planning Commission acted on this matter at their May 27, 1997 meeting and adopted
PC Resolution No. 97-8, which included the following findings: 1) the Redevelopment Plan is in
conformance with the General Plan; 2) the Planning Commission report pursuant to the
PC Resolution No. 97-5 is sufficient and requires no modifications; and 3) the Planning
Commission recommended that the City Council exclude the properties, shown on Exhibit A,
from the boundaries of the Project Area.
Following the adoption by the Agency of the attached resolution, the City Council will consider
approving the exclusion of the properties from the Project Area and the City Council and will re-
open the joint public hearing for the sole purpose of taking public testimony only on the
exclusion of territory and proceed with activities related to the adoption of the Redevelopment
Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area.
Diambar/jphact
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chairman and Agency Members
June 3, 1997
Page 3
Continued Joint Public Hearing
The continued joint public hearing is intended to provide a forum for the receipt of only those
public comments relating to the exclusion of certain properties, as set forth in Resolution No.
R-97-10, Exhibit A. If written objections related to the exclusion of these properties are not
received prior to or during the joint public hearing, the following actions may be taken: the
continued public hearing may be closed; the resolutions approving the exclusion of property
from the Project Area, adopting written responses to oral and written objections, communications
and suggestions made at the May 20, 1997 joint public hearing, and certifying the EIR (described
in more detail below) may be adopted; and the City Council may introduce the first reading of
the ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan. Section 33364 of the CRL requires that the
Redevelopment Plan may only be adopted by the City Council after consideration of written
objections, and the adoption of written findings is in response to written objections.
Resolution Approving the Exclusion of Certain Property from the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area
As stated previously, prior to the joint public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan and related EIR
on May 20, 1997, the Agency adopted Resolution No. R-97-10, requesting that the Diamond Bar
Planning Commission prepare its report and recommendation regarding the exclusion of certain
property from the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area, pursuant to the requirements of
the CRL. Immediately following this action, the joint public hearing was opened, public
testimony was taken, the joint public hearing with respect to the EIR was closed, and the joint
public hearing with respect to the Redevelopment Plan was continued to June 3,'1997, for the
sole purpose of considering the exclusion of certain property from the Project.
The Planning Commission acted on this matter at their May 27, 1997 meeting and adopted
PC Resolution No. 97-8, which included the following findings: 1) the Redevelopment Plan is in
conformance with the General Plan; 2) the Planning Commission report pursuant to the
PC Resolution No. 97-5 is sufficient and requires no modifications; and 3) the Planning
Commission recommended that the City Council exclude the properties, shown on Exhibit A,
from the boundaries of the Project Area.
Following the adoption of the attached resolution, the City Council and Agency will re -open the
joint public hearing for the sole purpose of taking public testimony only on the exclusion of
territory and proceed with activities related to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the
Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area.
D,-by/jphW
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chairman and Agency Members
June 3, 1997
Page 4
Resolution Adopting Written Findings in Response to Written Objections,
Communications and Suggestions
Pursuant to the CRL, if the City Council receives written objections on the Redevelopment Plan
from property owners or affected taxing agencies, the City Council is to adopt written findings
in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity. At the joint
public hearing on May 20, 1997, the City Council received four written objections from two
property owners, one written objection from an individual who attended the May 3, 1997, public
town hall meeting, and one written objection from an attorney representing an undisclosed party.
No written objections were filed by any affected taxing agencies. The Agency also received one
written communication from one property owner regarding the Redevelopment Plan. It has been
the Agency's determination to respond to all written and oral objections, communications and
suggestions received from all parties on May 20, 1997, that are applicable to the adoption of the
Redevelopment Plan.
Exhibit `B" to the accompanying resolution are written responses to the written objections. The
written responses were formulated by staff, Agency counsel, and the redevelopment consultant.
In general, the written responses contain or reference factual information contained in the record
that refutes objections raised by the property owners and others.
Resolutions Certifying the Final EIR
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the Agency has
prepared an EIR for the Redevelopment Plan. The City Council and Agency have received Final
EIR and have heard public testimony related thereto at the joint public hearing on May 20, 1997.
During this continued hearing, both the City Council and Agency will consider certifying the
Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations with
respect to the Final EIR. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is included as part of the Final EIR
and sets forth measures to be taken by the City Council which will ensure that significant
environmental effects or impacts resulting from the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan
will be mitigated or avoided.
By adopting the attached resolutions, the City Council and Agency will certify and adopt the
Final EIR for the Redevelopment Plan and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program and a
Statement of Overriding Conditions, pursuant to all applicable requirements of the CRL and
CEQA.
Dumberl)phact
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chairman and Agency Members
June 3, 1997
Page 5
Ordinance Adopting the Redevelopment Plan
Finally, if no written objections (pertaining only to the exclusion of property) are received prior
to or during this continued joint public hearing, and if both the City Council and Agency adopt
resolutions certify the Final EIR (described in more detail above), the City Council may
introduce the first reading of the ordinance adopting and approving the Redevelopment Plan
("Ordinance"). The Ordinance finds that blight exists within the Project Area, sets forth the
Agency's goals of the Redevelopment Plan, and determines that the Redevelopment Plan will
redevelop the Project Area to eliminate these blighting conditions. Following the first reading of
the Ordinance, City Council may introduce the second reading and adopt the Ordinance at the
next regular meeting on June 17, 1997. If approved by the City Council, the Ordinance and the
Redevelopment Plan would take effect thirty (30) days after the second reading.
Di mbw/jphact
Q21�
6rl'EPHEN and JANET NICE
2621 Ruing N ar Drive
Diamond Char, Ca., 91765
June 3, 1997
To: Diamond Bar City Council
Diamond 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 RalphsBoston 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 blighted. They are
continually being upgraded and this is 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. �'� �a' �Y :�C X L l cv C ALL _rN C c o M M 6'K_c. / q c..
/i,5
SI�v�� ALL - G4JE -- (aisD
Stephen E. Nice
2621 Rising Star Dr.
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
Supplemental Material
Please bring your Redevelopment binder.
DATE: June 2, 1997
TO: Honorable Chairman and Agency Members
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager / Executive Director
1
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA
It has been discovered that the Supplemental Report to City Council for the Redevelopment Plan
for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area ("Supplemental Report"), approved by the
Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") on May 20, 1997, by Resolution No. R-97-09,
contained one table that was inadvertently included in error during the reproduction of the
Supplemental Report. More specifically, Table 3-2 from the original Report to City Council for
the Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area, also approved by
the Agency on May 20, 1997, was included as the revised Table 3-2 to the Supplemental Report
to City Council in error. The Agency's legal counsel was consulted on the matter and has opined
that this is considered a minor, "clerical" error, and that this discrepancy can be resolved without
Agency action.
The need for the change in Table 3-2 (as it appeared in the original Report to City Council) is
created by the exclusion of the property commonly referred to as the Sun -Cal or the Bramalea
property. This has the effect of reducing the total non -urbanized land area in the Project Area
from 126.07 acres to 75.32 acres.
Enclosed please find a replacement Table 3-2 (page 31 of the Supplemental Report) and
incorporate this page into your copies of the Supplemental Report.
Diambmeppg
Revised Table 3-2
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PROPOSED REDEVLOPMENT STUDY AREA
Analysis of Undeveloped Properties
2".12
Undvprop 65M
NON
URBAN
0.14
18.68
7.18
2.30
3.47
2.39
4.61
0.11
36.41
7532
- iNTVGRAL PART
PARCEL.
LOT
OF AN
NUMBER
ACREAGE
URBAN AREA
6281 029 023
3 18
X
6285 020 047
0 D9
X
6293 045 003
0.14
8293 045 004
18.68
8293 045 005
7 18
8293 050 002
1333
x
6293 050 005
2 33
B293 050 011
239
x
8293 050 012
2.48
X
8293 050 017
347
8293 050 018
6.18
x
8293 050 022
6.12
x
8293 050 023
8.73
X
8293 D50 031
2.39
8293 050 032
1 36
X
8293 050 036
2.70
X
8293 050 037
461
8293 050 040
197
x
8703 0D2 029
5.40
x
8714 002 900
9.33
x
8714 002 901
24.29
X
8714 002 902
0.45
x
8714 002 903
0.35
x
8714 015 001
0.93
x
8717 ODI 006
470
x
1719013009
0.74
x
8719 020 003
0.83
X
8719 020 004
0.33
x
8760 021 803
1.71
x
$763001030
001
x
8763 004 008
0.76
x
V63 004 010
2.03
x
8763 007 001
0.40
x
8763 007 005
0.82
X
8763 007 006
2.48
X
$763007019
0.18
X
11763 007 020
0.08
x
8763 026 003
0 D8
x
8763 026 008
41.44
X
8763 026 900
4.01
x
8765 005 001
2 25
x
8765 005 002
164
x
8763 005 003
164
x
8765 005 007
0.38
x
8765 WS 009
0.11
8765 005 900
3500
x
8765 005 901
3641
2".12
Undvprop 65M
NON
URBAN
0.14
18.68
7.18
2.30
3.47
2.39
4.61
0.11
36.41
7532
t
IF
ta
go
�-
J
M SM$11c", =5.fflmlnmMmaw"g�
•
Deletion Area No. 1
LOT 117
TRACT NO. 43162, M.B. 1048/5-14
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR DELETION AREA NO. 1 IS AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING A THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF SHADED WOOD ROAD (64.00
FEET WIDE) AND THE NORTH LINE OF PATHFINDER ROAD (80.00 FEET WIDE) AS SAID
INTERSECTION IS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 31053 AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 921,
PAGES 21 TO 27, RECORDS LF LOS ANGELES COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE
SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID EAST LINE OF SHADED WOOD ROAD
S08049'31"E, 80.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF PATHFINDER ROAD; THENCE ALONG
SAID LINE S81 °10'29"W, 1,196.02 FEET TO A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,170.00 FEET, THENCE WESTERLY
ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04002'50" AN ARC LENGTH
OF 82.65 FEET TO A POINT ON A COMPOUND CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEAST AND
HAVING A RADIUS OF 13.00 FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS
N 12052'21 "W; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 92013'44" AN ARC LENGTH OF 20.93 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE
OF PEACEFUL HILLS ROAD (64.00 FEET WIDE); THENCE ALONG SAID LINE AND
TANGENT TO SAID CURVE S 15°06'05"E, 92.91 FEET TO A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE
EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 448.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID
CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12°03'41" AN ARC LENGTH OF 94.31 FEET
TO A TANGENT LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S27009'46"E, 108.87 FEET TO A
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 632.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
26023'32" AN LENGTH OF 291.12 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID CURVE, A RADIAL
THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS N89013'46"E; THENCE ALONG SAID RADIAL
S89013'46"W, 64.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 117 OF TRACT NO.
43162 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1046, PAGES 5 THROUGH 14, RECORDS OF
SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 117 N88000'23"W,
848.85 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PATHFINDER ROAD; THENCE
N59012'56"W, 80.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1;250.00 FEET, SAID CURVE ALSO BEING
THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PATHFINDER ROAD; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID
CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 50023'25" AN ARC LENGTH OF 1,099.35
FEET TO A TANGENT LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE AND NORTHERLY LINE OF
PATHFINDER ROAD N81010'29"E, 1,196.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Doc: 96010-BIEG June 3, 1997
/.'
Deletion Area No. 2
TRACT NO. 43756
M.B. 1076/61-63
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR DELETION AREA NO.2 IS AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 27523,
M.B. 741/78-80 AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE (80.00 FEET
WIDE), SAID WESTERLY LINE BEING A CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A
RADIUS OF 1,760.00 FEED, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S85045'29"E;
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
13°15'1 1" AN ARC LENGTH OF 407.10 FEET TO A RADIAL LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID
RADIAL LINE N80059'20"E, 80.00 FEET TO A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE
NORTHEAST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 13.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY
ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 88036'30" AN ARC LENGTH
OF 20.11 FEET TO A TANGENT LINE BEING THE NORTH LINE OF SYLVAN GLEN ROAD
(64.00 FEET WIDE); THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N82022'50"E, 510.07 FEET TO A
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 468.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
37009'50" AN ARC LENGTH OF 303.56 FEET TO A RADIAL LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID
LINE S44047'00"E, 64.00 FEET TO A NORTHERLY CORNER OF LOT 8 OF TRACT NO.
43756 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1076, PAGES 61 THROUGH 63, RECORDS
OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 8 THE FOLLOWING
COURSES:
S25035'00"E, 72.00 FEET; THENCE
S45015'00"E, 473.25 FEET; THENCE
S53005'00"E, 176.21 FEET; THENCE
S04029'1 1 "E, 224.56 FEET, THENCE
S22039'25"E, 326.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE
OF CALIFORNIA FREEWAY ROUTE 60 (POMONA FREEWAY); THENCE S22004'53"W,
370.09 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID ROUTE 60;
THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE THE FOLLOWING COURSES:
N67055'07"W, 113.20 FEET; THENCE
S59016'16"W, 76.28 FEET; THENCE
N36059'18"W, 68.37 FEET; THENCE
N71 °35'29"W, 386.12 FEET; THENCE
S84029'57"W, 336.15 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY N 14°35' 13"E,
334.61 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID STATE HIGHWAY; THENCE
ALONG SAID LINE N86039'55"W, 248.42 FEET AND N47054'07"W, 11.01 FEET; THENCE
N82037'48"W, 80.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE WEST AND HAVING A
RADIUS OF 1,760.00 FEET, SAID CURVE BEING THE WESTERLY LINE OF GOLDEN
SPRINGS DRIVE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 03007'41 ", AN ARC LENGTH OF 96.09 FEETTO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Doc: 96010-B.LEG June 3, 1997
30
Deletion Area No. 3
LOT 6
TRACT NO. 31479
M.B. 998/7/17
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR DELETION AREA NO.3 IS AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6 OF TRACT NO. 31479 AS PER
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 998, PAGES 7 THROUGH 17, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY,
A RADIAL THROUGH SAID CORNER BEARS N76016'13"W; THENCE ALONG THE
PERIMETER OF SAID LOT 6 THE FOLLOWING COURSES:
N76°56'14"E, 489.34 FEET; THENCE
N72030'56"E, 419.38 FEET; THENCE
N85019'28"E, 269.90 FEET; THENCE
S43032'59"E, 335.28 FEET; THENCE
N44052'1 1"E, 558.46 FEET; THENCE
N17057'18"W,203.41 FEET;THENCE
N46022'14"E, 73.91 FEET; THENCE
N86033'59"E, 100.18 FEET; THENCE
N73024'29"E, 233.38 FEET; THENCE
N55°17'12"E, 250.86 FEET; THENCE
S29°41'31 "E, 81.44 FEET; THENCE
S60018'29"W, 48.03 FEET; THENCE
S29°41'31 "E, 81.12 FEET; THENCE
S45005'04"W, 351.24 FEET; THENCE
S12°33'42"E, 476.39 FEET; THENCE
S60032'19"W, 75.23 FEET; THENCE
S32055'31 "W, 291.65 FEET; THENCE
N80°22'01 "W, 235.20 FEET; THENCE
S22037'28"W, 155.80 FEET; THENCE
S27042'37"W, 163.87 FEET; THENCE
S31054'1 8"W, 302.74 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 143.00 FEET; THENCE
WEST 300.00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 200.00 FEET; THENCE
WEST 270.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 220.00 FEET; THENCE
N76027'59"W, 442.28 FEET; THENCE
S70015'52"W, 424.96 FEET; THENCE
WEST 200.11 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD
(100.00 FEET WIDE); THENCE ALONG SAID LINE NO2043'00"E, 208.45 FEET TO A
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3,950.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
11 000'47", AN ARC LENGTH OF 759.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Doc: 96010-B. LEG June 3, 1997
31
Deletion Area No. 4
LOT 3, TRACT NO. 31479, M.B. 998/7-17
LOT 51, TRACT NO. 42560, M.B. 1040/70-75
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR DELETION AREA NO.4 IS AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF TRACT NO. 35026 AS PER
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 919, PAGES 31-37, RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GRAND AVENUE, 100.00 FEET WIDE, THENCE ALONG
SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 35026
S64054'20"E, 641.47 FEET TO A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,250.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13059'57" AN ARC LENGTH OF 305.42 FEET TO A
TANGENT LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S50154'23"E, 897.74 FEET TO A TANGENT
CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,150.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
26003'04" AN ARC LENGTH OF 522.88 FEET TO A TANGENT LINE; THENCE ALONG
SAID LINE S76057'27"E, 741.37 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF LOT 3 IN TRACT NO. 31479
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 998, PAGES 7 THROUGH 17, RECORDS OF SAID
COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N24004'29"E, 320.00 FEET; THENCE N06°03'21 "W,
728.03 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE
N76055'06"E, 1,135.47 FEET TO THE WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 51 OF TRACT NO.
42560 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1040, PAGES 70 THROUGH 75, RECORDS
OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE PERIMETER OF SAID LOT 51 N45048'25"E,
150.63 FEET; THENCE S87047'51"E, 130.10 FEET; THENCE S48018'19"E, 131.04 FEET;
THENCE S50036'46"E, 50.00 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SUMMIT RIDGE DRIVE
BEING A VARIABLE WIDTH FROM 60.00 FEET TO 70.00 FEET, SAID EASTERLY LINE
BEING A CURVE CONCAVE EAST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 668.00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23001'34" AN
ARC LENGTH OF 268.46 FEET TO A TANGENT LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE
S1 6021'40"W, 105.08 FEET TO A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND
HAVING A RADIUS OF 532.00 FEET, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42037'20" AN ARC LENGTH OF 395.75 FEET TO A
TANGENT LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S58059'00"W, 176.43 FEET TO A TANGENT
CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 468.00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 49048'01" AN
ARC LENGTH OF 406.73 FEET TO A POINT ON A COMPOUND CURVE CONCAVE
EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 282.19 FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT
BEARS S80°49'01 "W; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 17027'10" AN ARC LENGTH OF 85.96 FEET TO A POINT ON A REVERSE
CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 539.00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07043'34" AN
ARC LENGTH OF 72.69 FEET TO A RADIAL LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID RADIAL LINE
S89027'23"W, 4.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND
Doc: 96010-B. LEG June 3, 1997
32
HAVING A RADIUS OF 535.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13035'10" AN ARC LENGTH OF 126.86 FEET TO A
TANGENT LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S13002'33"W, 66.52 FEET TO A TANGENT
CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 13.00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90000'00"
AN ARC LENGTH OF 20.42 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF GRAND
AVENUE (100.00 FEET WIDE); THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID LINE S13002'33"W,
100.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GRAND AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID
LINE N76057'27"W, 1,522.67 FEET TO A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY
AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,250.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID
CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 2600304" AN ARC LENGTH OF 568.35 FEET
TO A TANGENT LINE; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N50054'23"W, 897.74 FEET TO A
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,150.00
FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 13059'57" AN ARC LENGTH OF 280.98 FEET TO A TANGENT LINE; THENCE ALONG
SAID LINE N64054'20"W, 641.47 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES N25005'40"E, 100.00
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Doc: 96010-B. LEG June 3, 1997
33
Deletion Area No. 5
A.P.N. 8285-025-900
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR DELETION AREA NO.5 IS AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF BREA CANYON ROAD,
103.00 FEET WIDE, WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 25991 AS PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 702, PAGES 16-21 RECORDS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 25991, S56041'38"E, 277
FEET; TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT NO. 25985 AS PER
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 678, PAGES 63 THROUGH 65, RECORDS OF SAID
COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE N33018'22"E, 524.00 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 4 IN SAID TRACT NO. 25985; THENCE
ALONG SAID LINE N56°41'38"W, 277.00 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID BREA
CANYON ROAD (103.00 FEET WIDE); THENCE ALONG SAID LINE; THENCE
S33018'22"W, 524.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Doc: 96010-B.LEG June 3, 1997
34
Deletion Area No. 6
SYCAMORE PARK
A.P.N. 8717-022-900
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR DELETION AREA NO.6 IS AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE AND
DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AS SAID INTERSECTION IS SHOWN ON TRACT NO.
26203 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 687, PAGES 71 AND 72, RECORDS OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF DIAMOND BAR
BOULEVARD S33020'00"E, 67.00 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES TO SAID CENTERLINE
S56040'00"W, 60.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID DIAMOND BAR
BOULEVARD (120.00 FEET WIDE); THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S33020'00"E, 164.63 FEET
TO A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,440.00
FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
47030'00" AN ARC LENGTH OF 2,022.84 FEET TO A TANGENT LINE, THENCE ALONG
SAID LINE S14010'00"W, 500.00 FEET; THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES S75050'00"E, 10.00
FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD
(100.00 FEET WIDE); THENCE ALONG SAID LINE S14010'00"W, 289.10 FEET TO A
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE EASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 4,050.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
11027'00" AN ARC LENGTH OF 809.35 FEET TO A TANGENT LINE; THENCE ALONG
SAID LINE S02043'00"W, 379.26 FEET TO A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY
AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,950.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03034'25" AN ARC LENGTH OF 184.00 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT NO. 31141 AS PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 827, PAGES 83 THROUGH 88, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, A
RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS S83042'35"E, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE THE FOLLOWING
COURSES:
N89055'49"W, 145.84 FEET; THENCE
N83022'03"W, 86.58 FEET; THENCE
N41 °42'58"W, 172.82 FEET; THENCE
N67044'07"W, 459.24 FEET; THENCE
N60039'53"W, 70.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT NO.
31139 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 817, PAGES 38 THROUGH 41, RECORDS OF
SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE THE FOLLOWING COURSES:
N60039'53"W, 68.75 FEET; THENCE
N52007'30"W, 307.85 FEET; THENCE
N45033'32"2,289.93 FEET; THENCE
S70037'49"W, 135.68 FEET; THENCE
N50021'56"W, 257.10 FEET; THENCE
N 12°31'44"W, 110.63 FEET; THENCE
N29006'53"E, 81.53 FEET; THENCE
N48031'51"W, 339.99 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE
NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,540.00 FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH
cn I n_R I FC', lune 3. 1997
SAID POINT BEARS S48032'03"E, SAID CURVE ALSO BEING THE EASTERLY LINE OF
GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE (80.00 FEET WIDE); THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID
CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10012'27", AN ARC LENGTH OF 452.51 FEET
TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT LINE, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS
S38° 19'36"E THEN C E;
S30021'49"E, 484.87 FEET; THENCE
S62054'20"E, 113.25 FEET; THENCE
S52036'15"E, 256.81 FEET; THENCE
S42029'35"E, 128.82 FEET; THENCE
S38007'23"W, 390.29 FEET; THENCE
S60029'49"W, 787.85 FEET TO THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTH LINE OF
TRACT NO. 32457 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 989, PAGES 12 THROUGH 14,
RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID PROLONGATION AND THE
NORTH LINE S87018'31"E, 378.68 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREON; THENCE
S77047'38"E, 772.06 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREON; THENCE CONTINUING
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE AND ITS EASTERLY PROLONGATION N88045'58"E, 1,266.95
FEET TO A POINT ON A NON -TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND
HAVING A RADIUS OF 2,950.00 FEET, A RADIAL THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS
S72005'45"E, SAID CURVE ALSO BEING THE WESTERLY LINE OF DIAMOND BAR
BOULEVARD (100.00 FEET WIDE); THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1103650", AN ARC LENGTH OF 597.97 FEET TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
Doc: 96010-B. LEG
Doc: 96010-B. LEG June 3, 1997
36
t
`.
�°:{��
� z, ':
�� �
��'•\
. Y� Vis\
�� �1�
e�'`c
TO: Honorable Chairman and Agency Members
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, Executive Director���
DATE: June 3, 1997
SUBJECT: Resolution Recommending Approval by the City Council of the Exclusion of
Property from the Proposed Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area
Recommendation:
That the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") adopt a resolution recommending
that the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar ("City Council") approve the exclusion of
certain property from the proposed Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area.
Background:
The Agency and the City Council are now in the final steps in the process of adopting a
redevelopment plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area ("Redevelopment
Plan"). The Agency and the City Council opened the joint public hearing on the Redevelopment
Plan and related Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") on May 20, 1997, for the purposes of
taking public testimony on both of these documents. Prior to the opening of the joint public
hearing on May 20, 1997, staff recommended that the boundaries of the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area ("Project Area") be changed to exclude certain properties, 'as shown on
Exhibit A to the attached resolution. These properties were originally included due to public
facilities/infrastructure deficiencies and for the purposes of effective reuse and redevelopment.
However, after considerable analysis of these properties, it has been determined that the inclusion
of these properties may not further the Agency's abilities to meet the goals outlined in the
Redevelopment Plan and the Diamond Bar General Plan. Additionally, the proposed
improvements may be completed even if the properties are not in the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area.
The Agency adopted Resolution No. R-97-10, prior to the opening of the joint public hearing,
requesting that the Diamond Bar Planning Commission prepare its report and recommendation
regarding the exclusion of certain property from the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area,
pursuant to the requirements of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and
Safety Code Section 33000, et. seg_ ("CRL"). The joint public hearing was then opened, public
testimony was taken, the joint public hearing with respect to the EIR was closed, and the joint
public hearing with respect to the Redevelopment Plan was continued to June 3, 1997, for the
sole purpose of considering the exclusion of certain properties from the Project.
Diambarljphr tap
Honorable Chairman and Agency Members
June 3, 1997
Page 2
The Planning Commission acted on this matter at their May 27, 1997 meeting and adopted
PC Resolution No. 97-8, which included the following findings: 1) the Redevelopment Plan is in
conformance with the General Plan; 2) the Planning Commission report pursuant to the
PC Resolution No. 97-5 is sufficient and requires no modifications; and 3) the Planning
Commission recommended that the City Council exclude the properties, shown on Exhibit A,
from the boundaries of the Project Area.
Following the adoption of the attached resolution, the City Council will consider approving the
exclusion of the properties, shown on Exhibit A, from the Project Area and the City Council and
Agency will re -open the joint public hearing for the sole purpose of taking public testimony only
on the exclusion of territory set forth in Resolution No. R-97-10, Exhibit A, and proceed with
activities related to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area.
Di—b.% ph,map
Honorable Chairman and Agency Members
June 3, 1997
Page 2
The Planning Commission acted on this matter at their May 27, 1997 meeting and adopted
PC Resolution No. 97-8, which included the following findings: 1) the Redevelopment Plan is in
conformance with the General Plan; 2) the Planning Commission report pursuant to the
PC Resolution No. 97-5 is sufficient and requires no modifications; and 3) the Planning
Commission recommended that the City Council exclude the properties, shown on Exhibit A,
from the boundaries of the Project Area.
Following the adoption of the attached resolution, the City Council will consider approving the
exclusion of the properties, shown on Exhibit A, from the Project Area and the City Council and
Agency will re -open the joint public hearing for the sole purpose of taking public testimony only
on the exclusion of territory set forth in Resolution No. R-97-10, Exhibit A, and proceed with
activities related to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area.
Di—ba \jphmap
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR OF THE
EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM THE
PROPOSED DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION
AREA
THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HEREBY
FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
(the "City Council") and the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
(the "Agency") are undertaking proceedings to adopt a
redevelopment plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") for the Diamond Bar
Economic Revitalization Area.
Section 2. The City Council proposes to change the
boundaries of the Project Area to exclude from the Project Area
certain property as shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit
A.
Section 3. The Planning Commission of the City of
Diamond Bar, pursuant to its PC Resolution No. 97-8, adopted on
May 27, 1997, found and determined that following the exclusion
of the property shown on Exhibit A the Redevelopment Plan is in
conformity with the General Plan of the City of Diamond Bar and
recommended that the City Council change the boundaries of the
Project Area to exclude the property shown on the map attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 4. The Agency hereby recommends that the City
Council change the boundaries of the Project Area to exclude the
property shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A. By
previous resolution, the Agency approved its supplemental report
to the City Council in connection with the proposed exclusion of
property from the Project Area and the Executive Director of the
Agency transmitted such supplemental report to the City Council.
Section 5. In connection with the proceedings for the
adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan, the Agency and the
Planning Commission cooperated in the preparation of a
preliminary plan, which is on file in the office of the City
Clerk. The Agency hereby finds and determines that such
preliminary plan requires modification to change the description
of the boundaries of the Project Area to reflect the exclusion of
the property shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A, and
hereby finds and determines that the preliminary plan, as so
modified, is sufficient and does not require further
modifications or changes. The Agency hereby approves the
preliminary plan, as so modified. Such preliminary plan., as
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp 1672879 4
modified, is now on file in the office of the City Clerk.
ATTEST:
Secretary
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of
1997 by the following vote, to wit:
Chairman
I, LYNDA BURGESS, Secretary of the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Agency, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting
of the Board of Directors of Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
held on the day of 11 1997, by the following vote:
AYES:
BOARD
MEMBERS:
NOES:
BOARD
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
BOARD
MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
BOARD
MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Agency
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp 1672879 4 — 2 —
INFORMATION ABOUT REDEVELOPMENT
from the
City of Diamond Bar
The following, objective • information is being provided to you relative to the proposed adoption
of the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area:
The redevelopment plan for the proposed Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area
does include the power of eminent domain. This is a power which the City of Diamond
Bar already has for municipal purposes. If this power is ever used, as in the case of the
City, it can only be exercised by the elected City Council members serving as the Agency
Board of Directors, and the exercise of the power requires a 4/5ths vote. Eminent domain
is rarely used by redevelopment agencies, in part because it is a very expensive process.
California law requires that a property be appraised by an independent appraiser, and that
the appraised value be offered as the Agency's first offer. In addition, there is a
requirement to provide significant relocation assistance to any party affected by an
Agency's purchase of property. This includes help such as finding a new and equivalent
location for a business, rent differential assistance, and printing of new stationary and
business cards. In some cases, property owners ask an agency to acquire property in
order to qualify for extended reinvestment provisions in the internal revenue code.
In fact, eminent domain is a power which is very rarely used, and within which there
are extensive protections for property owners and business tenants.
There are RQ extraordinary Compliance Requirements for businesses in the proposed
Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area. The adopted General Plan, the zoning
ordinance, and the other codes of the City are the controlling policies under the
Redevelopment Plan. Conforming owner certificates are available to properties which
meet the requirements of the Redevelopment Plan.
Over the 45 year life of the Economic Revitalization Area, $404.5 Million in property tax
increment is projected to be realized. These funds are generated by applying the current
property tax rate to the expected growth in assessed valuation after the establishment of
the Revitalization Area. Governmental services will continue to be provided. Of this
amount, $140.5 Million is passed through to the agencies which currently receive
property tax, such as the City, the County and the school districts. $264 Million will
remain with the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency to provide for economic
revitalization actions in Diamond Bar and programs required by California law.
The Agency has plans which are expected to affect and help Diamond Bar businesses.
A Commercial and Industrial Rehabilitation Program will provide assistance, in the
form of low interest loans and grants, to businesses in the Revitalization Area to
encourage and assist in restoring, modernizing and improving commercial and industrial
structures. The Business Expansion and Retention Program will encourage new
businesses to locate within the boundaries of the Project Area, and assist in the retention
of existing businesses. The Parking Improvements Program will include rehabilitation,
beautification, and new construction components in order to improve the utility and
distribution of parking in the Project Area.
Diamond Bar will not be giving up $13 Million for police and other vital municipal
services. In fact, having an Economic Revitalization program and redevelopment
project area in place enables Diamond Bar to keep more of the property tax dollar
paid by Diamond Bar business in Diamond Bar for services to Diamond Bar business
and to the community. In fact, out of the funds mentioned above, $183 Million
is projected to be available to improve business properties and public infrastructure.
This is further expected to improve the sales tax base and other resources which
provide for municipal services needs.
In considering the need for redevelopment, the City Council established an Ad Hoc
Advisory Committee to study the issues and to make a recommendation to the City
Council. The Committee consisted of two representatives of businesses in Diamond
Bar, a representative of the Chamber of Commerce (also a Diamond Bar business
person), a representative of Los Angeles County, a representative of the Walnut Valley
Unified School District, a representative of the Pomona Unified School District, and
a representative of Caltrans. Three of these members are long-term residents of
Diamond Bar. During the five month review process, one of the business members
resigned because of necessary business commitments. At the end of the process, the
Committee, including the three residents, unanimously recommended to the City Council
adoption of the Diamond Economic Revitalization Area.
A finding of blight is a necessary requirement under the California Redevelopment Law
in the establishment of our Economic Revitalization Area. There are both economic and
physical blight in our business areas, although each property does not have to display
both kinds of blight. Physical blight may include not only property deterioration,
but also unusually shaped parcels, multiple ownerships, which detract from the best
use of the property. Also, over the past decade, before and since incorporation, Diamond
Bar has experienced a steady erosion in occupancy and a deterioration in the physical
condition of the business areas. Regarding economic blight, there has been virtually no
commercial development in the City since incorporation, with dwindling retail sales tax
revenues, and high commercial vacancy rates, which are currently between 20 and 40
percent. There has been a loss in assessed valuation in commercial areas. In addition,
economic stagnation leads to physical deterioration in our business areas. High vacancy
rates result in diminished lease revenues collected by commercial property owners,
resulting in necessary maintenance of buildings being deferred or ignored. Finally, some
properties without blight characteristics may be and are included to achieve effective
redevelopment of surrounding properties.
KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN
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
ROBERT P. BERKMAN
RETIRED
EUGENE B. JACOBS
A PROFESSIONAL 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.
A LAW CORPORATION
SIS SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 1850
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TELEPHONE (213) 617-0480
MURRAY O. KANE
FAX (213) 625-0931
BRUCE D. BALLMER
GLENN F. WASSERMAN
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, California 91765
ROBERT P. BERKMAN
RETIRED
EUGENE B. JACOBS
A PROFESSIONAL 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 well
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 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 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
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 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 cause buildings to be unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work,
(Section 33031(a)(1) not one unsafe or unh al by 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 single huilding 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 (1) huildiug in the entire Project Area was found to require extensive rehabilitation.
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 Bar
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 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
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 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 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
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 510,000,900 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 562,000,000 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 S56.000.000,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
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 6
some other project and there were problems with the assessment roll figures. On June 3, 1997
the undersigned spoke to Manuel Valenzuela, Deputy ( ounty 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)
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 Project Area's commercial buildings do
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 9% 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 strong nationally
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.
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
B
Y
Murray O. Kane
Counsel for Affected Property Owners
And Other Interested Persons
KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN
A LAW CORPORATION
SIS SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 1850
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
TELEPHONE (213) 617-0480
MURRAY O. KANE FAX (213) 62S-0931
BRUCE O. BALLMER
GLENN F. WASSERMAN
R. BRUCE TEPPER, JR. June 10, 1997
JOSEPH W. PANNONE
ROYCE K. JONES
STEPHANIE R. SCHER
PRINCIPALS
City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Re: Continued Joint Public Hearing
Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Program
June 10, 1997
Dear Sir or Madam:
-7
ROBERT P. BERKMAN
RETIRED
EUGENE B. JACOBS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
OF COUNSEL
The following Exhibits are hereby submitted as a part of the administration record for the
above -referenced matter.
1. Gateway Corporate Center Photograph
2. Gateway Corporate Center Photograph
3. Gateway Corporate Center Photograph
4. Brea Canyon Wilderness Area Photograph
5. Brea Canyon Wilderness Area Photograph
6. Site "D" Parkland (2) Photographs
7. Videotape of Proposed Project After Exclusion (24 -min.)
8. City Managers purported "Information About Redevelopment" (undated)
9. Kane, Ballmer & Berkman letter dated June 10, 1997 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, dated
June 10, 1997
Sincerely,
KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN
By/k'-
Murray O. Kane
GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER
Continued Joint Public Hearing
6-10-97
Submitted by:
Murray O. Kane
KANF. BALLMER & BFRKMAN!
'IDEi i
-5-
GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER
Continued Joint Public Hearing
6-10-97
6-10-97
Submitted by:
C-� Murray O. Kane
L ��- ^-� � �` �s � �K 4 \TF R AT T M17 P Q_ Q rT? N I N -v T
GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER
Continued Joint Public Hearing
6-10-97
Submitted by:
Murray O. Kane
K ANF. R V CMER & BFRKNf AN
SITE "D" PARKLAND
Continued Joint Public Hearing
6-10-97
Submitted by:
Murray O. Kane
BREA CANYON WILDERNESS AREA
Continued Joint Hearing
6-10-97
Submitted by:
Murray O. Kane
K6,NF RATTMvpR R-RFRVN4N
BREA CANYON WILDERNESS AREA
Continued Joint Hearing
6-10-97
Submitted by:
Murray O. Kane
TI �.Tj O 4 T T \ Trn
News and
Information
from the
Cit Of
Diamond Bar
June 6, 1997
® FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Council/Redevelopment Agency Meeting
Continued to June 10
Diamond Bar, CA -- The Diamond Bar City Council and the
Executive Board of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency will
continue their meeting of June 3, 1997, to Tuesday, June 10, 1997.
The joint Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting will be held
at the South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar. Although the June 3 meeting was adjourned to
6:30 p.m. on June 10, because of an anticipated lack of quorum, the
meeting will actually begin at 7:30 p.m. on June 10.
The purpose of the June 10 meeting will be to continue
discussion of the City of Diamond Bar's proposed Economic
Revitalization Area Plan and other documents relating to the City's
Redevelopment Agency efforts.
The proposed Economic Revitalization Area Plan will provide a
framework for future revitalization activities. It is anticipated that
through the establishment of the Economic Revitalization Area Plan,
the City of Diamond Bar would be eligible to receive financial
resources for the community, over a 45 -year investment and
reinvestment period, to facilitate improvements and programs that will
benefit local businesses and the community.
Contact: Mike Nelson
Community Relations Officer
(909) 396-5691
ity of Diamond Bar - 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 • Diamond Bar, California 91765 • (909) 396-5666
HP OfficeJet LX
Personal Printer/Fax/Copier
Identification
Barbara - Bulletin
zzo
Fax Log Report for
City of Diamond Bar
Jun -06-97 14:30
Result rum TMK Date Time
OK 02 Sent Jun -06 14:29
Duration Diad
00:01:07 0025c2030022
HP OfficeJet LX
Personal Printer/Fax/Copier
Identification
Barbara - Bulletin
7.ZO
Fax Log Report for
City of Diamond Bar
Jun -06-97 14:26
es It pages Tvce Date Time
OK 02 Sent Jun -06 14:25
Duration Diagnostic
00:00:44 0025c2030022
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE EXCLUSION OF
CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM THE PROPOSED DIAMOND
BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR HEREBY
FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
(the "City Council") and the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
(the "Agency") are undertaking proceedings to adopt a
redevelopment plan (the "Redevelopment Plan") fdr the proposed
Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the "Project Area").
Section 2. The City Council desires to approve a
change of boundaries of the Project Area by excluding property
from the Project Area. The property to be excluded is shown on
the map attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 3. The Agency and the Planning Commission of
the City of Diamond Bar have recommended excluding the property
shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A from the Project
Area.
Section 4. The City Council and the Agency have
considered the change in boundaries of the Project Area at a
joint public hearing reopened for such limited purpose.
Section 5. The City Council hereby changes the
boundaries of the Project Area by excluding from the Project Area
the property shown on the map attached hereto as Exhibit A.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of
1997.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
970529 10572-00001 rd /gp 1672880 2
Mayor
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 day of 1997, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
California
970529 10572-00001 rdh/gp 1672880 2. — 2 —
ar
N
w
ap®a�
A
�
ar
N
w
a
N
.3, 3
RESOLUTION NO.
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/gp/sas 1672881 2
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.
1997. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of
ATTEST:
ITY CLERK
MAYOR
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 day of 1997, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
California
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 - 2 -
ROSSMUD PROPERTIF.l;
May 20, 1997 97 MAY 2 0 P;1 4: ? r
The Honorable Mayor
Aad MWban of the City CoanW
CLW 01ft
NorOSWe Clwdr fad Members
of am DIAUWW Rar Rada�rarope�nt ,may
21660 Boat Copley Dlft sWb 100
Dumand , G 91M
A : C�/I
eV/
2O�eWqw to KvIude A� Pacel NO& V17425-54 Md V1742S."
2W be Golden SpeaW Dfft Okmond Doe
Dear Hoaorable Mayor aad Merebm of dr City Co=d and
Iin, orabla Char ad Meanbere of the oknwxwi HarrM Raderaiepanant A�fncy;
follow tirrilten ob*dm are hareeby uftd ttd by Rosemead Properdw lam
bRadevabpu+ant Plea foe the Dlauwnd Dar Economic
Area ma
A< fila I1Q k t y OE =Am any don th owl, !loftPt+oject AraArea. Marawi � DmOndRmais pe+opoeed b be indudad is the
o+o beet foMll in the Report to do CW
f" meM�ItloM arar�ed is *& PAPort r n�tdrfd I� & code
��c�, h► . sfity sebion
redR0wn'Md ?'CPart % W- Ow" Pe+cperty widda tbta proposed Fro" Are2 and pairs
ProP" tbw* Part of wbdcb bm& the City o! Diamond Har, eA to at 11 q" I r a
ProPwty o"'w by ft FfO! !red adoption of ft frapoaed Rsdavelopn+ent Plan.
ft thM MOM R WMA d Phgwttea, hr- herby requm a tint you refwe to
W41*10 the foe dN ObA16 d Dar l=crank RNrll U=don Ane Plan or isr tl�e
MY ard� �irMllo�nt pita a�iuptsd h o"rMd by Roeemaad Propartla� lac, Imm
RM*
"go
QiD:1) .1) 6
Robert W. NkhoWw
We Praddent
11142 GARM Avstivs • r.o. soar nolo • IL MORM CALUR tMA Ois" • (am 44bola2
TOTAL P.01
EXHIBIT
A - 1
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS,
CONNECTION WITH THE
DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672681 2
EXHIBIT A
COMMUNICATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS IN
PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
REVITALIZATION AREA OF THE DIAMOND BAR
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 DBER4.
Very truly yours,
WY"AW0�'
Robert W. Nicholson
Vice President
RWN:cis
11142 GARVEY AVENUE 9 P.O. BOX 6010 • EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA 91734 0 (818) 448-6183
�r
�
r
Re ar s,
Philip 6 Frances Kerri e
Philip & FranGeS KeMdge -
PO Box 203
Lakeshore, Ca. 93634 ,
TeUFax 209-893-3216
97 MAY 14 PIN
2: 58
May 12, 1997
EXHIBIT
City Clerk A
- 2
City of Diamond Bar
->
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765
_
Re: Diamond Bar Economic Redevelopment Plan
As Diamond Bar. pr-operty owners we are opposed to the
Redevelopment Plan fbt the following reasons:
1,r?-
1. The breadth of the Agency's control. From reading the
r -t
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, "enforcement"
uses words such as (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 ar s,
Philip 6 Frances Kerri e
7.l
Philip & Frances Kerridge
PO Box 203
Lakeshore, Ca. 93634
Tel/Fax 209-893.3216
v
EXHIBIT
.. _ A — 2
91 fig 19 51
May 19, 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 loo
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 &
Safety Code Section 33031(a), 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 discussion concerning economic conditions in the
proposed Proi act Area (Health & Safety Code Section
33344.4(b)) is 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.
5. 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 Har and -ars,
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.
Regards,
Philip i Frances K ridge.
v�
o�
�. N
�
•
� etoo
� w
ori
go
•r
A o
�
Cl—
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 wtitten 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
EXHIBIT
A — 4
HANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN
A LAW CORPORATION
515 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 1850
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071
• TELEPHONE 12131 517-0480
MURRAY O. KANE
FAX 12131 62S-0931
ROBERT P. BERKMAN
BRUCE O. BALLMER
GLENN F. WASSERMAN
RETIRED
R, BRUCE T
May 20, 1997
JOSEPH W. PAN NONE
PANNO E
6 E
EU£NS. JACOBS
ROYCE K. JONES
A PPOFC3310NAL CORPORATION
STEPHANIE R. SCMER
-
- OF COUNSEL
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 wtitten 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
CITY CZa�,
91 t1Al 20 Fm 2: 58
cn
X
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 h Draft
Rtwo . 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 (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 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 EUL
NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL BLIGHT IS OFFERED!
As to economic blight, the Draft Report relies heavily on an "i l%" 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,'61 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 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.1956 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 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 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 dcacdptian 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 terns (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,
41MA-1V7 0 • 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
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles for over fifteen Sounsel for the
also Primarily responsible for the ) years and is
firm's representation of the Culver City, Lynwood, Hawthorne,
Moreno Valley, San Jose and Whittier redevelopment agencies.
Mr
DistrDis Kictane also served as litigation counsel on validating actions involving the Central Business
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 comstruction financing prior to Agency ownership of fee title to property.
• Advised on first 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
EXHIBIT A
Whittier plan, adopted six weeks after October, 1987 earthquake, and Santa Monica and
five Los Angeles Earthquake Recovery Plans 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.
• 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 blapa 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
(nth 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�►:4.11: a
-''RR a
General Plan Land Use Designation ,RM '
RR-`aWPWW&City of Pomona
RL Low Dm* Pbeft Od CO
RM 6u^ - M/Ow" Rnldrnwl ��. RM
`~
RMH • M*dM High Oar W Panda OW RLN`RL rft
RH • High Owalty %Odor"
_ C Csrwal Cwvreod �pg51n � RM*
9
00 Oonrrrieiw Offiov Sunt pY + R RL
+� OP PM%*@kxrlOf a RLN- RR n
I UG", r�reW ' RL
PF AAMC Fooft W WWW F. Fw S Schod
PKPWk
® OC CON Cans
OS Oa^ SPOM �.
PR A Rea%Ww RL
AS AprbAn ! PA-1/SP
1 a.
PA ft-* Am°`"* City of Industry, RLj.., �..,: as
: ~{ { r
pit
OK
RLRL
r
PK
� r �
City of —
Chino Hills
M- Ewl: y �+ Y
* a•t ?- , "..+ S.Ox ' ® VA tl F%gwwd ftW Awe
�fVorQiOw,RON j tt , . a
r ffYr
•."y'pa,TgM ` y 2` rE.MR
9r
v-7. . ....... k y-we -rnlY),?S�s"�`•a'¢�tl '� j�,?''ZriJ ti "�,r'��cj ai k`S" i.:
�!�!;�!�!.i.1rw!�.•:�1!\1!.•�...v _�.4�d'.V0!+,�?ee'�`4�?:1:�`.a`.Sf�4`." .. .._r t, ..r. 'amu'!. -. .+air. 4.
Figure 4
S'°°°'°" General Plan Designations for
r5a Economic Revitalization Area and Adjacent Areas
City ofDiamond Bw Fcaromic Revitalisation Area
Rednwlopment Agency 1-14 EAWronmental Impact Report
EXHIBIT B
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 those permitted 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 - General Commercial (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 lirpits 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 a 280 -unit residential project north
of Grand Avenue and east of Diamond Bar Boulevard in Diamond Bar.
Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area
Redevelopment Agency 1-13 Environmental Impact Report
- Rodra pm NS&WAM
SOURCE: Cly of Diamond W Re*wkp7wit A e y
Tl Figure t
L7 60W Project Location
Initial Study Diamond Bar
3 Economic Revitalization Area
General Plan land Use peslgna lon r.
/•RR�
L] RR- Rud FiNidf�ld
n.-UwDwvi*R.dO.City of Pomona
RUGA - LD*MK M OWWV Rwdw
M.ev�HOOW- ,R..id..w
F+1 - MM Denny Re�d�rdd C • RL. K
_ c C.anwl Darnwdd _�gpR!► w a."`�Rrr�+.
CO *+ramal OM= _ } r+c R�
OP P�oweda�y OMae 1
� 4iht Iro�wmd ' - •• ��'RR
=77-
AMW P►• 119IicFaft +k_%w.c F. Aw-
PK
GC cw (boar , •_ _
CS CO-
_ PR RMeu Fiaoralion
AWkUkm
FIL
® � � _-
EW PA 6 AM City of Industry
• -•`cws/ aye.,, .." —.. �`n
l` AL
PK
7
f� �qAp-
City of
Chino Hills
• RL. ,:4�y r ,�
.,
}
• RR
': ®�oo•ad POOM eoudry
VAM MOPMO PMW Air
RL
3,00 OW
Figure 2
General Plan Designations for
X�1 Economic Revitalization Area and Adjacent Areas
Initial study--
Diamond Bar
4 Economic Revitalization Area
EXHIBIT C
JOHN RUSSELL DEANE III
RICHARD W. SNOWDON I11
CHARLES A. TRAINUM. JR.
CHRISTOPHER J. KERSTING
COUNSEL
THOMAS A. FRAZIER. JR.
LAW OFFICES
TBAINUM, SNOWDON & DE.ANE
A PROFESSICIKAL CORPORAT4OW
SUITE 5e50
1307 F STIIIE.ET. N,.VNI',
WAsEalloTON. D.C. 20004
(202) 763-5489
FACSIM1LE1202) 793-3602
May 13, 1997
Mr: Terrence Belanger
Executive Director
Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
21660 East Copley Drive
Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Dear Mr. Belanger:
EXHIBIT
A - 5
v
F�
I am writing on behalf of the Specialty Equipment Market
Association (SEMA), for which this firm serves as general
counsel. SEMA has its headquarters located at 1575 South Valley
Vista Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. The SEMA building is
located within the "Revitalization Area" identified by the
Economic Revitalization Area. The SMA building
attractive, fully -utilized structure.
Per our conversation this afternoon I have expressed to you
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 action 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 in compliance
with the terms of the Redevelopment Plan. You told me that I
could take your statements "to the bank."
Per our conversation, I hereby request that you send me a
letter acknowledging that the above 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.
v,"Qtr.*4%A OFrlcc
.54GY 3171-91 A&t9
MARYLAND OFFICE
/
41012,58-9162
v
F�
I am writing on behalf of the Specialty Equipment Market
Association (SEMA), for which this firm serves as general
counsel. SEMA has its headquarters located at 1575 South Valley
Vista Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. The SEMA building is
located within the "Revitalization Area" identified by the
Economic Revitalization Area. The SMA building
attractive, fully -utilized structure.
Per our conversation this afternoon I have expressed to you
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 action 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 in compliance
with the terms of the Redevelopment Plan. You told me that I
could take your statements "to the bank."
Per our conversation, I hereby request that you send me a
letter acknowledging that the above 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.
CC:
Sina,�00111
Steven Lust' , Esq.
Linda A. Czarkowski
Vice President, Administration
Specialty Equipment Market Association
63
MURRAY O. KANE
BRUCE O. BALLMER
GLENN F. WASSERMAN
R. BRUCE TEPPER. JR.
JOSEPH W. PANNONE
ROYCE K. JONES
STEPHANIE R. SCHER
PRINCIPALS
The Honorable Mayor
KATE, BALLMER & BERKMAY
A LAW CORPORATION
515 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET. SUITE 1850
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90071
TELEPHONE (2131 617-0480
FAX (213) 625-0931
and Members of the City Council
City of Diamond Bar
June 3, 1997
The Honorable Chair and Members
of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
EXHIBIT
A - 6
ROBERT P.BERKMAN
RETIRED
EUGENE B, JACOBS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
OF COUNSEL
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 undersigned in opposition to (1) the
Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the "Project
Area's 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 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. McConnick-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
blight throughout.
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 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, L&, 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 cause buildings to be unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work,
(Section 33031(a)(1) not one unsafe or wholthy 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 single bailding with a sagging roof or exposed wir nQ 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) 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
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 staffs 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 &Wrt to
the City Council states that 62% of all RWject 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 five 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
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 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.
NO OTHER EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL BLIGHT IS OFFERED!
As to economic blight, the 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 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 Repoit 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 $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' r n 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.
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 Manuel• Valenzueia, Deputy County Counsel for the County of Los
Angeles in an attempt to confirm the representations made by stag. 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 Prbject 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 Project Area's commercial buildings do
not suffer from any vacant. ' 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!
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:
Fess 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
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 ltd 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
alone serious ones. Conditions of blight must be so predominate throughout the Project Area as
to cause a serious physical ad 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 ud 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 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.
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 o • �-
Murray O. Kane
Counsel for Affected Property Owners
And Other Interested Persons
NAP
.
F
IN
,-S - ril✓N drld J/VNI"T N10.'
2621 Qi,51% SI.dr Drive
Diamond bar, Cd., 91765
June 3, 1997
To: Diamond Bar City Council
Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency
All Members of both City Council and Redevelopment Agency
EXHIBIT
A - 7
I wish to address the issue of two commercial centers in the redevelopment project area.
Specifically, the Country Hills Town Center and the RalphsBoston 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 blighted. They are
continually being upgraded and this is 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. c'o-AA-)eLY , x Re (-iCVc ALL THE CaM M C�c c Iq L
C- NJJ
S1'iav�.D fa LL1 YAtr
�L(.cue.
Trac li''"'�r T�`Y
Stephen E. Nice
2621 Rising Star Dr.
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
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,,),
dated April 29, 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 87,x'17, 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 3 - 1- 1
Ar
Ob
Ob
Pe
olm.
(representing the fiscal year 1996-97 equalized assessment roll)
indicates that the value of this property has decreased by
approximately 30k 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 B-8, B-9, 2-16 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-2,11 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
proposed adoption 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, nor
any combination thereof, predominate throughout the proposed
Project Area.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-2-1
(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 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/qp/sas 1672881 2 B-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
and extent of parcel assemblage required cannot always be
accomplished by private developers without Agency assistance. In
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 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 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 is not
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
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 94%) of these
acres are developed for urban uses or are an integral part of an
area developed for urban use. Approximately 75 acres (or 6%0 are
nonurbanized. Thus, the Project Aria meets the requirements 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 burden on the community, which cannot reasonably be
expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or
governmental action, or both, without redevelopment. Data
presented in 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 1672881 2 3-2-3
indicates that 65.200-. of the buildings (58.07°% of the parcels) in
the Project Area suffer from one or more physical blighting
conditions; 49.20k of the buildings (38.51% of the parcels)
suffer from one or more economic blighting conditions; and 89.60k
of the buildings (71.12k 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
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 B describes all of the
physical blighting conditions in the Project Area and describes
where these conditions exist. For example, the Report describes
the instances of substandard design in the Project Area,
including obsolescence, outdoor storage and inadequate loading.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 3-2-4
In addition, Appendix 2 contains a map of the blighting
conditions and Appendix 4 contains photographs of the blighting
conditions.
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 blighting conditions 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 Report to 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 County
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 and unsecured values are current
as of March 1997. In contrast, the TRW data reflects
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 9-2-5
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 11%
decrease over this time period. [NOTE- THE VALUES SHOWN IN THE
ATTACHED TABLE 3-4 WERE THE SAME VALUES WHICH WERE INCLUDED IN
THE PRELIMINARY REPORT AS TABLE B-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
The City Council finds that on the basis of information in
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
e o 0
N
— 0
r
� N �
N'd TTO*ON V�:9I 216,01 AbW
8V2i-918—VTZ:GI
-)Nr ' )':1-i
The preceding Exhibit "A-3," which is incorporated herein 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.
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
970530 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 1), 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 70W of the respondents shop outside of Diamond
Bar. Nearly 24% 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 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-3-2
Redevelopment Plan, the Agency will have the flexibilty to work
with propety owners to overcome factors which prevent the
economically viable use of the properties. However, no specific
plans are in place to undertake these 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 tax. 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 10572-00001 rare/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-3-3
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 is not 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; 80%
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 11% 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 2-3V annual decline in assessed values in the
middle of one of the worst real estate recessions in decades
justifies establishing the Project Area. He also alleges that
the 11% decline is based on discredited figures and are in error
by as much as $62 million based on the County report ori 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
unsupported generalizations which are not supported by other
testimony or Mr. Kane's videotape (submitted by Mr. Kane to the
970530 10512-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 9-4-1
City Council on May 20, 1997 at the joint public hearing),
including the statement that "The majority of the retail
properties in the Project Area [are] obsolete ... and are no
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 Health and Safety Code Section 33352 was
violated because the final Report did not accompany the
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.
970530 10572-00001 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; 20% 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
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 acfes 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 1672881 2 3-4-3
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
multiple sides by existing office buildings which are developed,
urban uses. Parks have been eliminated from the Project Area.
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 noted in the Project Area as discussed in Section B of
the Report. Mr. Kane also incorrectly states that the Report to
City Council claims that 629s' of all Project Area buildings suffer
from deterioration and dilapidation. Rather, the Report to City
Council states that 62% 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., 76% 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
project area to be characterized by one of the conditions of
physical blight set forth in the Community Redevelopment Law. 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 58.070
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
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 buildings observed to 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 in which substandard 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 lit decline while the City experienced a 3t
increase and the County only experienced a 2t 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 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 B-4-5
statement. Appendix 1 to the Report to City Council lists
information sources relied on by RSG. Mr. Kane gives no other
examples of what he deems to be unsupported statements.
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 3-2
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 65.25k 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 38.511
of the parcels suffer from one or more economic blighting
conditions; and 89.6% of the buildings and 71.12% 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
Area. Of the 250 buildings in the Project Area, a total of 67
buildings (or 27% of.all buildings) and over 150 tenant spaces,
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%. Overall, 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 3-3 and is incorporated.
With respect to Mr. Kane's allegation that the vacant
parcels in the Gateway Corporate Center will be built out when 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 Council,
the vacant property in Gateway Center suffers from depreciated
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 3-1 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
be accomplished through an advance of necessary funds from the
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
Redevelopment Plan 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 to
Section 33031 and lists those conditions found in the Project
Area". Pages C-8 and C-9 state the programs to be implemented,
and the specific actions 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 Project Area and 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 3-3 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; 200
of all tax increment must be spent on very low, low and moderate
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672981 2 13-4-8
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 11t during the last 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 3-4-9
results from an increase in assessed valuation above the present
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 of redevelopment 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. With his
claimed experience, Mr. Kane surely must be aware that the State
Legislature has found that decent housing for all the people of
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 investments and 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 the
City.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 . B-4-10
Mr. Kane's allegation that Diamond Bar will 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 B-4-11
Answer: The proposed Redevelopment Plan is on file 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 not been considered by the City Council.
With respect to videotapes, the City Council and Agency do
not make videotapes of their meetings part of 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. Under
the Ralph M. Brown Act, if Mr. Kane requests to view or purchase
a videotape of any meeting of the Agency or City Council 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
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 (11SEMA11), 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 dialouge
between Mr. Lustig and the City Manager, Mr. Lustig's fears have
been allayed.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 3-5-1
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 property 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 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 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, 1997, 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 property and
that geologic concerns are not discussed in the EIR.
970604 10572-00024 9P 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-4-1:
Mr. Kane alleges that there is no way of identifying
the parcels characterized as urbanized vacant 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 gp 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 Exhibit B and in
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. Kane's
objections filed with the City on June 3, 1997 go beyond that
scope, the City Council has no obligation to respond.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the following is the written
findings of the City Council in response to such communication:
It is unclear on what basis Mr. Kane objects to the
exclusion of property from the Project Area (as described in the
Agency's Resolution No. 97-10). He states that the exclusion of
property is invalid because 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. However, this appears to be an
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 Project
Area. In fact, in Mr. Kane's letter dated May 20, 1997, included
in Exhibit A, attached hereto, he asserts that parks should not
be considered developed (and therefore urbanized). He also
asserts that vacant parcels should not be considered urbanized.
Therefore, Mr. Kane's assertion in his June 3rd letter that the
exclusion is invalid because it leaves the Project Area as a
nonurbanized project area is without merit in that only parks and
one vacant parcel were excluded.
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 the information set forth in the Report to City
Council, document that the Project Area meets the requirements of
the Community Redevelopment Law, including requirements of Health
and Safety Code Section 33320.1 and Health and Safety Code
Section 33030.
It is not true that there is no way of identifying the
parcels characterized as urbanized vacant land. Appendix 3,
Table 3-2 of the Report to 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 9p 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
exposed wiring, while a response is not required, the City
Council notes that it has not simply listed a building with a
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 been adequately
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
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 from 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
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 property values and declining sales
tax revenues. The results of the survey indicate that 70% of the
respondents shop outside of Diamond Bar and nearly 24% of the
respondents feel that the shopping areas do not provide an
attractive environment in which to shop. In response to a
question regarding what is needed to improve retail businesses in
Diamond Bar, the4 need for improved appearances/services of stores
ranked 6 out of 13 choices as the most important improvement.
Mr. Kane's assertion that only 8% of the residents felt that
appearance or services of retail business must be improved is a
misstatement of fact. What the survey actually shows is that 8%
of the respondents to the survey felt that the best way to
improve retail business is to improve appearance and services.
The Report to City Council, including the supplemental
report, and the City Council's written responses set forth in
Exhibit B and Exhibit C, incorporated herein, document that the
Project Area meets the requirements of the Community
Redevelopment Law. 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 suggestion to reject the proposed
project is not accepted.
970604 10572-00024 9p 1672903 0 B-6-5
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.
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 43.48$.
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 gp 1672903 0 B-7-1
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 Crossinc7 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.
970630 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 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 Springs 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 inclusion
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 C-2
is necessary for effective redevelopment. Further, while certain
parcels in the Project Area may appear to be in good condition,
they may suffer from blighting conditions such as substandard
design or depreciated values.
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 Area are in need of some form of
maintenance ranging from deferred 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 which need moderate rehabilitation to
extensive rehabilitation (nearly 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 damaged exterior building
material, deteriorated roofing material, and non-structural.
damage, which are also conditions which contribute to the
deteriorated appearance of 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. Burrell alleges that the Golden Springs
Plaza has been significantly upgraded since RSG's survey and that
the real problem with that 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 have a major anchor to draw in traffic.
Response: The only upgrade to Golden Springs Plaza known at
this time is that the center 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. Burrell appears to object to the power of
eminent domain and appears to request the Agency to identify the
sites proposed to be acquired by eminent domain.
Response: As set forth in the City Council's responses to
written objections included in Exhibit B and incorporated, there
are valid reasons to include the power of eminent domain in the
Redevelopment Plan. As the Agency has no current plans to
acquire any properties by eminent domain, it is not possible to
identify particular sites.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/gp/sas 1672881 2 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 Project
Area. Mr. Stone only wanted to know why one parcel was included
and one was not. Agency staff and consultants spoke with Mr.
Stone immediately following 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
do not provide 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
sec forth in Exhibit C are not accepted.
970530 10572-00001 rdh/qp/sas 1672881 2 C-5
Videotape Submitted by Mr. Murray 0 Kane on May 20 1997
As with the oral comments, 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 0. 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 data presented in Section B of the Report to City Council establishes that 90
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
• The videotape only depicts certain properties in the Project Area during one day of
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 involved multiple days 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 depicts certain 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 of
the industrial uses or the two residential properties located 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 southern most 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 Via
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 -s
Claim: The Pro'ect Area is not Predominantly urbanize
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% of a project area's 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 Project Area
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 King 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 Mediansouth of 57 / 60 Freeways - the only property depicted in this
section of the videotape is the median and 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 of the parcels which exhibit deferred maintenance also exhibit at least one or
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 late
morning hours and at approximately 3:00 p.m., 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
recognized retail establishment is the K -Mart on 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 Canyon 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 / Palomino Drive -
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 opportunities
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. Coriditions 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 57
percent. A "for lease" sign is visible in the background on the videotape.
Midas - Diamond Bar Boulevard, immediatelv 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 lease"
C-12
sign is visible. Conditions noted on the Diamond Bar 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 iri 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 rehabilitation, 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 property
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.
Peterson Park - This property has been excluded from the Project Area.
Gateway Co orate 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 buildings
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 the
Gateway Center. When these vacant properties are shown, there is no indication of a
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
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 study
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 and
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 last year 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. T41 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 retiil 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
C-15
should also be noted that not all retail properties were shown, and no industrial or
residential properties were depicted at all.
C-16
3y
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA; ADOPTING THE MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM; ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND
FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS REQUIRED BY
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HEREBY FINDS,
DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency (the
"Agency") and the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar ("City
Council") have proposed to adopt a redevelopment plan (the
"Project") for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the
"Project Area"). The Project Area is proposed to include
approximately 1,300 acres of publicly and privately owned land.
While many existing uses in the Project Area will be retained,
the Agency proposes to facilitate redevelopment and
rehabilitation of underutilized and blighted properties with
light industrial, office, and retail uses, and through the
improvement of public infrastructure including streets, public
service facilities, parks, utilities, drainage facilities and
landscape to improve the economic health of the Project Area.
All anticipated development in connection with the Project will
be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Diamond Bar.
Section 2.. The City and Agency prepared an Initial
Environmental Study for the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of
the State Guidelines for implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Initial Study concluded
that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a
significant environmental impact in certain specifically
identified categories.
Section 3. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15064 and 15081, and based upon the information
contained in the Initial Study, a decision was made to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project. A Notice of
Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") was
prepared for the Project on November 18, 1996 and sent to the
State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for
the State of California and to other responsible, trustee, and/or
interested agencies and persons. The City and Agency contracted
with an independent consultant for the preparation of the EIR.
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796
Section 4. The DEIR was circulated to interested
persons and agencies for public comment pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15087(c). In response to the circulation of
the DEIR, the City and Agency received written and oral comments
regarding the adequacy of the DEIR. The City and Agency prepared
written responses to all comments which raised significant
environmental issues. The City and Agency incorporated the
comments and the Agency's written responses to those comments
which raised comments relating to CEQA into the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Project ("FEIR") and returned
responses to commenting agencies at least ten (10) days prior to
the Certification of the FEIR, pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21092.5.
Section 5. The FEIR is comprised of the DEIR,
including any revisions and/or addenda thereto; the list of
persons, organizations and public agencies which commented on the
DEIR; the comments which were received by the City and Agency
regarding the DEIR; and the written responses to significant
environmental points raised in the review and consultation
process, each of which is incorporated herein and made a part
hereof by this reference.
Section 6. The City Council and Agency held a duly -
noticed public hearing on the Project and the EIR on May 20,
1997. At the hearing, interested persons presented both written
and oral comments regarding the adequacy of the FEIR.
Section 7. The findings made in this Resolution are
based upon the information and evidence set forth in the FEIR and
upon other substantial evidence which has been presented in the
record of this proceeding. The documents, staff reports, plans,
specifications, technical studies and other materials that
constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is
based and the FEIR for the Project are on file and available for
public examination during normal business hours in the Office of
the Community Development Director of the City of Diamond Bar,
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100, Diamond Bar, California
91765. The custodian of said records is the Community
Development Director of the City of Diamond Bar.
Section 8. The Agency finds that the public and
government agencies have been afforded ample notice and
opportunity to comment on the Initial Study, DEIR, and FEIR.
Section 9. The Agency finds, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15084(e), that the EIR has been independently
analyzed by the Agency and its Staff, and that the EIR represents
the independent judgment of the lead agency with respect to the
Project. The Agency further finds that the additional
information provided in the staff reports accompanying the
Project description and the FEIR, the corrections and
modifications to the DEIR made in response to comments, and the
evidence presented in written and oral testimony presented at the
970530 10572-00024 Cas/9P 1201796 - 2 -
above -referenced hearing does not represent significant new
information so as to require recirculation of any section of the
EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1.
Section 10. The Agency finds that the comments
regarding the DEIR and the responses to those comments have been
received by the Agency; that the Agency has received public
testimony regarding the adequacy of the FEIR; and that the
Agency, as the final decision-making body for the lead agency,
has reviewed and considered all such documents and testimony
prior to acting on the Project. Pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15090, the Agency, on the basis of the
foregoing and the record of the proceeding, certifies that the
FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.
Section 11. Based upon the Initial Study, the DEIR,
the FEIR, public and agency comments and the record before the
Agency, the Agency hereby finds that the Project will not cause
significant environmental impacts in the areas of Land Use and
Planning, Geology, Water, Transportation and Circulation,
Biological Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, Cultural
Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities and Service
Systems, Aesthetics, and Recreation. Explanations for why the
foregoing impacts were found to be insignificant are contained in
the Initial Study in Appendix A of the DEIR. Any reduction in
the size of the Project Area will further reduce the
environmental impacts identified in the FEIR by reducing the area
subject to development pursuant to the Project.
Section 12. The Initial Study identified some of the
Project's effects as "potentially significant." However, based
upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and the FEIR, and upon
public and agency comments and the record before the Agency, the
Agency hereby finds that the Project will not cause significant
environmental impacts in the following areas identified as
"potentially significant" in the Initial Study:
a. Land Use and Planning: The Project will not substantially
conflict with the City's long range land use plans, or
conflict with existing uses in the vicinity. The Economic
Revitalization Area Redevelopment Plan does not propose any
change in land use policy or permitted intensity of
development for the Project Area. The intent of the Project
is to revitalize the Project Area in conformance with the
City's General Plan land use designation and policies.
Future development in the Project Area will be required to
be consistent with the General Plan and existing Zoning.
Further explanation for this finding can be found in Section
3.1 and 7.0 of the FEIR.
b. Population and Housing. The Project will not induce
substantial growth or concentration of population through
provision of employment or housing that is inconsistent with
regional growth management plans or create demand for
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 — 3 —
housing which exceeds available supply on either a project -
related or cumulative basis. The EIR indicates that the
employment, housing and population needs generated by the
project are well within applicable regional and local
projections. The Southern California Association of
Governments (11SCAG11, in a letter dated March 25, 1997,
found in Section 9 of the FEIR, also indicates that the
Project is consistent with regional policies within SCAG's
jurisdiction, to the extent such consistency can be
determined. Further explanation for this determination may
be found in Sections 3.2, 7.0, and 9 of the FEIR.
C. Schools. The proposed project will not result in a project -
related or cumulative increase in current student enrollment
beyond school districts' current capacity at a rate that
cannot be accommodated by capital improvements funded by
developer fees or other sources of funds available to the
districts. Fees from residential and non-residential
development anticipated as part of the Project, as well as
other state school funding mechanisms, will generate
sufficient revenue to mitigate new student demand generated
by future development of the Project Area. Further
explanation for these determinations may be found in Section
3.5 and 7.0 of the FEIR.
Section 13. Based upon the initial study, the EIR,
public comments and the record of these proceedings, the Agency
finds that the Project may create significant adverse impacts in
the area of Traffic and Circulation and Air Quality. With regard
to Traffic and Circulation impacts, the FEIR identifies feasible
mitigation measures for each impact that reduce the impact to a
level of insignificance. With regard to Air Quality impacts, the
FEIR identifies mitigation measures that will substantially
lessen, but not eliminate, such impact. Any reduction in the
size of the Project Area will further reduce the environmental
impacts identified in the FEIR by reducing the area subject to
development pursuant to the Project. Further explanation for
these determinations may be found in Sections 2.0, 3.3 and 3.4 of
the FEIR.
Section 14. In response to each significant impact
identified in the EIR, and listed in Section 13 of this
Resolution, changes or alterations are hereby required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental impacts identified. The
changes or alterations required in, or incorporated into, the
Project, and a brief explanation of the rationale for this
finding with regard to each impact, are contained in Exhibit A of
this Resolution and are incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 15. Any reduction in the size of the Project
Area will further reduce the environmental impacts identified in
the FEIR by reducing the area subject to development pursuant to
the Project. Such a reduction still attains the goals and
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 — 4 —
objectives of the Project to a significant extent and the
environmental consequences of reducing the scope of the project
are primarily beneficial in that they reduce the area of
development and thus the environmental consequences of
development.
Section 16. The FEIR describes, and the Agency has
fully considered, a reasonable range of alternatives to the
Project which might fulfill the basic objectives of the Project.
These alternatives include the "No Project" alternative; the
Smaller Project Alternative, which considered a smaller
geographic are for the Project Area; the Lower Traffic -Generating
Alternative, which proposed replacing high -traffic generating
commercial, entertainment and restaurant uses with less traffic -
intense uses such as office, business park, research and
development uses. The alternatives identified in the EIR either
would not sufficiently achieve the basic objectives of the
Project or would do so only with unacceptable adverse
environmental impacts. Accordingly, and for any one of the
reasons set forth herein, in the EIR, or in the "Statement of
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" attached hereto as
Exhibit "A," the Agency finds that specific economic, social, or
other considerations make infeasible each of the Project
alternatives, including the "No Project" alternative, identified
in the EIR and each is hereby rejected. The Agency further finds
that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives
into the preparation of the EIR, and that all reasonable
alternatives were considered in the review process of the EIR and
the ultimate decision on the Projects. An alternative site was
not considered feasible because an alternative site would fail to
fulfill the most basic goal of the Project by not failing to
address conditions of blight in the Project Area.
Section 17. The Agency hereby makes the findings
contained in the "Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of
Findings" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" with respect to each of
the significant impacts defined in the FEIR 4nd the alternatives
analysis. Further, the Agency hereby finds that each fact in
support of finding is true and is based upon substantial evidence
in the record, including the FEIR_
Section 18. The Agency hereby adopts the "Mitigation
Monitoring Program for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization
Area" prepared by Cotton/Beland Associates, Inc. This program
will be used to monitor the changes to the project which have
been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as provided
herein and in Exhibit "A."
Section 19. Upon approval of this Resolution, the
Director of Community Development is hereby directed to file a
Notice of Determination with the County Recorder's office, County
of Los Angeles, and the California State Clearinghouse pursuant
to Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 — 5 —
Section 20. A full and fair joint public hearing
regarding the proposed Redevelopment Plan has been duly noticed
and held by the City Council and the Agency pursuant to law and
the Agency and City Council have received written and oral
testimony concerning such proposed Redevelopment Plan. The City
Council has duly considered the recommendations of the Agency;
has evaluated the Agency's Report to the City Council, which is
comprised of the reports and information required by Health and
Safety Code Section 33352, and which report was previously
submitted to the City Council, and all evidence and testimony for
and against adoption of such Redevelopment Plan; and has adopted
written findings in response to each written objection,
communication or suggestion, in accordance with Health and Safety
Code Section 33363. The Agency hereby finds and determines that
the responses made to each written objection, communication or
suggestion are full and complete and have addressed each written
objection, communication or suggestion in detail, giving reasons
for not accepting specified objections, and suggestions and
include good -faith, reasoned analysis which describes the
disposition of the issues raised. All objections to the proposed
Redevelopment Plan were heard and passed upon by the Agency and
the City Council and are hereby overruled by the Agency.
Section 21. The proposed Redevelopment Plan, a copy of
which has been presented to the Agency and which is now on file
in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved subject to
the mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit A hereof.
Section 22. The Agency hereby recommends approval and
adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the City Council and hereby
recommends that the City Council adopt the Redevelopment Plan by
ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of June, 1997.
Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 — 6 —
I, LYNDA BURGESS, Secretary of the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Agency, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of
the Board of Directors of Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency held on
the day of , 1997, by the following vote:
AYES:
BOARD
MEMBERS:
NOES:
BOARD
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
BOARD
MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
BOARD
MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Secretary of the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Agency
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 - 7
EXHIBIT "A"
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
1. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF
INSIGNIFICANCE.
Traffic and Circulation.
Traffic Demands and Level of Service. The Project will
result in increased traffic and will cause or worsen unacceptable
levels of service ("LOS") at certain intersections in the Project
Area. The intersections are specifically identified in Section 3.4
of the FEIR. Cumulative traffic impacts or related projects also
may be created without mitigation.
Finding: For each such intersection, changes or
alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified above.
Facts Supporting Findincr: The Project includes the
following traffic and circulation mitigation measures which have
been demonstrated in the FEIR to reduce each Project -related
significant traffic impact to a level of insignificance based on
LOS and intersection volume/capacity ratio, as described more fully
in Section 3.4, Table 13 and Figure 10 in the FEIR. Cumulative
traffic impacts will be mitigated as well through the
implementation of such measures and project -specific mitigation
measures for related projects:
a. Diamond Bar/Golden Springs: Add a left turn lane to each
approach on Golden Springs for a total of two in each
direction. This can be accomplished within the existing
street width but requires elimination of the bicycle lanes at
the intersection.
b. S 60/57 East -Bound Ramps/Grand Avenue: Change the S
60/57 off -ramp approach stripping and operations to prohibit
a through movement (allow left and right turns only). This
will allow a right turn overlap signal phase from Grand Avenue
(northbound) to S 60/57 on-ramp. Modify the S 60/57 off -ramp
approach to provide a free right turn from off -ramp to
south -bound Grand Avenue. Three southbound lanes presently
exist on Grand, south of the freeway ramp.
C. S 60/57 West -Bound Ramps/Grand Avenue: Restripe the
north Grand Avenue approach to provide a left, through,
through/right, and right turn lane.
d. Grand Avenue/Golden Springs: On Golden Springs for what
was identified as the eastbound approach, add a left turn lane
(for a total of two) and improve the eastbound right turn to
a free right turn.
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 - 8 -
On westbound Golden Springs, add a right turn lane.
e. Diamond Bar Boulevard/Grand Avenue: Implement
improvements to provide three through lanes on the Grand
Avenue approaches and the southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard
approach. The existing southbound right turn lane will be
converted into a through lane.
For the northbound approach, stripe for a through,
through/right, and right turn lane to accommodate the high
number of northbound right turn during the PM peak hour.
These improvements will be implemented as determined
appropriate by the City pending a review of alternate traffic
routes, effects on adjacent residential areas, and other
applicable factors.
f. Brea Canyon Road/Golden Springs -Calami: Add a left turn
lane to the northbound and southbound approaches on Brea
Canyon Road, for a total of two.
Eastbound - make improvements to convert the right turn lane
to a through lane.
Westbound - add a left turn lane to provide a total of two.
g. Pathfinder Road/Diamond Bar Boulevard: Make
modifications to provide an added northbound through lane at
intersection. This will impact existing bicycle lane at this
location.
2. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS.
.Air Quality Impacts. Development in the Project Area will
result in additional mobile and stationary emissions above the
SCAQMD daily thresholds for CO, ROG, and Nox on a project -specific
and cumulative basis.
Finding: Although mitigation measures have been adopted
to address these impacts, project -related air quality impacts
cannot be reduced a level of insignificance and are therefore found
to be significant and unavoidable.
Facts Supporting Finding: A number of mitigation
measures have been proposed to reduce air quality impacts resulting
from development pursuant to the Project, a number of mitigation
measures have been imposed. A full description of those mitigation
measures is found in Table 2 and Section 3.3 of the FEIR. While
these measures will reduce certain aspects of the Project -related
air quality impacts, estimation of the efficacy of these mitigation
measures to reduce vehicular and operational emissions is
difficult. It is unlikely, however, that these measures will be
adequate to reduce mobile and stationary emissions to below the
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 9
SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, mobile and stationary
emissions from the Project are considered significant and
unavoidable. The Agency hereby finds that there are specific
economic, social, legal, technological, and other considerations
that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the EIR and that the benefits of the project outweigh
its potential adverse construction -related impacts. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been prepared, and is set forth
below.
3. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The Agency has considered various project alternatives as
analyzed in the EIR and makes the following findings:
i. No Prosect Alternative. The No Project Alternative
considers retaining the Project Area in its existing condition with
no additional development taking place in the framework of the
redevelopment plan. This alternative would permit continuing
development in the Project Area without the guidance and benefits
of the redevelopment plan. Because such development would be
undertaken pursuant to the existing General Plan, this alternative
would create the same environment impacts as the Project.
Finding: Specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative.
Facts in Support of Finding: The No Project Alternative
is infeasible because it does not achieve any of the stated goals
and objectives of the Project including, without limitation, the
elimination of blighted conditions in the Project Area, the
improvement of public facilities and public infrastructure, and the
encouragement of resident and business participation in the
economic revitalization of the Project Area. The Project is
intended, in part, to provide necessary tax increment financing for
public infrastructure and facilities in the Project Area which
would not be supplied under the No -Project Alternative. Buildout
of the Project Area in the absence of the Project will not have as
beneficial an impact on reducing blighted conditions as would the
Project in that the No -Project alternative would result in the
piecemeal development of the Project Area over a longer period of
time than that estimated in the FEIR.
The overriding social, economic and other considerations
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide
additional facts in support of this finding.
ii. Smaller Project Area Alternative. The Smaller
Project Area Alternative considers the Project in a smaller
geographic area than the Project Area. Reducing the size of the
Project Area could result in reduced traffic impacts, and air
quality impacts could be reduced, although not to a less -than -
significant level.
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 10 —
Finding: Specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the Smaller Project Area
Alternative. The Smaller Project Area Alternative would not meet
the goals and objectives of the Project and would not eliminate the
significant unavoidable environmental impact of the Project.
Facts in Support of Finding: While a reduced level of
development under the Smaller Project Area Alternative would create
less traffic, thereby reducing traffic -related impacts, the Smaller
Project Area Alternative would not produce all of the needed
infrastructure and facility improvements created by the Project.
Partial implementation of such improvements could exacerbate
deficiencies related to traffic and parking that will affect the
City's ability to attract high-quality development into the Project
Area, thereby adversely impacting the goals and objectives of the
Project. In addition, while a reduction in traffic may, to a
certain extent, reduce air quality impacts caused by mobile
emissions, such a reduction is not likely to be in the 400%-500%
range necessary to reduce air quality impacts to a less than
significant level under SCAQMD guidelines. Therefore, the Smaller
Project Area Alternative would not eliminate the significant
unavoidable impact of the Project.
The overriding social, economic and other considerations
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide
additional facts in support of this finding.
iii. Lower Traffic -Generating Alternative: This
alternative considers development of the Project Area with
commercial and industrial uses that would generate less vehicular
trips that those anticipated for the Project. The alternative
would replace "high trip" uses such as retail and entertainment/
restaurant with office, business park, and research and development
uses which generate fewer vehicle trips. The result would be a
reduction in the overall volume of traffic from the Project Area.
As with the Smaller Project Area Alternative, this reduction in
vehicle trips would reduce traffic -related impacts and the need for
traffic improvements as mitigation measures. With less traffic,
mobile air pollutant emissions also would be reduced. However, as
with the Smaller Project Area Alternative, this reduction would not
be sufficient to reduce air quality impacts below a level of
significance. In addition, this Alternative would be inconsistent
with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code, and might require the
imposition of development restrictions not currently in place.
Finding: Specific economic, social 'or other
considerations make infeasible the Lower Traffic -Generating
Alternative. This Alternative would not meet the goals and
objectives of the Project and is not environmentally superior to
the Project.
Facts in Support of Finding: This Alternative would not
implement the policies, goals, objectives and strategies of the
General Plan for the City of Diamond Bar to the same extent as the
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 - 11 -
Project would, in that revisions to the General Plan and Zoning
Code would be required to replace retail, restaurant and
entertainment uses with office, research and development and
business park uses. This Alternative also would not meet the goal
of providing opportunities for retail business. Fewer retail and
restaurant/entertainment uses also would result in a significant
reduction in sales tax revenue to the City, by comparison to the
Project, making this Alternative economically infeasible.
The overriding social, economic and other considerations
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide
additional facts in support of this finding.
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The Agency has carefully and independently considered the
significant unavoidable adverse air quality impacts identified
above in deciding whether to approve the Project. Although the
Agency believes that the unavoidable air quality impacts identified
in the FEIR will be substantially lessened by the mitigation
measures incorporated into the project, it recognizes that approval
of the Project will nonetheless result in certain unavoidable and
potentially irreversible effects.
The Agency has weighed the benefits of the Project
against its environmental risks. The Agency specifically finds
that, to the extent that any adverse or potentially adverse impact
set forth above has not been mitigated to a level of
insignificance, that specific economic, social, legal,
environmental, technological or other benefits of the project
outweigh the significant effects on the environment. Furthermore,
the Agency finds that any and each of the following considerations
is sufficient to approve the Project despite any one or more of the
unavoidable impacts identified; that each of the overriding
considerations is adopted with respect to each of the impacts
individually, and that each consideration is severable from any
other consideration should one or more consideration be shown to be
legally insufficient for any reason. The following considerations
support approval of the Project:
a. The Project will implement the City's General Plan and
Zoning_ Ordinance and other policies, goals, plans, objectives and
strategies for the development of the Project Area in a coordinated
manner that will revitalize existing blighted areas through the
imposition of design and use standards.
b. The Project proposes and will provide tax increment
revenue to finance improvements of public infrastructure, including
streets, public service facilities, parks, utilities, drainage
facilities, and landscape that are necessary to promote the
economic revitalization of the Project Area and attract appropriate
businesses to the area.
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 — 12 —
C. The Project will promote local job opportunities in the
community.
d. The Project will encourage participation by residents,
businesses, business persons, public agencies and community
organizations in the economic revitalization of the Project Area.
e. The Project will preserve and enhance the unique open
space resources in the community.
f. The Project will increase, improve, or preserve the
supply of housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate income
households.
970530 10572-00024 cas/gp 1201796 — 13 —
ADDENDUM
TO THE FINAL ENVIRONWMAL EMPACT RMRT
FOR THE
DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA
SCE. NO. %111847
May 29, 1997
Introduction
This addendum to the Final Environrnentak Impact Report (EIR) for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area in the City of Diamond Bar was prepared in accordance with Section 15164
of the CEQA ouidalines (California Code of Regulations Section 1500 and following). Under
provisions of CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency may prepare an addendum to an EIR if only
minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make an MR under eonsiderabou adequate
under CEQA, and the changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new
issues about the significant effects on the environment.
This addendum is hereby included as part of the Final EIR. The City of Diamond Bar will
consider the addeadum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the Project.
Issues Addressed in this Addendum
This addendum addresses effects of the change in the tomtory to be included within tate
boundaries of the Diamond Bar Economic Revitaliration Anna. On My 27, 1997, the City of
Diamond Bar Pluming Commission ncommeaded the deletion of certain properties from the
Ravitalustion Area, as shown in the attached Exhibit A. The deletion will result in a decrease of
approximately 154 acres in territory comprising the Revitalization Area, Eroat 1,454 acres to
1,300 acres. The territory to be deleted includes parks, public rights of way, and an undeveloped
area designated for residential uses in the City's general Plan. The ehMge to the Revitalization
Area will result in no change in expected commercial or industrial development within the
project area, and a reduction of approximately 130 residential units from projected development
analyzed in the Final E L
Environmental Eiteca Associated with the Reduced Revitsllzatioa Area
The Final EIR considatd environmental effects of redeveloping a 1,454 -acre Revitalization
Area. Redevelopment of a smaller Project Area is anticipated to reduce the magnitude of most
environmental effma considered in the Final EM including traffic impact which was found to
be the only signiticaut impure of the project. Mitigation meavau have been included in the
project that reduce traffic impact to a less than signi5cant level. with less territory, most of the
environmental impacts analysed m do Final ER, including traffic, will decrease in rough
proportion to the reductioat in the potential for www develoMent on the tenitory deleud from
the Revitalization Area Tbuk the analysis of environmental impacts in the Final Fit represents
the "worst card' davdopmen t scenario for the project inclusive of impacts that will occur in a
smaller Ravitatizadoa Ates. Such environmental impacts are, therefore, fully and adequately
addressed in the Final Elk and the change in the Revitalization Area's territory will not result in
any new or increased signOcaaot environmental impacts.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA;
ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM; ADOPTING
THE FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS AS
REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS,
APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR HEREBY
FINDS, ORDERS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency (the
"Agency") and the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar ("City
Council") have proposed to adopt a Redevelopment Plan (the
"Project") for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the
"Project Area"). The Project Area is proposed to include
approximately 1,300 acres of publicly and privately owned land.
While many existing uses in the Project Area will be retained,
the Agency proposes to facilitate redevelopment and
rehabilitation of underutilized and blighted properties with
light industrial, office, and retail uses, and through the
improvement of public infrastructure including streets, public
service facilities, parks, utilities, drainage facilities and
landscape to improve the economic health of the Project Area.
All anticipated development in connection with the Project will
be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the
City of Diamond Bar.
Section 2. The City prepared an Initial Environmental
Study for the Project pursuant to Section 15063 of the State
Guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"). The Initial Study concluded that there was
substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant
environmental impact in certain specifically identified
categories.
Section 3. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15064 and 15081, and based upon the information
contained in the Initial Study, a decision was made to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project. A Notice of
Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") was
prepared for the Project on November 18, 1996 and sent to the
State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and Research for
the State of California and to other responsible, trustee, and/or
interested agencies and persons. The City contracted with an
independent consultant for the preparation of the EIR.
Section 4. The DEIR was circulated to interested
persons and agencies for public comment pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15087(c). In response to the circulation of
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795
the DEIR, the City received written and oral comments regarding
the adequacy of the DEIR. Written responses to all comments
which raised significant environmental issues were prepared. The
City incorporated the comments and written responses to those
comments which raised comments relating to CEQA into the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Project ("FEIR") and returned
responses to commenting agencies at least ten (10) days prior to
the Certification of the FEIR, pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21092.5.
Section 5. The FEIR is comprised of the DEIR,
including any revisions and/or addenda thereto; the list of
persons, organizations and public agencies which commented on the
DEIR; the comments which were received regarding the DEIR; and
the written responses to significant environmental points raised
in the review and consultation process, each of which is
incorporated herein and made a part hereof by this reference.
Section 6. The City Council and Agency held a duly -
noticed public hearing on the Project and the EIR on May 20,
1997. At the hearing, interested persons presented both written
and oral comments regarding the adequacy of the FEIR.
Section 7. The findings made in this Resolution are
based upon the information and evidence set forth in the FEIR and
upon other substantial evidence which has been presented in the
record of this proceeding. The documents, staff reports, plans,
specifications, technical studies and other materials that
constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is
based and the FEIR for the Project are on file and available for
public examination during normal business hours in the Office of
the Community Development Director of the City of Diamond Bar,
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100, Diamond Bar, California
91765. The custodian of said records is the Community
Development Director of the City of Diamond Bar.
Section 8. The City Council finds that the public and
government agencies have been afforded ample notice and
opportunity to comment on the Initial Study, DEIR, and FEIR.
Section 9. The City Council finds, pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15084(e), that the EIR has been independently
analyzed by the Agency, the City, and its Staff, and that the EIR
represents the independent judgment of the lead agency with
respect to the Project. The City Council further finds that the
additional information provided in the staff reports accompanying
the Project description and the FEIR, the corrections and
modifications to the DEIR made in response to comments, and the
evidence presented in written and oral testimony presented at the
above -referenced hearing does not represent significant new
information so as to require recirculation of any section of the
EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1.
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 — 2 —
projections. The Southern California Association of
Governments ("SCAG"), in a letter dated March 25, 1997,
found in Section 9 of the FEIR, also indicates that the
Project is consistent with regional policies within SCAG's
jurisdiction, to the extent such consistency can be
determined. Further explanation for this determination may
be found in Sections 3.2, 7.0, and 9 of the FEIR.
C. Schools. The proposed project will not result in a project -
related or cumulative increase in current student enrollment
beyond school districts' current capacity at a rate that
cannot be accommodated by capital improvements funded by
developer fees or other sources of funds available to the
districts. Fees from residential and non-residential
development anticipated as part of the Project, as well as
other state school funding mechanisms, will generate
sufficient revenue to mitigate new student demand generated
by future development of the Project Area. Further
explanation for these determinations may be found in Section
3.5 and 7.0 of the FEIR.
Section 13. Based upon the initial study, the EIR,
public comments and the record of these proceedings, the City
Council finds that the Project may create significant adverse
impacts in the area of Traffic and Circulation and Air Quality.
With regard to Traffic and Circulation impacts, the EIR
identifies feasible mitigation measures for each impact that
reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. With regard to
Air Quality impacts, the EIR identifies mitigation measures that
will substantially lessen, but not eliminate, such impact. Any
reduction in the size of the Project Area will further reduce the
environmental impacts identified in the FEIR by reducing the area
subject to development pursuant to the Project. Further
explanation for these determinations may be found in Sections
2.0, 3.3 and 3.4 of the FEIR.
Section 14. In response to each significant impact
identified in the EIR, and listed in Section 13 of this
Resolution, changes or alterations are hereby required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental impacts identified. The
changes or alterations required in, or incorporated into, the
Project, and a brief explanation of the rationale for this
finding with regard to each impact, are contained in Exhibit A of
this Resolution and are incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 15. Any reduction in the size of the Project
Area will further reduce the environmental impacts identified in
the FEIR by reducing the area subject to development pursuant to
the Project. Such a reduction still attains the goals and
objectives of the Project to a significant extent and the
environmental consequences of reducing the scope of the project
are primarily beneficial in that they reduce the area of
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 — 4 —
Section 10. The City Council finds that the comments
.regarding the DEIR and the responses to those comments have been
received by the City and Agency; that the City and Agency have
received public testimony regarding the adequacy of the FEIR; and
that the City Council, as the final decision-making body for the
lead agency, has reviewed and considered all such documents and
testimony prior to acting on the Project. Pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15090, the City Council, on the basis of the
foregoing and the record of the proceeding, certifies that the
FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.
Section 11. Based upon the Initial Study, the DEIR,
the FEIR, public and agency comments and the record before the
City Council, the City Council hereby finds that the Project will
not cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Land
Use and Planning, Geology, Water, Transportation and Circulation,
Biological Resources, Energy and Mineral Resources, Cultural
Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities and Service
Systems, Aesthetics, and Recreation. Explanations for why the
foregoing impacts were found to be insignificant are contained in
the Initial Study in Appendix A of the DEIR. Any reduction in
the size of the Project Area will further reduce the
environmental impacts identified in the FEIR by reducing the area
subject to development pursuant to the Project.
Section 12. The Initial Study identified some of the
Project's effects as "potentially significant." However, based
upon the analysis presented in the DEIR and the FEIR, and upon
public and agency comments and the record before the City
Council, the City Council hereby finds that the Project will not
cause significant environmental impacts in the following areas
identified as "potentially significant" in the Initial Study:
a. Land Use and Planning: The Project will not substantially
conflict with the City's long range land use plans, or
conflict with existing uses in the vicinity. The Economic
Revitalization Area Redevelopment Plan does not propose any
change in land use policy or permitted intensity of
development for the Project Area. The intent of the Project
is to revitalize the Project Area in conformance with the
City's General Plan land use designation and policies.
Future development in the Project Area will be required to
be consistent with the General Plan and existing Zoning.
Further explanation for this finding can be found in Section
3.1 and 7.0 of the FEIR.
b. Population and Housing. The Project will not induce
substantial growth or concentration of population through
provision of employment or housing that is inconsistent with
regional growth management plans or create.demand for
housing which exceeds available supply on either a project -
related or cumulative basis. The EIR indicates that the
employment, housing and population needs generated by the
project are well within applicable regional and local
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 — 3 —
development and thus the environmental consequences of
development.
Section 16. The FEIR describes, and the City Council
and Agency Board have fully considered, a reasonable range of
alternatives to the Project which might fulfill the basic
objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the "No
Project" alternative; the Smaller Project Alternative, which
considered a smaller geographic are for the Project Area; the
Lower Traffic -Generating Alternative, which proposed replacing
high -traffic generating commercial, entertainment and restaurant
uses with less traffic -intense uses such as office, business
park, research and development uses. The alternatives identified
in the EIR either would not sufficiently achieve the basic
objectives of the Project or would do so only with unacceptable
adverse environmental impacts. Accordingly, and for any one of
the reasons set forth herein, in the EIR, or in the "Statement of
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings" attached hereto as
Exhibit "A," the City Council finds that specific economic,
social, or other considerations make infeasible each of the
Project alternatives, including the "No Project" alternative,
identified in the EIR and each is hereby rejected. The City
Council further finds that a good faith effort was made to
incorporate alternatives into the preparation of the EIR, and
that all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review
process of the EIR and the ultimate decision on the Projects. An
alternative site was not considered feasible because an
alternative site would fail to fulfill the most basic goal of the
Project by not failing to address conditions of blight in the
Project Area.
Section 17. The City Council hereby makes the findings
contained in the "Statement of Findings and Facts in Support of
Findings" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" with respect to each of
the significant impacts defined in the FEIR and the alternatives
analysis. Further, the City Council hereby finds that each fact
in support of finding is true and is based upon substantial
evidence in the record, including the FEIR.
Section 18. The City Council hereby adopts the
"Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area" prepared by Cotton/Beland Associates, Inc.
This program will be used to monitor the changes to the project
which have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval
as provided herein and in Exhibit "A."
Section 19. Upon approval of this Resolution, the
Director of Community Development is hereby directed to file a
Notice of Determination with the County Recorder's Office, County
of Los Angeles, and the California State Clearinghouse pursuant
to Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
Section 20. A full and fair joint public hearing
regarding the proposed Redevelopment Plan has been duly noticed
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 — 5 —
and held by the City Council and the Agency pursuant to law and
the Agency and City Council have received written and oral
testimony concerning such proposed Redevelopment Plan. The City
Council has duly considered the recommendations of the Agency;
has evaluated the Agency's Report to the City Council, which is
comprised of the reports and information required by Health and
Safety Code Section 33352, and which report was previously
submitted to the City Council, and all evidence and testimony for
and against adoption of such Redevelopment Plan; and has adopted
written findings in response to each written objection,
communication or suggestion, in accordance with Health and Safety
Code Section 33363. The City Council hereby finds and determines
that the responses made to each written objection, communication
or suggestion are full and complete and have addressed each
written objection, communication or suggestion in detail, giving
reasons for not accepting specified objections, and suggestions
and include good -faith, reasoned analysis which describes the
disposition of the issues raised. All objections to the proposed
Redevelopment Plan were heard and passed upon by the Agency and
the City Council and are hereby overruled by the City Council.
Section 21. The proposed Redevelopment Plan, a copy of
which has been presented to the City Council and which is now on
file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved subject
to the mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit A hereof.
Section 22. The City may expend funds which may be
necessary or appropriate in connection with the redevelopment of
the Project Area. The City hereby declares its intention to
undertake and complete any proceedings necessary to be carried
out by the City under the provisions of the proposed
Redevelopment Plan.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of June, 1997.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clark
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 — 6 —
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
day of , 1997, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
California
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 7
EXHIBIT "A"
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
1. FINDINGS REGARDING IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF
INSIGNIFICANCE.
Traffic and Circulation.
Traffic Demands and Level of Service. The Project will
result in increased traffic and will cause or worsen unacceptable
levels of service ("LOS") at certain intersections in the Project
Area. The intersections are specifically identified in Section 3.4
of the FEIR. Cumulative traffic impacts or related projects also
may be created without mitigation.
Finding: For each such intersection, changes or
alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect identified above.
Facts Supporting Finding: The Project includes the
following traffic and circulation mitigation measures which have
been demonstrated in the FEIR to reduce each Project -related
significant traffic impact to a level of insignificance based on
LOS and intersection volume/capacity ratio, as described more fully
in Section 3.4, Table 13 and Figure 10 in the FEIR. Cumulative
traffic impacts will be mitigated as well through the
implementation of such measures and project -specific mitigation
measures for related projects:
a. Diamond Bar/Golden Springs: Add a left turn lane to each
approach on Golden Springs for a total of two in each
direction. This can be accomplished within the existing
street width but requires elimination of the bicycle lanes at
the intersection.
b. S 60/57 East -Bound Ramps/Grand Avenue: Change the S
60/57 off -ramp approach stripping and operations to prohibit
a through movement (allow left and right turns only). This
will allow a right turn overlap signal phase from Grand Avenue
(northbound) to S 60/57 on-ramp. Modify the S 60/57 off -ramp
approach to provide a free right turn from off -ramp to
south -bound Grand Avenue. Three southbound lanes presently
exist on Grand, south of the freeway ramp.
C. S 60/57 West -Bound Ramps/Grand Avenue: Restripe the
north Grand Avenue approach to provide a left, through,
through/right, and right turn lane.
d. Grand Avenue/Golden Springs: On Golden Springs for what
was identified as the eastbound approach, add a left turn lane
(for a total of two) and improve the eastbound right turn to
a free right turn.
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 — 8 —
On westbound Golden Springs, add a right turn lane.
e. Diamond Bar Boulevard/Grand Avenue: Implement
improvements to provide three through lanes on the Grand
Avenue approaches and the southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard
approach. The existing southbound. right turn lane will be
converted into a through lane.
For the northbound approach, stripe for a through,
through/right, and right turn lane to accommodate the high
number of northbound right turn during the PM peak hour.
These improvements will be implemented as determined
appropriate by the City pending a review of alternate traffic
routes, effects on adjacent residential areas, and other
applicable factors.
f. Brea Canyon Road/Golden Springs -Calami: Add a left turn
lane to the northbound and southbound approaches on Brea
Canyon Road, for a total of two.
Eastbound - make improvements to convert the right turn lane
to a through lane.
Westbound - add a left turn lane to provide a total of two.
g. Pathfinder Road/Diamond Bar Boulevard: Make
modifications to provide an added northbound through lane at
intersection. This will impact existing bicycle lane at this
location.
2. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS.
Air Quality Impacts. Development in the Project Area will
result in additional mobile and stationary emissions above the
SCAQMD daily thresholds for CO, ROG, and Nox on a project -specific
and cumulative basis.
Finding: Although mitigation measures have been adopted
to address these impacts, project -related air quality impacts
cannot be reduced a level of insignificance and are therefore found
to be significant and unavoidable.
Facts Supnortinq Finding: A number of mitigation
measures have been proposed to reduce air quality impacts resulting
from development pursuant to the Project, a number of mitigation
measures have been imposed. A full description of those mitigation
measures is found in Table 2 and Section 3.3 of the FEIR. While
these measures will reduce certain aspects of the Project -related
air quality impacts, estimation of the efficacy of these mitigation
measures to reduce vehicular and operational emissions is
difficult. It is unlikely, however, that these measures will be
adequate to reduce mobile and stationary emissions to below the
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 9
SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, mobile and stationary
emissions from the Project are considered significant and
unavoidable. The Agency hereby finds that there are specific
economic, social, legal, technological, and other considerations
that make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the EIR and that the benefits of the project outweigh
its potential adverse construction -related impacts. A Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been prepared, and is set forth
below.
3. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The City Council has considered various project
alternatives as analyzed in the EIR and makes the following
findings:
i. No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative
considers retaining the Project Area in its existing condition with
no additional development taking place in the framework of the
Redevelopment Plan. This alternative would permit continuing
development in the Project Area without the guidance and benefits
of the Redevelopment Plan. Because -such development would be
undertaken pursuant to the existing General Plan, this alternative
would create the same environment impacts as the Project.
Finding: Specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative.
Facts in Support of Finding: The No Project Alternative
is infeasible because it does not achieve any of the stated goals
and objectives of the Project including, without limitation, the
elimination of blighted conditions in the Project Area, the
improvement of public facilities and public infrastructure, and the
encouragement of resident and business participation in the
economic revitalization of the Project Area. The Project is
intended, in part, to provide necessary tax increment financing for
public infrastructure and facilities in the Project Area which
would not be supplied under the No -Project Alternative. Buildout
of the Project Area in the absence of the Project will not have as
beneficial an impact on reducing blighted conditions as would the
Project in that the No -Project alternative would result in the
piecemeal development of the Project Area over a longer period of
time than that estimated in the FEIR.
The overriding social, economic and other considerations
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide
additional facts in support of this finding.
ii. Smaller Project Area Alternative. The Smaller
Project Area Alternative considers the Project in a smaller
geographic area than the Project Area. Reducing the size of the
Project Area could result in reduced traffic impacts, and air
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 — 10 —
quality impacts could be reduced, although not to a less -than -
significant level.
Findina: Specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the Smaller Project Area
Alternative. The Smaller Project Area Alternative would not meet
the goals and objectives of the Project and would not eliminate the
significant unavoidable environmental impact of the Project.
Facts in Support of Finding: While a reduced level of
development under the Smaller Project Area Alternative would create
less traffic, thereby reducing traffic -related impacts, the Smaller
Project Area Alternative would not produce all of the needed
infrastructure and facility improvements created by the Project.
Partial implementation of such improvements could exacerbate
deficiencies related to traffic and parking that will affect the
City's ability to attract high-quality development into the Project
Area, thereby adversely impacting the goals and objectives of the
Project. In addition, while a reduction in traffic may, to a
certain extent, reduce air quality impacts caused by mobile
emissions, such a reduction is not likely to be in the 400%-800%
range necessary to reduce air quality impacts to a less than
significant level under SCAQMD guidelines.. Therefore, the Smaller
Project Area Alternative would not eliminate the significant
unavoidable impact of the Project.
The overriding social, economic and other considerations
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide
additional facts in support of this finding.
iii. Lower Traffic -Generating Alternative: This
alternative considers development of the Project Area with
commercial and industrial uses that would generate less vehicular
trips that those anticipated for the Project. The alternative
would replace "high trip" uses such as retail and entertainment/
restaurant with office, business park, and research and development
uses which generate fewer vehicle trips. The result would be a
reduction in the overall volume of traffic from the Project Area.
As with the Smaller Project Area Alternative, this reduction in
vehicle trips would reduce traffic -related impacts and the need for
traffic improvements as mitigation measures. With less traffic,
mobile air pollutant emissions also would be reduced. However, as
with the Smaller Project Area Alternative, this reduction would not
be sufficient to reduce air quality impacts below a level of
significance. In addition, this Alternative would be inconsistent
with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code, and might require the
imposition of development restrictions not currently in place.
Finding: Specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the Lower Traffic -Generating
Alternative. This Alternative would not meet the goals and
objectives of the Project and is not environmentally superior to
the Project.
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 - 11 -
Facts in Support of Finding: This Alternative would not
implement the policies, goals, objectives and strategies of the
General Plan for the City of Diamond Bar to the same extent as the
Project would, in that revisions to the General Plan and Zoning
Code would be required to replace retail, restaurant and
entertainment uses with office, research and development and
business park uses. This Alternative also would not meet the goal
of providing opportunities for retail business. Fewer retail and
restaurant/entertainment uses also would result in a significant
reduction in sales tax revenue to the City, by comparison to the
Project, making this Alternative economically infeasible.
The overriding social, economic and other considerations
set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide
additional facts in support of this finding.
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Council has carefully and independently
considered the significant unavoidable adverse air quality impacts
identified above in deciding whether to approve the Project.
Although the City Council believes that the unavoidable air quality
impacts identified in the FEIR will be substantially lessened by
the mitigation measures incorporated into the project, it
recognizes that approval of the Project will nonetheless result in
certain unavoidable and potentially irreversible effects.
The City Council has weighed the benefits to the City of
the Project against its environmental risks. The City Council
specifically finds that, to the extent that any adverse or
potentially adverse impact set forth above has not been mitigated
to a level of insignificance, that specific economic, social,
legal, environmental, technological or other benefits of the
project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.
Furthermore, the City Council finds that any and each of the
following considerations is sufficient to approve the Projects
despite any one or more of the unavoidable impacts identified; that
each of the overriding considerations is adopted with respect to
each of the impacts individually, and that each consideration is
severable from any other consideration should one or more
consideration be shown to be legally insufficient for any reason.
The following considerations support approval of the Project:
a. The Project will implement the City's General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance and other policies, goals, plans, objectives and
strategies for the development of the Project Area in a coordinated
manner that will revitalize existing blighted areas through the
imposition of design and use standards.
b. The Project will proposes and will provide tax increment
revenue to finance improvements of public infrastructure, including
streets, public service facilities, parks, utilities, drainage
facilities, and landscape that are necessary to promote the
970529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 - 12 —
economic revitalization of the Project Area and attract appropriate
businesses to the area.
C. The Project will promote local job opportunities in the
community.
d. The Project will encourage participation by residents,
businesses, business persons, public agencies and community
organizations in the economic revitalization of the Project Area.
e. The Project will preserve and enhance the unique open
space resources in the community.
f. The Project will increase, improve, preserve the supply
of housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate income
households.
570529 10572-00001 cas 1201795 — 13 —
ADDENDUM
TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA
SCE. NO. 96111047
May 29, 1997
Introduction
This addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area in the City of Diamond Bar was prepared in accordance with Section 15164
of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 1500 and following). Under
provisions of CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency may prepare an addendum to an EIR if only
minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make an Elk under consideration adequate
under CEQA, and the changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new
issues about the sipiflcam effects on the environment.
This addendum is hereby included as part of the Final EIlL The City of Diamond Bar will
consider the addendum with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project.
Issues Addressed in this Addendum
This addendum addresses effects of the dwge in the territory to be included within the
boundaries of the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area. On May 27,1997, the City of
Diamond Bar Planning Commission recommended the deletion of ca Urn properties from the
Revitalization Area, as shown in the attached Exhibit A. Tha deletion will result in a decrease of
approximately 154 acres in territory comprising the Revitalization Area, from 1,454 acres to
1,300 acres. The territory to be deleted includes parks, public rights of way, and an undeveloped
area designated for residential uses in the City's general Plan. The change to the Revitalization
Area will result in no change in expected commercial or Wdwtrid development within the
project area, and a reduction of approximately 130 residential units from projected development
analyzed in the Final M
Environmental Moots Associated with the Reduced Revitalization Area
The Final EIR considered environmental effects of redeveloping a 1,454 -acre Revitalization
Area. Redevelopment of a smaller Project Area is anticipated to reduce the magnitude of most
environmental effects considered in the Final EIR, including traffic impact which was found to
be the only sipiflcent impact of the project. Mitigation measures have been included in the
project that reduce traffic impact to a leas than significant level. With less territory, most of the
environmental impacts analyzed m the Final EIIt, including traffic, will decrease in rough
proportion to the red xdm in the potential for neer development on the territory deleted from
the Revitaliadon Area. Thus, the analysis of enviromaental impacts in the Final EIR represents
the "worst case" development scenario for the project inclusive of impacts that will occur in a
smaller RavimH=don Ara. Such environmental impacts are, therefore, fully and adequately
addressed in the Final Elft, and the change in the Revitalization Area's territory will not result in
any new or increased siguMcant environmental impacts.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency (the
"Agency") has prepared a Redevelopment Plan (the "Redevelopment
Plan") for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area (the
"Project Area") and has recommended approval of the Redevelopment
Plan by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar (the "City
Council").
SECTION 2. The Redevelopment Plan entitled
"Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization
Area," which is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the
City of Diamond Bar, is hereby incorporated by this reference.
SECTION 3. As established in the Redevelopment Plan,
the purposes and intent of the City Council with respect to the
Project Area are to eliminate the conditions of blight existing
in the Project Area and to prevent the recurrence of blighted
conditions within the Project Area by undertaking all appropriate
redevelopment projects pursuant to the Community Redevelopment
Law, California Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et seg.
(the "Community Redevelopment Law"), including but not limited
to, providing public improvements and community facilities,
providing for the rehabilitation of commercial structures,
encouraging employment opportunities, and increasing, improving
or preserving low and moderate income housing.
SECTION 4. Based upon the record of the joint public
hearing on the Redevelopment Plan, and the various reports and
other information provided to the City Council, the City Council
hereby finds and determines that:
A. The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of
which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes
declared in the Community Redevelopment Law. The Project
Area is characterized by a combination of conditions that
are so prevalent and so substantial that it causes a
reduction of, and 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 be expected to
be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or
governmental action, or both, without redevelopment.
Approximately 65 percent of all buildings and 58 percent of
all parcels suffer from one or more physical blighting
condition. Approximately 49 percent of all buildings and 39
percent of all parcels suffer from one or more economic
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109
blighting condition. Overall, approximately 90 percent of
all buildings and 71 percent of all parcels suffer from one
or more physical and/or economic blighting conditions. In
addition, the Project Area is characterized by economic
blighting conditions which are not site specific, such as
declining building permit activity and retail sales tax
revenues.
Conditions in the Project Area include, but are not limited
to, the following described physical and economic conditions
that cause blight:
Approximately 62 percent of the buildings (46 percent of the
parcels) in the Project Area are in need of maintenance
ranging from deferred maintenance to extensive
rehabilitation. 132 buildings (53 percent) are in need of
deferred maintenance; 21 buildings (over 8 percent) are in
need of moderate rehabilitation, and one building is in need
of extensive rehabilitation. Conditions of deterioration
include damaged exterior building materials, deteriorated
roofing material and eaves, sagging roofs, broken windows,
nonstructural damage, chipped and peeling paint, exposed
wiring and outdoor storage of materials and debris. These
conditions cause the buildings to be unsafe or -unhealthy for
persons to live or work and reflect a lack of investment by
property owners to maintain or improve their properties in
standard condition. The process of deterioration can be
self-perpetuating; the presence of properties which exhibit
signs of deterioration deter owners of neighboring
properties from improving or maintaining their properties.
Approximately 27 percent of all buildings (17 percent of all
parcels) in the Project Area exhibit one or more conditions
of defective design, including inadequate vehicular access,
substandard building materials and inadequate loading areas.
Inadequate vehicular access plagues the majority of the
smaller retail centers in the Project Area. Typically,
these centers provide very limited access points for
business patrons. In addition, lack of or inadequate
loading areas results in trucks loading and unloading in
parking lots, often impeding access to businesses and
restricting traffic flow, and resulting in potentially
hazardous situations for business patrons. These conditions
also limit the potential for private sector development and
redevelopment to effectively utilize properties suffering
from high vacancies, deterioration and defective design.
24 percent of the buildings (17 percent of the parcels) in
the Project Area have one or more characteristic of
substandard design, including obsolescence and outdoor
storage and/or production. Commercial retail centers in the
Project Area are isolated, with virtually no freeway'or
major right-of-way visibility and limited access. The
obsolete nature of the Project Area's strip retail centers
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109 — 2 —
and shopping centers (which are primarily smaller unanchored
strip centers constructed in the 1970's and 1980's with
little or no improvements or upgrades) has resulted in high
vacancies, high turnovers, profitability problems, and
limited shopping opportunities for Diamond Bar residents.
These limited opportunities have led to residents purchasing
goods and services outside of the City, causing significant
retail sales leakage.
Approximately 20 percent of the buildings (16 percent of
parcels) in the Project Area do not have parking which is
adequate to effectively conduct business and many of the
older commercial buildings are built to the property lines.
In addition to negatively affecting business operations, the
lack of parking interferes with vehicular and pedestrian
circulation. Many of the light industrial and commercial
uses located in the Project Area also lack sufficient off
street parking and, as a result, employees and patrons are
forced to park along the streets, and in some cases
residential streets, adjacent to these uses.
Geotechnical hazards and problems, such as landslides and
critical flood control and drainage deficiencies, have
impeded the adequate utilization of the land. Improvements
are required to mitigate potential landsliding, flooding and
drainage problems, thereby discouraging investment in the
properties.
12 parcels are incompatible to adjoining or nearby uses.
For instance, industrial uses surrounding Walnut Elementary
School have resulted in a number of problems such as traffic
and noise. The large volume of industrial traffic poses
significant safety threats to school children traveling to
and from school.
48 parcels (15 percent) located throughout the Project Area
are irregularly formed and shaped and under multiple
ownership. These parcels are a barrier to development
because they are frequently difficult or impossible to use
without combining with other parcels. 10 of the 15 retail
shopping centers (66 percent) are in multiple ownership.
Because of diversity of ownership, as well as small lots
sizes, it is unlikely that the reuse or private
redevelopment of deteriorated and obsolete properties will
be possible without a land assembly effort.
Secured assessed property values in the Project Area
decreased by 11 percent from 1993-94 to 1996-97, compared to
a 3 percent increase in assessed valuation City-wide and a
two percent decrease County -wide. Approximately 32 percent
of all parcels in the Project Area have experienced
decreases in property values over this same time period.
Land prices throughout the Gateway Corporate Center have
dropped by 50% per square foot in the last year.
970527 10572-000C1 ows 1600109 3 —
From 1994 through 1996 only two building permits have been
issued for new construction in the Project Area, with a
total value of only $365,000. During this same time period,
9 building permits were issued in the City of San Dimas with
a total value of approximately $16 million,'55 building
permits for new construction were issued in the City of
Pomona with an approximate value of $20 million, and 30
building permits for new construction were issued in the
City of Brea with an approximate value of $26 million.
6 sites in the Project Area have been identified by the
California State Water Resources Control Board as having
leaking underground storage tanks. The high cost of
remediation, particularly if the site is considered for a
change of land use, makes the private development of these
sites costly and problematic.
The majority of the commercial businesses in the City are
located within the boundaries of the Project Area. Taxable
retail sales per capita in the City in 1994 was $3,023,
which is among the lowest in the San Gabriel Valley region.
The retail sales per capita in surrounding cities, such as
Brea, Chino and West Covina were $16,646, $6,895, and
$6,722, respectively, representing per capita taxable sales
that are approximately 100 percent to 500 percent higher.
The City is experiencing significant retail leakage. A
number of surveyed residents of Diamond Bar believe that
existing retail centers require improvements or upgrades.
67 buildings (27 percent), including over 150 tenant spaces,
are partially or 100 percent vacant. Of these, 22 are
commercial office, 13 are light industrial, and 32 are
commercial retail. Retail, industrial and office vacancy
rates in Diamond Bar are higher than in surrounding
communities. Overall, the average vacancy rate for all
Project Area retail centers is 24 percent while office
vacancy rates range from 20 to 40 percent.
The Project Area is characterized by inadequate public
infrastructure, improvements and facilities, which
contributes to the stagnation of the area's development and
limits the use and reuse of existing commercial and
industrial structures. Existing landscaping, streetscaping,
and public facilities are in need of upgrading or expanding
to provide a pedestrian -friendly environment that encourages
business patronage and private sector investment.
The conditions described above are causing and will
increasingly cause a reduction of and lack of proper
utilization of the Project Area to such an extent that it
constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the
community (including decreased property tax revenues and
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109 — 4 —
sales tax revenues) which cannot be expected to be reversed
or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action,
or both, without redevelopment.
B. The Redevelopment Plan would redevelop the Project Area in
conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the
interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare.
The implementation of the Redevelopment Plan will assist in
the elimination of conditions of blight within the Project
Area and prevent their reoccurrence. The Redevelopment Plan
provides for the installation and construction of public
improvements. The Redevelopment Plan also provides for the
rehabilitation of public and private structures. These
improvements are essential to encouraging private investment
and eliminating the conditions of blight in the Project Area
and preventing their reoccurrence.
C. The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is
economically sound and feasible. Under the Redevelopment
Plan, the Agency will be authorized to seek and utilize a
variety of potential financing resources, including property
tax increment revenues; the nature and timing of
redevelopment activities will depend on the amount and
availability of such financing resources, including tax
increment revenue generated in the Project Area; no
redevelopment activity will be undertaken unless the Agency
can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue to finance the
activity; and sufficient public and private financial
resources, when taken together with tax increment revenue,
will be available to carry out the proposed redevelopment
activities of the Agency. The Agency will issue its tax
increment bonds or other obligations payable from tax
increment revenues only when such revenues are projected to
be.available to the Agency in amounts sufficient to pay for
the principal of, and interest on, such bonds. In addition,
there are available to the Agency other methods of financing
its redevelopment activities, including but not limited to
bonds issued pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section
33750 or Section 33641(d). The Agency may receive financial
assistance from the County of Los Angeles, State of
California, the .federal government, and any other public
agency. As available, other funds also may be used to pay
the costs of the Agency's redevelopment activities,
including, but not limited to, Community Development Block
Grant funds.
D. The Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the General Plan
of the City of Diamond Bar, including, but not limited to
the General Plan's Housing Element, which substantially
complies with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing
with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of
the Government Code, as set forth in the findings of the
Planning Commission in its PC Resolution No. 97-5, adopted
on April 8, 1997 and its PC Resolution No. 97-8, adopted on
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109 - 5 -
May 27, 1997. The Redevelopment Plan proposes land uses and
public improvements contemplated by the General Plan and the
goals and objectives of such Plan.
E. The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan would promote the
public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the City of
Diamond Bar and would effectuate the purposes and policies
of the Community Redevelopment Law. The implementation of
the Redevelopment Plan will assist in the elimination of
conditions of blight within the Project Area. The
Redevelopment Plan provides for the installation and con-
struction of public improvements, the rehabilitation of
public and private structures, the removal of obsolete and
substandard structures, and the assemblage of land into
parcels suitable for modern, integrated development. Under
the Redevelopment Plan the improvement of the public
infrastructure, including the street and traffic circulation
system improvements will correct existing deficiencies.
F. The condemnation of real property is necessary to the
execution of the Redevelopment Plan, and adequate provisions
have been made for payment for property to be acquired as
provided by law. The assemblage of parcels for development
and the completion of the proposed public improvements may
involve real property acquisition. No real property will be
condemned without the payment of compensation as required by
law. Further, adequate moneys will be budgeted by the
Agency for the acquisition of real property required by the
implementation of the Redevelopment Plan.
G. Although the Agency intends to accomplish all redevelopment
pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan with as little
displacement of families and persons as possible, the Agency
has a feasible method or plan for the relocation of families
and persons displaced from the Project Area if the
Redevelopment Plan may result in the temporary or permanent
displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the
Project Area. The Agency has adopted a method of relocation
for the Project Area which incorporates the California
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Guidelines.
H. If any displacement occurs as the result of implementation
of the Redevelopment Plan, there are, or shall be provided,
in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less
desirable -in regard to public utilities and public and
commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the
financial means of the families and persons who may be
displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe, and sanitary
dwellings equal in number to the number of, and available
to, such displaced families and persons and reasonably
accessible to their places of employment.
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109 — 6 —
I. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the
adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33411 and
33411.1 of the Community Redevelopment Law. Dwelling units
housing persons and families of low or moderate income shall
not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a
replacement housing plan pursuant to Sections 33334.5, 33413
and 33413.5 of the Community Redevelopment Law. The Agency
has adopted a method of relocation for the Project Area
which incorporates the California Relocation Assistance and
Real Property Acquisition Guidelines. The method provides
that no persons or families of low and moderate income shall
be displaced unless and until there is a suitable housing
unit available and ready for occupancy by such displaced
person or family at rents comparable to those at the time of
their displacement. Section 533 of the Redevelopment Plan
provides that whenever dwelling units housing persons and
families of low or moderate income are destroyed or removed
from the low and moderate income housing market as part of a
redevelopment project, the Agency shall, within four years
of such destruction or removal, rehabilitate, develop or
construct, or cause to be rehabilitated, developed or
constructed, for rental or sale to persons and families of
low or moderate income, an equal number of replacement
dwelling units at affordable housing costs within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Agency. 75 percent of the
replacement dwelling units shall replace dwelling units
available at affordable housing cost in the same income
level of very low income households, lower income
households, and persons and families of low and moderate
income, as the persons displaced from those units destroyed.
J. There are no noncontiguous areas of the Project Area.
K. Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are
not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare is
necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of
which they are a part; any such area included is necessary
for effective redevelopment and'is not included for the
purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment
revenues from such area pursuant to Section 33670 of the
Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial
justification for its inclusion. Any such lands, buildings
or improvements are an integral part of the Project Area and
their proximity to substandard lands, buildings or
improvements requires their inclusion within the Project
Area to ensure proper and comprehensive planning and
redevelopment. Since conditions of blight are prevalent
throughout the Project Area, it is not feasible to exclude
the lands, buildings, or improvements which are not
detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
L. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the
Project Area could not be reasonably expected to be
accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109 - 7 -
aid and assistance of the Agency. Substantial public
improvements must be constructed to assist in the
elimination of the conditions of blight in the Project Area.
The extent of the required public improvements cannot be
accomplished by private enterprise acting alone. The
detrimental conditions of inadequate infrastructure greatly
impede the Project Area's proper utilization and its ability
to develop and address conditions of blight. Further, the
combined effects of the conditions of blight in the Project
Area, such as the deficient buildings, inadequate
infrastructure and the negative, non -motivational investment
environment and lack of economic motivation caused by
excessive costs, all contribute to the conclusion that
conditions of blight will not be eliminated in the Project
Area by private enterprise acting alone. The cost of
rehabilitation is prohibitive, especially when property
values are falling. The existence of irregularly shaped and
inadequately sized parcels in multiple ownership discourages
private investment because new development cannot meet
current zoning, building and design standards and
reparcelization of land by the Agency may be necessary. In
addition, incompatible land uses within the Project Area
cannot be eliminated without the aid and assistance of the
Agency.
M. The Project Area is predominately urbanized, as defined by
subdivision (b) of Section 33320.1 of the Community
Redevelopment Law. Of the approximately 1,300 acres in the
Project Area, approximately 1,225 acres are developed for
urban uses or are an integral part of one or more areas
developed for urban uses which are surrounded or
substantially surrounded by parcels which have been or are
developed for urban uses. Within the Project Area there are
approximately 75 acres of vacant, nonurbanized land, or six
percent of the total area in the Project Area. Therefore,
94 percent of the Project Area is predominantly urbanized.
N. The time limitations that are contained in the Redevelopment
Plan are reasonably related to the proposed projects to be
implemented in the Project Area and to the ability of the
Agency to eliminate blight in the Project Area. The total
estimated cost of the public projects, programs and
improvements needed to redevelop the Project Area is
approximately $181 million. It is estimated that over the
life of the Redevelopment Plan, approximately $405 million
in tax increment revenues will be generated from the. Project
Area and up to $183 million will be available after paying
statutory pass-through amounts and depositing 20 percent of
the tax increment into the Low and Moderate Income Housing
Fund. In the event that bonds are issued, up to $174
million of tax increment will remain after paying debt
service on approximately $47 million of bond principal.
This amount could be available to pay for Agency projects
and may provide a hedge against likely cost inflation.
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109 8
Therefore, the total cumulative revenues available for
projects is estimated to be approximately $183 million. The
30 -year duration of the Redevelopment Plan, the 20 -year
limit on the establishing of loans, advances and
indebtedness, and the 45 -year limit on the repayment of
indebtedness are necessary in order to assure sufficient
time to generate adequate tax increment revenues from the
Project Area to implement the redevelopment activities and
to repay debt, including bonded debt.
O. The City Council is satisfied that permanent housing
facilities will be available within three years from the
time occupants of the Project Area may be displaced and
that, pending the development of such facilities, there will
be available to such occupants who may be displaced adequate
temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in
the City of Diamond Bar at the time of their displacement.
SECTION 5. The Redevelopment Plan is hereby approved
and adopted and is hereby designated as the official
redevelopment plan for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization
Area of the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and
directed to certify to the passage of this Ordinance by the City
Council and shall cause it to be published as required by law.
SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, sentence,
clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The City
Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance
and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase
thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
ATTEST:
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of
1997.
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond
Bar, California do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109 9
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 day of 1997, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
California
970527 10572-00001 ows 1600109 — 10 —
RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIO%AL CORPORATION
333 SOUTH HOPE STREET, 38TH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071-1469
Switchboard (213) 626-8484
Fax (213) 626-0078
FAX COVER SHEET
Tn-
rvnm .
Amanda Susskind
NAME
FAX #
COMPANYIDEPARTMENT
VOICE #
I
Tommye Nice
Frank Usher
909 861-3117
City of Diamond Bar
909 860-2489
2
3
4
5
rvnm .
Amanda Susskind
213-626-0078
Richards, Watson &
213-626-8484
Gershon
DATE: 06/04/97 OUR FILE NO.: 10572-00001 TOTAL PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): 6
SUBJECT: Diamond Bar
DOCUMENTS) Agenca for 6/10/97
TRANSMITTED:
MESSAGE: If you have questions after you have reivewed the attached,
please call Robin Harris. Thanks!
i
ATTENTION FAX OPERATOR AND OTHER RECIPIENTS
THIS FAX CDNTAINS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THF, USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT NAMED ABOVE-
IFCONNTTENTTSS TNO ANYONENOTHHEERTqIPTHENINTEMDED RECIPIENTNISISTRICTLYTPROHIBITED. OIF YOUSHAVE RECEIVED THISIFFAX INIERRROORITS
PLEASE IiMLATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE TO ARRANGE ITS RETURN TO US AT OUR EXPENSE.
IF YOU HAVE DIFFICULTY RECEIVING ANY PAGES. PLEASE TELEPHONE US AT (213) 626-8484.
Billing No.: 10572-00001 Time Sent1. 2- 3. 4- 5
User No.: 0096 10perator:"
DB.TP
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT
.KI
PUBLIC HEARING
Due to the lack of a quorum, the Diamond Bar City Council Public scheduled to begin at 6:30
p.m. on Tuesday, June 19,197 in the AQMD Auditorium has been adjourned to 7:30 p.m. on
Tuesday, June 10, 1997 in the AQMD Auditorium.
/s/ Lynda Burgess
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
Robert S. Huff
Mayor
Carol Herrera
Mayor Pro Tem
Eileen R. Ansari
Council Member
Clair W. Harmony
Council Member
Gary H. Werner
Council Member
Recycled paper
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 • Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
(909) 860-2489 • Fax: (909) 861-3117 • City Online (88S): (909) 860-5463
Internet: h"p://www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT
AND
NOTICE OF CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Diamond Bar City
Council and Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency, at their
Regular meeting of June 3, 1997, adjourned said meeting
to Tuesday, June 10, 1997 at 6:30 p.m., in the AQMD
Auditorium, located at 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, California.
Notice is also hereby given that the Joint Public
Hearing of the City Council and the Diamond Bar
Redevelopment Agency on the proposed Redevelopment Plan
for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area, for
the sole purpose of considering the exclusion of
certain properties, is also continued to the same time
and place.
/ s / Tommye Nice
Tommye Nice,
Deputy City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
Dated: June 4, 1997
FAXED.TO: DIANE BROWN, TRIBUNE
BARBARA CONSIDINE, DAILY BULLETIN
HP OfficeJet LX
Personal Printer/Fax/Copier
Automatic Log
Identification Result
Brown - Tribune OK
Barbara - Bulletin STOP
7.2.0
Pages Tvve Date
Fax Log Report for
City of Diamond Bar
Jun -04-97 16:08
Time Duration Diagnostic
01/01 Sent Jun -04 16:06 00:00:25 002562030022
00/01 Sent Jun -04 16:08 00:00:00 002060000000
HP OfficeJet LX
Personal Printer/Fax/Copier
Fax Log Report for
City of Diamond Bar
Jun -04-97 16:10
Identification Result Pages Tvoe Date Time Duration Diagnostic
Barbara - Bulletin OK 01 Sent Jun -04 16:09 00:00:24 0025c2030022
7.2.0