HomeMy WebLinkAbout6237
RESOLUTION NO. 6237
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AND ADOPTING
RESPONSES TO AND OVERRULING WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
REGARDING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE
CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment No, 5 to the Central Redevelopment Plan
("Plan") has been prepared by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Arcadia
("Agency") pursuant to Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code
section 33000 et seq.) ("CRL"); and
WHEREAS, on July 3, 2001, a duly noticed joint public hearing on the proposed
Plan was conducted by the City Council of the Arcadia ("City Council") and the Agency;
and
WHEREAS, any and all persons having any objections to the proposed Plan,
including but not limited to the findings of blight and the economic feasibility of adopting
and carrying out the Plan, or the regularity of the proceedings, were given an
opportunity to submit written comments prior to the commencement or at the joint
hearing, or to give oral testimony at the joint public hearing, and show cause why the
proposed Plan should not be adopted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received written objections from property owners
and affected taxing entities, attached hereto as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council directed Agency staff to respond in detail to such
written objections in detail, giving reasons for not accepting specified objections and
suggestions; and
1
6237
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed such written responses; and
WHEREAS, 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 Plan; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CRl Section 33352, in connection with the proposed
adoption of the Plan, the Agency has prepared the Agency's Report to City Council
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection,
NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCil OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA,
CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOllOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds that all persons have had the
opportunity to be heard or to file a written objection to the proposed Amendment No, 5
to the Central Redevelopment Plan including but not limited to the findings that the
Project Area is blighted and that the adoption and carrying out of the Plan is
economically feasible, and to the regularity of the proceedings with respect to the
proposed Plan, and having heard and reviewed such oral and written objections, the
City Council hereby makes findings in response to each written objection as set forth in
Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and determines
that there are compelling reasons to justify adoption of the Plan, as proposed,
notwithstanding such written and oral objections,
SECTION 2, The City Council further finds on the basis of substantial evidence
contained in the Agency's Report to City Council, and other substantial evidence in the
record, that conditions of blight exist within the Plan's project area; and that all other
conditions to and requirements for the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan have been
2
6237
satisfied; and that written and oral evidence in opposition received prior to or at the joint
public hearing is not persuasive to the contrary.
SECTION 3. The City Council and the Agency have duly complied with all
provisions, requirements and procedures of the CRL relating to the preparation and
adoption of Amendment No.5 to the Central Redevelopment Plan.
SECTION 4, The City Council hereby accordingly overrules any and all
objections, and more specifically, those written objections of affected property owners
and taxing entities, to the adoption of Amendment No, 5 to the Central Arcadia
Redevelopment Plan.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this resolution and
shall cause the same to be processed in the manner required by law.
Passed, approved and adopted this 10th day of July, 2001
ATTEST:,
,
~Ay~
C Clerk__
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
,
~p~
City Attorney
3
6237
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS:
CITY OF ARCADIA )
I, JUNE D. ALFORD, City Clerk of the City of Arcadia, hereby certifies that
the foregoing Resolution No, 6237 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Arcadia, signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk at a regular
meeting of said Council held on the 10th day of July, 2001 and that said Resolution
was adopted by the following vote, to wit:
A YES: Councilmember Chandler, Chang, Marshall and Segal
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmember Kovacic
4
6237
EXHIBIT A
TO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 6237
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED SOUTH ARCADIA
AMENDMENT NO.5 TO THE CENTAL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
A 1, Document: Letter of June 11, 2001 from F, L. Berberian with petition signed by
25 tenants,
2, Objection
3, Response to Objection
4. Disposition
B1. Document: Memo of Seifel Consulting, Inc, dated June 14, 2001 provided by
LA County Chief Administrator's Office "Review of Findings include in the
Preliminary Report for Amendment No.5 to the Central Redevelopment Project,
City of Arcadia."
2. Objection
3. Response to Objection
4. Disposition
. , .
F.L. BERBERIAN
BERBERIAN PROPERTIES
147 North Santa Anita Avenue
Arcadia. California 91006-3109
(,JIo (m) 447-6932
Fa., flUll) 445-5507
'-H,
f!P
Received r
JUN 18 2001
Development Services
Economic Development Division
June 11, 2001
Mr. Pete Kinnahan
Economic Development Admin.
Arcadia Redevelopment Agency
p, 0. Box 60021
Arcadia, Ca, 91066-6021
RE: CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Dear Mr. Kinnahan:
Being a property owner of two areas of this project, I would like to voice my opposition. I have
owned the properties at 121-159 N. Santa Anita Ave. and 125 E. Santa Clara Street for more
than 25 years, The properties are fully occupied, attractive and have been very well maintained
all of these years. I very strongly deny the existence of blight on or around my properties.
Many of my present tenants have been with me for more than 15 years with established
businesses in the area. It will be extremely difficult for them to pull up roots and relocate
elsewhere, As in any city, the co-existence of light industry, retail and commercial in Arcadia is
essential for that city's success. All of us feel that the newest and most glamorous surroundings
are not the answer,
Enclosed are signatures of my tenants who would strongly oppose any further redevelopment of
the above listed pruperties. P l;:ase reconsider.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
BERBERIAN PROPERTIES
R~
Owner
----
--
DOCUMENT A
THE FOLLOWING OPPOSE THE CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
TA ANITA AVE..
ANALIST TURF -157 N. SANTA ANITA AVE.
~ ;;&Arz'/"l
BobL~. ~
'ARALEGAL - 155 N. SANTA ANITA AVE..
AMERICAN KENPO CON 'EPTS - 153 N. SANTA ANITA AVE..
~
U.S. PAGERS & CELLULAR-151.N. SANTA ANITA AVE.
~>~ ~----
Steve Terzian .
STATE FARM -149 N. SANTA ANITA AVE.
~ b" ~<J
Tom G. Metzger '
-145 N. SANTA ANITA AVE.
ENTERPRISE, INC -123 N. SANTA ANITA AVE.
C!/l:!~
Mi eH6 "J
FIRST CHINESE SCHOOL -121 N. SANTA ANITA AVE.
~l-r;e~tc9t'~
Florence Wang Lee
THE FOLLOWING OPPOSE mE CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
125 E. SANTA CLARA ST. - UNITS #1 - #20
JEDTRADERS-UNlTS#IAND#5 ~~
Ed teau
SQUARE HEAT - UNIT #3
G ~&J~
amartin/"eesar Rhodes
~O~
ISC - UNIT #2
Steve Nahabedian
--.
RICH ELECTRIC - UNIT #4
~//~
Rich Protich
HEARN KARTING - UNIT #6
~~/L
Richard Hearn
/) i
I~~'(
PROvEN ADY.- UNITS #9/#10
PASADENA TILE - UNITS #7/#8 -c"--0
I Ian Borucki
u)df//~e~~
Bill Provence
AUDIO IMPORTS - UNIT # 11
r:Jr
LJ ( 6 ~ '"'--
. I hn Pornazi
MONTECITO ARTS - UNIT #12
eel ~/m!/~
Ed Kuckelkom
CONTINUED
EMBRACEABLE YOU - #13
~
L/ Vpn ;Ji
J€Jmy Vo ffoL T6/2.-M MAl
AXCEL GRAPIDCS - UNIT #14
-~~
Alex
CREATIVE MEMORIES - #15
ARCADIA PRECISION # 16
BRITEC CARPET CLEAN, - # 17
2:/ ~1-VOU-j)
\.j
Bryan 0 d
FABRI-QUIPT SYSTEMS - #18/#19
9
/
WHITE'S TOOL GRINDING #20 ~~'--CreLv-!2J:
J es White
.-
Seifel
CONSULTING INC.
13BB Sutter Street
Suits 520
San Francisco, CA
94109-5452
415,931,9600
Fax 931.9602
www~eifel.com
Memorandum
ReceIved
"
'.......
'\
\
JUN 2 1 2801
June 14, 2001
To:
Development SelVices
Economic Development Division
Martin Zimmerman, Assistant Division Chief
Office of Unincorpor;~ Area Services a~{y:ec~al Projects
Elizabeth (Libby) Sei~nd MarieJohn~ r.
Review of Findings Included in the Preliminary Report for Amendment
No.5 to the Central Redevelopment Project, City of Arcadia
From:
Subject:
This memorandum includes a summary of the analysis of the City of Arcadia's
Preliminary Report for Amendment No.5 to the Central Redevelopment Project. The
proposed amendment would add the South Arcadia Amendment Area to the existing
Central Redevelopment Project Area.
Seifel Consulting Inc, prepared this memorandum in collaboration with Counry staff,
The,analysis presented in this memorandum is based on an evaluation of Preliminary
Report No.5, a field survey of the South Arcadia Amendment Area, and a review of
supplemental documents on the proposed Amendment and other documents provided
by the Agency and the County, We evaluated the Preliminary Report findings in
relationship to the requirements set forth in California Redevelopment Law (CRL)
and three recent relevant court cases: Beach-Courchesne v, City of Diamond Bar (1998);
County of Riverside v, City of Murrieta (2000); and Friends of Mammoth v. Town of
Mammoth Lakes (2000).
In addition to reviewing the Preliminary Report blight findings, this memorandum
discusses two other related requirements of the California Redevelopment Law, the
nexus between redevelopment activities and blight alleviation and the necessity for
redevelopment,
The organization of the memorandum is as follows:
Executive Summary
A. Existence of Blight
B. Nexus between Redevelopment Activities and Blight Alleviation
C. Necessiry for Redevelopment Assistance{fax Increment Financing
D. Conclusion
Please contact us if you have any questions or need further assistance.
DOCUMENT B
Executive Sllmmary
Seifel Consulting Inc., in collaborarion with County staff, prepared this memorandum
summarizing the analysis of the City of Arcadia's Preliminary Report for Amendment No, 5 to
the Central Redevelopment Project. The proposed amendment would add the South Arcadia
Amendment Area to the existfng Central Redevelopment Project Area. The analysis evaluated
the Preliminary Report findings in relationship to the requirements set forth in California
Redevelopment Law (CRL) and three recent relevant court cases,
The documentation presented in the Preliminary Report does not appear to be sufficient to
meet the requirements of the CRL concerning the existence of blight, the nexus between
redevelopment activities and blight alleviation, and the necessity for redevelopment. Additional
information is needed to meet these three requirements. Specifically, the Report needs further
documentation to address the following concerns:
· The Report does not include a discussion of how substandard design, inadequate parking and
lots of irregular shape and inadequate size in multiple ownership have prevented or
substantially hindered the economically viable use of the properties or how they present a
serious burden to the community. Also, it does not clearly connect the economic blighting
condition of stagnant property values to the physical blighting conditions.
. The Report discusses infrastructure inadequacies in general terms. It does not present
specific documentation as to why the infrastructure is deficient, nor does it demonstrate how
the condition of the infrastructure impedes the Amendment Area,
. When the maps presented in Preliminary Report are overlaid, it is not apparent that the
blighting conditions are substantial and pervasive, Some portions of the Amendment Area
exhibit physical deterioration, but others do not. Those portions of the area that do not
exhibit blighting conditions should only be included if necessary for effective
redevelopment, However, the Report does not discuss why these areas are needed for
effective redevelopment,
. The Report does not clearly indicate how redevelopment assistance will be used to alleviate
blighting conditions. Redevelopment resources are not specifically allocated for the
Commercial Fa<;ade Rehabilitation Program, Business Retention/Attraction and Incentive
Program, or Property Acquisition. The only programs that the Agency proposes to fund in
South Arcadia are public improvements, and the Report does not prese~t a discussion on
how these public improvements will alleviate the blighting conditions.
. The Report does not present specific information on the limitations of other sources of
funding for the redevelopment activities. It does not clearly demonstrate that no other
reasonable means of financing the improvements are available to the communiry.
Seitel Consulting Inc.
2
A. Existence of Blight
The CRL reqUires that an area proposed to be added to a redevelopment plan meet the same
legal eligibiliry requirements as a new project area. Pursuant to CRL Section 33030, an added
area must be both predominantly urbanized and exhibit a combination of the physical and
economic blighting conditions defined in CRL Section 33031. Specifically, the CRL requires
that at least one physical blighting condition and at least one economic blighting condition be
present in the area proposed for redevelopment. (The CRL allows one exception to this
requirement: an area can qualify as blighted if it contains subdivided lots of irregular form and
shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development-that are in multiple ownership.
In this instance, no other factor of blight is required for qualification.) A redevelopment agency
must demonstrate that these blighting conditions are substantial andprevalent. Furthermore,
the agency must find that the elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the added area
could not reasonable be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise and/or government
without redevelopment assistance,
The Preliminary Report for Amendment No.5 presents documentation for one physical
blighting condition and one economic condition in the South Arcadia Amendment Area, along
with a general discussion of the condition of buildings and lots in the area. Given the .
requirement for a combination of blightingJactors with at least one physical condition and at
least one economic condition, if the documentation for either condition is not adequate, the
South Arcadia Amendment Area would not qualify for redevelopment.
L CRL Requirements for Physical and Economic Blight
The characteristics that can be used to support a finding of blight and the statutory definitions
are presented below. (Excerpts from,the CRL are italicized,)
Section 33030 of the CRL describes the standards for and the characteristics of blighted areas:
(a) I t is found and declared that there exist in many communities blighted areas, which constitute physical
and economic liabilities. requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety, and general
welfare of the people of these communities and of the state. [33030(a)j
(bj. A blighted area is one that contains both of the following:
(]) An area that is predominately urbanized, as that term is defined in Section 33320,1, and is an
area in which the combination of conditions set forth in Section 33031 is so prevalent and so
. substantial that it catlSes a reduction of, or lack of, proper utilization of the area to such an
extent that it constitutes a seriotlS 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,
(2) An area that is characterized by either of the foUowing:
. (A) One or more conditions set forth in any paragraph of subdivision (a) of Section 33031 and
one or more conditions set forth in any paragraph of subdivision (b) of Section 33031,
(B) The condition described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 33031,
Sellel Consulting Inc.
3
(c) A blighted area also may be one that contains the conditions described in subdivision (b) and is, in
addition, characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements, parking facilities, [Ir
utilities,
CRL Section 33031 describes both physical and economic conditions that can be used as
evidence of blight:
Physical Conditions
The CRL definition for physical blight is as follows:
. Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work, These conditions can be caused by
serious building code violations, dilapidation and deterioration, defective design or physica!.conscruction,
faulty or inadequate utilities, or other similar factors, 33031(a)( 1)
. Factors that prevent or subsumtially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots, This
condition can be caused by a substandard design, inadequate size given present standards and market
conditions, lack of parking, or other similar factors, 33031(a)(2)
. Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the economic development
of those parcels [Ir other portions of the project area, 33031 (a)(3)
. The existence of subdivided lots of irregular frmn and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and
development that are in multiple ownership, 33031 (a) (4)
Economic Conditions
The CRLdefinition for economic blight is as follows:
. Depreciated [Ir stagnant property values or impaired invesl71lents, including, but not necessarily limited w,
those properties containing hazardous wastes that require the use of agency authority as specified in Article
12.5 (commencing with Section 33459), 33031(b)(1)
. Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, high turnover rates, abandoned buildings, [Ir
excessive vacant lots within an area developed for urban use and served by utilities. 33031 (b)( 2)
. A lack of necessary commercial facilities that are normally found in neighborhoods, including grocery stores,
drug stores, and banks and Other lending institutions. 33031(b)(3)
. Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor swres, or other businesses that cater exclusively to
adults, that has led w problems of public safety and welfare, 33031 (b) (4)
. A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat w the public safety and welfare, 33031 (B)(5)
Z.. Physical Blight Findings
The Preliminary Report for Amendment No.5 presents documentation for one physical
blighting condition, described on page 11 as "factors that prevent or substantially hinder the
economically viable use or capaciry of buildings or lots." The Preliminary Report provides a
general discussion of the condirion of buildings and lots in the area but does not appear to make
a finding that the condition described in Section 33031(a)(1) exists, The Preliminary Report
also describes lots of irregular shape and inadequate size in multiple ownership as a condition
contributing to "factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or
capacity of buildings or lots," but it does not make a finding that the condition described in
Section 33031(a)(4) exists.
Seilel Consulting Jne,
4
a. Finding for Factors that Inhibit Proper Use of Buildings or Lots
The Preliminary Report presenrs documentation for the physical blignting conditioIi factors
that inhibit proper use of buildings or lors. As listed above, the CRL defines this factor of blight
as follows:
Factors that prevent OT substantially hinder the ecorwmicaUy viable use OT capaary of buildings DT Iors, This
condition can be caused by a substandard design, inadequate sil;e given present standards and market
conditions, lack of parking, or other similar factDTs, 33031(a)(2)
The Preliminary Report documentation for the existence of this condition of blight includes:
. Substandard Design
The Report cites 51 buildings (55%) with substandard design (poorly laid out, inadequate in
size for current use, and/or have shifting uses from one category of land use to another), The
report states that these factors indicate that the building design is substandard relative to
current market demands.
- Buildings of inadequate size: The tepOrt noted that more than half of the
buildings in the Amendment Area are of inadequate size based on modem
commercial standards (minimum 5,000 square feet),
- Poor site configuration: 20 parcels have poor site figuration, including buildings
fronting on street with no front yard setback and few side yard setbacks; limited
parking at rear of buildings that conflicrs with loading and servicing activities;
and lack of parking access for mid-block parcels that makes them undesirable to
businesses that need plentiful and visible parking for customers. The Report
noted that modem retailing standards require parking in the front of buildings to
allow easy access for customers to park.
. Inadequate Parking
The Report states that 21 parcels have inadequate parking: I parcel has no onsite parking,
9 parcels have poor parking accessibility (access via an alley), and 14 have insufficient
parking spaces (parking not visible from the street or with too few spaces for their location),
. Lots of irregular shape and inadequate size in multiple ownership
The documentation includes 54 parcels (53%) of less than minimum parcel size, The
Report's analysis used .46 acres as the minimum parcel size, About 66 of the 90 non-public
parcels were less than 200 feet in depth (the minimum depth that Keyser Marston
Associates notes is needed to accommodate onsite parking required for neighborhood strip
retail development, assuming parcel width of 50 feet, parcel depths of 80-120 feet for shop
space and 5,000 square foot building),
. The Preliminary Report concludes that these small lot sizes and physical constraints make
rehabilitation and reuse of properties in the AmendmentArea difficult.
Recent Relevant Court Decisions Concerning Factors that Inhibit Proper Use of Buildings
or Lots
The following excerpts from recent Court decisions demonstrate the Court's current opinion
regarding the necessity of demonstrating how physical factors prevent the economically viable
use or capacity of buildit:lgs or lors. (Key language is in boldface text,)
Seilel Consulting Inc.
5
Beach-Courchesne \I. On of Diamond Bar
Although the City found that 27% of all buildings in the project area exhibited one or more
conditions of defective design, including inadequate vehicular access, substandard building
materials and inadequate loading areas, the City did not identify a single building as suffering
from such conditions. Similarly, although the City found the retail centers were plagued by
inadequate vehicular access, it did not indicate which locations suffer from inadequate vehicular
access or lack of adequate loading areas. Likewise the City has not specified the basis of its finding
that 24% of the buildings in the project area have one or more characteristics of substandard design,
including obsolescence and outdoor storage and/or production, Moreover, there is no specification
as to how such conditions have hindered the economically viable use of these unidentified
properties within the meaning of section 33031, subdivision (a)(2), as claimed by the City. We
are given only generic reasons "which might apply to any property anywhere," (Gonzales, supra, 12
Ca. App, 4"' at p. 1346,)
Further, there is no specification as to the 20% of buildings which lack adequate parking, or any
showing to quantify how inadequate parking has hindered the economically viable use of those
properties, In this regard, the only specification in the agency's report to council consists of the
following: one residential street near a commercial office structure was lined with cars; and a certain
industrial park had only four parking spaces for each tenant space."
". The asserted conditions of physical blight are set forth in conclusionary and summary tenns, The
purported physical blight is discussed only in generalities, without any showing of the extent to
which the alleged blighting conditions have prevented or substantially hindered the economically
viable use of the properties. (Section 33031, subd. (a)(2).)
Friends of Mammoch v, Town of Mammorh Lakes
Two of the Town's findings do not satisfy the requirements of the statute. Physical conditions
causing blight do not result just from factors that limit a parcel's economic viability; they arise
from factors that "prevent or substantially hinder" a parcel's economic viability. (Health & Saf,
Code S 33031, subd. (a)(2), emphasis added.) Determinations of blight are to be made on the basis of
an area's exisring use, not its potential use. Redevelopment "never can be used just because the
public agency considers that it can make a better use or planning of an area than its present use or
plan," (Sweetwarer Valley Civic Assn. V. City of National City (1976) 18 Ca1.3dd 270,278.)
Thus, factors limiting a building or lot. which is currently enjoying an economically viable use or
capacity from achieving potentially greater economic returns are outside the scope of subdivision
(a)(2) of Health and Safety Code section 33031. Rather, the evidence must show the existence
of physical conditions (such as design, size, lack of parking, etc.) which prevent or substantially
hinder an existing use or capacity of a lot or building from achieving or maintaining economic
viability,
Furthermore, the statute's language shows the Legislature was not interested in merely the
existence of the suggested physical conditions. Substantial evidence must show the physical
factors actually prevent or substantially hinder an existing use or lot's economic viability. For
example, many economically viable uses, particularly in urban areas, lack sufficienr auromobile
parking, Nevertheless, such uses conrinue to be profitable, demonstrating lack of parking for those
uses is nor a factor preventing or hindering their economic viability. They possibly could be more
profitable with more parking, but subdivision (a)(2) of Health and Safety Code section 33031
applies only if those uses and lots suffer economic nonviability now. Accordingly, contrary to the
Town's argument, the record must demonstrate substantial evidence quantifying the effect the
physical condition has on the economic viability for the existing use or capacity of the building or
lot... -
Seifel Consulting Inc,
6
The rrial Court found that the following passage from the Final Report demonstrated the economic
effect of this physical characterisric: 'Lack of parking and the res'!ttip.g Pilrking oyerflow from
inadequate .parking to sites which meet parking demand is a strong deterrent to economic
development and business expansion, particularly for commercial and industrial uses. Combined with
the inadequately sized lots, lack of parking and lack of adequate loading areas causes inaccessibility,
traffic congestion and lost business.' However, there is nothing in the record demonstrating that in
fact the lack of parking has actually resulted in decreased or lost business. Nowhere does the
Town produce facts demonstrating that even one Iiarticular business has lost customers or
revenue due to substandard site design...
..The Town claims the Final Report's presentation of the Town's sales tax and transient occupancy
tax revenues over the past five years provides substantial evidence for the physical condition's
economic impact, We disagtee, Thls evidence shows tax teceipts from the entire Town, not JUSt the
Project Area, Furthennore, the Town Council could not detennine from the evidence that the flat
rate of tax revenues was caused by defective design or construction, inadequate lot sizes, or
substandard site design. The rate of revenues could have been caused by a myriad of different
reasons, This evidence is far too disconnected to demonstrate the lack of economic viability due
to the physical factors here at issue,
Analysis of Finding for Factors that Inhibit Proper Use of Buildings or Lots
Recent court cases underscore the importance of documenting not only the factors inhibiting
the proper use of buildings or lots, but also how the factors have hindered the economically
viable use of the buildings or lots. The Preliminaty Report's documentation describes the
location of the factors inhibiting proper use of buildings or lots, including substandard design,
inadequate parking, or lots of irregular shape and inadequate size in multiple ownership.
However, it does not include a discussion of how these factors have ptevented or substantially
hindered the economically viable use of the properties.
According to recent court cases, the Agency must futther demonstrate how these factors
prevent or substantially hinder the economic viability or capacity of the buildings or lots, The
Preliminary Report does not include economic data indicating that lease tates are depressed,
vacancy rates are high, resale potential is low or other similar economic indicators are present in
the buildings and lots exhibiting factors that inhibit proper use, For example, it does not state
how. the lack of parking has resulted in decreased or lost business, revenue and/or customers,
Also, as discussed later, the Preliminary Report does not clearly indicate how redevelopment
assistance will be used to improve this blighting factor (refer to analysis in Section B).
b. Findings Concerning Existence of Deficient and Deteriorated Buildings
The Preliminary Report does not state that the existence of deficient or deteriorated buildings is
one of the physical factors of blight as defined in CRL Section 33031 present in the South
Arcadia Amendment Area, However, it presents the age and condition of buildings as further
documentation of adverse conditions in the Amendment Area. The Report states thar many of
the buildings have exceeded their normal life expectancy, 43% have some faulty building
condition, and 26% of the buildings are in less than sound condition, with the vast majority
categorized as deferred maintenance. It also notes that the Amendment Area contains one
deteriorated industtial building and one dilapidated commercial building, The Preliminaty
Report concludes, "In total, 41 buildings in the Amendment Area (or 45%) were found to suffer
from detrimental conditions, The prevalence of these detrimental conditions, in combination
Sellel Consulting Inc.
7
with the other blighting conditions described in this Report, creates an overall negative image
of the area and discourages reinvestment and upgrading of properties."
Recent Relevant Court Decisions Concerning Existence of Deficient and Deteriorated
Buildings
The following excerpts from recent Court decisions demonstrate the Court's current opinion
regarding documenting the physical blighting condition of deficient or deteriorated buildings.
(Key language is in boldface text.)
CounC"l of Riverside v, Cit'i of Murrieta,
Instead, the report identifies fewer than five percent of the project area's structures as belonging
in the category of unsafe or unhealthy. ...The rest of the conditions of physical blight are not
supported by tangible proof and are not discussed in a meaningful way, An example of the kind of
jargon used in the reporr is the following; 'Functional obsolescence is a condition resulting from
changes in modem building practices and the manner in which buildings are utilized. As the
building srock ages, its structural components and configurations become unable ro meet the
expectation and needs of users, This suppresses value and rental income which in turn produces a
lower level of physical maintenance at a time when the structures are literally wearing out.' In other
words, buildings age and become less valuable. But the foregoing dos not show the existence of
blight in the City of Murrieta. The report makes little attempt to describe specific problems
caused by older buildings or to estimate the cost of remedying those problems.
Beach-Courchesne v, Cit"l of Diamond Bar
N at a single structure was identified by the City as being "unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live
or work." (Section JJOJI, subd, (a)(I)) In assessing the physical conditions 'of the project area,
RSG's criteria included chipped paint, minor non-structural defects, and broken windows. Out of
the 250 buildings in the project area, only one structure was identified as being in need of
"extensive rehabilitation."
Analysis Concerning Existence of Deficient and Deteriorated Buildings
Recent case law stresses the importance of distinguishing between buildings needing substantial
rehabilitation and those with less significant deficiencies, identifying buildings that are unsafe or
unhealthy, and documenting specific problems caused by older buildings, The Preliminary
Report for Amendment No, 5 does not distinguish between categories of buildings needing
minor repair versus those needing extensive repair or rehabilitation, with the exceprion of
noting one dilapidated building and one deteriorated building, It does not mention whether
either of these twO buildings is unsafe or unhealthy. Our field survey indicates that one of these
buildings -the dilapidated buildirig on the south side of Live Oak A venue and west of Welland
Avenue- has been demolished, and another building is being constructed in its place. While
the Preliminary Report describes the age of buildings, it does not describe specific problems
caused by the age of these buildings that would constitute blight,
3. Economic Blight
The Preliminary Report presents documentation for one economic blight condition described
on page 16 of the Report as "depreciated or stagnant property values and impaired investments,"
The CRL definition is as follows:
Seitel Consulting Inc,
8
Depreciated or Stagnant property ~alues or impaired in~e5tments, inchuling, but not necessarily limited to,
those properries containing hazardous wastes that require the use of agenc::! authority as specified in Arricle
12.5 (commencing with Secrion 33459), 33031(b)( 1)
a.. Finding for Stagnant Property Values
The Preliminary Report presents documentation on stagnant property values and declining sales
revenues in the South Arcadia Amendment Area indicadng:
. T oral assessed valuation of the property grew at an average annual growth rate of \.8% over
four years, compared to 4.5% for the City of Arcadia, and 4,1 % for Los Angeles County.
. Taxable sales revenue declined by 20% in the Amendment Area from FY1997/1998 to
FY1999/2000, while sales increased by over 11 % in the City over the same time period.
No other supporting economic data is presented regarding the Amendment Area,
Recent Relevant Court Decisions Concerning Depreciated or Stagnant Property Values or
Impaired Investments
The following excerpts from recent Court decisions demonstrate the Court's current opinion
regarding the necessity of demonstrating the link between the presence of these blighting factors
and the need for redevelopment assistance, (Key language is in boldface text.)
Count~ of Riverside v, Cirv or Murrieta
Similarly, the report generally discusses economic conditions without quantifying loss of property
value, Instead, the report points to low taxable sales without linking those to blighting conditions.
. Friends of Mammoth ~ . Town of Mammoth Lakes
..The Town claims the Final Report's presentation of the Town's sales tax and transient occupancy
tax revenues over the past five years provides substantial evidence for the physical condition's
economic impact. We disagree. This evidence shows tax receipts from the entire Town, not just the
Project Atea. Furthermore, the Town Council could not determine from the evidence that the flat
rate of tax revenues was caused by defective design or construction, inadequate lot sizes, or
substandard site design. The rate of revenues could have been caused by a myriad of different
reasons. This evidence is far too disconnected to demonstrate the lack of economic viability due
to the physical factors here at issue.
Analysis of Findings on Depreciated or Stagnant Property Values or Impaired Investments
Recent court opinion indicates a necessity for a connection between economic stagnation and
physical blight. The Preliminary Report does not appear to make that connection, The
Preliminary Report documents that properry values in the South Arcadia Amendment Area
have grown slower than the City and County and likely reflect low property turnover,
indicating properry value stagnation, However, the Report does not connect this factor of
economic blight to the physical blighting conditions, Also, the Report states that declining
taxable sales are indicative of declining sales, business closure, or a combination thereof, and
that the data suggest that businesses in the South Arcadia Business Disttict are continuing to .
lose business, However, the Report does not present information on business closures or other
possible causes for the decline in taxable sales revenues.
Seifel Consulting Inc,
9
4.. Inadequate Public Improvements
The description of physical and economic conditions contained in CRL Section 33031 no
longer lisrs inadequate public improvements as a factor that can be considered in making a
finding of blight for a redevelopment project. However, Section 33030 of the law continues to
permit consideration of inadequate public improvemenrs when blighting economic conditions
are also present.
(cJ A blighted area also may be one that contains the conditions described in subdivision (b) and is, in
addition, characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements, parking facilities, or
utilities,
Finding for Inadequate Public Improvements
The Preliminary Report documenrs the following inadequate public improvemenrs and utilities:
. Sewer and water main lines along Live Oak Avenue and Las Tunas Drive have exceeded
useful service life and need to be replaced,
. Overhead utility lines are present along Live Oak Avenue.
. Repairs and improvements are needed for traffic signals and traffic medians along Live Oak
A venue and Las Tunas Drive,
Recent Relevant Court Decisions Concerning Inadequate Public Improvements
. The following excerpt from recent Court decisions denotes the Court's opinion regarding
inadequate public improvemenrs. (Key language is in boldface text.)
Beach-Courchesne v' CiN of Diamond Bar
In this regard, the City found, 'The Project Area is characterized by inadequare public infrastructure,
improvements and facilities, which contributes ro the stagnation of the area's development and
limits the use and reuse of existing commercial and industrial structures. Existing landscaping,
srreetscaping,. and public facilities are in need of upgrading or expanding ro provide a pedestrian-
friendly environment that encourages business patronage and private secror investment.' Here again,
we are presented purely with generalities as to why the infrastructure is deficient. There is
nothing, for example, to indicate 'that the lack of such improvements has unduly burdened the
existing...use of the area.' (Emmington v, Solano County Redevelopment Agency (1987) 195 Ca\.
App, 3d 491,500,237 Cal. Rptr. 636,)
Analysis of Finding for Inadequate Public Improvements
Recent case law indicates that an Agency must specify the infrastructutedeficiencies and
present documentation regarding why they have unduly burdened an area. The Preliminary
Report for Amendment No.5 discusses the inadequacies in general terms. It does not present
specific documentation as to why the infrastructure and utilities are deficient, nor does it
demonstrate how the condition of the infrastructure and utilities impedes the Amendment
Area. For example, the Preliminary Report states "although not a primary blighting factor, these
conditions impede the private sector's ability to develop and rehabilitate an area thereby
alleviate blighting conditions."
Seifel Consulting Inc.
10
5. Documentation of Substantial and Pervasive Conditions
CRL Section 33030 (b)(l) defines a blighted area as one in which the blighting conditions are
so prevalent and so substantial that they impede the proper utilization of the area to such an
extent that it creares a serious physical and economic burden on the community.
Preliminary Report Documentation of Conditions
The Preliminary Report documents a series of blighting conditions in Exhibits 2 through 7,
These Exhibits delineate locations of detrimental building conditions, substandard design, poor
site configuration, inadequate parking, and lots of irregular shape and inadequate size in
multiple ownership,
Recent Relevant Court Decision on Documentation of Conditions
The Court recently addressed the need for substantial evidence to be presented in the
administrative record. (Key language is in boldface text.)
Friends of Mammoth v. Town of Mammoth Lakes
Unlike CEQA, which required substantial evidence in the administrative record demonstrating only
that the EIR provided a reasonable, good.faith discussion of the pptentialimpact, the Community
Redevelopment Law requires substantial evidence in the administrative record demonstrating the
existence of specific characteristics of urbanization and blight. (Health & Saf, Code Sections
33030.33031,33320.1.) In some instances, the statute requires a finding of a nexus, to borrow the
term from takings jurisprudence, between a particular characteristic being reviewed 'and the actual
condition being c.aused, If the specific finding required by the Comnl'll1liry Redevelopment Law
cannot be made from the evidence in the administrative record, the evidence is not "substantial'
proof of the essentials which the law requires' and the finding is not supported by substantial
evidence. (Estate of Teed, supra, 1112 Cal.App.2d at p, 644,)
Analysis of Preliminary Report Documentation of Conditions
Court opinion indicates the necessity for substantial documentation of blighting conditions.
When the maps presented in Preliminary Report for Amendment No,S are overlaid, it is not
apparent that the blighting conditions are substantial and pervasive. Also, the Preliminary
Report does not address how these blighting conditions have prevented or substantially
hindered the economically viable use of the properties and how they present a serious burden to
the community,
The Preliminary Report does not include photographic documentation, which, although not
specifically required by the CRL, is a standard exhibit used by redevelopment consultants to
provide visual evidence of the concentration of blight for the administrative record. No map or
exhibit is presented showing where photographs were taken to indicate the pervasive nature of
the blight. The EIR contains photographic documentation, but only a few of the 24 photographs
include documentation on the blighting conditions cited in the Preliminary Report.
A recent field survey indicates that while some portions of the South Arcadia Amendment Area
exhibit physical deterioration, others do not, Those portions of the area that do not exhibit
blighting conditions should only be included if necessary fot effective redevelopment. However,
no reference is made as to why these areas need to be included pursuant to Section 33321. In
Seilel Consulting Ine,
11
addition, the fact that one of only two dilapidated and deteriorating buildings noted in the field
survey has been recently demolished by the private sector and a new building is under
construction on the patcel, does not corroborate that the presence of adverse conditions that
cannot be alleviated by the private sector acting alone without redevelopment.
"
B. Nexus between Redevelopment Activities and Blight Alleviation
CRL Section 33344,5 (e) and (f) require that the Preliminary Report contain a description the
proposed redevelopment program and how it will improve or alleviate blight.
A description of the spedfic project ryr projects then proposed by the agency, Section 33344.5( e)
A description of how the project ryr projects to be pursued by the agency in the project area wiU improve ryr
alleviate the conditions described in subdivision (b). Section 33344 .S(f)
Preliminary Report Documentation on Nexus between Redevelopment Activities and Blight
Alleviation
The Preliminary Report includes a description of the proposed redevelopment program and how
ir will alleviate blight. The program is presented in five categories:
. Capital and Public Improvements
Add streetlights, replace/upgrade traffic signals, replace concrete street paving,
redeSign/reconstruct street medians, underground electrical transmission lines, replace aging
warer and sewer mains, replace aging water well.
· Commercial Fa~ade Rehabilitation Pro~am
Existing Agency loan program to be made available to property owners and local merchants
to improve exterior of their property or business location,
. Business Retention/Attraction and Incentive Pro!ITams
Existing Agency program that will become applicable to rhe Amendment Area. Attract
business through marketing activities, business training and development programs, and
offering incentives.
. Propertv Acquisition
Selective property acquisition/land assembly program for purpose of assembling parcels into
sire suirable for development and to transfer property for private development, Objective is
centered on eliminating blight, such as parcels suffering from inadequate parking or that are
too small for development,
.. Housin!!
Housing funds ;'iIl be used both inside and outside the Amendment Area.
The Report describes how these projects and programs will improve or alleviate existing
blighting conditions:
· The capital and public improvements will cotrect the shortfall between current demand for
public improvements and the level of service provided,
· The commercial fa~ade rehabilitation program will reduce the number of buildings suffering
from deferred maintenance and detrimental building conditions,
Seilel Consulting Inc.
12
. Fa~ade and site improvements will make the area more attractive and desirable as a place to
shop or do business, creating a more successful commercial area, which will generate more
employment opportunities, support property values and increase sales tax revenue.
. The business retention/attraction and incentive program will allow the Agency to support
local businesses and attract new businesses to the Amendment Area using the variety of
programs and incentives available.
. Property acquisition would be centered on the elimination of existing blighting conditions,
such as parcels suffering from inadequate parking or that are too small for development,
Recent Relevant Court Decision Concerning Nexus between Redevelopment Activities and
Blight Alleviation
In a recent decision, the Court noted the link between blight alleviation and redevelopment
activities (key language is in boldface text):
Beach-Courchesne v. CiN of Diamond Bar
. . , Even assuming the incompatible uses led to vacancies in the industrial area, redevelopment will
not alleviate these conditions unless the Agency intends to acquire the school. However, the
Agency did not include such an acquisition in its implementation plan submitted to the City
Council pursuant to section 33352, subdivision (c),
Analysis of Preliminary Reports Documentation of Nexus between Redevelopment
Activities and Blight Alleviation
While the Preliminary Report for Amendment No, 5 describes the link between the proposed
redevelopment activities and blight in general terms, the proposed funding allocations do not
appear to reflect the proposed redevelopment program. The allocations listed in Exhibit 9,
Identified Projects, Programs & Activities, do not appear to reflect the five programs
summarized in the text of the Report. The Exhibit presents a proposed $5,93 million funding
allocation for the South Arcadia Amendment Area with proposed funding amounts:
. Replace water mains ($521,000)
. Replace water well ($ 1.5 million)
. Replace sewer main ($128,000
· Center medians ($250,000)
· New/replace traffic signals ($430,000)
. Traffic signal synchronization ($960,000)
. Median redesign ($150,000)
. Replace pavement ($300,000)
. Underground electric lines ($1.6 million)
· Streetlights ($66,000)
The proposed funding allocations in Exhibit 9 do not include funding in South Arcadia for
three of the activities that the Preliminary Report describes as central to the efforts to eliminate
blight. The Court has emphasized the link between the redevelopment activities and blight
alleviation, The Preliminary Report documents two conditions of blight: (1) factors that inhibit
proper use of buildings or lots, including substandard design, inadequate parking, and subdivided
lots of irregular shape and inadequate size that are in multiple ownership; and (2) depreciated or
stagnant property values and impaired investments. The proposed redevelopment program
funding allocations for the South Arcadia Amendment Area appear to be allocated solely to
capital and public improvements. According to Exhibit 9, redevelopment resources are not
specifically allocated for the Commercial Fa~ade Rehabilitation Program, Business
Retention/Attraction and Incentive Program, or Property Acquisition. The only programs chat
the Agency proposes to fund in South Arcadia are public improvemencs, and the repon does not
Seifel Consulting Inc.
. 13
present a discussion on how these public improvements will alleviate the two blighting
conditions, .
C. Necessity for Redevelopment
As stated on page 2 of this memorandum, CRL Section 33030 (bH1) requires that the blighting
conditions must cause a serious burden on the community that cannot reasonably be expected
to be reversed or alleviated by privateenterpris~ or governmental action, or both, without
redevelopment. .
Preliminary Report Documentation on Necessity for Redevelopment.
The Preliminary Report states, "The anticipated costs to implement a program of revitalization
in the Amended Project will require significant participation from the Agency as it implements
activities which promote and achieve the stated goals and objectives of the Amended Plan....
Although the Agency may consider other funding sources permitted in the Amended Plan, not
. all of the funding soutces may be available or be feasible for the Agency to use in financing the
anticipated cOSts and revenue shortfalls. In the event that neither the Ciry nor the private
market acting alone could fully bear the costs associated with the revitalization of the Amended
Project, the implementation of a redevelopment program utilizing tax increment revenues must
be considered as a viable financing too\''' The Preliminary Report states that the Amended Plan
authorizes the use of financial assistance from the City of Arcadia, State of California, federal
government, tax increment funds, Agency bonds, interest income, loans from private financial
institutions, lease or sale of Agency-owned property, donations, developer payments, and any
other legally available public or private sources," It also notes, "To the extent that it is able to
do so, the Ciry may also supply additional assistance through Ciry loans or grants for various
public facilities or other project costs." .
Recent Relevant Court Decision Concerning Necessity for Redevelopment
Recent Court opinion emphasizes the necessity for demonstrating that a proposed
redevelopment program cannot be financially feasible bur for the assistance of redevelopment.
(Key language is in boldface text.)
Beach-Courchesne ~, Citv of Diamond Bar
The Supreme Court has cautioned that "'public agencies and courts both should be chary of
the use of the [redevelopment] act unless, ... there is a situation where the blight is such
that it constitutes a real hindrance to the development of the city and cannot be
eliminated or improved without public assistance. It never can be used just because the
public agency considers that it can make a better use or planning of an area than its present
use or plan,'" (Sweetwater Valley Civic Assn. V, City of National City (1976) 18 Cal3d
270,278, 133 Ca\. Rptr, 859, 555 P.2d 1099.) Thus the concededly desirable goal of
improving an area is "insufficient by itself to justify use of the extraordinary powers of
community redevelopment. If it were, tax increment financing at public expense would
be commonplace as a subsidy to private enterprise." (Regus v. City of Baldwin Park (1977)
70 CA. App, 3d 968, 979, 139 Ca\. Rptr. 196.) ,
Seilel Consulting Inc.
14
Analysis of Documentation of Necessity for Redevelopment
The Preliminary Report for Amendment No,S does not present information on other sources of
funding for the redevelopment activities, In demonstrating that redevelopment assistance is
necessary for a redevelopment project, it is helpful to present a discussion of potential sources of
funding and why they alone cannot make the project financially feasible without the assistance
of tax increment funding, As discussed in Section B above, the redevelopment activities are
public improvements. To use redevelopment assistance for public improvements, an agency
must demonstrare that the public improvements must benefit the project area or immediate
neighborhood of the project area, no other reasonable means of financing the improvements are
available to the communiry, and the agency's contribution to the cost of the public
improvement or faciliry must assist in the elimination of blight. Thus, the Preliminary Report
should include a discussion as to why the Ciry's $59 million Capital Program and Equipment
Replacement Program for 2000- 2005 cannot fund the public improvements that are proposed as
the redevelopment program,
D. Conclusion
The documentation presented in the Preliminary Report does not appear to be sufficient to
meet the requirements of the CRL concerning the existence of blight, the nexus between
redevelopment activities and blight alleviation, and the necessity for redevelopment. In order to
meet the requirements of redevelopment law, the City would need to augment its
documentarion,
Blight
The report does not fully document the existence of physical and economic blighting conditions
to meet the definitions of blight contained in the CRL. It does not discuss how physical
conditions have prevented or substantially hindered the economically viable use of the
properties or how they present a serious burden to the community, The Report does not
demonstrate how the condition of infrastructure impedes the Amendment Area. When the
maps presented in Preliminary Report are overlaid, it is not apparent that the blighting
conditions are substantial and pervasive, Some portions of the Amendment Area exhibit
physical deterioration, but others do not. Those portions of the area that do not exhibit
blighting conditions should only be included if necessary for effective redevelopment, However,
no reference is made as ro why these areas are needed for effective redevelopment,
Nexus between redevelopment activities and blight alleviation
The Report does not clearly indicate how redevelopment assistance will be used to alleviate
blighting conditions, Redevelopment resources are not specifically allocated for the Commercial
Fa~ade Rehabilitation Program, Business Retention/Attraction and Incentive Program, or
Property Acquisition, The only programs that the Agency proposes to fund in South Arcadia
are public improvements, and the report does not present a discussion on how these public
improvements will alleviate the blighting conditions.
Seitel Consulting Ino,
15
Necessity for redevelopment
The Repon does not present specific information on the limitations of other sources of funding
for the redevelopment activities. It does nor clearly demonstrate that no other reasonable means
of financing the improvements are available to the communii}'.
Seilel Consulting Inc,
16