The URL can be used to link to this page

CDC - 2009-20 - Five Year Implementation Plan for Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 and 2• 0 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APPROVING THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2009 THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2013 FIVE-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO.1 AND THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 2 WHEREAS, the Rosemead Community Development Commission (the "Commission") is a duly constituted redevelopment agency under the laws of the State of California; specifically, the California Community Redevelopment Law (CCRL; Health and Safety Code, Section 33000, et seq.), and the Commission is responsible for the administration and implementation of redevelopment activities within the City of Rosemead (the "City"); and WHEREAS, the Commission established the Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 and the Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 upon a determination of blighting condition in the City of Rosemead; and WHEREAS, by its Ordinance no. 871, adopted February 10, 2009, the City Council adopted merger amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 and the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 WHEREAS, State Law requires every Redevelopment Agency to approve an Implementation Plan outlining proposed activities for a five year period; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing to review the Implementation Plan has been published pursuant to Section 6063 of the Government Code and posted in at least four permanent places with each project area for a period of at least three weeks; and WHEREAS, on this day the Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Five-Year Implementation Plan for the period of July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2014. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Rosemead Community Development Commission as follows: Section 1. The Commission hereby approves the FY 2009 through FY 2013 Five-Year Implementation Plan attached to and incorporated as part of this Resolution. Section 2. The Secretary shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution, whereupon it shall take immediate effect and be in force. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 25TH day of August 2009. Margaret 91ark, Chairman Attest: Gloria Molleda, Secretary Approved as to Form: By: Joe Me Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP Legal Counsel • STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) 0 I, Gloria Molleda, Commission Secretary of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2009.20 being: A RESOLUTION OF THE ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION APPROVING THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2009 THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2013 FIVE-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO.1 AND THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO.2 was duly and regularly approved and adopted by the Rosemead Community Development Commission on the 25th of August, 2009, by the following vote to wit: Yes: Armenta, Low, Ly No: Taylor Abstain: Clark Absent: None Gloria Molleda Commission Secretary • • ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION MEMBERS FROM: JEFF ALLRED, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DATE: AUGUST 25, 2009 U N V SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FIVE-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUMMARY State law requires all redevelopment agencies to adopt an Implementation Plan (IP) every five years. An IP is designed to address activities within redevelopment project areas including goals, projects, and programs to eliminate blight and to encourage economic vitality and the development of affordable housing. At the August 11, 2009 Community Development Commission meeting, the Commission was presented with the FY 2009-2013 Five-Year Implementation Plan (IP) for consideration. The August 11, 2009 staff report, Resolution No. 2009-20, and the Five-Year Implementation Plan have been attached to this report for the Commissions use (Attachment A, B, and C respectively). During that discussion, the Commission requested that staff provide additional background information regarding the blight findings included in the IP. Attached for the Commission's review, is a Unified Report (Attachment D) that was compiled for the project area merger which was completed in February 2009. The Unified Report, among other things, identified significant economic and physical blight in both project areas. This is supported in Section 5 of the Report and in Appendix D which is a parcel by parcel blight threshold matrix. The types of "blight indicators" are defined by Redevelopment Law and include building deterioration, bars on windows/security fencing, poor site layout, graffiti, boarded up windows and doors, building and safety code violations, fire hazards, inadequate paint and weatherization protections, inoperable vehicles, etc. Each parcel was assessed in a blight indicator test and given a weighted point value. While the findings indicate that significant blight remains in the project areas, the varying degrees of the existence of blight is not necessarily an indication of severely run-down or "slum-like" conditions. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Community Development Commission adopt Resolution 2009-20 approving the FY 2009-2013 Five-Year Implementation Plan. ANALYSIS During the August 11, 2009 Community Development Commission meeting, the Commission had several questions and concerns regarding the term "blight" and its existence in the project areas. ITEM NO. APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: • • Community Development Commission August 25, 2009 Page 2 of 3 If the Commission may recall, it adopted Ordinance No. 871 merging Project Area No. 1 and 2 on February 10, 2009. As part of the merger process, the Commission had to show that significant blight remained in at least one (1) of the areas and be documented in a Unified Report. Overall, the Unified Report documents that of the 1,387 parcels in the two (2) project areas, 1,197 (86%) were found to have at least one condition of physical blight, and 241/6 were found to have significant physical blight. Specific types of blight that were found in the Commission's project areas include: building deterioration, bars on windows/security fencing, poor site layout and inadequate ingress/egress, graffiti, boarded up buildings, fire hazards, irregular parcel shapes and sizes, converted garages, unsafe stairs and walkways, inadequate paint and weather protection, unpermitted construction, inoperable vehicles, and many other conditions. Conditions are worse in Project Area No. 1, but significant blight remains in both areas. Section 33030-33039 of the California Health and Safety Code (Redevelopment Law) defines and describes the physical and economic conditions that cause blight (see Attachment E). While these conditions appear to be clearly defined, their practical application is subjective. Therefore, as part of the project area merger process, the City's consultant created a blight indicator matrix to test each parcel in both project areas for blight. The matrix can be found in the Unified Report, Appendix D which has been attached to this report. Each of the 40 indicators are described and explained in the matrix in addition to their relation to Redevelopment Law. In addition, each indicator was given a weighted value (by points) depending upon its severity. For example, deteriorating exterior support walls, garage conversions, and functional obsolescence were weighted more than bars on windows or inadequate loading/docking or the presence of inoperable vehicles. Once each parcel was subjected to the blight indicator test, they were given a weighted point value. The blight determination was then made based upon that value. For example, if a property were to have received at least 20 points, it was deemed blighted. On the other hand, if a parcel suffered from chipped and peeling paint or other issues that did not exceed the 20 point threshold, it was not deemed blighted. It is important to realize that while the findings of the blight study showed that there is significant blight remaining in the project areas, the varying degree of how blight is determined is not always an indicator that the City is in "slum-like" conditions. The presence of blight, regardless of its severity, is required to show the continued need for the redevelopment agency and its activities. The proposed IP meets all legal requirements, and that it sufficiently details current Commission polices. The IP represents an accurate description of the programs intended to be undertaken by the Commission over the next five (5) years. The IP establishes a nexus between the Commission's goals and objectives, programs activities, and the purpose of redevelopment which is to eliminate blight and to develop, preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing. It is not the intent of the IP to restrict Commission activities as they relate to the goals and objectives, programs, and expenditures outlined herein, since conditions, values, expectations, resources, and the needs of the community may change from time to time. • • Community Development Commission August 25, 2009 Page 3 of 3 LEGAL REVIEW The attached Resolution has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The FY 2009-2013 Implementation Plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 33490(a)(1)(B). However, each individual project, program, or expenditure discussed in the Implementation Plan will be considered a "project" and the Commission will perform the appropriate level of CEQA review at the time each project is before the Commission for consideration. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed according to the California Health and Safety Code Section 33490. Prepared by: 0 Michelle G. Ramirez Economic Development Administrator Su Development Director Attachment A: August 11, 2009 Staff Report Attachment B: Resolution 2009-20 Attachment C: Five Year Implementation Plan Attachment D: Unified Report Attachment E: Health and Safety Code Section 33030-33039 • ATTACHMENT A • u ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: -THE HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSION MEMBERS FROM: JEFF ALLRED, EXECUTIVE DIRECTO DATE: AUGUST 11, 2009 SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FIVE-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SUMMARY Redevelopment Law requires that all redevelopment agencies adopt an Implementation Plan (IP) every five years. An IP is designed to address activities within project areas and includes project goals, activities (including affordable housing), and blight elimination. In addition to adopting the IP, redevelopment law also requires that at least once during the five-year period, a public hearing on the progress of the IP be held. The Rosemead Community Development Commission last approved its' Five-Year Implementation Plan in July 2005. Staff Recommendation .Staff recommends that the Community Development Commission conduct a public hearing, take public testimony, and adopt Resolution 2009-20 approving the FY 2009- 2013 Five-Year Implementation Plan. ANALYSIS The purpose of a Five Year Implementation Plan is to draw a clear connection between the agency's projects and the requirement under Redevelopment Law to eliminate blight, and to address affordable housing. The Rosemead Community Development Commission's FY 2009-2013 Five-Year Implementation Plan includes programs and expenditures of the Commission and provides an explanation of how these goals, objectives, programs, and expenditures will eliminate blight within the project areas. The IP also describes the programs and projects the Commission will undertake to fulfill its various affordable housing obligations as defined by redevelopment law. The CDC's goals will be to continue to improve the physical appearance and strengthen the economic environment and enhance the community with safe, decent, and affordable housing, supported by recreational, educational, and cultural opportunities. ITEM NO. APPROVED FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: • • Community Development Commission August 11, 2009 Pape 2 of 3 The majority of the projects and activities to be undertaken by the CDC have been developed to meet some of the following keys goals: • Promoted the economic revitalization of the commercial corridors in the Project Areas • Provide improved park facilities, public facilities and street improvements in the Project Areas • Provide an updated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance according to State law • Promote affordable housing programs throughout the City • Contribute to the improvement of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) To achieve these goals the IP purposes to undertake the following physical blight elimination and economic revitalization programs: • Design and construct needed public improvements (median upgrades, street tree planting, street light projects, improved street signage, and other Public Works improvement projects) • Promote the revitalization and appropriate economic development within the Project Areas • Create housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents (Garvey Senior Housing, First Time Homebuyer program, Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Program) Staff believes that the IP meets all legal requirements, and that it sufficiently details current Commission polices. The IP represents an accurate description of the programs intended to be undertaken by the Commission over the next five (5) years. The IP establishes a nexus between the Commission's goals and objectives, programs activities, and the purpose of redevelopment which is to eliminate blight and to develop, preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing. It is not the intent of the IP to restrict Commission activities as they relate to the goals and objectives, programs, and expenditures outlined herein, since conditions, values, expectations, resources, and the needs of the community may change from time to time. LEGAL REVIEW The attached Resolution has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The FY 2009-2013 Implementation Plan is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 33490(a)(1)(B). However, each individual project, program, or expenditure discussed in the Implementation Plan will be considered a"project" and the Commission will perform the • Community Development Commission August 11, 2009 Paqe 3 of 3 appropriate level of CEQA review at the time each project is before the Commission for consideration. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed according to the California Health and Safety Code Section 33490. Prepare by Mi he e G. Ramirez Economic Development Administrator unity Development Director Attachment A: Resolution 2009-20 Attachment B: Five Year Implementation Plan • • ATTACHMENT B • • ATTACHMENT C • C ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Five Year Implementation Plan (FY 2009-10 to 2013-14) E ADOPTED: • • FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan Reserved Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 0 FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Organization 1 B. Requirements 2 • AB 1290 2 • AB 637 3 • SB 701 4 C. Project Area Background 4 • History of Commission 4 Project Area No. 1 5 Project Area No. 2 5 • Rosemead Housing Development Corporation 5 2. FIVE YEAR PLAN FOR THE ELIMINATION OF BLIGHT 7 A. Background 7 • Commission's Goals 7 • Commission's Objectives 8 B. Blight in the Project Areas 8 C. Five Year Redevelopment Plan 11 • Redevelopment and Economic Redevelopment Activities 11 • Capital Improvements 11 • Circulation and Transportation Improvements 12 • Community Beautification and Visual Blight Removal 12 • Housing Component 12 D. How the Commission's Proposed Goals, Objectives, Activities, and Expenditures will Eliminate Blighting Conditions 13 E. Five Year Financial Plan 14 • Tax Increment Revenues Available for Non-Housing Projects and Activities 16 • Other-Commission and Non-Commission Revenues 16 F. Five Year Expenditures 16 3. HOUSING COMPONENT 16 A. Requirements 17 • Commission's Statutory Affordable Housing Objectives 17 • Policy Declaration Regarding Targeting of Monies from the Housing Fund according to Income Need 17 B. Replacement Housing 19 Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan • 0 FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan C. Housing Production Requirements 19 • Law Restrictions on the Use of the Housing Funds 20 • Commission's Housing Activities/Use of Monies in the Housing Fund 21 • Housing Funds Deposits during the Implementation Plan Period 22 D. Housing Production Plan 22 E. Plan for affordable Housing 23 • Expenditure of Housing Funds, FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 24 4. PLAN ADMINISTRATION 24 • Implementation Plan Review 24 • Implementation Plan Amendment 24 • Financial Commitments Subject to Available Funds 24 • Monitoring of Affordable Housing 25 • Prevailing Wage Issues 25 • Redevelopment Plans/Conflicts 25 TABLES 1 Project Area Adoption Dates 4 2 Projected Revenues and Expenditures 15 3 Regional Housing Need Allocation 18 4 Regional Housing Need Allocations per SCAG 21 5 Housing Production and Affordable Obligation 23 Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan • FY2009-10 to FY2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan 1. INTRODUCTION Section 33490 of the California Community Redevelopment Law ("Law") requires that a redevelopment Commission administering a redevelopment plan prepare and adopt a five year implementation plan for its project areas. The principal goal of the implementation plan is to guide a Commission in implementing its redevelopment program to help eliminate blighting influences. In addition, the affordable housing component of the implantation plan provides a mechanism for a redevelopment Commission to monitor its progress in meeting both its affordable housing obligations under the Law and the affordable housing needs of the community. In effect, the implementation plan is a guide, incorporating the goals, objectives, and potential programs of a Commission for the five-year implementation plan period ("Planning Period"), while providing flexibility so the Commission may adjust to changing circumstances and new opportunities. This document constitutes the FY 2009-10 through FY 2013-2014 Implementation Plan ("Plan") for the Rosemead Community Development Commission ("Commission"). This Plan outlines the programs of revitalization, economic development, and affordable housing activities for the Commission for the Planning Period. The Affordable Housing Production Plan is included in the Housing Component of the Plan and covers historical and projected housing production in the Project Areas, the Commission's affordable housing production obligation, and the Commission's plans to meet its housing production obligation. A. Organization Generally, the Plan must contain the following information: • Specific goals and objectives for the next five years for both housing and non-housing activities. • Specific programs and expenditures for the next five years for both housing and non-housing. • An explanation of how the goals, objectives, programs and expenditures will assist in the elimination of blight and in meeting affordable housing obligations. Other information related to the provision of affordable housing, including the Commission's housing replacement plan, if applicable, and its housing production obligation throughout the life of the Project Areas. Section 1 provides a basic discussion of the legal requirements, Project Areas Description and Background, and goals and objectives for the Project Areas. Section 2 summarizes the Commission's proposed non-housing activities, and related revenues and expenditures for the next five years, and a description of the blighting conditions and how they will be alleviated by the Commission's proposed activities. Section 3 addresses the affordable housing activities and expenditures, and charts the Commission's progress in providing affordable housing, along with the Affordable Housing Production Plan. Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 1 • 0 FY 2009-10 to FY2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan B. Requirements For redevelopment plans adopted prior to January 1, 1994, the first implementation plan for fiscal years 1995-1999 was required to be adopted by December 31, 1994. The next five year implementation plan was adopted in 1999 by the Commission for years 2000-2004 and in 2004 for the years 2005-2009. This Implementation plan represents the fourth implementation plan prepared by the Commission and will cover the planning period of FY 2009-10 through FY 2013-14. AB 1290 Requirements AB 1290 added Section 33490 to the Health and Safety Code. This section requires agencies to produce implementation plans every five years, beginning in 1994. Section 33490 has been amended numerous times since its original adoption. In accordance with this section, the implementation plan must contain the following, if applicable to the Commission: Redevelopment Requirements • Specific goals and objectives for each project area • Specific programs, including potential projects for each project area • Estimated expenditures to address the remaining blight in the Project Areas • Explanation of how the goals and objective, programs, and expenditures will eliminate blight within the project area Housing Requirements • An explanation of how the goals, objectives, and programs will achieve the required housing production as well as an explanation of the expenditures from the Low and Moderate Housing Set-Aside Fund ("Housing Funds") as set forth in the Law. This explanation must include a detailed annual implementation plan for each of the five years covered by the Implementation Plan in order for performance to be measured. The amount of money available in the Housing Fund, the amount of money expected to be deposited during the next five years as well as plans for the using the annual deposits to the Housing Fund. • The estimated number of units to be provided over the next five years and ten years to meet the Commission's fifteen percent (15%) inclusionary housing requirements, if applicable. • The number of qualifying very low, low, and moderate-income units that have been produced in the project area, and the number of additional units that will be required to meet the inclusionary housing requirements. • The number of units that will be developed by the Commission, if any, including the number of units that the Commission will make available for very low, low, and moderate-income households. • If a planned public improvement or development project will result in destruction of existing affordable housing, an identification of proposed locations for their replacement will be required (Health and Safety Code Section 33413). Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 2 FY2009-10 to FY1013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan • The Project Areas affordable housing production plan (Health and Safety Code Section 33413(b)(4)). Project Area No. 1 Final Housing Requirements Pursuant to the Law Project Area No. 1 must address housing requirements as follows: For a project area that is within six years of the time limit on the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan established pursuant to Section 33333.2, 33333.6, 33333.7, or 33333.10, the portion of the implementation plan addressing the housing responsibilities shall specifically address the ability of the Commission to comply, prior to the time limit on the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan, with subdivision (a) of Section 33333.8, subdivision (a) of Section 33413 with respect to replacement dwelling units, subdivision (b) of Section 33413 with respect to project area housing, and the disposition of the remaining moneys in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. The Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1 is effective through June 22, 2013; therefore, the Commission must address the Commission's ability to comply with the above referenced Sections of the Law dealing with replacement housing and remaining low and moderate income housing funds. The Commission has not assisted in developing housing units nor have privately developed housing units resulted in the need for the Commission to provide replacement housing units. The Commission does not currently have replacement housing obligations nor does it anticipate generating replacement housing needs for Project Area No. 1 through the end of the effective term of the Redevelopment Plan. In March 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 871 approving the merger of Project Area No. 1 and 2. The benefit of merging the two project areas into one was the ability to spend tax increment funds generated in one area in another within the City based on a finding of benefit resolution, approved by the Commission Board. AB 637 Requirements AB 637 created additional housing requirements on redevelopment agencies. It eliminated the sunset for most of the provisions in AB 1290 which had been in effect since January 1, 1994. AB 1290 contained a number of modifications to the inclusionary and production requirements contained in Section 33413(b) of the Health and Safety Code. The issues addressed by AB 637 include: ■ Targeting housing funds. • 100 percent of removed or destroyed affordable units need to be replaced instead of 75 percent. ■ Commission must keep a list of those persons displaced and who are to be given priority in the replacement housing plan. • Establishes regulations of how and where Housing Funds may be used for onsite or offsite improvements. Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 3 • FY2009-10 to FY1013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan ■ Covenants increased from 10 to 45 years in the case of owner occupied units, and from 15 to 55 years in the case of rental housing. • Housing Funds monies are to be used only to the extent other reasonable means of private or commercial financing is not reasonably available. The Commission is required to spend the Housing Fund in at least the proportion of the total housing need that these low to moderate-income groups represent, as determined for the City pursuant to Section 65584 of the Government Code (Regional Housing Needs Assessment). In addition, the commission shall expend over the duration of each redevelopment implementation plan period, the money in the Housing Fund to assist housing that is available to all persons regardless of age in at least the same proportion as the population under 65 years of age relates to the total population of the community as reported by the United States Census Bureau. In accordance with Section 33490(a)(2)(A)(iii), the first time period to implement the requirements for targeting of Housing Funds is on or before December 31, 2014, and each ten years thereafter. SB 701 Requirements SB 701 clarifies how AB 637 is to be implemented. The Commission will have until 2014 to comply with the legal requirements outlined in AB 637. C. Project Area Background History of the Commission The Rosemead Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") was established pursuant to the Law. The Agency was activated by City Ordinance in 1972. On June 22, 1972, the Agency adopted its first project area, Project Area No. 1, encompassing 511 acres. On June 27, 2000, the Agency approved its second project area, Project Area No. 2, encompassing approximately 203 acres. Together, these project areas cover approximately 714 acres of the City, and include residential, commercial, industrial, and public land uses. Table 1 Project Area Adoption Dates Project Area Adoption Ordinance Effective Date Tax Increment Timeframe to Date No. Limit Collect Tax Increment Project Area No. 1 June 22, 1972 340 June 2013 $249,245,938 June 22, 2023 Project Area No. 2 June 27, 2000 809 June 2030 None June 27, 2040 In 2002, the City Council of the City of Rosemead ("City Council") adopted Ordinance No. 821, declaring the need for a Community Development Commission to function in the City. The Commission was created in order that the City may have the option of operating and governing its redevelopment Commission and its housing authority, under a single entity and board. The Commission is also created and established for the purpose of exercising any Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 4 • • FY2009-10 to FY2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan other powers regarding community development which the City Council may desire to delegate to the Commission subject to such conditions as may be imposed by the City Council. The Commission oversees the operation and accountability for redevelopment activities. On February 10, 2009 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 871 merging Project Area No. 1 and 2. The merger allows the flexibility of tax increment funds generated in one project area to be spent in either project area. This would allow exempt bond proceeds as well as tax increment generated in project area 1 to be spent in project area 2 for various capital improvement projects like street rehabilitation, public facilities renovations, and economic development projects. Project Area No. I The Redevelopment Plan for Rosemead Project Area No. I was originally adopted by Ordinance No. 340 and was amended as follows: • December 9, 1986 by Ordinance No. 592 to increase the limitation on the number of dollars allocated to the Commission and to re-establish eminent domain authority to the Commission. • October 9, 1991, the Commission prepaid its housing obligation for Project Area No. 1 in the amount of $6,813,849.62. The Commission's 20% low to moderate income housing set aside requirement has been reduced by $469,142 per year through the 2021-22 fiscal year. This reduction was determined by analyzing the yield on the Commission's outstanding bonds. • December 20, 1994 by Ordinance No. 752 to bring it into conformity with the requirements of Assembly Bill 1290. • On January 22, 2002 by Ordinance No. 822 for the purpose of extending the duration of the Plan's effectiveness. Project Area No. 2 On June 27, 2000, the City Council approved the Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemead Project Area No. 2 by Ordinance No. 809. Rosemead Housing Development Corporation On March 16, 1992, the Commission established the Rosemead Housing Development Corporation (RHDC), a local non-profit housing development corporation organized under the Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The RHDC was established to develop, construct, finance and assist with low and moderate-income housing and to assist the Commission with redevelopment issues related to housing. Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 5 • • FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan Rosemead Community Development Commission map or the neoeveiopmemt rroject Areas ~ s 1 t 3 i . I 'l 1... I w.. j _ I f - uvu _ i T-..J d 6 s ! s 3 nr.. f av 7~ Y a 9 I : M LEGEND l~ Y CJ Rosemead City Boundary Freeways Railroads Rosemead Redevelopment Projects r: 3 Project Area No. 1 j Project Area No. 2 Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 6 • • FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan 2. FIVE YEAR PLAN FOR THE ELIMINATION OF BLIGHT A. Background This section describes the five-year non-housing redevelopment program, including a summary of the deficiencies to be corrected, project and activity descriptions, and estimated revenues and costs. As they are implemented, these projects and activities may be modified over time to better serve the purposes of redevelopment. The cost estimates are preliminary and subject to refinement as the Commission's redevelopment activities, planning and implementation proceed. Some of these projects and activities may not be completed within the next five years, and thus, related costs may not be incurred in the next five years. Commission's Goals Although the Commission has specific goals and objectives for each project area, the redevelopment plans have a high degree of redevelopment policy and programmatic consistency among them. The general redevelopment goals and objectives for the two project areas have been consolidated into a set of mutual goals and objectives as follows: • Eliminate blighting influences, including deteriorating buildings, incompatible land uses, obsolete structures, and other environmental, economic, and social deficiencies; improve the overall appearance of existing buildings, streets, parking areas and other facilities, public and private; and assure that all buildings, new and old, are safe for persons and business to occupy. • Encourage the cooperation and participation of property owners, public agencies, and community organizations, in the elimination of blighting conditions and in the development of the project areas. ■ Encourage private sector investment in the project areas. • Be sensitive to environmental concerns and considerations. • Be sensitive to existing and planned patterns of development particularly in and adjacent to the immediate vicinity of the Project Areas. • Remove materials or facilities that impede development. • Provide adequate parcels so as to encourage new construction by private enterprise, thereby providing the City with an improved economic base. ■ Provide construction and employment opportunities in the development of new facilities and by providing employment opportunities in the operation of new industrial and commercial facilities. ■ Establish development criteria and controls for the permitted uses within the project areas in accordance with modern and competitive development practices, thus assuring the highest design standards and environmental quality. • Encourage and foster opportunities for continued sustained growth of existing City business sectors. • Protect the health and general welfare of the project area residents by rehabilitating and otherwise improving the supply of housing in the project areas. • Ensure the long-term viability of the commercial portions of the project areas by encouraging commercial rehabilitation and planned new commercial developments. Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 7 s • FY2009-10 to FY1013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan ■ Provide for new housing as required to satisfy the needs of the various age, income and ethnic groups in the City, maximizing the opportunity for individual choice. • Provide new or improved public improvements and facilities, the absence or inadequacy of which constitute an economic liability of the City, are impediments to development, and which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment. • Provide for relocation assistance and benefits to businesses which may be displaced, in accordance with the provisions of Law. ■ Achieve a physical environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural and urban design principles deemed important by the community. • Provide a procedural and financial mechanism by which the Commission can assist, complement, and coordinate public and private development, redevelopment, revitalization, and enhancement of the community. • Increase, improve, and preserve the community's supply of housing affordable to very low, low and moderate income households. Commission's Objectives The following objectives are intended to provide a framework for efforts to attain the goals outlined above: • Beautify the City through appropriate Economic Development. • Work with developers of major projects to facilitate the construction of attractive and compatible developments within the community. • Promote sales tax growth by attracting new businesses to the City, and retaining and strengthening existing business and commercial centers. • Redevelop sites throughout both Project Areas into viable commercial projects. • Invest in Capital Improvement Projects to improve public infrastructures. • Assist in the revitalization of Valley Boulevard and Garvey Avenue. • Provide funding for affordable housing projects. B. Blight in the Project Areas The redevelopment tools contained in the Law are granted for use in a project area in order to eliminate and prevent the prevalence of blighting conditions. A blighted area is one that necessitates the creation of a redevelopment project area because the combination of conditions in an area constitute a burden on the community and cannot be alleviated by private enterprise, governmental action, or both. Law Section 33031 defines blight as follows: Physical Conditions that Cause Blight • Unsafe/Unhealthy/Deteriorated Buildings - Buildings and structures that are unsafe or unhealthy for people to live or work. The lack of deferred maintenance that results in serious dilapidation and deterioration, faulty or, inadequate utilities, serious building code violations, and construction that is vulnerable to serious damage from seismic or geologic hazards. Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 8 9 • FY 2009-10 to FY2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan • Physical Conditions that Substantially Hinder the Economic Viability and Use of Lots/Buildings - Conditions that prevent or substantially hinder the viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. These conditions may be caused by buildings of substandard, defective, or obsolete design or construction given the present general plan, zoning, or other development standards • Incompatible Land Uses - Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the economic development of those parcels or other portions of the Project Area. • Lots of Irregular Shape, Inadequate Size, and Under Multiple Ownerships - The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and developments that are in multiple ownership, given present general plan and zoning standards and present market conditions. Economic Conditions that Cause Blight • Depreciated/Stagnant/Impaired Property Values - Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments, including, but not necessarily limited to those properties containing hazardous wastes that require the use of Commission authority as specified in Article 12.5 (commencing with Section 33459 of the Law). • High Business Turnovers and Vacancies/Low Lease Rates/Abandoned Buildings/Vacant Lots - Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, high turnover rates, abandoned buildings, or excessive vacant lots. • Lack of Neighborhood Commercial Facilities - A serious lack of necessary commercial facilities that are normally found in neighborhoods, including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks. • Overcrowding - Serious residential overcrowding that has resulted in significant public health or safety problems. As used in this paragraph, "overcrowding" means exceeding the standard reference in Article 5 (commencing with Section 32) of Chapter 1 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations. • Excess of Bars/Liquor Stores/Adult Businesses - An excess of bars, liquor stores, or adult-oriented business that has resulted in significant public health, safety, or welfare problems. • High Crime Rates- A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare of Project Area residents. Bli2htin2 Conditions in the Proiect Areas As part of the amendment to merge Project Areas No. 1 and 2 a blight survey was conducted in 2008 of both project areas. The blight survey described the existing physical and economic conditions of blight as provided by Law. Among the findings the following blight remains in the project areas: Physical Blight Conditions Present in the Project Areas Deteriorated buildings are considered unsafe and unhealthy for persons to live or work, to the extent that such conditions are caused by serious code violations, dilapidations and deterioration caused by long-term neglect, faulty and inadequate construction and public Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 9 0 i FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan infrastructure. Other physical deterioration, including peeling paint, hazardous electrical wiring, leaking roofs, cracked plaster and other major structural deterioration are deemed to be unhealthy and unsafe. Approximately 11% of the parcels in the project areas, according to the City's Code Enforcement Department, have major code violations. Serious deterioration and dilapidation is observed in 53% of the parcels in both project areas and exhibited at least one or more indicators of structural dilapidation or deterioration. Additionally, approximately 9% of parcels exhibited one or more indicators of poor construction and 75% of parcels are affected by inadequate fire safety issues. Approximately 55% all parcels in both project areas exhibited at least one or more blighting conditions including code violations, deterioration, inadequate construction, and faulty water systems that create an unhealthy and unsafe environment in which to live or work. Conditions that prevent or substantially hinder the viable use or capacity of buildings or lots are also prevalent within the project areas. Approximately 81% of parcels exhibited one or more indicators of such conditions including substandard, defective or obsolete design or construction. The existence of irregular, subdivided lots in multiple ownership whose physical development has been impaired given present conditions was found in 8% of the parcels in the project areas. Such conditions include narrow lots, excessively deep parcels, flag- shaped and land land-locked parcels. The remaining physical blight in the project areas is present in at least 85% of the parcels within the project areas. Economic Blight Conditions Present in the Project Area Economic blight is described by Law and includes depreciated or stagnant property values, residential overcrowding and poverty, inadequate retail and commercial facilities, and crime and public safety risks. Economic blight can lead to an environment that creates diminished economic opportunities to be undertaken by private entities or local government agencies. The 2008 blight survey, as part of the merger amendment, shows that economic blight remains in the project areas. The project areas show economic conditions that diminish the lasting positive efforts to improve economic standards of residents, limit effective utilization of business and property resources, and hinder opportunities to realize economic growth. Existing conditions that indicate economic blight remains in the project areas include a high poverty rate of 2.1 times greater than that of Los Angeles County, overcrowding Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 10 • • FY1009-10 to FY2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan conditions affecting nearly one-half of all households in the project areas. Retail and commercial facilities suffer from an abnormally high vacancy rate of 6.7% when compared to the surrounding area which stands at 1.5%. Sales by retail merchandisers are also comparably weak at 73% of the benchmark level for the area. In addition, the existing retail is characterized by weak operators that contribute to a 50% sales leakage from the project areas. A disproportionately high level of police activity also contributes to the economic blight conditions remaining in the project areas. C. Five-Year Redevelopment Plan The Commission will undertake projects and activities in the Project Areas over the next five years to alleviate blighting conditions and achieve its goals and objectives. These projects and activities are described below. Redevelopment and Economic Development Activities The Commission will continue its effort to create economic activity through the use of redevelopment activities. The projects are designed to promote revenue and employment generating businesses in the Project Areas and include the following: business retention and attraction, commercial rehabilitation, assistance with on-site and off-site public improvement, and property acquisition, if necessary. The Commission will continue to pursue redevelopment efforts along Valley Boulevard, Rosemead Boulevard, Glendon Way, and Garvey Avenue within the Planning Period including, but not limited to, the following potential sites: • the development of the southeast comer of Valley Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard • the development of the northeast comer of Valley Boulevard and Temple City Boulevard • the development of five parcels aggregating approximately 8.5 acres on the southwest corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Glendon Way • former auto auction site Capital Improvements Public infrastructure and facilities projects and activities will involve the construction and installation of public improvements to upgrade the existing aged and/or deteriorated infrastructure systems to support private investment. Projects to improve the public infrastructure and facilities in the Project Areas may include improvements to gateways, sewer and water systems, and utilities. The Commission may also assist in funding the construction of new and rehabilitated public facilities within or serving the Project Areas. Projects are intended to stimulate the growth of existing and new businesses and reduce stagnant economic conditions. In addition, the Commission assists in the administration of street maintenance and the National Discharge Elimination System Program (NPDES) implementation and compliance, provides plan check and inspection services, and works with other departments and outside agencies on sub-regional transportation and public work issues. Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 11 • • FY 2009-10 to FY2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan Additional capital improvements projects that may be undertaken over the next five years include: • Open space development of Edison rights-of-way • Annual Slurry Seal • Citywide Curb Ramp Improvements • Citywide Energy Efficiency Project • -Installation of new street signs • Tree Planting Project • Synthetic turf at Rosemead High School In addition, the Commission may undertake projects outside of the project area that would provide a direct benefit to the project areas. Circulation and Transportation Improvements Circulation and transportation projects and activities will involve the construction and installation of public improvements to upgrade existing roads and problematic circulation and pedestrian accessibility issues. Several proposed projects are shown under the "Capital Improvements" section. In addition, the Commission may undertake neighborhood traffic safety improvements to help reduce traffic speeds, enhance pedestrian crossing areas, and improve traffic safety around schools and highly active pedestrian areas. Community Beautification and Visual Blight Removal Community beautification and visual blight removal projects and activities will alleviate blighting conditions and provide physical improvements along commercial corridors. Efforts will include landscaping, lighting, and street signage. Beautification initiatives will be undertaken in both residential and commercial areas to provide visual linkages between various areas of the City. As part of the beautification efforts, the Commission will support improvements to the Rosemead Park Trails as well as projects outside of the project area that would enhance the project area and improve safety. In addition, the Commission intends to reactivate the Commercial Facade Rehabilitation Program. The Commission believes that by providing financial incentives to commercial owners/merchants located in the project area, it will be possible to improve the physical appearance of Rosemead shop fagades and thus create a more attractive place for consumers to shop. Housing Component The Commission will continue to utilize Housing Funds to increase and preserve affordable housing for very low, low, and moderate-income households. Section 3 describes the planned housing activities by the Commission. Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 12 • • FY2009-10 to FY2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan D. How the Commission's Proposed Goals, Objectives, Activities, and Expenditures Will Eliminate Blighting Conditions The Commission's proposed goals, objectives, programs and expenditures are designed to eliminate blighting influences in the Project Areas. The Redevelopment activities aim to alleviate the blighting conditions that interfere with the revitalization of the project areas by improving economic conditions, stimulating private investment, improving public infrastructure and facilities, and meeting the Commission's affordable housing obligation. In general, the Redevelopment activities are designed to: • Revitalize areas that exhibit adverse physical and economic conditions. • Stimulate private investment and complementary development • Improvement circulation, public infrastructure and public facilities. • Provide tax increment funds for the redevelopment activities that are needed to alleviate blighting conditions • Produce affordable housing, both rental and ownership units. The ongoing improvement of public infrastructures and facilities and the alleviation of blight will signal to the private sector the Commission's commitment to improving the project areas. These improvements will enhance the competitiveness of the businesses they serve. The projects and activities makes evident the Commission's continuing interest in making Rosemead a better place to live, work and conduct business. It will help create an environment where property owners, businesses and outside developers have the incentive to make and carry out long range plans. The Commission is committed to enhancing the economic vitality of the project areas by identifying the needs of the existing businesses and attracting new ones. Commercial rehabilitation projects will enable existing business owners to upgrade their properties. Business development activities will be aimed at reducing business vacancies by attracting new tenants and owners and stabilizing current ones with rehabilitated and newly constructed development in the project areas. This will enhance the feasibility of creating or enhancing commercial facilities as well as enhance the competitiveness of the people they serve. The Commission's circulation improvements will ameliorate circulation problems throughout the project areas, making both pedestrian and vehicular traffic safer and more pleasant. Infrastructure improvements will provide sufficient capacity to support private commercial revitalization and new commercial and mixed-use development. Landscaping and streetscape improvements beautify the streetscape, upgrade the appearance of the area, and establish clear gateways that define the edges and boundaries of the district commercial districts. Streetscape improvements also encourage increased investment from the private sector by alleviating blighting conditions in the area. Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 13 • FY 2009-10 to FY2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan Economic development activities are also intended to help in the reduction of vacancies by attracting new tenants and owners and expanding current business by facilitating rehabilitation and new development in the project areas. In particular, the Commission is targeting development along Valley Boulevard and Garvey Avenue that will enhance economic activity. The Commission will continue to support private investment efforts to directly address some of the more serious blighting conditions within the project areas including deteriorated and obsolete buildings. New or expanded commercial activity will enhance the economic vitality and generate jobs within the project areas. Retail development will prevent further economic decline and enhance access to goods and services for all Rosemead residents. The Commission's Affordable Housing Program will allow the Commission to provide increased and enhanced affordable housing opportunities for Rosemead residents. In addition, the Commission's efforts will improvement project design and leverage federal, state and private sources to develop high quality, attractive, affordable housing development serving a diverse population. E. Five-Year Financial Plan Over the next five years, the Commission will undertake those activities that can be financially supported by its revenue stream. The Commission must make statutory pass through payments pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33607.7 as a result of an amendment to the redevelopment plans for both Project Areas to remove the timeframe to incur indebtedness. Additionally the Commission entered into a tax increment sharing agreement with the Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District and the Los Angeles County Public Library District. Per the Agreement the Consolidated Fire Protection District receives 17% of gross tax increment and the Public Library District receives 4% of gross tax increment. The Commission projects revenues equaling approximately $29,364,437 for the five year implementation plan period from three revenue sources: • Annual tax increment revenues • Bond issuance proceeds • Other Commission and non-Commission revenues The available revenues for non-housing projects and activities are summarized in the following table. Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 14 G 0 'a e 0 L V G N N 0 l N > d H M •1 O N O O H Ql O O N d 7 C C xX W 9 N C d m H a v F- J H C d aj O D: L v O1 C a` • • r M n M r r N I ( 1 O 9 ( O N ~ V N m O C O0 - 70 N N V m(D N N O - W N 0 m W ~ N M M ( 0 ( D cc~ r N 0 m ON OO 06 N N M fR EA M f9 b9 fH b9 (9 W m l mn(Da (n MN.( m N C l! (0 PI r O M N N V p U7 r0 1 _ r M N O O r M a- aa M O N LL9 M ( O - NmN 0 N (0 (D V 00 N N rn ° m g o o 0 ° o 0 0 N O CO m P -o o r 0 N N N W 00 (0 m r M N n ~ V N O V 0 O W N (0 m 00 0 V (0 N V A N N m O m N m W V 0 0 0 M M N ( 9 N N N CO r N O N N m W N O N N M O O M 0 A N m M m V 7 N N ( w N ~ O N L6 N M N M W r r 0 W 0 w O V ' v 00 0 r o M V V (0.-00 0 (0 N M M V OO m O O N m m V r N M N W N p ( D M ~0 o r (ri h M r vi N M N N 0 O 0 0 0 0 M w 0 9 ( 0 a O m(u (O 0 Op000 cr r O N M O o M h M rn Q> CD N VW 0 - W N (0 r a_ (0 CD to LCT C6 N N E d m z C H m z N u o J J 0 x 0_ d ma Z c D > m ' m •N c a E a i m M O C Z Z N r U d 0 J N d N C > 2 N U C N O E . E e 0 ¢¢`D- ai A X E - 0 « ( v U U U m Q N y l d Q X L J C C- j 2 O O J t0 o W N c m m m n a o m a a r U m MX= i a V O p Zm w m0 QU W - a W y c U' 0.' W W c m a C O C 0) E w d E Ol Y LL Ln c O N CN CC C O U C N a O > v 0 'E E E O U N N aEi O a_ • FY 2009-10 to FY 1013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan Tax Increment Revenues Available for Non-Housing Projects and Activities As shown in Table 2, the tax increment revenues generated in the project areas (after payment of pass-through payments, Commission administration, debt service, and housing fund obligations) during the next five-year period are projected to be approximately $27,102,277. The Commission is anticipating contributing $11,564,834 towards non- housing projects and activities. However, in the light of the uncertainty with respect to State cuts in local government funding and the uncertain local economy, it is possible that the funding ability of the Agency could be less than what is predicted. Other Commission and Non-Commission Revenues Whenever possible, the Commission has been and will continue to leverage other funds in connection with its redevelopment efforts including the targeting local, state and federal funding sources to assist in financing eligible projects. As permitted by law, possible funding sources include government grants and assistance programs, as well as private sector sources. In addition, the City's development impact fees generated from new development will be source of public infrastructure and facilities funding when feasible. The Commission will also pursue funds from federal programs including the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program, in addition to state and county programs. F. Five Year Expenditures The nature and scope of the Commission's programs and expenditures in the Project Areas have been shaped by the goals and objectives for the Project Areas, available revenues for funding projects and activities, and blighting factors to be eliminated with each Project Area. The estimated cost of the non-housing activities and projects for the implementation planning period of FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 will be approximately $38,667,111 (see Table 2). The funds will be spent on activities to alleviate blighting conditions including public infrastructure and facilities, economic development activities, and community beautification and visual blight removal projects. As they are implemented, the projects and activities may be modified over time to better serve the purposes of redevelopment. The cost estimates are preliminary and subject to refinement as the planning and implementation proceed. Many projects and activities may not be completed within the next five years of the Implementation Plan based on available revenues, market conditions, community needs, priorities, and developer interest, and thus the following budget represents initial funding of the program costs incurred in the next five years. Additional revenues may become available for projects and activities for the Project Areas through non-Commission sources. 3. HOUSING COMPONENT This section of the Implementation Plan describes the obligations the Commission will undertake pursuant to requirements under California Redevelopment Law. This housing component of the Implementation Plan contains the following: Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 16 • • FY2009-10 to FY2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan • An account of available Housing Funds and the estimated amounts to be deposited in the Housing Fund during each of the next five years. • A housing program that estimates the number of new, rehabilitated, restricted units to be assisted during each of the next five years by the Commission and estimates of Housing Fund expenditures for each of the next five years. • A description of how the housing program will implement the requirements to spend the Housing Funds over a ten year period for the various groups as required by Redevelopment Law. The Commission is also guided by the City of Rosemead's Housing Element, which is currently being updated, as part of the General Plan. The goals, policies, and strategies described in this section are intended to be implemented by the Commission. A. Requirements Commission's Statutory Affordable Housing Obligations The Commission must allocate no less than twenty percent of its gross tax increment to the Housing Fund for the purpose of increasing, improving and preserving the supply of housing available to low and moderate income households. In addition, Senate Bill 211 approved by the legislature in 2001 requires Agencies, on or after January 1, 2001, to require housing units assisted with Housing Funds to remain affordable for the longest feasible time, but no less than 45 years for owner occupied units and not less than 55 years for rental units. Project Area No. 1 does not have an inclusionary housing requirement and is not subject to the housing production provisions of Section 33413 of the Law; however, it is subject to replacement housing obligations and the expeditious expenditure of housing funds. The Commission has not assisted in developing housing units nor have privately developed housing units resulted in the need for the Commission to provide replacement housing units. Approximately 0.4% of the total area of Project Area No. 2 is developed for residential use. In the past five (5) years no dwelling units have been privately developed or developed as a result of Commission participation; therefore, Project Area No. 2 does not currently have an inclusionary housing production requirement. Policy Declaration Regarding Targeting of Monies from the Housing Fund according to Income Need Pursuant to Section 33334.4, Housing Fund monies are required to be spent over the ten year planning period of the Implementation Plan in at least the same proportion to the total number of housing units needed for very low, low, and moderate income groups within the community, as determined for the City pursuant to Section 65584 of the Government Code. In accordance with Section 33490(a)(2)(A)(iii), the first time period to implant the requirements for targeting of Housing Funds is on or before December 31, 2014, and each ten years thereafter. Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 17 • 0 FY2009-10 to FY2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan According to the Final Regional Housing Allocation Plan ("RHNA"), for the planning period between January 1, 2006 and June 30, 2014, the housing for very low and low income households represents 39% percent of the City's total housing need. The following table shows the proposed fair share allocation for the different income groups. Table 3 Regional Housing Need Allocation Planning Period January 1, 2006-June 30, 2014 Income Level Allocation Targeting Fair Share Allocation Fair Share Targeting Very Low 190 24% 190 43% Low 119 15% 119 27% Moderate Above-Moderate 131 340 17% 44% 131 30% Total 780 100 440 100% Source: SCAG RHNA, 2007 As illustrated in the above table the Commission is required to spend 43% of its Housing Funds on very low income households, and 27% and 30% on low and moderate income households respectively. As permitted under the Law, agencies are able to shift or reduce their income targeting requirement if other locally controlled funds are available for those targeted income groups. These additional funds, however, must not be used in combination with Housing Fund monies and long term affordability must be met, 45-years for owner-occupied and 55-years for rental housing. Such locally controlled funds include CDBG, HOME and fees received by the city pursuant to inclusionary housing programs. In addition, the Commission is to spend a defined minimum of Housing Fund monies during this same period of time to assist persons regardless of age. This minimum is defined as those persons under the age of 65. Based on the 2000 U.S. Census, the City of Rosemead, proportion as identified in following table: Housing Funds Expenditures Age Proportionality Requirement Age Population Percentage Less than 65 years 65 ears and over 47,820 89% 5,685 11% Total 53,505 100% Source: 2000 U.S. Census Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 18 • • FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan B. Replacement Housing The Commission must replace any housing units that have been demolished or removed from the affordable housing stock as a result of a redevelopment project or program, the Commission must do so within four (4) years after they are removed from the market. The replacement housing obligation is triggered when units are destroyed or removed by a redevelopment project, which is subject to a written agreement with the Commission or where financial assistance has been provided by the Commission. Vacant units that could reasonably be expected to be occupied by low- or moderate-income households if occupied must be replaced within four (4) years of their removal and may be located anywhere within the territorial jurisdiction of the City. When dwelling units are destroyed or removed after January 1, 2002, Section 33413(a) requires that all the replacement units be available at affordable housing cost to the same household income level as the households that were displaced from the destroyed or removed units. Income limits for replacement units are equivalent to those for inclusionary units. Pursuant to the Law, Section 33413(f)(1)(2), the Commission may replace destroyed or removed dwellings with fewer units if the replacement units have a greater or equal number of bedrooms and are affordable to household of the same income level as the destroyed or removed units. The Commission, at this time, has not removed or destroyed any residential units in the Project Areas and has no plans to remove or destroy any units with in the next ten years. As a result, the Commission has no obligation to replace any housing units and should the Commission need to remove or destroy any units in the future they will follow all requirements to replace those units. C. Housing Production Requirements Redevelopment project areas adopted on or after January 1, 1976 and territory added to project areas by amendments adopted on or after January 1, 1976 must meet the affordable housing production requirements. As part of the Implementation Plan, agencies must adopt a plan showing how the Commission intends to meet its housing production requirement (Housing Production Plan). Project Area No. 1 was originally adopted on June 27, 1972 by the Rosemead City Council and is not subject to the housing production provisions of Section 33413 of the Law; however, it is subject to replacement housing obligations and the expeditious expenditure of housing funds. Project Area No. 2 adopted on June 27, 2000 is subject to housing production provisions. In addition, the plan must be consistent with the community's Housing Element and must cover the following time periods: ■ Production over ten year compliance period (FY 2009-10 through FY 2019-20) • Production through the life of the Redevelopment Plan (though FY 2030) Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 19 • • FY2009-10 to FY2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan Prior to the time limit on the effectiveness of a redevelopment plan, at least 30 percent (30%) of the new or substantially rehabilitated housing developed by the Commission in Project Area No. 2 must be restricted for low- and moderate-income households, with 50 percent (50%) of the total restricted units reserved for very low-income households. Not less than 15 percent (15%) of the housing proceeds by public or private entities other than the Commission within Project Area No. 2 must be restricted for low- and moderate- income households, with 40 percent (40%) of the total restricted units reserved for very low- income households. Prior to January 1, 2002, the units must be price restricted for the longest feasible time but not less than the period of time the land use controls of the redevelopment plan remain in effect. For owner-occupied housing, current law provides a limited exception to this covenant requirement by allowing a non-qualifying sale of an affordable production unit provided that the Commission replaces the unit within three (3) years at the same income level as the original. After January 1, 2002, units must remain affordable for the longest feasible time, but no less than 55-years for rental units and 45-years for the homeownership unit. The Implementation Plan must include the following information regarding the Commission's housing production obligations for Project Area No. 2: • The number of units of very low-, low- and moderate-income housing which have been developed within the project area which meet the production requirements; • An estimate of the number of new, substantially rehabilitated, or price restricted residential units to be developed or purchased within the project areas, both over the life of the redevelopment plan and during the next ten years; • An estimate of the number of units of very low- low-, and moderate-income housing required to be developed within project areas in order to meet the production requirements; • An estimate of the number of Commission developed residential units which will be developed during the next five years; and • An estimate of the number of Commission developed units for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households during the next five years. Within Project Area No. 2, approximately 10% of the property is designated in the City's General Plan as mixed-use residential. Therefore, the Commission anticipates that there is the potential for development submittals within the mixed use overlay zone in Project Area No. 2 over the next five years. The anticipated number of units is difficult to determine at this time because the overlay zone allows both residential and commercial development. Market conditions are the major factor in determining the ultimate use of this property. Law Restrictions on the Use of the Housing Fund As of January 1, 2002, there are additional restrictions on the use of monies from the Housing Fund. Redevelopment agencies are now required to spend Housing Funds in proportion to the community's need as defined in the City's Housing Element. Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 20 • FY2009-10 to FY2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan The City of Rosemead's Housing Element, adopted by the City Council and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development in 2002, concluded that there was a need for 202 very low-income units, 132 low-income units, and 155 moderate-income units. The date presented in the following table indicates the percentage of funds from the Housing Fund to be spent with each income category over a 10-year time frame. Notwithstanding this requirement, funds required to be expended within a higher income category can be utilized for a lower income category. Table 4 Regional Housing Need Allocations per SCAG 2000 Housing Element' 2007 RHNA' Income Level Allocation' Targeting Allocation' Tar etin Very Low Low Moderate 202 132 155 41% 27% 32% 190 119 131 43% 27% 30% Total 489 100% 440 100% (1) SCAG RHNA for 1998-2005 (2) SCAG RHNA for 2006-2014 The Southern California Association of Governments has determined that for the planning period of 2006 through 2014, the City of Rosemead will necessitate 190 units for very low- income households and 250 for low- and moderate-income households. Commission Housing Activities/Use of Monies in the Housing Fund The Commission has initiated the following redevelopment activities to increase housing opportunities and eliminate blighted conditions. Rosemead Housing Development Corporation (RHDC) The RHDC is responsible for the oversight of two senior housing facilities in which the Commission allocates approximately $250,000 annually towards the financing, operation, and management of the two sites. • Angelus Senior Housing Project A 51-unit, very low-income senior housing built in 1995. The project is fully occupied with rents at $250 per month for one person one bedroom and $300 per month for two person's one bedroom. • Garvey Senior Housing Project A 72-unit, very low-income, senior housing projected completed in 2002. This project is owned and operated by the RHDC. The project had a cost of $7,456,000. The project is fully occupied with rents at $250 per month for one person one bedroom, $300 per month for two person's one bedroom, and $450 per month for two person's two bedroom. Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 21 FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan Housing Program and Projects The Commission helps offset the cost of purchasing affordable units through the City's HOME Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Program. The City is required to enter into an Agreement with a CHDO for the production of affordable housing using the 15% CHDO set-aside funding as required under the Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) entitlement grant. Partnering with the Commission allows for additional funding under this program to acquire housing units for low to moderate- income renters. Housing Fund Deposits during the Implementation Plan Period The Commission is projected to receive approximately $3.1 million in tax increment to be deposited in the Housing Fund over the next five years to implement housing activities. The Commission intends to spend all of its available funds within the planning period. D. Housing Production Plan Housing Production Plan Obligations for Proiect Area No. 2 (2002-2009) The Commission does not have any current housing obligation since no new or substantially rehabilitated units were built within the Project Area since its adoption in 2002. Housing Production Obligations (FY 2009-10 to FY 2029-30) Project Area No. 2 is primarily commercial with approximately 0.4% of the area designated in the City's General Plan as residential. In addition, the Commission has currently suspended any residential construction under the mixed use zoning. Therefore, the Commission anticipates that over the life of Project Area No. 2 that no new or substantial rehabilitated housing units will be produced; and therefore, the Commission will have no affordable housing obligations. The Commission, however, intends to spend the Housing Fund monies on the creation and preservation of affordable housing for very-low-, low- and moderate-income households as called for in the Housing Element and as part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Housing Production Compliance (FY 2009-10 to FY 2029-30) The Commission anticipates creating an additional 10 affordable housing units for very-low income households within the planning period to be located in Project Area No. 1. The creation of 10 units over the life of Project Area No. 1 plus the 131 units previously created will meet the Commission's housing production requirements of the expeditious expenditure of the Housing Fund. Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 22 • 0 FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan Table 5 Rosemead Community Development Commission Housing Production and Affordable Obligation Housing Production Affordable Obligation Affordable Production Sumlus(Dagcit) New Substatial Rehabiliation Total Very Low LgwlMod Total Very Low Low/Mod Total Very Low Low/Mod Total Hi tonal Production PA No 1' Prior to 2009 123 0 123 0 0 0 123 0 123 123 0 123 Historical Proiect Area No. 2 Prior to 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PA No. 1 FY2009/t0-2017113 0 10 10 0 0 0 10 0 10 10 0. 10 Probected Production PA No. 2 FY 2009/10 - 2014115 FY 2014/15 - 2019120 FY 2014115 - 2030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~.~a. 4au. Total Rroduclion,rs7"`" .._e123.aLJnu~f>„10rkt :i _:133a ~ r" °iv ~'d'1" r ,ns':..w>a0m"3~d?.~'•~0~'+v4 ~ m`a't'133:.;,~"4~0~~133~ L ti133~Y,0~,„-~.~z,133±1': (1) Robed Prey No. 1 acopfedin 1972 is not subod of h0usng onad o en requiements (2)Nc new x substantial, mhabilah,d unts a-e expectetl to be codmed over the de of fhe coot( area, therefore no aflxCbb projWfon, w4 be craafen E. Plan for Affordable Housing The Rosemead Community Development Commission, during the Implementation Plan planning period, will concentrate on activities that help the Commission meet its housing goals and objectives. The affordable housing activities planned to be undertaken by the Commission will advance and support the overall goals of the Housing Element as part of the City's General Plan. The Housing Element sets forth the following goals: • Protect existing stable, single-family neighborhoods throughout the City. • Encourage the development of a range of housing types in a range of prices affordable to all Rosemead residents. • Encourage the maintenance and upgrading of existing housing stock to ensure decent, safe and sanitary homes for all Rosemead residents. • Support federal and state laws that prohibit discrimination in housing on the basis of age, sex, or race. The Commission plans to spend its Housing Funds in proportion to the need for the specific income groups as. required by Law. The Commission will continue to encourage the preservation and development of housing affordable to those income groups with the greatest need. The Commission will leverage its Housing Fund monies in order to maximize the number of affordable units produced and will partner with a non-profit affordable housing developer to produce at least 10-units within the planning period for very-low-income households. The Commission anticipates that these units will be located within Project Area No. 1. The Commission will also utilize HOME funds to provide first-time home buyer loans to low-income households. Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 23 • FY2009-10 to FY2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan Expenditures of Housing Funds, FY 2009-10 to FY 2013-14 The Commission plans to spend the $3.2 million of Housing Funds over the next five years; and will therefore, use all of its Housing Fund monies. The Commission also intends to use the Housing Fund in proportion to the needs for each income category as set forth in the Housing Element. 4. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ADMINISTRATION The Commission shall be responsible for administering this Implementation Plan and for monitoring redevelopment activities or programs undertaken pursuant to this Plan. Implementation Plan Review At least once within this Implementation Plan's five-year term, the Commission shall conduct a public hearing and hear testimony of all interested parties for the purpose of reviewing the adopted redevelopment plans and the corresponding Implementation Plan and evaluating the progress of the redevelopment projects. The public hearing shall be held no earlier than two years and no later than three years after the date of adoption of this Implementation Plan. The Commission may choose to conduct a single public hearing applicable to all adopted project areas described in this Implementation Plan, or may conduct separate public hearings for each project area. This Implementation Plan covers the Commission's activities in the redevelopment project areas from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2014. Consistency of the information contained in the Implementation Plan and the Redevelopment Agencies Financial Transactions Report and the HCD Annual Report of Housing Activity of Community Redevelopment Agencies is important. Comparing the information reported each year to the State Controller's Office and to HCD to the information within the Implementation Plan will assist the Commission's Staff in monitoring the progress the Commission is making in achieving its goals and objectives for redevelopment and housing activities. This will make preparing the staff report for the mid-term review and efficient process. Notice of the public hearing to review the redevelopment plans and Implementation Plan shall be published pursuant to Section 6063 of the Government Code and posted in at least four permanent places within each project area for a period of at least three weeks. Publication and posting of the notice shall be completed not less than 10-days prior to the date set for hearing. Implementation Plan Amendment Pursuant to Redevelopment Law Section 33490, this Implementation Plan may from time to time be amended after holding a public hearing on the proposed amendment. Financial Commitments Subject to Available Funds The Commission is authorized to utilize a wide variety of funding sources for implementing each Redevelopment Plan. Such funding sources include but are not limited to financial assistance from the City, State of California, federal government, property tax increments, Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 24 • FY2009-10 to FY2013-14 Five Year Implementation Plan interest income, Commission bonds secured by tax increment or other revenues, or any legally available revenue resource. Although the sources of revenue utilized by the Commission are generally deemed to be reliable from year to year, such funds are subject to legislative, program, or policy changes that could reduce the amount or availability of the funding sources upon which the Commission relies. Monitoring of Affordable Housing Pursuant to Section 33418, the Commission is required to monitor, on an ongoing basis, any housing affordable to persons and families of low- or moderate-income developed or otherwise made available through any provision of the Redevelopment Law. As part of this monitoring, the Commission will require owners or mangers of affordable housing units to submit an annual report to the Commission. The annual reports will include for each rental unit the rental rate and the income and family size of the occupants, and for each owner-occupied unit whether there was a change in ownership from the prior year and, if so, the income and family size of the new owners. The income information required by this section shall be supplied by the tenant in a certified statement on a form provided by the Commission. Redevelopment Law states that information on income and family size is required to be reported by the tenant and shall be the only information on income or family sizes that owner or manager will be required to submit in the annual report to the Commission. Section 33418(b) states that the information obtained by the Commission from owners and managers of affordable housing must be included in any reports required by law to be submitted to the HCD or the State Controller. In addition, Section 33418(c) finds the Commission must adequately fund its monitoring activities as needed to insure compliance of applicable laws and agreements in relation to affordable units. For purposes of defraying the cost of complying with these monitoring requirements and the HCD Report required to be filed with the State Controller's Report, the Commission can establish and impose fees upon owners of properties monitored pursuant to the Redevelopment Law. Prevailing Wage Issues Since the Commission's approval of the last Implementation Plan, the California Legislature has amended Labor Code Section 1720 et seq. to require payment of prevailing wages for private improvements which are financially assisted by the Commission or City whether for commercial, industrial, office, or housing uses. There is a very limited exception that applies to the construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing assisted by a redevelopment Commission using its Housing Fund which is the only source of public funding for such development. In order to qualify for the exception there can be no other federal or state assistance or mortgage credit certificates or state or federal low income housing credits. Redevelopment Plans/Conflicts If there is a conflict, which exist between this Implementation Plan and any one or all of, the respective Redevelopment Plans or any other City or Commission plan or policy, the applicable redevelopment plan shall control. Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan . 25 • FY 2009-10 to FY 2131-14 Five Year Implementation Plan Reserved Rosemead Community Development Commission Five Year Implementation Plan 26 • • ATTACHMENT D r February 10, 2009 0 REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE MERGER AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS NOS. 1 AND 2 ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION UFI I GRC Redevelopment Planning 3111 North Tustin Street, Suite 230 Orange, CA 92865 (714)283-9334 • FAX (714)283-5465 www.urbanfuturesinc.com 0 0 • Report to the City Council Prepared for the Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 Prepared by: URBAN FUTURES, INC. GRC REDEVELOPMENT PLANNING In Cooperation with the: ROSEMEAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION February 2009 0 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • • REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE MERGER AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NOS. 1 AND 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................1 1.1 Definitions ...............................................................................1 1.2 Background and Purpose of the Merger Amendment ............3 1.3 Description of the Project Areas and Status of its Land Use Controls ...........................................................................4 2.0 REQUIREMENTS OF LAW ...13 2.1 Requirements of CCRL Section 33352 ...13 2.2 Requirements of CCRL Section 33451.5 ...15 2.3 Definitions of Blight - CCRL Section 33031 ...16 2.4 Requirements of CCRL Section 33486 ...17 3.0 METHODOLOGY USED TO GATHER AND ANALYZE DATA USED IN THIS REPORT ...19 3.1 Introduction: Discussion of Data Sources and Hierarchy of Use ...19 3.2 Use of Data Sources for Each Hierarchy ...19 3.3 Methodology Used to Gather Information from Each Data Source ...20 3.3.1 Field Reconnaissance ...20 3.3.2 Primary Research and Document Research ...21 3.3.3 Professional Experience ...21 3.4 Methodology Used to Analyze the Data ...22 3.4.1 Discussion of Definitions of Conditions which Cause Blight ...22 3.4.2 Methodology Used to Identify and Analyze Incidence and Extent of Blight ....................................24 3.4.2.1 Blight Severity Weighting by Parcel .............24 3.4.2.2 Blight Severity Weighting by Irregular Parcel ization 26 3.4.2.3 Blight Severity Weighting: Conclusion .........27 3.4.3 Methodology Used to Analyze Data Derived from Primary and Secondary Sources ................................27 Z00PIn AcbveftsemeaM02 0ca R to CCIRpt to CC 02.00.doc n u 11 3.4.4 Methodology Used to Determine Blight, and Necessity 27 3.4.4.1 Methodology to Establish Blight (Layers 1 and 2) ........................................................27 3.4.4.2 Methodology to Establish Necessary and Essential Parcels for the Elimination of Remaining Blight (Layer 3) ...........................28 4.0 REASONS FOR THE SELECTION OF THE PROJECT AREA .....31 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA(S) .....................................33 5.1 Physical Conditions Described .............................................33 5.1.1 Buildings in Which it is Unsafe or Unhealthy for Persons to Live or Work .............................................33 5.1.1.1 Serious Code Violations ...............................34 5.1.1.2 Serious Dilapidation and Deterioration 34 5.1.1.3 Construction that is Vulnerable to Serious Damage ..37 5.1.1.4 Faulty or Inadequate Water Utilities ..39 5.1.1.5 Statement that there are Unhealthy and Unsafe Buildings and that Significant Blight Remains in the Project Areas ..40 5.1.2 Conditions That Prevent or Substantially Hinder the Viable Use or Capacity of Buildings or Lots ..40 5.1.3 Statement that there are Conditions in the Project Areas Which Substantially Hinder the Viable Use or Capacity of Buildings or Lots and that the Incidence of these Conditions is Significant ..43 5.1.4 The Existence of Irregular, Subdivided Lots in Multiple Ownership Whose Physical Development has been Impaired Given Present Conditions 44 5.1.5 Statement that there are Irregular, Subdivided Lots in Multiple Ownership Whose Physical Development has been Impaired Given Present Conditions and that the Incidence of these Conditions is Significant ..45 5.1.6 Statement Providing Compelling Evidence There are a Substantial Number of Parcels in the Project Areas that Suffer from Indications of Physical Blight and that Such Blight is Significant 45 5.2 Economic Conditions Described ..46 5.2.1 Poverty and Residential Overcrowding ...........47 5.2.1.1 Prevalence of Poverty ...........47 5.2.1.2 Prevalence of Overcrowding ...........50 5.2.2 Adequacy of Commercial Facilities ...........52 5.2.2.1 Abnormally High Vacancy Rate ...........52 ii 1 5.2.2.2 Serious Lack of Adequate Retail- Commercial Facilities ..53 5.2.3 Public Safety and Crime ..57 5.2.3.1 Police-Related Crime Risk 57 5.2.3.1.1 Project Area No. 1 ..59 5.2.3.1.2 Project Area No. 2 ..60 5.2.4 Statement of Significant Economic Blight ..60 5.3 Statement Providing Compelling Evidence That Conditions of Physical and Economic Blight Are Significant Throughout the Project Areas ..62 6.0 MAP OF THE PROJECT AREAS SHOWING PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT AREAS NO LONGER BLIGHTED, PORTIONS THAT ARE BLIGHTED, AND PORTIONS THAT ARE NECESSARY AND ESSENTIAL FOR THE ELIMINATION OF REMAINING BLIGHT 65 7.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS OR PROGRAMS PROPOSED TO ELIMINATE REMAINING BLIGHT ............................................69 8.0 DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS WILL IMPROVE OR ALLEVIATE CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT........ 71 9.0 REASONS WHY THE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS CANNOT BE COMPLETED WITHOUT THE MERGER AMENDMENT ...........73 10.0 PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING THE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS ..........................................................................75 10.1 Amount of Tax Increment Revenues Projected to be Generated as a Result of the Merger Amendment ...............75 10.2 Sources and Amounts of Moneys Other than Tax Increment Revenues that are Available ................................75 10.3 Reasons that Remaining Blight Cannot be Reversed or Alleviated Without the Use of Tax Increment Available because of the Merger Amendment 75 11.0 AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN............ 77 12.0 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT REPORT ...........................................81 12.1 Relocation .............................................................................81 12.2 Traffic Circulation ..................................................................81 12.3 Environmental Quality ..........................................................81 12.4 Availability of Community Facilities and Services .................81 12.5 Effect on School Population and Quality of Education 82 12.6 Property Assessments and Taxes ........................................82 a; 12.7 The Number of Dwelling Units Housing Persons and Families of Low- or Moderate-Income Expected to be Destroyed or Removed from the Low- and Moderate- Income Housing Market through Implementation of the Merger Amendment ..82 12.8 Number of Persons and Families of Low- or Moderate- Income Expected to be Displaced by the Project ..82 12.9 General Location of Housing to be Rehabilitated, Developed, or Constructed ..82 12.10 The Number of Dwelling Units Housing Persons and Families of Low- or Moderate-Income Planned for Construction or Rehabilitation, Other than Replacement Housing 83 12.11 Projected Means of Financing Proposed Dwelling Units for Persons and Families for Low- and Moderate-Income Housing 83 12.12 Projected Timetable for Meeting Rehabilitation and Replacement Housing Objectives ..83 13.0 METHOD OR PLAN FOR RELOCATION .......................................85 14.0 ANALYSIS OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAN ....................................87 15.0 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ................................................................................89 16.0 SUMMARY REFERRED TO IN SECTION 33387 91 17.0 REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 65402 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE ...................................................................93 18.0 REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 2151 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE ......................................................................95 19.0 REPORT OF THE COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER AND ANALYSIS OF SAID REPORT .......................................................97 iv I 0 • LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Vicinity Map Figure 2 - Project Areas Map Figure 3 - General Plan Land Use Map Figure 4 - Existing Land Use Map Figure 5 - Blight Summary Map Figure 6 - Blighted Parcels and Necessary and Essential Parcels...... LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 HIERARCHY SOURCES AND USES, FINDINGS REQUIRED TABLE 2 DILAPIDATION AND DETERIORATION TABLE 3 INADEQUATE CONSTRUCTION TABLE 4 CONDITIONS THAT PREVENT OR HINDER VIABLE USES TABLE 5 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A- Methodology Hierarchy Appendix B - Blight Indicators Appendix C - Minimum Threshold Photographic Samples Appendix D - Blight Threshold By Parcel Appendix E - Summary of Blight Conditions Appendix F - Appendices Describing Economic Blight 5 7 9 ..11 ..63 ..67 ......20 ......34 ......38 ......41 ......47 v I • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • vi I • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 1.0 INTRODUCTION Due to limited financial capabilities to address conditions of blight, the Rosemead Community Development Commission (the "Commission") has initiated the process of amending its two existing redevelopment areas, Project Area No. 1 and Project Area No. 2, to merge them into one (the "Merger Amendment'). The proposed Merger Amendment is being processed by the Commission pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law (CCRL; Health and Safety Code, Section 33000, et seq.) and all applicable laws and ordinances. CCRL Section 33485 provides, in part, that mergers of redevelopment project areas are "desirable as a matter of public policy if they result in substantial benefit to the public and if they contribute to the revitalization of blighted areas through the increased economic vitality of such areas and through increased and improved housing opportunities in or near such areas." This Report to the City Council includes evidence to support these goals and has been prepared in accordance with the applicable requirements of CCRL Sections 33451.5 and 33352. 1.1 DEFINITIONS The following bold terms shall have the following meanings unless the context in which they are used clearly requires otherwise: "AGA" means Alfred Gobar Associates, real estate economic consultants retained by the Commission to assist it to complete the adoption of the Merger Amendment. "Blight Indicators" means the list of 40 conditions identified in Appendices A, B and C, and more fully described in Section 3.0 of this Report. Blight Indicators are indications of those conditions that cause physical and economic blight based upon the definitions of such conditions established in CCRL Sections 33030 and 33031. "Blighted Area" means that portion, or portions, of either Project Area which contain significant blight (as defined in CCRL Section 33031) and which may contain lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but whose inclusion is found necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part (as defined in CCRL Section 33321). "CCRL" means the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) as currently drafted or as it may be amended from time to time. "City" means the City of Rosemead. "City Council" means the Rosemead City Council. The members of the City Council are also the members of the Commission Board. "Commission" means the Rosemead Community Development Commission. "Commission Board" means the Board of Directors of the Commission. The members of the Commission Board are also the members of the City Council. "County" means the County of Los Angeles, State of California 1 1 Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 "deterioration" or "physical deterioration" means the cumulative and deleterious effects of wear and tear on a structure over time. Such deterioration may be the result of use or excessive use of a structure, or of the effects of the elements on a structure, which use or effects have not been rectified through a program of ongoing and adequate maintenance. Deterioration includes both conditions of "dilapidation" and "deterioration" as set forth in CCRL Section 33031(a)(1). "Existing Plans" means the Redevelopment Plans for Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 and Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2. "Field Reconnaissance" means the reconnaissance completed by UFI (and AGA) of all parcels in either Project Area, and is more completely described in Section 3.0 of this Report. "functional obsolescence" means a loss in value resulting from defects in design, or changes that, over time, have made some aspect of a structure obsolete by current standards. "FY" means fiscal year and runs from July 1 of any given calendar year to June 30 of the subsequent year. "General Plan" means the present City of Rosemead General Plan, adopted on November 24, 1987, as it has been amended from time to time. "Improved Area" means a portion of either Project Area that is no longer blighted as provided in CCRL Section 33451.5(c)(1). "LMI Fund" means the Low and Moderate Income Fund of the Commission established pursuant to CCRL Section 33334.3. "Merged Redevelopment Plan" means the redevelopment plan as proposed by this Merger Amendment. "Merger Amendment" means the proposed merger of the Existing Plans, as defined below. Under the CCRL, a merger is processed as an amendment to the subject redevelopment plans. "Metroscan" means First American Real Estate Solutions software program allowing access to records of the County Assessor. First American Real Estate Solutions provides the following caveat: "Information compiled from various sources. Real Estate Solutions makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness contained in [any] report." "Planning Commission" means the Rosemead Planning Commission. "Project Area(s)" means one or both of Project Area No. 1 or Project Area No. 2. "Project Area No. 1" means the territory contained within the boundaries of Rosemead Redevelopment Project No. 1, and is calculated to include about 510 acres. "Project Area No. 2" means the territory contained within the boundaries of Rosemead Redevelopment Project No. 2, and is calculated to include about 205 acres. 2 1 • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission "Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 1" means the Redevelopment Plan for Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 1, originally adopted on June 22, 1972, by Ordinance No. 340, and subsequently amended three times: December 9, 1986, by Ordinance No. 592; December 20, 1994, by Ordinance No. 752; and January 22, 2002, by Ordinance No. 822. "Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 2" means the Redevelopment Plan for Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2, adopted on June 27, 2000, by Ordinance No. 809. "Report" or "Report to the City Council" means this report to the legislative body, which includes the information required for a Preliminary Report (CCRL Section 33344.5), for the State Departments of Housing and Community Development, and Finance (CCRL Section 33451.5), and for the legislative body (CCRL Section 33352). "State" means the State of California. "Tax Increment" means the funds to be allocated to the Commission from either Project Area pursuant to CCRL Section 33670. "UFI" means Urban Futures, Inc., redevelopment consultants retained by the Commission to assist the processing of this Merger Amendment. "Zoning Ordinance" means the zoning ordinance in the City in effect at the time of the adoption of the Merger Amendment and as it may be amended from time to time. The Zoning Ordinance is codified as Title 18 of the Municipal Code. 1.2 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE MERGER AMENDMENT The Rosemead City Council (the "City Council") adopted the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 on June 22, 1972, by Ordinance No. 340. That Redevelopment Plan has been amended three times: on December 9, 1986, by Ordinance No. 592, to establish the tax increment collection limit and to establish an eminent domain sunset date; on December 20, 1994, by Ordinance No. 752, to comply with provisions of Assembly Bill 1290; and on January 22, 2002, by Ordinance No. 822, to eliminate the date restriction on establishing loans, advances and indebtedness. The territory within Project Area No. 1 includes approximately 510 acres. The City Council adopted the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 on June 27, 2000, by Ordinance No. 809. The territory within Project Area No. 2 includes about 205 acres. The Commission is proposing the Merger Amendment to provide it greater financial flexibility in making improvements as well as streamlining the administrative process. Doing so will increase the Commission's ability in implementing redevelopment projects and programs, designed to: upgrade public facilities and infrastructure, promote and facilitate economic development and job growth, and generally improve the quality of life for residents, and business and property owners within the limits of the Merged Project Area specifically, and the City, overall. The Merger Amendment will not affect the boundaries, or the time or financial limits, of either Project Area. 3 1 Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans • for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 1.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREAS AND STATUS OF ITS LAND USE CONTROLS Figure 1 locates the City roughly at the northeast corner of the 1-10 and 1-605 interchange, about 20 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. Nearby communities include the cities of Covina, West Covina, El Monte, and Irwindale. Figure 2 shows the location of the two Project Areas and their relationship to the overall City. Figure 3 shows General Plan land use designations within the Project Areas, while Figure 4 shows current land uses identified during the Field Reconnaissance. Upon final adoption of the Merger Amendment, the General Plan will continue to govern land use policy within the Project Areas. Implementation of the Merged Redevelopment Plan will be consistent with land use designations permitted by the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, as they now exist and as they may be amended from time to time. 4 1 ~ N F ~ Q Om 00 51 c yO r z ? i m c m z zw xQ s E a w~~ s ~o? Z W mv. is O V ~ U w Qyw CI . ZQ e ~ ~ m E cw7aa LL~ - a _ E n ma - w~F- > zz 0w m m w 022 d~¢ - - ❑ woo U ~ U mww o>> awo Ono C - L O f > U e O C d n m ~ - R u g _ 0 o S - U i E ~ U o' c - 0 .uw ~ uiw, q t 1 ! I A. ! a !g it j i - ghi. z ~ p _ £ u^u € a a = @i = I s -e All, sl~~ ~ rJ i i i { !1 Rosemead Community Development Commission LEGEND PROPOSED MERGER AMENDMENT TO L,1 Rosemead City Boundary THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NOS. 1 AND 2 - Freeways Railroads FIGURE 2 PROJECT AREAS MAP Rosemead Redevelopment Projects Project Area No. 1 I;,,! Project Area No.2 r„ m~cm,.m v,n oetr.r I f 0 . I un ~ . S ~0'. 3 ` a rcnr. ~s ~ amp ` p g x~ ~ urn LEGEND 3 ~ I j gym. 1 I ~r i g eF:m 4 IJI, m al.- z A - I 1 r :.:uw. tl Dori,: - I%'. .nMw[ ti I _ ~ 1 9 a~~tF.3t'S~ 3 ~rr~~f / ` i ,t 1 s i fi j 1 a '1 g i IL, I i ~ a d F 5. q..o S N4,'Y" $ r _ 1 rm„- W Ii ,t 1 yww ~ 1 m _I l L, .wro Rosemead Community Development Commission PROPOSED MERGER AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NOS. I AND2 FIGURE 3 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP x*s.ur~n.e w caraaw..w aiiii. n. _ _ u rynm.e A teoo soo o too. rm ED Rosemead City Boundary General Plan Land Use' Rosemead Redevelopment Projects Low Density Residential Pmjea Area No. 1 ly Medium Density Residential [:3 Pmjed Area No.2 W High Density Residential Railroads ® Commerdal - Freeways C' Mixed Use Residential/Commenaal (7: Mined Use: IndusmaXommerual C' officeAight Industrial Public Facilities • Per the City of Rosemead GIS system as of July 23. 2008. R gurex weia tl mvu ~ 4,1 ~e JLan~~ t uiu¢°n uuva g ssmr ' "~~T~~'~~ y rw. I t ~ x d ze Eli 3 I a~ I ee. M,. i i I e. e.. tl! , , ro° ='j'.i t i 3 I .mm°. e m «wre - ezl~, 5 1 "9e - 1 0 S j v I mr. o i f wsm. e., ,.s»w s I q ~ 1 5 i 8 e Las= i . _ 4an ~ t~ ®I'l~. 811 \ c . t f ILL i uwue°xn• i I Y I `Ct "a 1. •s' j k' N A t.WJ 5N o 1.Ytl. 4 1 `i FL I I d Rosemead Community Development Commission LEGEND 01 Rosemead City Boundary ® Commerdal - Freeways 221 Mixed Use Comenerrmal/Offlc Professional PROPOSED MERGER AMENDMENT TO - Reilmads lZ Mixed Use: Commelciaklntlustnal THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE ROSEMEAD Rosemead Redevelopment Projects - Once Professional REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NOS.1 AND2 C: Project Area No.1 ®IndLemal C2. Project Area No.2 G Public FIGURE 4 Existing land Use- 2Z Quad-Public EXISTING LAND USE MAP - Single Family Residential ® Recreational EM Multi-Family Residential El Park N Condominium L_ Parcelized Rightsof-Way • I u~ rwr. zc 1= Mobile Home 0 Previousty Urbanized a a- .s- - 2 0 Mixed Use: Residarmal/Commercial Vacant c.x. o.e es~°e M Mixed Use: ResitlentiaMntlusfdal ~ Public Rightso4Way Ae'. PM n.LEnpLa~F°WnruC ' Per the red reconneissano: wMUtled by UPI in March and NpN, 2008. • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 2.0 REQUIREMENTS OF LAW In order to complete the Merger Amendment, the Commission will follow the provisions of Articles 4 and 16 in the CCRL, and must provide at least the following: Preliminary Report to affected taxing agencies pursuant to CCRL Section 33344.5. Report to the State Departments of Finance, and Housing and Community Development, pursuant to CCRL Section 33451.5 Report to the legislative body pursuant to CCRL Section 33352 The Preliminary Report and the Report to the State Departments of Finance, and Housing and Community Development were combined into one document called the "Unified Report," which was prepared and transmitted as required by law. The report to the legislative body is this Report to the City Council, and is part of the evidentiary record for the proposed Merger Amendment. CCRL Section 33352 requires that "[e]very redevelopment plan submitted to the agency to the legislative body shall be accompanied by a report." It then provides a list of required elements to be included in the report. Pursuant to CCRL Section 33457.1, only to "the extent warranted by a proposed amendment to a redevelopment plan, the reports and information required by [CCRL] Section 33352 shall be prepared and made available to the public prior to the hearing on such amendment." This Report to the City Council, therefore, includes only those components which are "warranted" by the proposed Merger Amendment. In addition, CCRL Section 33451.5 outlines the specific elements required for an amendment to merge two or more project areas. Therefore, the provisions of CCRL Section 33451.5 will apply in the preparation this Report to the City Council for most elements, but certain provisions of CCRL Section 33352 are also applicable. 2.1 REQUIREMENTS OF CCRL SECTION 33352 CCRL Section 333,52 is outlined below. §33352 Every redevelopment plan submitted by the agency to the legislative body shall be accompanied by a report containing all of the following: (a) The reasons for the selection of the project area, a description of the specific projects then proposed by the agency, a description of how these projects will improve or alleviate the conditions described in subdivision (b). (b) A description of the physical and economic conditions specified in Section 33031 that exist in the area that cause the project area to be blighted. The description shall include a list of the physical and economic conditions described in Section 33031 that exist within the project area and a map showing where in the project the conditions exist. The description shall contain specific, quantifiable evidence that documents both of the following: (1) The physical and economic conditions specified in Section 33031. (2) That the described physical and economic conditions are so prevalent and substantial that, collectively, they seriously harm the entire project area. 13 E Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 (c) An implementation plan that describes specific goals and objectives of the agency, specific projects then proposed by the agency, including a program of actions and expenditures proposed to be made within the first five years of the plan, and a description of how these projects will improve or alleviate the conditions described in Section 33031. (d) An explanation of why the elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the project area cannot reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone or by the legislative body's use of financing alternatives other than tax increment financing. (e) The proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the project area in sufficient detail so that the legislative body may determine the economic feasibility of the plan. . (f) A method or plan for the relocation of families and persons to be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities in the project area, which method or plan shall include the provision required by Section 33411.1 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 the displaced person or family at rents comparable to those at the time of their displacement. (g) An analysis of the preliminary plan. (h) The report and recommendations of the planning commission. (i) The summary referred to in Section 33387. (j) The report required by Section 65402 of the Government Code. (k) The report required by Section 21151 of the Public Resources Code. (I) The report of the county fiscal officer as required by Section 33328. (m) If the project area contains low- or moderate-income housing, a neighborhood impact report which describes in detail the impact of the project upon the residents of the project area and the surrounding areas, in terms of relocation, traffic circulation, environmental quality, availability of community facilities and services, effect on school population and quality of education, property assessments and taxes, and other matters affecting the physical and social quality of the neighborhood. The neighborhood impact report shall also include all of the following: (1) The number of dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income expected to be destroyed or removed from the low- and moderate-income housing market as part of a redevelopment project. (2) The number of persons and families of low or moderate income expected to be displaced by the project. (3) The general location of housing to be rehabilitated, developed, or constructed pursuant to Section 33413. (4) The number of dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income planned for construction or rehabilitation, other than replacement housing. (5) The projected means of financing the proposed dwelling units for housing persons and families of low and moderate income planned for construction or rehabilitation. (6) A projected timetable for meeting the plan's relocation, rehabilitation, and replacement housing objectives. 14 • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission (n) (1) An analysis by the agency of the report submitted by the county as required by Section 33328, which shall include a summary of the consultation of the agency, or attempts to consult by the agency, with each of the affected taxing entities as required by Section 33328. If any of the affected taxing entities have expressed written objections or concerns with the proposed project area as part of these consultations, the agency shall include a response to these concerns, additional information, if any, and, at the discretion of the agency, proposed or adopted mitigation measures. (2) As used in this subdivision: (A) "Mitigation measures" may include the amendment of the redevelopment plan with respect to the size or location of the project area, time duration, total amount of tax increment to be received by the agency, or the proposed use, size, density, or location of development to be assisted by the agency. (B) "Mitigation measures" shall not include obligations to make payments to any affected taxing entity. 2.2 REQUIREMENTS OF CCRL SECTION 33451.5 CCRL Section 33451.5 is outlined below. §33451.5 (a) This section shall apply only to proposed plan amendments that would do any of the following: (1) Change the limitation on the number of dollars of taxes which may be divided and allocated to the redevelopment agency. (2) Change the limit on the amount of bonded indebtedness that can be outstanding at one time. (3) Change the time limit on the establishing of loans, advances, and indebtedness to be paid with the proceeds of property taxes received pursuant to Section 33670. (4) Change the time limit on the effectiveness of the redevelopment plan. (5) Change the boundaries of the project area. (6) Merge existing project areas. (b) No later than 45 days prior to the public hearing on a proposed plan amendment by an agency or the joint public hearing of the agency and the legislative body, the agency shall notify the Department of Finance and the Department of Housing and Community Development by first-class mail of the public hearing, the date of the public hearing, and the proposed amendment. This notice shall be accompanied by the report required to be prepared pursuant to subdivision (c). (c) No later than 45 days prior to the public hearing on a proposed plan amendment by the agency or the joint public hearing by the agency and the legislative body, the agency shall prepare a report that contains all of the following: (1) A map of the project area that identifies the portion, if any, of the project area that is no longer blighted, the portion of the project area that is blighted, and the portion of the project area that contains necessary and essential parcels for the elimination of the remaining blight. (2) A description of the remaining blight. (3) A description of the projects or programs proposed to eliminate any remaining blight. (4) A description of how these projects or programs will improve the conditions of blight. 15 • i Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 (5) The reasons why the projects or programs cannot be completed without the plan amendment. (6) The proposed method of financing these programs or projects. This description shall include the amount of tax increment revenues that is projected to be generated as a result of the proposed plan amendment, including amounts projected to be deposited into the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund and amounts to be paid to the affecting taxing entities. This description shall also include sources and amounts of moneys other than tax increment revenues that are available to finance these projects or programs. This description shall also include the reasons that the remaining blight cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without the use of the tax increment revenues available to the agency because of the proposed amendment. (7) An amendment to the agencys implementation plan that includes, but is not limited to, the agency's housing responsibilities pursuant to Section 33490. However, the agency shall not be required to hold a separate public hearing on the implementation plan pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 33490 in addition to the public hearing on the amendment to the redevelopment plan. (8) A new neighborhood impact report if required by subdivision (m) of Section 33352. (d) Upon receiving the report, the Department of Finance shall prepare an estimate of how the proposed plan amendment will affect the General Fund. The Department of Finance shall determine whether the amendment will affect the need for school facilities. (e) Within 21 days of the receipt of the report, the Department of Finance or the Department of Housing and Community Development may send any comments regarding the proposed plan amendment in writing to the agency and the legislative body. The agency and the legislative body shall consider these comments, if any, at the public hearing on the proposed plan amendment. If these comments are not available within the prescribed time limit, the agency and the legislative body may proceed without them. (f) The Department of Finance or the Department of Housing and Community Development may also send their comments regarding the proposed plan amendment to the Attorney General for further action pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 33501). 2.3 DEFINITIONS OF BLIGHT- CCRL SECTION 33031 CCRL Section 33352(b) states that this Report shall include "[a] description of the physical and economic conditions specified in [CCRL] Section 33031 that exist in the project area." CCRL Section 33031 is stated below: §33031 (a) This subdivision describes physical conditions that cause blight: (1) Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. These conditions may be caused by serious building code violations, serious dilapidation and deterioration caused by long term neglect, construction that is vulnerable to serious damage from seismic or geologic hazards, and faulty or inadequate water or sewer utilities. (2) Conditions that prevent or substantially hinder the viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. These conditions may be caused by buildings of substandard, defective, or obsolete design or construction given the present general plan, zoning, or other development standards. 16 • 0 Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission (3) Adjacent or nearby incompatible land uses that prevent the development of those parcels or other portions of the project area. (4) The existence of subdivided lots that are in multiple ownership and whose physical development has been impaired by their irregular shapes and inadequate sizes, given present general plan and zoning standards and present market conditions. (b) This subdivision describes economic conditions that cause blight: -(1) Depreciated or stagnant property values. (2) Impaired property values, due in significant part, to hazardous wastes on property where the agency may be eligible to use its authority as specified in Article 12.5 (commencing with CCRL Section 33459). (3) Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, or an abnormally high number of abandoned buildings. (4) A serious lack of necessary commercial facilities that are normally found in neighborhoods, including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and other lending institutions. (5) Serious residential overcrowding that has resulted in significant public health or safety problems. As used in this paragraph, "overcrowding" means exceeding the standard referenced in Article 5 (commencing with Section 32) of Chapter 1 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations.' (6) An excess of bars, liquor stores, or adult oriented businesses that has resulted in significant public health, safety, or welfare problems. (7) A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare. This section did not appear to provide an appropriate definition of "overcrowding." Further, CCRL Section 33030(c) provides that "[a] blighted area that contains the conditions described in [CCRL Section 330311 may also be characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements or inadequate water or sewer utilities. 2.4 REQUIREMENTS OF CCRL SECTION 33486 CCRL Section 33486 requires that before two or more redevelopment plans may be merged, the City Council must find, based on substantial evidence, that both of the following conditions exist: 1. Significant blight remains within one of the project areas 2. This blight cannot be eliminated without merging the project areas and the receipt of property taxes Evidence of both conditions will be presented in the remainder of this Report. 17 f • Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and ? * THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 18 • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 3.0 METHODOLOGY USED TO GATHER AND ANALYZE DATA USED IN THIS REPORT 3.1 INTRODUCTION: DISCUSSION OF DATA SOURCES AND HIERARCHY OF USE This Report presents evidence which was gathered and analyzed in a manner sufficient to meet or exceed threshold conditions set forth in the CCRL, and in various appellate court cases which bear upon redevelopment plan adoption/amendment actions. The method used to gather, analyze, and report upon such evidence is discussed below. The evidence presented in this Report is derived from four sources: 1. The Field Reconnaissance 2. A review of primary research and secondary source documents completed by UFI and AGA' 3. Interviews and testimonials of key City/Commission department staff 4. UFI's professional experience with redevelopment and generally accepted planning principles. The evidence so gathered2 is divided into three hierarchies based upon the degree to which the source of the data can be related specifically to any given parcel, with the most parcel-specific layer identified as "Layer 1," the next most parcel-specific identified as "Layer 2," and the least parcel-specific identified as "Layer 3." Data used to evidence blight are found in Layers 1 and 2, while data and experience used to show necessary and essential parcels are found in Layer 3. Appendix A graphically illustrates the hierarchal nature of the data used to evidence blight and necessity. 3.2 USE OF DATA SOURCES FOR EACH HIERARCHY Data used in each of the three hierarchies are derived from one or more of the four sources identified above. Table 1 below provides a graphic description of the sources and uses of data for each hierarchy and each type of finding required of the City Council identified above. 1 The role assumed by AGA in the development of this Unified Report is limited to research and analyses of economic blight. Please reference Section 5.2 of this Report for the AGA analysis and conclusions regarding the presence of economic blight in the Project Area. 2 All "raw" field data generated by UFI and AGA are incorporated herein by this reference. 19 l Merger Amendment to the Redevel• ent Plans • for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 TABLE 1 HIERARCHY SOURCES AND USES, FIN DINGS REQUIRED FINDINGS -REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL ? HIERARCHY},;. ; DATA SOURCE _ BLIGHT NECESSARY AND ESSENTIAL iq p i Layer 1 Field Reconnaissance/Interviews Field Reconnaissance/Primary/Document Layer 2 Research/Interviews Primary and Document Research/Professional Layer 3 Experience/Interviews 3.3 METHODOLOGY USED TO GATHER INFORMATION FROM EACH DATA SOURCE 3.3.1 Field Reconnaissance The Field Reconnaissance provides data relating to the type, severity, and amount of physical conditions and, to some extent, economic conditions, which the City Council may rely upon to make appropriate findings about the presence of remaining physical and economic blight in the Project Areas.3 UFI conducted the Field Reconnaissance in March 2008. The Field Reconnaissance was conducted during daylight hours by one or more teams of two individuals in an automobile and/or by foot. Field notes were recorded on copies of assessor's parcel maps and included such items as the condition of primary structures capable of containing a major land use activity; the condition of public infrastructure including streets, curbs, gutters and sidewalks; inappropriate, or conflicting land uses; indications of criminal activity such as graffiti; and the general condition of neighborhoods. For reasons of cost and respect for privacy, the surveyors were cautious about entering onto private property and did not enter into the interiors of buildings. All notes and other data generated during the Field Reconnaissance are incorporated herein by this reference and are on file at the offices of UFI. In preparation for the Field Reconnaissance, senior UFI staff has defined a set of 40 physical conditions determined to be adverse to the public health, safety and welfare ("Blight Indicators"), and derived from a review of the following sources: CCRL Section 33031(a) (physical) and (b) (economic) The 1997 Uniform Housing Code The 2001 Uniform Building Code A list of these 40 Blight Indicators was provided to the field team both as written definitions (see Appendix B) and as a catalog of photographs (see Appendix C) each of which shows a "minimum threshold" of severity for the appropriate Blight 3 Data collected during the Field Reconnaissance is used to provide evidence to allow the City Council to make findings relating to CCRL Sections 33030(c) and 33031(a) and (b) relating to findings of remaining blight in the Project Areas. 20 • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission Indicator. A review of Appendices A, B and C will show that the catalog of Blight Indicators is intended to provide a standard set of conditions and is not necessarily tailored to any specific community; consequently, there may be Blight Indicators listed or photographed in these Appendices which are not specifically relevant to either Project Area. It should be noted that if the field team did not find a case of any one or more of the 40 Blight Indicators, that Blight Indicator(s) would not be shown on the field reports or reflected in this Report. During the Field Reconnaissance the field team noted two types of information for each parcel within either Project Area; the primary and any secondary (if applicable) land uses for that parcel, and the specific Blight Indicator(s), if any, which met or exceeded the minimum defined and photographic thresholds described above .4 Appendix D provides a table of all Blight Indicators identified for each parcel located within the Project Areas. 3.3.2 Primary Research and Document Research As described above, various agencies collect data on physical and economic real property conditions in the course of their business. This data is available to the researcher in various media: print, database, oral interview, anecdotal, and photographic media to list a few. These data are well-suited to determining historic rates, area-wide conditions, and blighting "influences." However, use of these data is limited primarily because reporting district boundaries are generally not coterminous with the boundaries of a project area. As a consequence, proper use of these data often requires interpolation to rationalize differing geographies, time spans, and data sets. The different types of data used in the preparation of this Report are listed below and by this reference are incorporated herein: • The General Plan • The Zoning Ordinance to determine applicable building capacities, lot size standards, parking ratios, set back requirements, etc., for each land use type • Service dispatch for police and fire response calls • U.S. Census • Staff interviews • First American Real Estate Solutions (Metroscan) 3.3.3 Professional Experience Summaries of the qualifications of staff members who participated in the Field Reconnaissance and/or subsequent review and analysis of data are provided below. This Report, including the Field Reconnaissance, was completed by UFI 4 For instance, an exterior wall that exhibits a major crack indicates a weakening in the foundation which will lead to failure and would be noted as a Blight Indicator. On the other hand, many stucco structures in earthquake prone California exhibit small cracks in their exterior walls which may be considered cosmetic and do not indicate the potential for failure. The major crack is a "Blight Indicator," the smaller crack is not. 21 { Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 and AGA staff under the general direction of Mr. Jon Huffman, Managing Principal, UFI, and Mr. Alonzo Pedrin, Principal, AGA, respectively. Participating professional UFI staff included Mr. Paul Schowalter, Principal; Mr. Ryan Bensley, Planner, Mr. Jung Seo, Planner, and Ms. Kathren Young, Assistant Planner. Mr. Huffman holds a Bachelor of Architecture Degree from the University of Oregon, a Masters of Landscape Architecture Degree from the California State Polytechnic University, Pomona and Certificates in Real Estate Appraisal from the California State University, Fullerton, and has personally participated in over 80 field reconnaissances and managed over 175 redevelopment plan adoptions and amendments. Mr. Schowalter holds a Bachelor of Architecture Degree with an Urban Design Emphasis from the California State Polytechnic University, Pomona and has personally participated in over 100 field reconnaissances and provided analysis and document preparation in over 150 redevelopment plan adoptions and amendments in California. Mr. Bensley holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Geography from the California State University, Long Beach, and has completed numerous field investigations for UFI and has over six years' experience with municipalities in Southern California and the private real estate sector. Mr. Seo holds a Bachelor of Engineering in Architecture and Urban Planning from the Handong University, South Korea, and a Master of Planning from the University of Southern California, and has helped to make a site analysis and projections for several redevelopment projects. Ms. Young holds a Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Analysis and Design from the University of California, Irvine, and has participated in field investigations and GIS activities. Mr. Pedrin holds a Bachelor of Urban and Regional Planning from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, a Masters of Business Administration from the University of California, Irvine, and has been the project manager and senior research analyst for numerous private and public sector studies since 1986. UFI and AGA use their professional experience and expertise as identified above and that of Commission staff and other professionals, including Commission legal counsel, to derive reasonable and professionally defensible definitions of terms used in the CCRL (see Section 3.4.1 of this Report) and subsequently tests these definitions against the evidence gathered during the Field Reconnaissance and through examination of the secondary evidence. Such analysis might include interpreting real estate trends, determining necessity for effective redevelopment (based upon generally accepted planning principles), rationalizing apparently conflicting data, and selecting comparable data sets of parcels from within the Project Areas, and from outside the Project Areas. 3.4 METHODOLOGY USED TO ANALYZE THE DATA 3.4.1 Discussion of Definitions of Conditions which Cause Blight While the recently adopted SB 1206 has "clarified" certain definitions of blight, the CCRL still does not define the specific conditions which cause physical or economic blight through the use of any quantifiable metrics or minimum threshold 22 . 0 0 Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission conditions. Such core terms as "prevalent," "substantial," or "necessary", are not defined. Therefore, it becomes incumbent upon the City Council to make its own determination as to how the "facts on the ground" do, or do not, fit definitions of these terms. For instance, CCRL Section 33031(a)(1) lists "dilapidation and deterioration" as one of the physical conditions that "may" cause blight. SB 1206 has stated how dilapidation and deterioration may be "caused" (through "long-term neglect, construction that is vulnerable to serious damage from seismic or geologic hazards, and faulty or inadequate water or sewer utilities.") but still does not state what, exactly, is dilapidation and deterioration. Nor, after an exhaustive document search, can any cohesive and specific definition be found in the planning or real estate literature. For instance, the U.S. Census provides that "dilapidated housing does not provide safe and adequate shelter. It has one or more critical defects; or has a combination of intermediate defects in sufficient number to require extensive repair or rebuilding; or is of inadequate original construction. Critical defects result from continued neglect or indicate serious damage to the structure. Unfortunately, this definition was found in the 1960 Census (Series HC (3)-68, p. x) and cannot be found in subsequent census reports. UFI research has found countless "definitions" of deterioration or dilapidation, but none which provide a quantifiable and indisputable description of what makes a structure either deteriorated or dilapidated. Furthermore, during the 2006 State Legislative Session, the legislature had an opportunity to adopt legislation which provided specific metrics to define blight, thereby taking away local discretion as to what "blight" actually meant. While the legislature modified certain descriptive statements in CCRL Section 33031 to further provide guidance to local legislative bodies, it specifically chose not to adopt hard standards. Consequently, it remains the province of the local legislature, using the descriptive terms found in the CCRL to specifically find that an area is or is not a blighted area. It is, in short, up to each legislative body to examine the evidence before it to determine if the evidence, in its entirety, is sufficient for it to make a finding of blight. A dictionary definition of "dilapidation" is "to bring into a condition of decay or partial ruin"; "deterioration" means "the action or process of deteriorating" while "deteriorate" means "to become impaired in quality, functioning, or condition.i5 Both definitions, as well as the Census definition, provide for the: • Potential that the deterioration or dilapidation might not be based upon any one condition, but rather a series of lesser conditions which together cause the condition ("partial," "impaired," "a combination of intermediate defects") • Exacerbating effect of these conditions over time ("to bring into," "to become," "continued neglect"). In fact, the legislature has clarified its intention in SB 1206 that dilapidation and deterioration may be caused by "long-term neglect.„ Therefore, it follows the legislature must have intended a "condition which causes blight" need not, by 5 Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition. 23 I • Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. I and 2 itself, be found to be "blight," but rather may be one of many conditions which, when added together, cause blight as defined in the CCRL. For instance, chipped or peeling paint, per se, is not "blight" and a structure whose only deleterious condition is chipped or peeling paint would not be considered "blighted." However, chipped or peeling paint may be found in combination with a number of other, "conditions which cause blight" each of which, alone, might not be "blight.4 If a sufficient number of these conditions exist on one or more structures on a parcel, the legislative body of a community may appropriately find the parcel is blighted unless it could also determine that private enterprise or governmental action, or both, would rectify this situation in a reasonable period of time. The point at which private enterprise or governmental action can no longer rectify a situation "without redevelopment" is the point at which a parcel is blighted pursuant to CCRL Section 33031 and is in an area which is blighted pursuant to CCRL Section 33030(b). The discussion in the balance of this Section 3.4 describes the methodology used to "quantify" deleterious conditions in a manner which will allow the legislative body to make findings of blight on specific parcels pursuant to CCRL Section 33031. 3.4.2 Methodology Used to Identify and Analyze Incidence and Extent of Blight 3.4.2.1 Blight Severity Weighting by Parcel The first step in the process to analyze field data is to determine a level of severity for each Blight Indicator (see Section 3.3.1 "Field Reconnaissance" for a description of Blight Indicators). In UFI's opinion not all Blight Indicators merit equal weight when determining whether a parcel actually exhibits conditions which cause blight. For instance, and as described above, a parcel with a structure whose only Blight Indicator is chipped or peeling paint would not be considered "blighted"; conversely, a parcel with a structure whose only Blight Indicator is severely deteriorated exterior walls which could be in danger of imminent collapse could be considered "blighted." Additionally, it should be noted that a number of economic Blight Indicators (found in CCRL Section 33031(b)) are considered such only to the extent that they exist on more than one parcel in any given area. For instance, CCRL Section 33031(b)(3) lists "[a]bnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, or an abnormally high number of abandoned buildings," and CCRL Section 33031(b)(6) lists "excess of bars, liquor stores, or adult-oriented businesses that has resulted in significant public health, safety, or welfare problems" as indicators of economic conditions that cause blight. Therefore, while one bar or one retail establishment with a low lease rate presumably is not a condition that causes blight, the cumulative effect of a number of such conditions is 6 While paint may become chipped in a relatively short period of time, paint peels and weathers over a "long-term" if the condition is neglected. 24 , 11 • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission considered to be such a condition, assuming the case can also be made that these conditions lead to problems of public safety and welfare. To respond both to specific physical and economic conditions that cause blight and to the cumulative effect of a number of conditions which together cause blight, each of the 40 Blight Indicators is assigned one of five possible "values" by senior UFI staff. The "values" were assigned as described below. There are three Blight Indicators whose presence on a parcel of land would, by itself, allow the City Council to make a finding that the specific parcel is "blighted" (hereafter termed "Primary Blight Indicators"). These Primary Blight Indicators are identified in Appendices A, B and C as exterior structural walls which are deteriorated to such an extent they are likely to collapse and cause severe structural failure, incompatible land uses, and irregular parcelization.7 Senior UFI staff has identified a second series of 10 Blight Indicators which are considered to be half as serious as the Primary Blight Indicators and, as such, are given a value which is half that given to the Primary Blight Indicators. Examples of these Blight Indicators found in Appendices A, B and C are: additions not permitted, fire hazards, garage conversion (not permitted), or inadequate or impaired access to building exits. A third series of 17 Blight Indicators is considered by UFI to be only a fourth as serious as the Primary Blight Indicators and, as such, are given a value of one quarter that given to the Primary Blight Indicators. Examples of these Blight Indicators found in Appendices A, B and C are: apparent electrical hazards, occupied structures with one or more openings boarded up, inadequate loading or docking facilities (industrial uses only), obstruction of the public right-of-way, or unsafe or missing stairways or walkways. A fourth series of nine Blight Indicators is considered to be only a tenth as serious as the Primary Blight Indicators and, as such, are given a value of one tenth that given to the Primary Blight Indicators. Examples of these Blight Indicators found in Appendices A, B and C are: bars on windows or doors, defective outdoor walls or fences, fenestration issues, or presence of security fencing. Finally, there is one Blight Indicator, Inadequate Public Improvements (PUI) which, for two reasons, is not assigned any Blight Points. In the first place, CCRL Section 33030(c) does not specifically identify a PUI condition as "blight." Secondly, the negative effects of inadequate public improvements do not necessarily accrue to any individual parcel, but 7 Conditions of incompatible land uses (CCRL Section 33031(a)(3)) and irregular parcelization (CCRL Section 343031(a)(4)) are not fully identified in the field. These conditions are not identified in Appendix B inasmuch as they are more a function of relationships among land uses or the.shape of parcels than a function of observable deficiencies. 25 Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 rather to the block or neighborhood in which they are located. Conditions of Inadequate After having established the relationships among the various importance levels of Blight Indicators, it becomes a matter of calculation to actually establish the values. In this particular case, any parcel which receives a total value of 20 or more "points" may, with one exception described below, be considered by the City Council to be "blighted" as that term is used in the CCRL. Consequently, the Primary Blight Indicators were assigned a value of 20 points by UFI, meaning that the presence of any one of the Primary Blight Indicators on any given parcel would be sufficient to allow the City Council to find that parcel to be blighted, as defined. In descending order, those Blight Indicators which were half as serious as the Primary Blight Indicators were assigned a value of ten points, the next series of Blight Indicators were assigned a value of five points, and the final series of Blight Indicators were assigned a value of two points, one tenth that of the Primary Blight Indicators. However, it is not necessarily true that any parcel which accumulates ten of the least serious Blight Indicators would necessarily be found by the legislative body to be blighted. Therefore, in UFI's opinion, in order to be considered as a blighted parcel, any such parcel must accumulate 20 points as described above and must contain at least one Blight Indicator which is valued at five or more points. 3.4.2.2 Blight Severity Weighting by Irregular Parcelization This condition of blight relates to the difficulty of providing for rationalized development where there are irregular lots, under separate ownership, which cannot be developed as a whole. This situation occurs when these irregularly formed lots have been sold to various individuals, each of whom retains his/her own property rights to develop when and how she/he wishes, subject only to municipal regulation and his/her perceptions of value. CCRL Section 33031(a)(4), however, provides that a physical condition which causes blight consists only of those subdivided lots which are in multiple ownership, and whose irregular shape or inadequate size impairs their development given present standards. This Report identifies these subdivided lots as follows: All parcels in the subject area are culled to determine which, if any, are of substandard size pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance. Any such parcels in zones which do not have a minimum lot size are further reviewed to determine if present market conditions would likely preclude their development or improvement. This set of "inadequate size" parcels is then reviewed by UFI senior staff to determine if, based upon general planning practice and present conditions, any subset would be irregular in shape. Parcels which are adjacent to parcels in this "inadequate size/irregular shape" subset are then reviewed to determine if there might be common ownerships such that, if viewed together, they might no longer be of inadequate size or irregular shape. All parcels which are 26 • . Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission simultaneously of inadequate size, irregular shape, and in multiple ownership are then identified as exhibiting the physical condition that causes blight identified in CCRL Section 33031(a)(4). 3.4.2.3 Blight Severity Weighting: Conclusion Structures on parcels which have received at least 20 blight points and exhibit one Blight Indicator totaling at [east five points may be found by the legislative body to exhibit physical deterioration or are otherwise substandard or are functionally obsolete and are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in. As discussed earlier, these structures generate negative influences on neighboring properties, which may or may not demonstrate on-site blight indicators, so that the value of these adjacent or nearby properties are negatively affected by their proximity to these structures. All these conditions allow the legislative body to make findings of blight for these, and neighboring, specific parcels. 3.4.3 Methodology Used to Analyze Data Derived from Primary and Secondary Sources Successful interpretation of primary and secondary sources provides area-wide evidence of both physical and economic blight which the City Council may use to make its findings of blight. Whereas data from the Field Reconnaissance are parcel-specific, data derived from primary and secondary sources tend to be area-wide and more generalized. The City Council may rely upon the evidence derived and analyzed during this phase of the blight documentation process to make the finding that the blight remaining in the Project Areas is significant. 3.4.4 Methodology Used to Determine Blight, and Necessity 3.4.4.1 Methodology to Establish Blight (Layers land 2) A review of Table 1 shows that conditions which cause blight (physical and economic) are evidenced through the Field Reconnaissance ("Layer 1 and a review of primary and document research ("Layer 2"). Making a finding that a portion of a community is blighted is not an easy task for at least two reasons: The definition of a blighted area is not specifically provided in the CCRL.8 Appellate court decisions have found fault with: (a) the "conclusionary" nature of the discussion found in the documents under appellate review a For instance, a blighted area may contain parcels "which are not detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare" (CCRL Section 33321), i.e., parcels which are not blighted; CCRL Section 33030(b)(1) requires that the conditions of blight defined in CCRL Section 33031 be "prevalent" and "substantial" yet does not directly define these terms but rather simply describes what they "cause;" a blighted area need not exhibit all conditions identified in CCRL Section 33031, but only "[o]ne or more" of each of the physical and economic conditions (CCRL Section 33030(b)(2)); one of the four conditions of physical blight identified in CCRL Section 33031 is arguably economic in nature (condition "(4)" which includes "present market conditions") while three of the seven conditions of economic blight identified in CCRL Section 33031 are arguably physical in nature (conditions "(3)," "(4)," and "(6)"). 27 Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans • for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 upon which legislative bodies have relied to make findings of blight, (b) an insufficient amount of such blight evidenced in the proposed project area, and (c) the apparent "boilerplate" nature of the assertions made in the evidentiary material. It therefore becomes incumbent upon each respective legislative body to carefully and expressly identify the specific conditions which, together, negatively affect a proposed redevelopment project area to the degree specified by law so the legislative body can find that, together, they are prevalent and substantial (for territory to be made subject to redevelopment) or significant (for territory already subject to redevelopment pursuant to a redevelopment plan being amended) and they place an undue burden on the community. In order to be in the position to do this, the legislative body must have before it a thorough and complete record, more objective than subjective, more analytical than anecdotal, whose conclusions are drawn from an objective analysis of the evidentiary record and not, to paraphrase one appellate court finding, from the consultant's word processor. 3.4.4.2 Methodology to Establish Necessary and Essential Parcels for the Elimination of Remaining Blight (Layer 3) While results of the Layer 1 and 2 blight analyses described above will allow the legislative body to determine the existence of blight for most of the Added Territory, the case remains that there may be certain parcels, or more probably groups of parcels, which neither exhibit the deleterious conditions uncovered in the Layer 1 Field Reconnaissance or the Layer 2 data analysis. If it can be shown that these parcels or groups of parcels are "necessary for effective redevelopment," they may be included within the Added Territory even if they do not exhibit conditions of blight. Such parcels may be found to be necessary for effective redevelopment if: Their exclusion would create a "hole in the donut" making planning and implementation efforts ineffective Their inclusion provides for more rational development parcels • Their exclusion would create an artificially complicated or irrational boundary line In large measure the determination whether parcels are necessary for effective redevelopment has to do with: Whether their exclusion would add an undue burden on the ability of the redevelopment agency to plan for and implement its programs in an effective and efficient fashion (a determination which the legislative body would make based upon the professional advice from consultants and its own staff) 28 1 • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission Whether or not their exclusion would add an undue burden on the ability of the redevelopment agency to provide for low- or moderate-income housing (a determination which the legislative body would make based upon its own political considerations as well as professional advice from consultants and its own staff). Consequently, identifying such parcels is more a process of applying and articulating professional expertise in a specific project area context than analyzing data and drawing conclusions. 29 1 • 0 Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 30 1 • 0 Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 4.0 REASONS FOR THE SELECTION OF THE PROJECT AREA The Merger Amendment does not add territory to either Project Area; therefore, this Report to the City Council does not contain information regarding the reasons for the selection of the Project Area because those reasons remain intact as when each project area was selected and each redevelopment plan was adopted. 31 P Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans • for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. I and 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 32 1 • 9 Report to the City. Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA(S) CCRL Section 33352(b) requires this Report to the City Council to include a description of the physical and economic blight that remains in the Project Areas. The description shall include a list of the blighting conditions - with specific, quantifiable evidence - and a map showing where the conditions exist. 5.1 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS DESCRIBED The purpose of this section is to describe the existing physical conditions as provided for in CCRL Section 33031(a) within the two Project Areas (pursuant to CCRL Sections 33352(b) and 33451.5(c)(2)). Information contained in this Section will be used to document that the blight remaining in the Project Areas is significant (pursuant to CCRL Section 33486). 5. 1.1 Buildings in Which it is Unsafe or Unhealthy for Persons to Live or Work Deteriorated buildings are considered to be unhealthy or unsafe for persons to live and work in to the extent such conditions are caused by serious building code violations, serious dilapidation and deterioration caused by long-term neglect, construction that is vulnerable to serious damage from seismic or geologic hazards, and faulty or inadequate water or sewer utilities and, as such, constitute a physical condition that causes blight in accordance with CCRL Section 33031(a)(1). Such buildings suffer some form of physical deterioration which is dangerous to inhabitants; peeling paint is -often lead-based and dangerous to the health of occupants (especially given the age of the buildings involved); hazardous electrical wiring is a serious fire hazard; leaking roofs, cracks around windows and doors, cracked plaster and loose joints all potentially lead to bodily injury, illness, or, in extreme cases, death. Cracked windows are an obvious indication of an unhealthful environment; boarded up windows do not provide the light and ventilation which, ever since the late 1800's, have been understood to be necessary for healthy living and working conditions. Taken altogether, these unsafe and unhealthy conditions resulting from physical structural deterioration will be seen to form a basis for remaining physical blight found in the Project Areas. The State legislature at CCRL Section 33031(a) has found that serious dilapidation and deterioration is one of the "physical conditions that cause blight" and that such conditions, when present, cause buildings to be "unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work." Inasmuch as State law provides the nexus between deterioration and dilapidation and unhealthy and unsafe conditions, one of the conditions causing blight, evidence of such deterioration and dilapidation will, in and of itself, be evidence of blight, although the following discussion additionally draws the direct link between observed conditions and how those conditions result in buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy to live or work in. Since this section discusses those blighting factors in the built environment which make buildings unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in, the emphasis will be on the effects that serious deteriorated and dilapidated building conditions 33 1 Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 have on human health and safety and not on how they negatively affect the built environment. Consequently, discussion of physical blight in this section is limited to its effect on human habitation. 5.1.1.1 Serious Code Violations According to the City's Code Enforcement Department, of the 1,387 individual parcels in the two Project Areas, 148 parcels (11% of all parcels) have had more than one code violation on it. The bulk of these violations are related to unpermitted construction, which constitutes a very serious health and safety issue. The older areas, particularly those in Project Area No. 1, are the greatest concern because they include a large number of renters and multiple families in one residence. This increases the risk for unsafe or unhealthy conditions if these unpermitted structures fail. 5.1.1.2 Serious Dilapidation and Deterioration "Deterioration" has already been defined in Section 1.1 of this Report. That definition is commonly used in the appraisal profession. Cumulative and deleterious effects of wear and tear on a structure over time are exhibited in many ways. As described above, specific Blight Indicators relating to "Deterioration" found on each parcel are identified in Appendix D.9 Specific occurrences of serious health and safety issues, and a description of each type that was found in the Project Areas, are shown in Table 2 below. Apparent Electrical Hazards Includes any visible electrical wires, wire connections, electrical boxes that are loose, disconnected, dangling, etc., and/or electrical wiring types that are outdated and would not be permitted under current codes. Faulty electrical wires lead to increased risks for fire and electrocution. While some fires may be localized, others, especially when coupled with the poor maintenance of structures and large number of unpennitted structures, may be fatal. These conditions also make structures vulnerable to serious damage primarily due to their potential for conflagration. Such damage to a structure tends to be total; i.e., even a structure which has been only partially burned often needs to be completely rebuilt. In cases where a fire does not break out, the damage to appliances and other electric devices caused by electrical shortages qualifies this condition as making the structure vulnerable to serious damage. 9 These conditions are identified and defined in Appendix A. 16 34 1 • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission DILAPIDATION TABLE 2 `i 1 ~L', ` y 1 { S - I pi .kf J~u1' , Y ( I L " ; It , , t '1 N rA ,,Y}l , fe # or, Parcels ; I ~ z ~ ~ s l S Blight Ind cators x ' Project Area Project Area i No Z _x Appurtenant Deteriorated Structures 22 2 These uninhabited structures may have been originally permitted but are currently deteriorated or dilapidated. An appurtenant structure typically would only have been a minor construction to, say, house an outdoor hot water heater, or be a small lean-to. However, regardless of how minor an appurtenant structure may be, its deteriorated condition strongly indicates that it was constructed of substandard material which was unable to withstand normal weathering and wear and tear. Exterior Structure Support Walls 1 2 This includes exterior structural support walls that are deteriorated to such an extent that the structure they support may collapse, which constitutes severe health and safety, economic disinvestment, and aesthetic issues. Defective Fence, Block Wall, or Planter 184 13 Includes wood, chain link, or other material fences, concrete block walls, large planter boxes, etc. that are deteriorated. Deterioration may include deteriorated paint, missing or broken sections, lurching, leaning, cracking, or loose concrete blocks. Not only is this condition a safety and security issue, but there is also potential harm and liability if anyone gets injured from the damage. Additionally, a yard fence is the primary visual statement from the public way. While aesthetics are not specifically a condition of blight, it is well understood both among the general population and within the planning profession that "visual blight" is an important factor in the perceived success of failure of a neighborhood. The scruffy appearance of these fences or walls throughout the Project Area, themselves, creates a form of external obsolescence which starts to characterize a neighborhood as "blighted."10 Fenestration 53 29 As identified in Appendix C, deficient fenestration is called out when windows and doors are decayed, have missing hardware, glass is cracked, sills need attention, or the placement of the opening is inappropriate. The presence of such issues is a specific factor in the ultimate deterioration or dilapidation of a structure. In addition, the standard concept of "The Broken Window Effect", which is widely accepted in professional planning literature, points strongly to a very high degree of correlation between apparent building abandonment and crime. 11 Fire Hazards 14 6 Fire hazards in this context relate to structures made of old, dried wood, lack of fire retardant, site issues (overgrown vegetation, high piles of dried out yard waste or tires, accumulation of other flammable wastes, etc.) or other conditions which could lead to a fire. Fires, however caused, are cleady unsafe and unhealthy and are therefore a condition which causes physical blight. This indicator represents severe health & safety issues and economic disinvestment as fires will damage property and may even cost lives. 10 For instance, the Dunn Foundation, whose mission is to increase public understanding of the contribution community appearance makes to our quality of life, believes "community appearance must be acknowledged as a vital factor in promoting economic growth and increasing the livability of communities." (HttpJ/www.dunnfoundahon.org) 11 Wilson, James Q. and Kelling, George L., "Broken Windows", The Atlantic, Boston, Mass., March, 1982. 35 1 0 Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 TABLE 2 DILAPIDATION AND DETERIORATION Ar l~ .P Yl T YS l\S 'S '.7 4. Y -Y' k.'" jt ~ - t t Blight Indicators4 Protect Area Protect Area Deteriorated Fixtures or Mechanical Equipment 35 7 This condition is often characterized by "swamp coolers" or wall air conditioners that are precariously attached to windows and/or are propped up on crates or jeryrigged "supports." These fixtures are heavy and the potential for them to fall and either hurt some individual or further destroy the structure to which they are attached is substantial. This potential is exacerbated in the event of an earthquake. It also includes severely deteriorated outdoor mechanical equipment, ventilation units (includes post-construction ventilation pipes probably inserted after the structure was constructed). In addition to safety risks, these deteriorated fixtures, mechanical equipment, or HVAC systems can be costly to replace and tend to lower the value of the property. Foundation Problems 5 3 Includes severe cracks in the foundation of the structure which could lead to collapse. This condition usually needs a catalyst (i.e. earthquake) to cause more severe structural damage, however natural settling of buildings and sites as well as expansion/contraction due to temperature change can also exacerbate this problem. Potential for Infestation 32 8 This is evidenced through large accumulations of trash and debris, which are known habitats for rodents and insects. This can be a breeding ground for communicable diseases and are considered a serious danger, especially to young children and the elderly. Inoperable Vehicles 154 13 Evidence of inoperable vehicles includes flat tires, spider webs, out-of-date Note that 297 Note that 39 registrations, overgrown weeds around the tires, and/or vehicles on blocks. inoperable inoperable This is a property maintenance issue that speaks to the pervasive nature of urban vehicles were vehicles were decay and the health and safety of residents. For instance, California Vehicle observed on observed on Code Section 22669(d) allows for the immediate removal of any inoperable vehicle these 154 these 13 parcels. because such vehicles may be declared a hazard to public health, safety, and parcels. welfare. Furthermore, the high incidence of this phenomenon indicates an impaired investment, as an owner to allow an inoperable vehicle to remain on his or her parcel is a direct indication of the owner's belief in the value of that parcel. Overgrown Vegetation 63 13 Trees which over arch roofs become fire hazards and run the risk of roof and structural damage in the event of a severed limb. Yards with heavy shrubs, tall grasses, out of control ivy beds become breeding grounds for rodents and, after one of Southern California's common droughts, a fire hazard. Overgrown vegetation might also hide street signs or interfere with electrical lines. IN addition, this condition is indicative of neglected property maintenance and is a factor in lowering property values. Paint-related Issues 306 68 Chipped and peeling paint is an example of a blighting condition which, in conjunction with the other Blight Indicators above and below, becomes an overwhelming condition of blight as it indicates that fundamental property maintenance issues have been sorely lacking. 36 11 • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission TABLE 2 DETERIORATION DILAPIDATION AND Blight Indicators ; sw b r Protect Area Profeck Area , - ` ` {Y 4r - : W t't0 't No Z . 'w . t t, 3_. , x.y s-r i Y:,. . Damaged Roof 65 18 Roofs offer protection against the elements and, when deteriorated or damaged, structures run the risk of internal water damage, which weakens the integrity of the structure, and exposure to wind, drafts, and vermin or insects. In the most severe cases, roof damage can lead to its collapse, rendering the structure uninhabitable and potentially fatal. Deteriorated Secondary Structures 95 14 A deteriorated secondary structure strongly indicates fundamental property Note that 102 Note that 18 maintenance issues are sorely lacking and/or that it was constructed of secondary secondary substandard material, which was unable to withstand normal weathering and wear structures were structures were and tear. observed on observed on these 95parce/s. these 14 parcels. Unsafe Stairs or Walkways 32 3 Includes stairways or walkways are deteriorated (often evidenced by broken steps, unevenness, etc.), missing handrails, have no traction on the surface (creating the danger of being slippery when wet), or have obstacles limiting access to their safe usage. Unsafe exterior stairs are an obvious hazard to persons entering and exiting structures and become even more dangerous in the event of a need for rapid evacuation of a structure. Unsafe stairways or walkways limit access to structures & are dangerous to walk on, especially with young children or the elderly. Inadequate Weather Protection 115 30 Includes holes in exterior surfaces or large areas of exposed bare wood. This type of blight shows economic disinvestment since repairs (sometimes fairly expensive) are required for the structure. Additionally, holes in walls or mofs and bare wood have some health and safety issues associated to it (i.e. moisture can get inside of the walls causing dry rot, fungus, etc.). Of the 1,387 individual parcels in the two Project Areas, 739 parcels (53% of all parcels) exhibited one or more indication of structural dilapidation or deterioration discussed in this subsection. Note that a number of the blighting conditions listed above provide direct examples of long-term neglect. Such items as broken or deteriorated fences or walls, deteriorated fixtures or mechanical equipment, foundations, peeling or chipped paint, worn and inadequate roofs or roof structures, unsafe or missing stairways, and deteriorated weather protection do not happen overnight. Rather they slowly manifest themselves, as if accreted from the very structures they deface, over years of neglect, poor maintenance, or abandonment. 5.1.1.3 Construction that is Vulnerable to Serious Damage Unsafe and unhealthy conditions can also be found on properties where inadequate construction or certain alterations creates significant blight. 37 Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 Specific Blight Indicators relating to "Construction" that were observed on each parcel are identified in Appendix D. Specific occurrences of construction that is vulnerable to serious damage, and a description of each type that was found in the Project Areas, are shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 INADEQUATE CONSTRUCTION Blight Indlcators y~ _ pro ect Area' Pro ect r a, ei Unpermitted Addition (occupied) 38 1 Includes construction that is affected by poor quality workmanship and/or faulty materials, suspect construction techniques, or that violates local building codes. Unpermitted room additions become a health and safety issue to the extent that such additions are not made to code, which puts occupants at risk. Unpermitted construction is a serious condition and one which can cause untold problems. For instance, the California Real Estate Inspection Association, in a press release dated August, 2005 provides that "[n]on-permitted work is frequently performed by unlicensed individuals. Few unlicensed individuals are competent in all areas of building and safety, especially where electrical wiring is concemed. Professional home inspectors see countless non-permitted additions and report most have significant problems. Although the finished projects may appear satisfactory, defects and code violations of various kinds often belie an attractive finished surface." Unpermitted Addition (unoccupied) 60 5 Unpermitted additions that are not regularly inhabited make the structure (both itself and, in the case of an addition, to the main structure to which it is attached) vulnerable to serious damage For example, a number of "carport" constructions were located over existing driveways in front of the existing garage. Were these structures to fail, not only would the carport structure itself collapse, but the main structure itself would certainly be damaged and the supporting wall may even collapse. In either case, serious damage would accrue both to the carport structure itself and to the main structure as a result of the faulty use of a construction material or inadequate construction. Boarded Occupied Structure 12 5 Includes the permanent boarding of one or more windows or doors. Occupied structures with boarded-up openings are unhealthy to residents and visitors due to the reduction in light and ventilation. Additionally, boardings are not always professionally completed, generating the potential for loose boards, exposed nails, or jagged edges. Based upon the need for fresh air and light within structures, the Uniform Building Code has consistently required a minimum ratio between room floor area and exterior opening (or, for interior rooms, ventilation fans). When such openings are boarded up, the specific room, by definition, becomes an unsafe and unhealthy environment. Boarded Unoccupied Structure 3 3 Includes the permanent boarding of one or more windows or doors on structures that are apparently unoccupied. As with those above, many are not always professionally completed, generating the potential for loose boards, exposed nails, or jagged edges. Buildings that are boarded and unoccupied for extended periods of time show an economic disincentive and negative aesthetic impact. 38 0 Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission TABLE 3 INADEQUATE Pa rcels"d . a t „~Bhght Indicators ~ > ~ _ " ~r~r r~ + - Prolect 'Area Rrotect ~ , 1 , Area N 2 ' 1 , o. , Faulty Construction Materials 2 D Poor construction materials are typically chosen to lower construction costs. Unfortunately, these tend to fail or deteriorate more rapidly than more standard materials. This indicator also represents health and safety issues since there is a greater chance of structural failure with faulty construction materials in the event of earthquakes, floods, etc. Faulty construction materials cannot easily be replaced without gutting the entire structure and "starting over." Such materials make any structure extremely vulnerable to serious damage by their very nature. Impaired Access to Building Exits 7 1 This condition includes buildings with insufficient exits according to the Uniform Building Code or exits blocked by vehicles, trash bins or items being stored on the other side of the exit door. In the case of a fire, people could be trapped in the building and be burned or killed, creating a substantial health and safety risk. Of the 1,387 individual parcels in the two Project Areas, 120 parcels (9% of all parcels) exhibited one or more indication of poor construction discussed in this subsection. Note that a number of the blighting conditions listed above provide direct examples of vulnerability to serious damage, particularly in the event of a seismic event. Such items as room additions or other structures that have not been permitted may be found to be directly responsible for structural collapse, while conditions such as faulty construction materials or impaired or inadequate access to building exits will indirectly cause serious damage if the seismic event is strong enough or if they are found in combination with other blighting conditions. 5.1.1.4 Faulty or Inadequate Water Utilities According to City officials, most of the two Project Areas are affected by four very serious conditions: Substandard fire hydrants that are not up to code Insufficient spacing of fire hydrants Structures greater than the minimum distance from a fire hydrant Inadequate fire flows, which is the amount of water and water pressure that comes out of a fire hydrant When hydrants and fire flows are below standard, there is inadequate service to stop fires, which puts numerous people and structures at risk. These problems are an immediate threat to life safety and property damage in the two Project Areas. 39 1 0 Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 According to City officials, of the 1,387 individual parcels in the two Project Areas, an estimated 1,040 parcels (75% of all parcels) are affected by the inadequate fire safety issues discussed in this subsection. 5.1.1.5 Statement that there are Unhealthy and Unsafe Buildings and that Significant Blight Remains in the Project Areas A review of Appendix D shows, and as-demonstrated above, unsafe and unhealthy conditions come in multiple forms within the Project Areas. Generally, such conditions as serious code violations, deterioration, and inadequate construction, and a faulty water system were found to create buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy in which to live or work. Overall, 55% of the parcels in the Project Areas exhibited at least one of these conditions. Based upon this information, the City Council may make the finding that the incidence of remaining blight, as defined in CCRL Section 33031(a)(1), is significant. 5.1.2 Conditions That Prevent or Substantially Hinder the Viable Use or Capacity of Buildings or Lots The physical blight caused by structures of substandard, defective or obsolete design or construction is created by many of the same conditions as those which make these buildings unsafe or unhealthy for persons in which to live or work. A "substandard" or "defective" structure will be substandard or defective specifically because, for instance, electrical hazards, deteriorated exterior structural support walls, or non-permitted garage conversions make it substandard or deficient or because its design is either substandard in and of itself or has become obsolete due to changing demands or requirements. Not coincidentally, these Blight Indicators, as well as many others, act to make structures unhealthy or unsafe to inhabitants while, at the same time, making the structure itself substandard or defective. On the other hand, an "obsolete" structure may not be unhealthy or unsafe; it may simply not be either "viable" or it may be "substantially prevented" from being viable. Because conditions identified in CCRL Section 33031(a)(2) are, in many ways, similar to those identified in CCRL Section 33031(a)(1), much of the evidence utilized in this portion of the Report has already been addressed in Section 5.1.1, the evidence here is used to show its negative impact on the viable use of buildings and land parcels rather than its negative impact on human health and safety. When reviewing the below discussion, please refer to Appendix E which graphically shows the degree of blighting conditions, by parcel, which cumulatively prevent or hinder the viable use or capacity of buildings or lots in the two Project Areas. As described above, a breakdown of the Blight Indicators found on each parcel is found in Appendix D. Specific occurrences of serious issues, and a description of each type that was found in the Project Areas, are shown in Table 4 below. 40 1 0 Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission TABLE 4 CONDITIONS .-HINDER VIABLE USES k xr s t or P ' y arcels; r , , Blight Indrea4ors o n~M ~ ` Pro ect P ~otect _ , t Area"NoW1 _ , 'Aie6 No 2. , . Adult Businesses and Payday Lenders/Pawn Shops 1 4 Adult businesses may attract criminal behavior into the neighborhood. There has been much literature on the negative effects of adult businesses, including liquor stores and bars, linked to crime. The cumulative effects of numerous such businesses in a relatively small area become a significant blighting issue. Individually, payday lenders or pawn shops are minor examples of economic disinvestment. Collectively, several such establishments show economic disinvestment. Bars on Doors and/or Windows 690 80 Metal bars covering doors and/or windows is a significant indicator of a high crime area as well as a potential fire escape hazard. Even if the local crime rate is low, bars on windows gives an area an unsafe look, which reduces values and is an economic disincentive to invest in the area. Functional Obsolescence 9 4 Often found in converted buildings where the converted uses are incompatible with the design and layout of the building. This indicator is principally economic disinvestment. Typically, the building floor plan, water and waste systems, and parking facilities were not designed for the adopted re-use of the building and do not serve the present use well. While the design of these structures may have been appropriate at one time, now their design is obsolete given present zoning standards and building codes. Functional obsolescence is a major contributor in determining if a structure is viable or not. The way a structure "functions" precisely dictates its viability. For instance, a structure designed to function as a 25,000 square foot grocery store would be viable when such stores were "typical", however, as grocery stores grew to 35,000 and 42,000 square feet, the structure become non-viable as a grocery store and of reduced viability as any other commercial use. 12 Similarly, three-bedroom, one bathroom residences become less viable as modem designs call for three-bedroom, two and a half bathroom residences. Again, a residential property built on a residential street that has transitioned into a commercial street will no longer serve a residential use appropriately but will not be property designed for a commercial use.13 The small grocery store, the under-bathed residence, the house on the "main drag" all function at a lower level of viability than similar structures whose design more closely fits the current needs of a grocery store, a family or a commercial establishment. Graffiti 340 85 Similar to bars on windows and/or doors, graffiti indicates a high crime area with the likelihood of gang activity or other anti-social behavior. This type of vandalism is one of the most-recognized indicators of a blighted area. " Note, however, that smaller "niche" grocery stores are returning to viability. The older 25,000 square foot grocery store may still be viable, however, depending upon its location it still might not return to its original viability. 13 The fact that some residences have been retrofitted to commercial uses does not gainsay the argument; such retrofits are not the norm and those that are retrofitted tend to be occupied by second tier commercial uses such as tarot reading, etc. 41 1 • Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 CONDITIONS Blight Indicators 'I~ i , F~,a " ~ k `project Project n ~E k 4 `Area No 1 Area N 2 , o: Garage Conversions 12 1 A garage conversion speaks both to overcrowding and to the potential for improper construction. Unpermitted garage conversions can also become a health and safety issue to the extent that such conversions are not made to code. In addition, these garage conversions degrade the design of a structure, typically a single family residence, which included covered, off street parking for at least one and often two automobiles. Local codes require garage parking for single family residences, therefore, the deletion of these garages from the single family residence makes their current design illegal and inadequate, such a departure from standard design hinders the viable use of the structure. Further, to the extent that covered, garage space is unavailable, residents will park their cars either on the lot (thereby hindering the use and capacity of the lot as well) or on the street (causing more congestion on the public right-of-way). Poor Site Ingress/Egress 66 27 Poor site ingress and egress is a function of substandard site design and hinders the viability of a parcel in at least three ways. A parcel is fully viable only to the extent that it can be accessed from the public way or navigated once accessed. To the extent such access or internal layout is substandard or inconvenient, the viable use of the parcel diminishes. Secondly, points of access to a parcel or the location of structures on a parcel dictate parking, access to structures, view-ways, potential for additional development, etc. These considerations, in turn, help determine the building "coverage" for the parcel. Less coverage means less use and, consequently, lower viability. Finally, poor ingress/egress is a direct safety hazard as emergency vehicles are slowed, and sometimes prevented, from arriving at their intended destination. Inadequate Loading or Docking Facilities 23 0 Related to functional obsolescence, inadequate loading/docking facilities are evidenced through supply trucks blocking rights-of-way or unloading at a distance from the loading/docking facility. The structure was not constructed with facilities which provide for a smooth transition of products from the point of origin to the structure, which puts a particular property at an economic disadvantage. Also, trucks at these buildings often block public rights-of-way, producing a potential health and safety issue. Poor Construction Quality 14 12 A significant part of the economic value of any structure is decreased by how the building is constructed. The use of less-expensive materials (such as corrugated steel) and construction techniques decrease the value of the structure since the value present from excellent construction quality is never there. Poor construction quality is an example of economic disinvestment since costs were cut during the construction phase, producing a poorer quality product Deteriorated or Absent Private Infrastructure 122 29 These involve driveways, walkways, etc. that are either unpaved or deteriorated, which demonstrates an economic disinvestment. 42 1 • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission TABLE 4 • C014DITIONS THAT PREVENT •-HINDER VIABLE USES 1 w f t ` " „ ~ #or Parcels ,r y r i o Blight Indicators:, r Project Protect - ' Area No 1 , , A~eaNo -12 . . Poor Site Layout 153 42 The improper placement of structures on a parcel goes directly to substandard site design and hinders the carrying capacity of the site. Often, poor site layout will evolve from a series of ad hoc constructions over time where subsequent uses cannot be accommodated in the original structure. Additional structures are built where and as immediately convenient with no thought to the ultimate development potential for the site. In summary, the total development on the site is dense enough to preclude additional development, but not so dense as to fully utilize the full capacity of the site. Security Fencing 523 46 Security fencing is often indicative of high crime in an area and, when it exceeds certain heights, can be illegal itself. As with other visible forms of crime prevention, such as bars on windows, security fences give an area an unsafe look, which reduces values and is an economic disincentive to invest in the area. In addition, they can hinder or prevent emergency personnel from reaching their intended destination. Substandard Design 11 3 This condition is different (and more difficult to rectify without redevelopment) than other forms of blight described above. If a well-designed structure begins to exhibit signs of deterioration, it still retains a potential for viable use which may be retrieved by rehabilitation. However, the value in a poorly designed structure cannot be "retrieved" simply by rehabilitation since the greater value was never present As a consequence, a building which would otherwise exhibit one level of use, because of its poor or antiquated design, exhibits a lesser level of use. Substandard design leads as much to economic "blight" as it does to physical blight. Even though an older building may be structurally sound, absent any other indications of value its functionally obsolete interior layout will force a rental or sales discount, thereby creating economic characteristics further exacerbating conditions of blight. In short, substandard design will permanently devalue a property + either by making it less marketable or by requiring expensive redesign and rehabilitation or reconstruction. Such design deficiencies tend to become deleterious over time, leading either to "bootlegged" improvements or actual abandonment. Regardless of whether or not a structure is sound, substandard design will lead to rental discounts and/or sale prices that lead to disinvestment, causing conditions characterizing blight. It is highly unlikely that private enterprise acting alone will not value such buildings as designed, as served by public infrastructure, and as built to the degree it would value other buildings with more modem amenities. In short, the viable use of these poorly designed structures is "hindered." Of the 1,387 individual parcels in the two Project Areas, 1,120 parcels (81 % of all parcels) exhibited one or more indication of conditions that prevent or substantially hinder the viable use or capacity of buildings or lots discussed in this subsection. 5.1.3 Statement that there are Conditions in the Project Areas Which Substantially Hinder the Viable Use or Capacity of Buildings or Lots and that the Incidence of these Conditions is Significant A review of Appendix D and the above text will show that conditions caused by substandard, defective, or obsolete design and construction which prevent or 43 Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. I and 2 substantially hinder the viable use or capacity of buildings or lots exist throughout the two Project Areas. Generally, such conditions as adult businesses, high crime indicators, obsolescence, poor construction, and site layout issues were found to create an area that is at an economic disadvantage, which substantially hinders the viable use of the area. Overall, 81% of the parcels in the Project Areas exhibited at least one of these conditions. Based upon this information, the City Council may make the finding that the incidence of blight as defined in CCRL Section 33031(a)(2) in the Project Area is significant. 5.1.4 The Existence of Irregular, Subdivided Lots in Multiple Ownership Whose Physical Development has been Impaired Given Present Conditions CCRL Section 33031(a)(4) provides that a physical condition which causes blight consists of subdivided lots which are: i) in multiple ownership; and ii) whose irregular shape; and iii) whose inadequate size; iv) impairs.their development; v) given present: (a) general plan; (b) zoning standards; and (c) market conditions. This requirement is inclusive rather than contingent; i.e., each such subdivided lot must exhibit all of conditions (i) through (v) and condition (v) accrues only if one of factors (a) through (c) is present. This Report identifies these subdivided lots in the following fashion: All parcels of "inadequate size" based on the City's zoning standards were noted. Where zoning standards do not include a minimum lot size, UFI uses its professional experience to identify inadequate lot sizes. Irregular-shaped parcels were also identified in this manner. These parcels have been selected based upon the fact that full development of them would be impaired from an economic efficiency point of view. A traditional method of determining the "carrying capacity" of a parcel of land is to determine maximum building "envelope" available on that parcel after parking, landscaping, setbacks, and other limiting factors have been considered. Parking, especially on land whose intrinsic value does not make underground parking economically feasible, tends to be the major consideration as to the size of the building envelope. Parking layouts demand specific minimum dimensions to accommodate turning radii, standard parking spaces, and efficient traffic flow. Where parcels are of regular shape, the land designer is able to efficiently accommodate these demands. Where parcels are of irregular shape, the designer must waste that irregular portion of the lot which cannot accommodate these demands. That wasted portion represents lost building envelope and, consequently, lost economic value from development. Generally, such conditions as lots narrower than allowed under the Zoning Ordinance, excessively deep parcels, flag-shaped parcels, and landlocked parcels were found. Of the 1,387 individual parcels in the two Project Areas, 106 parcels (8% of all parcels) fit all criteria for designation as blighted parcels pursuant to CCRL Section 33031(a)(4). 44 • 0 Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 5.9.5 Statement that there are Irregular, Subdivided Lots in Multiple Ownership Whose Physical Development has been Impaired Given Present Conditions and that the Incidence of these Conditions is Significant A review of Appendix D and the above text will show that parcels of irregular shape or size exist throughout the two Project Areas. Overall, 106 of the parcels in the Project Areas exhibited this condition. Based upon this information, the City Council may make the finding that the incidence of blight as defined in CCRL Section 33031(a)(4) in the two Project Areas is significant. 5.1.6 Statement Providing Compelling Evidence There are a Substantial Number of Parcels in the Project Areas that Suffer from Indications of Physical Blight and that Such Blight is Significant A review of the information provided above and in Appendices D and E will show that there are a substantial number of parcels in the Project Areas that are affected by conditions of blight. In fact, of the 1,387 individual parcels in the two Project Areas, 1,183 parcels (85% of all parcels) have at least one physical blight characteristic. The diffusion of the physical conditions which cause blight throughout the Project Areas identified above make a successful effort on the part of private enterprise acting alone to eradicate blight ineffective and a successful effort on the part of government acting alone problematic unless the proposed Merger Amendment is approved because the greater financial flexibility provided to the Commission from a merger will generate additional means to make improvements. Pursuant to the methodology set forth in this Report, in order to be considered by the City Council as a parcel which exhibits physical blighting characteristics, that parcel must exhibit two conditions with reference to the 20-point scale: i) the parcel must have at least one Blight Indicator that reaches a level of seriousness to equal at least 5 points, and ii) the parcel must have a sufficient number of Blight Indicators so that their combined total equals at least 20 points. Figure 5 shows those parcels in the Project Areas that fit this category and exhibit sufficient evidence of physical blight such that the City Council could make a determination, based upon the evidence contained in this Report and graphically illustrated in Figure 5, that these properties exhibit conditions of physical blight. Of the 1,387 parcels in the two Project Areas, 328 (24%) exceed 20 blight points. By comparison, only 190 parcels (14%) were found with no blight points. Therefore, the amount of physical blight that remains in the Project Areas is significant. The presence of these serious conditions throughout the two Project Areas, in the concentrations identified above and graphically reflected in Appendix E, shows that the blight identified is not something which occurred over the past year, or even the past several years. They represent a burden on the community which mere "paint up, fix up" or other sorts of minimally corrective programs cannot successfully address. The long-term neglect evident in the record included herein is clear. 45 • • Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. I and 2 While municipal resources such as the City's General Fund or CDBG funds will continue to be marshaled to address specific instances when and as they become overwhelmingly apparent, only locally wielded instruments such as redevelopment can continue to address the root causes of area-wide vulnerability. This is the fundamental reason for the proposed Merger Amendment as the increased financial flexibility of the Commission will be needed to address these concerns. 5.2 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS DESCRIBED The purpose of this section is to describe and evaluate economic conditions within Rosemead Project Area No. 1 and Rosemead Project Area No. 2 recognized to contribute to blight. The Project Areas are being evaluated in terms of blight that remains present as indicated by selected economic conditions. Economic conditions known to cause "blight" are explicitly defined in the Health and Safety Code and reflect a diverse range of circumstances such as depreciated or stagnant property value, residential overcrowding and poverty, inadequate retail- commercial facilities, and crime and public safety risk. In contrast to the many physical attributes of blight, related economic circumstances may not be as readily evident from a visual inspection of the Project Areas. Such economic circumstances, nonetheless, contribute to an environment that can effectively create economic dislocation or diminish the fruit of efforts undertaken by private entities or the local government agency. This section discusses economic conditions describing the Project Areas to determine whether such circumstances cause a reduction or lack of proper utilization to such an extent they indicate significant blight remains. The approach used to evaluate circumstances that indicate economic blight remains in the Project Areas relies on a comparison of conditions evident within the Project Areas and corresponding conditions describing other portions of the City of Rosemead, the Western San Gabriel Valley Region, or Greater Los Angeles County region. Alternate reference areas are used to evaluate blight conditions because the Project Areas include a unique concentration of certain land use activities intended to serve large portions of the community, if not the community in its entirety. As such, the Project Areas play a significant role in serving community economic needs. The Project Areas encompass approximately 572 net acres (excluding street right-of- way area) and account for about 22.0 percent of corresponding net acreage describing the City of Rosemead as a whole, as summarized below: 46 • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission ECONO Total Net TABLE 5 MIC - et % Of Ci , Existing Land Use Acrea e t L a Land Use Land Use Residential-Sin le Famil 1,601.6 18.2% 6.5% Residential-Multi-Famil 140.9 M 6.1% 24.6% Residential-Mobile Home 15.3 . 1.0% 37.2% Retail-Commercial 290.7 33.4% 657% Industrial 82.6 3.19%16 25.3 4.4% 30.6% Office Professional 106.2 4.0% 97.1 17.0% 91.4% Public 205.3 7.7% 97.4 17.0% 47.5% Quasi-Public 104.8 4.0% 5.9 1.0% 5.7% Vacant 25.0 0.9% 11.2 2.0% 44.8% Open Space 24.9 0.9% 0.0 0.0% 0.0% ncultural 51.8 2.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0% Net Totals: 2,649.0 100.0% 572.2 100.0% 21.6% Note:' Total Net Acreage excludes street ri ht-of-wa and other selected public right-of-ways. Source: LA Countv Assessor, Gooqle Earth; Alfred Gobar Associates. As the above comparison of land use illustrates, blight conditions that remain within the Project Areas have the potential to significantly affect conditions throughout the larger Rosemead community. A substantial share of retail-commercial and employment- generating land use that serves the community is concentrated within the Project Areas. 5.2.1 Poverty and Residential Overcrowding 5.2.1.1 Prevalence of Poverty Poverty reflects a structural economic deficiency that affects nearly every community to various degrees. Poverty conditions tend to fuel disincentives for market-driven investment and limit economic growth of individual households, the resident community as a whole, and even local businesses. Poverty is an attendant condition to overcrowding. Incident rates of overcrowding are substantially higher among households with incomes up to 200% of the federal, defined poverty level or below the State median income. Substantially higher rates of overcrowding among households with income exceeding the poverty level may indicate households are slow to use added income to escape from overcrowding, because they prefer to use their still relatively limited finances for more urgent priorities. [Journal of the American Planning Association, v. 62 (Winter'96) p. 66-84] When poverty conditions are prevalent, economic objectives of households and businesses face inordinate challenges. Increased risk of failure faces individual households that undertake property improvements (i.e., home repair, home remodeling, etc.) because a disproportionate number of surrounding households lack financial resources to respond in 47 MergerAmendment to the Redevelopment Plans • for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 like manner. Property improvement by local merchants and landlords (i.e., property maintenance, center/store remodeling, etc.) also face increased risk of failure often because the effort is not echoed by enough adjoining businesses to have meaningful long-term impact in the community. When poverty conditions are prevalent, risk of inadequate commercial facilities is elevated because a disproportionate share of households lack the financial resources to support business investments aimed at providing a convenient selection of products and services needed by economically disadvantaged residents (such as consumer merchandise, personal services, adequate housing conditions, health insurance, banking and financial services, etc.). The U.S. Bureau of Census is one of the two federal agencies that calculate poverty income levels (the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services prepares similar calculations) to determine the number of American households living in poverty. The Census prepares poverty income calculations annually and utilizes such calculations to provide a comprehensive assessment of poverty households as part of the decennial Census. The poverty level is determined from a nationwide survey, without adjustment of geographic differences, and in 2000 ranged (on a weighted average basis) from $8,794 per year for a single-person household to $17,603 per year for a four-person household. Due to the rigid method used to calculate poverty since the 1960's, poverty income levels currently recognized by the federal government are under increasing scrutiny due to their inability to accurately assess the proliferation of economically distressed households within a given region. The failure to increase the poverty thresholds as incomes have grown (adjusted for inflation) means those who fall below the poverty line are worse off relative to the typical (median) family now than they were 30 years ago (Economic Policy Institute - Washington D.C.; Poverty and Household Budgets FAQ-www.epi.org). About 96.0 percent of residential land use acreage within the Project Areas is located in Project Area No. 1 (138 out of 144 acres). The methodology used to evaluate conditions of poverty and overcrowding is summarized as follows. Poverty data describing Project Area No. 1 households is based on the 2000 Census-latest comprehensive data describing household poverty and overcrowding for non-standardized Census geographies. Poverty and overcrowding data is reported by the Census according to Block Groups-the smallest geographic reporting unit used to measure conditions endemic of the individual Census Blocks being grouped together. Distinct sub-areas that make up residential portions of Project Area No. 1 and Census Block Groups are compared to select the best-fit physical match possible for analysis. The physical alignment and overlap of Block Group and Project Area No. 1 boundaries are evaluated to determine the extent conditions that describe all Block Group households are indicative of study area conditions. A Census-based assessment of poverty in Project Area No. 1 is summarized in Appendix F-1, in terms of the share of households living in poverty, share of population living in poverty, and other selected poverty 48 • 0 Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission characteristics. Appendix F-1 describes the best-fit assignment of several Census Block Groups (Block Group No's: 4336.01-1; 4336.01-2; 4824.01- 1; 4824.01-3; and 4825.03-1) used to represent the vast majority of residential units within Project Area No. 1. As shown, 24.8 percent of Project Area No. 1 households live in poverty conditions compared to 19.1 percent of all households throughout the City and 15.1 percent throughout the County. In effect, the proportion of poverty level households living within Project Area No. 1 is 1.64 times greater than is true for the County overall. The significance of poverty as a detrimental influence is also evident in terms of affected population. In May 2006, the Public Policy Institute of California released results of its 2004 study of poverty in California that compared the 24 largest counties in California against a Statewide official poverty rate of 13.0 percent and national poverty rate of 12.0 percent. Officially, 16.0 percent of Los Angeles County residents lived in poverty during 2004, which ranked the County fourth highest among the 24 largest counties in the State. By comparison, the proportion of residents within the City of Rosemead (22.8 percent) and Project Area No. 1 (26.3 percent) that were living at or below the poverty level at the time of the Census was substantially higher than was true for Los Angeles County (17.9 percent). Despite a decline in the share of Los Angeles County residents living in poverty between 2000 and 2004, data in Exhibit V-1 provides a strong indication that a disproportionately high share of Project Area No. 1 residents continue to live in poverty. Further review of the data in Appendix F-1 indicates "family' households also make up a disproportionate share of poverty households living in Project Area No. 1. A family includes a householder and one or more people living in the same. household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. In Appendix F-1, family households are divided in "Married-Couple Family Households" and "Single Parent Family Households." Family households that live in poverty account for 20.9 percent of all households in Project Area No. 1, a level 2.1 times higher than the County average. The incidence of single-parent families living in poverty within Project Area No. 1 is also very high. Single-parent families that live in poverty account for 9.8 percent of all family households within Project Area No. 1, a level 1.9 times higher than the County average. Appendix F-2 provides a bar graph comparison of the share of Project Area No. 1 residents that live at or below the poverty level and at alternate income levels described as a ratio of the federal poverty level. The graphic comparison clearly shows that the City of Rosemead as a whole hosts a disproportionately higher share of households living near or below the federal poverty-level than is true of Los Angeles County, which ranked 4th in the State as having the highest share of poverty households. Also evident from the bar graph comparison is that a disproportionate share of City households impacted by poverty conditions are concentrated within Project Area No. 1. The high concentrations of Project Area No. 1 households that live in poverty conditions strongly suggest the probable rate of overcrowding is also significantly higher than 49 Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans 0 for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 is true for the City of Rosemead or Los Angeles County. Finally, the high incidence of poverty in Project Area No. 1 also suggests an inordinate share of households suffer a lack of financial resources needed to adequately invest in maintenance and upkeep of residential properties, to pay for other household expenses fundamental to a quality standard of living (transportation, medical, educational, cultural, etc.), and to create opportunities for socioeconomic advancement. 5.2.1.2 Prevalence of Overcrowding The economic health of the Project Areas can be affected by overcrowded conditions in the same manner residents and businesses can be displaced from healthy economic growth when an area is impacted by poverty. Residential overcrowding is widely recognized as an important housing problem, and per room density of people (persons per habitable room - PPR) reflects a common standard used to measure the incidence of overcrowding. Habitable rooms are recognized to include bedrooms, living rooms, dining rooms, etc., but exclude kitchens, baths, hallways, and garages. Section 33031 (b) (5) cites overcrowding as an economic condition indicative of blight. The particular PPR standard used to measure overcrowding has changed over time. The conventional standard applied by local and federal governments in 1940 was 2.00 PPR, but it was lowered to 1.50 PPR by 1950 and down to 1.00 PPR in 1960. [Journal of the American Planning Association, v. 62 (Winter '96) p. 66-84] The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development currently defines "overcrowding" as housing that has more than 1.00 PPR and "severe overcrowding" as housing with more than 1.50 PPR. A prevalence of overcrowded housing conditions is also indicative of individuals and families who are economically disadvantaged and more likely to be exposed and/or impacted by social challenges (unemployment, alcohol and substance abuse, crime, truancy, language and literacy deficiencies, etc.) that contribute to blight within a local environment. The research approach that guided the analysis of poverty conditions closely reflects the methodology used to evaluate occupancy. Appendix F-3 provides a detailed comparison of household occupancy in Project Area No. 1, the City of Rosemead, and throughout Los Angeles County. Described is the proportionate mix of households according to distinct levels of occupancy per habitable room and by type of tenure. For all occupied housing (both owner and renter households), the proportion of overcrowded Project Area No. 1 households with 1.01 to 1.50 PPR (17.2 percent) is 2.2 times higher than the County as a whole (7.9 percent). By contrast, the proportion of severely overcrowded Project Area No. 1 households with more than 1.5 PPR (28.0 percent) is 1.9 times higher than Los Angeles County as a whole (15.0 percent). As a matter of perspective, the indicated rate of severe overcrowding within Project Area No. 1 (28.0 percent) is more than 10 times greater than the corresponding rate for the United States (2.7 percent). The prevalence of overcrowded housing within Project Area No. 1 exceeds the Countywide average, while the corresponding incidence of severely-overcrowded housing is also significantly higher than is true for the region. 50 ' • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission Homeownership is a significant factor that contributes to social and economic stability within a community and to the long-term potential for discretionary household investment in the maintenance and care of property. The level-payment structure that characterizes traditional long- term mortgages enables middle-income owner households to redirect future income to upgrade property improvements, add living space, or redirect accumulated equity into a larger home. In a setting such as Project Area No. 1 where poverty is prevalent, the portion of future household income that can be redirected to non-essential spending, including significant flooring, fixture, and furnishing upgrades or larger living quarters to host extended family, is substantially less than for non- poverty households. Poverty conditions previously discussed serve to increase the probability overcrowded housing conditions will persist. The share of Project Area No. 1 owner households that suffer from severely overcrowded living conditions (17.6 percent) is 2.4 times the level that is true for Los Angeles County (7.4 percent). As a result, homeowner residents living in Project Area No. 1 are significantly more likely to remain in severely overcrowded housing conditions than is true in other areas of Rosemead or Los Angeles County. Neighborhoods with a heavy mix of renter households tend to host a transient population base, which most often demands a higher level of police protection service. In addition, land owner maintenance of property tends to erode in the neighborhoods heavily dominated by low-income renter households. Renters are much more prone to crowding than are owners. [Myers, Dowell.; Baer, William C.; Choi, Seong-Youn. 1996 The Changing Problem of Overcrowded Housing. Journal of American Planning Association., v.62 (Winter '96) p. 66-84]. Renter-occupied housing accounts for 56.5 percent of all occupied housing in Project Area No. 1. The overall share of renter-occupied housing in Project Area No. 1 is slightly higher than is true for the City of Rosemead (51.2 percent) or Los Angeles County as a whole (52.1 percent). Although Project Area No. 1 hosts a moderately high share of renter households, the share of renter-occupied households that are severely overcrowded (36.0 percent) is 1.6 times greater than is true for the County (22.0 percent). A high concentration of severely overcrowded rental housing combined with the transient nature of rental living creates an adverse and substantial property maintenance challenge for landlords and likely contributes to a disproportionately high rate of police response activity. Appendix F-4 provides a graphic comparison of household occupancy within Project Area No. 1, the City of Rosemead, and Los Angeles County according to the alternate number of occupants per room. As shown, the share of severely overcrowded households (1.51 or more occupants per habitable room) is significantly greater in Project Area No. 1 than is true for the County. The share of overcrowded households (1.01 to 1.50 occupants per habitable room) is also significantly higher in Project Area No. 1 than is true for the County. 51 j Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans • for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 5.2.2 Adequacy of Commercial Facilities Retail-commercial facilities within the Project Areas constitute an important concentration of businesses intended to serve consumer needs within the Rosemead community. Whether or not retail-commercial facilities within the Project Areas adequately serve consumer need is influenced by a multitude of factors including share of retail throughout the community hosted within the Project Areas, variety of stores in operation, merchandising strength of retailers, and base of resident-consumers served, to name a few. Factors recognized under California Redevelopment Law that indicate existing retail-commercial facilities are inadequate include abnormally high vacancy rates, abnormally low lease rates, high number of abandoned buildings, and serious lack of commercial facilities that normally serve neighborhoods. Retail-commercial development within the City of Rosemead as a whole is not plagued by a high number of abandoned buildings or abnormally low lease rates, but conditions describing vacancy and sales performance indicate existing retail- commercial facilities are not adequately serving the needs of consumers in City neighborhoods. Nearly two-thirds of all existing retail-commercial development in Rosemead is located within the Project Areas. In addition, nearly 60.0 percent of all land use activity within Project Area No. 2 consists of retail-commercial development and Project Area No. 2 also hosts the largest supply of retail- commercial space serving the community. Consequently, this blight analysis not only serves to determine the adequacy of retail-commercial facilities in Project Area No. 2 but also provides a reasonably good assessment of the overall retail sector in Rosemead and its ability to serve consumer need in the community. 5.2.2.1 Abnormally High Vacancy Rate A field audit of more than 1.0 million square feet of existing retail- commercial space within Project Area No. 2 was conducted in June 2008 and identified an overall vacancy rate of 6.7 percent. Pro forma schedules used to evaluate the income value of investment property commonly uses a vacancy rate allowance of 5.0 percent to describe stabilized operating conditions. Whether or not the level of retail- commercial vacancy that describes commercial facilities within Project Area No. 2 is abnormally high depends on vacancy rates describing a large base of contemporary retail properties competing in the surrounding region. Appendix F-5 compares the current vacancy rate describing neighborhood-community retail space throughout Western San Gabriel Valley and the greater Los Angeles Metro area and the corresponding vacancy rate within Project Area No. 2. As shown, the current vacancy rate within Project Area No. 2 (6.7 percent) is nearly 4.5 times higher than is true for similar retail-commercial space in the Western San Gabriel Valley region. Appendix F-6 provides a graphic comparison of the vacancy trend for neighborhood-community retail space throughout Western San Gabriel Valley since the beginning of 2004 and the current vacancy rate describing retail-commercial space in Project Area No. 2. As shown, effective vacancy within Project Area No. 2 is abnormally high in 52 0 Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission comparison to existing conditions and established trends describing retail facilities within a relevant competitive setting. 5.2.2.2 Serious Lack of Adequate Retail-Commercial Facilities Retail-commercial adequacy, measured in terms of the ability to serve the needs of consumers residing within a relevant trade area, is not only defined by number of storefronts that are represented but also the competitive strength of retail merchandisers occupying existing storefront locations. A retail-commercial business plagued by weak sales performance strongly suggests the retailer may lack sufficient floor space, offer inferior products or services, or is not otherwise able to effectively merchandise in a way that appeals to consumer needs and preferences. When a retail-commercial district (such as Project Area No. 2) includes several weak retailers, the anchoring strength (ability to pull in shoppers from the surrounding area) is also weakened, and potential sales are lost to other competing centers and districts. Consequently, a serious lack of adequate retail-commercial facilities can exist when a retail center, retail district, or community retail sector is characterized by a proliferation of relatively weak competitors. In this regard, a retail-commercial district may not have a serious lack of storefronts represented but lack of effective retailers able to adequately serve consumer needs of the surrounding area. The City of Rosemead hosts about 57,500 residents, which constitute consumers demanding products and services commonly provided in retail-commercial space. The overall supply of retail-commercial space within Project Area No. 2 exceeds 1.0 million square feet (Refer to Appendix F-5) and arguably constitutes the largest aggregation of storefront activity serving consumer needs within the Rosemead community. Appendix F-7 provides a bar graph comparison of the mix of occupied retail-commercial storefronts audited within Project Area No. 2. The bar graph summarizes the mix that describes 276 occupied storefronts classified according to 10 store-group categories. The bar graph also illustrates the corresponding mix of storefronts that typifies a contemporary neighborhood-community retail center or district, based on a large sampling of retailers as reported in the Urban Land Institute - 2006 Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers. Store group categories identified in the bar graph are further distinguished in terms of businesses engaged in merchandising the sale of retail products (core sales tax generating activity); businesses engaged in providing consumer-business services (incidental sales tax generating activity); and businesses engaged in professional practices and other non-retail office services (negligible sales tax generating activity). As shown in Appendix F-7, Project Area No. 2 is distinguished from a typical neighborhood-community retail district by a significant undersupply of apparel-shoe and food-grocery storefronts and relative oversupply of furniture-appliance-electronic and dining-drinking-snack/beverage storefronts. Project Area No. 2 is further distinguished by an oversupply of storefront activities involving consumer-services (nail salons, auto 53 1 0 Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. I and 2 repair, etc.) and professional services (tax accounting, medical practitioner, etc.). In terms of overall storefront representation, Project Area No. 2 includes a moderate oversupply of storefronts providing consumer-business services but substantial oversupply of storefronts used to conduct office-based activities. A proliferation of office-based activities within a retail complex tends to weaken its competitive appeal and drawing strength because the storefront merchandising focus is diluted by a heavy office orientation, which limits the opportunity to combine multiple shopping objectives into a single trip as is possible in a competitive retail district. The State Board of Equalization (SBOE) provides regular reporting of taxable sales transacted at retail and other businesses outlets within a County or City. SBOE reporting of taxable sales activity for "retail outlets" closely describes retail-commercial storefronts categorized as "retail merchandising" activities during the field audit of Project Area No. 2 (Refer to Appendix F-7). The latest reporting data available from the SBOE indicates there were a total of 558 retail outlets in Rosemead in 2006. By comparison, the field audit identified 137 retail merchandising storefronts in Project Area No. 2 as of mid-year 2008. In effect, roughly 1 out of every 4 retail outlets within the City of Rosemead is located within Project Area No. 2. Consequently, SBOE reporting of taxable sales performance for all retail merchandising establishments throughout City can provides some insight about the adequacy of retail-commercial facilities within the Project Areas. Appendix F-8 summarizes an inflow-(outflow) analysis of retail potential in 2006 based on the mid-year resident population of the City of Rosemead. The primary objective of an inflow-(outflow) analysis is to identify total taxable retail sales that city-based retailers should achieve (potential) if the City's retail sector is effectively serving consumer needs of Rosemead residents. Appendix F-8 identifies the actual level of taxable sales realized by City-based retail outlets; potential sales activity suggested by the resident population of Rosemead; and the corresponding inflow or (outflow) of potential sales activity. Identified sales potential is conservatively based on the 2006 effective level of per capita sales describing all of Los Angeles County ($9,287 per capita), which is about 11.0 percent lower than the corresponding average for all of Southern California ($11,438 per capita). Potential retail sales represented by the resident population of Rosemead amounts to $532 million in taxable sales, but City-based retailers have only been able to attract $256 million in taxable sales. During 2006, City-based retailers, including retail merchandisers within Project Area No. 2, failed to attract $275 million in taxable sales, or 52.0 percent of expenditure potential representing consumer need of City residents. It is important to note, the City's existing retail sector is failing to adequately serve consumer need for all store-type activities tracked by the SBOE. As a whole, the City's retail sector is seriously lacking in its ability to adequately serve the retail consumption needs of its resident population. Given Project Area No. 2 and Project Area No. 1 account for 54 • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission two-thirds of existing retail-commercial land use within the City, weak sales performance evident from a review of SBOE data provides a reasonably good indication about the adequacy of retail-commercial facilities within the Project Areas. A more specific evaluation of commercial adequacy, however, is possible by comparing results of the June 2008 in-field audit of retail-commercial facilities in Project Area No. 2 against a special tabulation prepared for the City Finance Department that identifies store-specific sales tax revenue generated in 2007. Appendix F-9 summarizes the general results and data parameters guiding the location specific analysis of commercial adequacy. A total of 276 occupied storefront locations were identified by the field audit, including 137 retail merchandising businesses (core sales tax generating activity) and 139 storefront businesses providing consumer services or other non-retail services (activities generating incidental and negligible sales tax). A special tabulation prepared for the City Finance Department provided sufficient 2007 sales tax data to evaluate 110 retail merchandising storefront businesses matching results from the field audit. A total of 80.0 percent of all retail merchandising storefronts and occupied floor space was evaluated in terms of benchmark levels of sales performance used to evaluate the adequacy of existing operations. As shown in Appendix F-9, "Weak" or "Marginal" retail merchandisers (stores with effective sales performance less than 75.0 percent and 90.0 percent of a corresponding benchmark reference) account for 62.0 percent of all retail merchandising storefront locations and 47.0 percent of corresponding floor space existing within Project Area No. 2. By comparison, "Strong" retail merchandisers (stores with effective sales performance greater than 120.0 percent of a corresponding benchmark reference) only account for 13.0 percent of retail merchandising storefront locations and 26.0 percent of corresponding floor space. In short, existing retail-commercial facilities within Project Area No. 2 are dominated by weak or marginal retail operators. Sufficient sales tax data was not available to evaluate all existing retail merchandising storefront locations within Project Area No. 2. Appendix F-10 identifies the proportionate share of storefront businesses evaluated (dark blue versus light blue area) for selected store group categories used to distinguish retail merchandisers, consumer service providers, and other non-retail service providers. As shown, the analysis of retail sales performance includes the vast majority of existing retail merchandising businesses. Consumer-business service establishments and office- based service activities are not included in this analysis, due to a lack of available sales reporting data. Appendix F-11 provides a detailed comparison of sales performance for distinct groupings of retail merchandising activity in Project Area No. 2 and benchmark indices describing broad-based measures of market performance. Overall, the benchmark level of sales performance used to evaluate the adequacy of retail-commercial facilities is equal to $282 per square foot ($282/SF) across a wide spectrum of merchandising 55 • • Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 activities. This benchmark reference reflects a median level of sales performance describing an extensive sampling of neighborhood-oriented retailers as reported in the Urban Land Institute - 2006 Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers. By comparison, the effective level of sales performance describing all retail merchandisers in Project Area No. 2 is equal to $207/SF, or about 73.0 percent of the level of sales used to describe an adequate performing retail district that serves a neighborhood-community oriented trade area. The overall level of sales performance within Project Area No. 2 is significantly influenced by a select number of strong operators that account for 13.0 percent of retail merchandising storefronts and 26.0 percent of occupied retail space. Excluding these strong operators, the effective level of sales performance that describes at least 62.0 percent of retail merchandising storefront locations and 47.0 percent of occupied space is equal to $81/SF, or only 29.0 percent of the benchmark reference. Essentially, the majority of storefront locations occupying nearly one-half of retail-commercial space within Project Area No. 2 are weak retail operators lacking the ability to achieve a level of sales performance commensurate with a retail district that adequately serves the needs and preferences of consumers residing in surrounding neighborhoods and the community. Appendix F-12 illustrates the effective sales performance for an alternate grouping of distinct retail merchandising activity in Project Area No. 2 described as an index of the corresponding benchmark performance level used to evaluate retail adequacy. As shown, the overall level of relative sales for each distinct group of retail merchandising activity is significantly below the corresponding performance benchmark with the exception of general merchandising and drug store activity, and limited-service restaurant activity. The relatively strong sales performance that describes general merchandising activity can be attributed in part to Redevelopment program efforts aimed at renovating and updating the old Montgomery Ward shopping center at the intersection of Rosemead Boulevard and the 1-10 Freeway. Relatively strong sales performance describing limited- service and quick-serve restaurants reflects the inherent operating strength of many national and regional chain outlets and a few strong independent operators. Excluding these two merchandising groups, effective sales performance describing the vast majority of activity within retail-commercial facilities of Project Area No. 2 is substantially below the corresponding benchmark describing a median level of performance. More than 60.0 percent of the retail merchandising storefronts within Project Area No. 2 are plagued by substantially weak sales performance, and Citywide data indicates local retailers are failing to attract more than 50.0 percent of expenditure potential reflecting resident demand for merchandising products. These factors provide a strong indication that retail-commercial facilities are seriously lacking in the ability to adequately serve consumer needs and preferences of residents living in surrounding neighborhoods and throughout the Rosemead community. 56 . • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 5.2.3 Public Safety and Crime Public Safety is a top priority of governance due to its influence on critical socioeconomic factors including the quality of life for area residents, operating success of local businesses, and general economic health of the community. Police protection services constitute the most common form of public safety affecting the socioeconomic wellbeing of a community and the single-most costly of public safety services that the City of Rosemead must provide in response to taxpayer demands. Consequently, police protection services monopolize a substantial share of relatively limited fiscal resources available to the City as it seeks to respond to heightened demand for such protection. The City Police Department is composed of safety personnel, equipment, and safety program operations, which constitute a form of readiness capacity available to the community through a structure of police patrol districts, or beats. As such, mobilization of police resources in response to a call for service effectively monopolizes a portion of available readiness capacity for the duration of the response call. The interim monopoly of readiness capacity is an operational aspect of providing police protection that is managed in the form of second responders, mutual aid, back-up patrol, etc. When a given locale generates a disproportionate number of calls for service (relative to other land uses of a similar nature), it burdens the City's ability to provide satisfactory readiness capabilities for the community at large. In effect, a locale that generates a disproportionately high rate of service calls is itself a public safety risk but also increases the public safety risk for other areas of the community because it unduly monopolizes readiness capacity and places an economic-fiscal burden on limited City resources. Estimates of public safety requirements often rely on a personnel index (e.g. sworn officers per 1,000 population) to calculate funding resources required per increment of development activity. Population-based estimates fail to consider service demands represented by nonresidential forms of land use such as retail complexes and offices. In a given location, both nonresidential and residential land uses drive police protection service demand. Alfred Gobar Associates employs a methodology that assigns the incidence of public safety response on the basis of demand per increment of land use served. This approach reflects the notion that different forms of land use demand different levels of protective service and associated resources. For example, the amount of protection demanded per acre of low-density residential housing is different than demanded for an acre of retail development. The following assessment of police protection services demanded throughout the City and within the Project Areas reflects an assessment of City response capacity, further distinguished on the basis of land use activity served. 5.2.3.1 Police-Related Crime Risk Appendix F-13 summarizes the incidence rate of response call activity per acre of developed land use throughout the City. The identified rate (calls per acre) describes incidence of demand for police protection services generated by various forms of land use and building development over a 12-month period ending July 2008. The City of Rosemead contracts Police services through the Los Angeles County Sheriff, which maintains 57 ( Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. I and 2 dispatch record logs of response activity out of its Temple City Sub- Station. The Temple City Sub-Station is the administrative and dispatch center used to provide Sheriff protection services in the surrounding unincorporated of West San Gabriel Valley and five contract cities, including City of Rosemead. Sheriff dispatch records chronicle Police response activity by address location in each area served (whether initiated by a citizen call for service or officer-initiated response while on patrol). Dispatch records indicate the City of Rosemead generated a total of 65,475 responses to 44,082 unique incidents, including multiple officer response activity, during the past year. This volume of response activity equates to an average incident rate of 24.72 Police responses per acre of land use area served. As shown, the incidence of demand describing Police response activity varies by form of land use served, ranging from a high of 45.30 responses per acre of retail-commercial development to less than 1.00 responses per acre of vacant or undeveloped property. A citywide incident rate of response activity (relative measure of demand for police protection services) generally provides a reasonably good overview assessment of the level of Police service required in a community in order to deter or intervene crime-related public safety risk. Response call activity, however, can vary significantly from community to community due to the complex nature of land use, social conditions, and fiscal influences. Some communities require a higher level of deterrence and intervention in order to address the threat of crime and public safety risk. A review of Police activity describing a range of communities of varying size and population density provides a good benchmark reference about the level of response activity that should be reasonably expected in order to protect residents, businesses, visitors, and various forms of land use from the threat of crime within a community. Appendix F-14 details the incident rate of Police response activity per acre of land use describing a diverse selection of California communities arranged in ascending order on the basis of population density. Although the City of Rosemead hosts less than 60,000 residents, it is densely populated (over 14,000 persons per square mile). The selection of identified communities is based on previous economic blight and fiscal impact studies conducted by Alfred Gobar Associates during the past seven years and provides a reasonably good indication about the level of Police protection serviced (defined on the basis of response call activity) required by alternate forms of land use in different community settings (rural, suburban, urban). Also shown in Appendix F-14, is the average incident rate of response activity for all selected communities combined (overall average); communities serving a relatively dense population base indicative of a urban setting (population density exceeding 6,000 persons per square mile); and the City of Rosemead (not included among tabulated results for the selected communities). The incidence rate of activity for all land use combined (both vacant and developed land) within the City of Rosemead (24.72 annual calls per acre) is 2.77 times higher than the corresponding rate for selected communities with an urban population density (8.93 58 • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission annual calls per acre). Rosemead is virtually built out while some of the reference communities include significant amounts of natural open space and vacant land, which effectively reduces the overall incident rate of Police activity. On an adjusted basis (excluding natural open space, agricultural, and vacant land), the average incident rate of Police response activity describing Rosemead (25.43 annual calls per acre) still remains 1.93 times higher than the corresponding rate describing other densely-populated communities (13.20 annual calls per acre). The comparison in Appendix F-14 clearly indicates the level of Police service used to address crime, the threat of crime, and related public safety risk throughout the City of Rosemead is substantially higher than can be reasonably expected for similar land use in a comparable urban setting. On a comparative basis, Police response activity throughout the City of Rosemead is disproportionately greater than expected and strongly suggests the community as a whole is affected by substantial and prevalent crime and public safety risk. The high level of Police activity that distinguishes Rosemead also indicates a broader benchmark reference would provide a more relevant measure to determine the extent land use within the Project Areas is impacted by significant crime and public safety risk. 5.2.3.1.1 Project Area No. 1 Appendix F-15 summarizes the analysis crime and public safety risk within Project Area No. 1 in terms of two alternate projections of response call activity and the actual level of response call activity indicated by address specific dispatch records provided by Los Angeles County Sheriff. For the existing mix of land use in Project Area No. 1, two alternate projections of response activity are identified based on the incident rate of response that describes the City of Rosemead as a whole (9,992 annual response calls) and incident rate of response that typifies similar land use within an urban setting (6,491 annual response calls). Projected call activity is compared against actual activity (9,540 annual calls) to determine the extent Project Area No. 1 is impacted by excessive crime and public safety risk. Actual Police response activity in Project Area No. 1 is comparable to the level of call activity that should be expected based on a citywide rate of demand. With respect to activity describing comparable land use in an urban setting, Project Area No. 1 generates nearly 1.5 times the level of response activity that should be required to provide an acceptable level of protections against crime and related public safety risks. The comparative analysis described above is illustrated in Appendix F-16. As shown, the level of response requested by citizens and business concerned for their protection, as well as officers initiating a call in response to crime or suspicious activity, significantly exceeds the level of service required for comparable land use in an urban setting. 59 1 0 • Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 5.2.3.1.2 Project Area No. 2 Appendix F-17 summarizes a comparative analysis of projected and actual Police response activity for Project Area No. 2. This comparison reflects the same type of analysis applied to Project Area No. 1 (Refer to Appendix F-15). As shown, the actual rate of response call activity indicated by Sheriff dispatch records is 1.45 times higher that should be expected based on the disproportionately high level of service demand for the City of Rosemead and over 2.2 times higher than should be expected for comparable forms of land use in an urban setting. Results of this analysis are graphically illustrated in Appendix F-18. As shown, Police response call activity required to protect the large number of commercial businesses in Project Area No. 2 substantially exceeds the level of service that should be required to adequately protect similar forms of land use in an urban setting. The public safety analysis described above indicates crime and the threat of crime remains substantial and prevalent throughout the Project Areas and is requiring a disproportionately high level of response activity on the part of the City of Rosemead. The overall level of response activity required is excessive, in terms of fiscal and economic resources the community should be reasonably expected to commit to adequately prepare similar land use activities in an urban setting. The disproportionately high level of Police response activity in the Project Areas represents an undue monopoly of limited fiscal resources that places an economic burden on the community and reduces the level of public protection residents and businesses outside the Project Areas area effectively receive. 5.2.4 Statement of Significant Economic Blight Economic circumstances exist within the Project Areas that serve to diminish lasting positive efforts to improve economic standards of area residents, limit effective utilization of business and property resources, and unduly burden opportunities to realize significant economic growth. Existing conditions that indicate significant economic blight remains in the Project Areas are summarized below: The Project Areas are unavoidably influenced by socioeconomic circumstances affecting the lives of households living below the poverty level. Poverty is an attendant condition to overcrowding evidenced by substantially higher incident rates of overcrowding among households with incomes up to 200% of the federal defined poverty level. The proportion of poverty level households residing within the Project Areas is 2.1 times greater than is true for Los Angeles County. A substantial share of the Project Area's households is impacted by overcrowded housing conditions (17.2 percent), and the share of households impacted by severely overcrowded housing conditions is even more prevalent (28.0 percent). The incidence of severe overcrowding within the Project Areas is 1.9 times greater than is true for 60 1 • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission Los Angeles County. As a matter of perspective, the rate of severe overcrowding within the Project Areas is more than 10 times the corresponding rate for the United States (2.7 percent). Additionally, the rate of severe overcrowding among owner households in the Project Areas (17.6 percent) is 2.4 times greater than is true for Los Angeles County (7.4 percent), while the corresponding rate of severely overcrowded renter households (36.0 percent) is 1.6 times greater than the County (22.0 percent). Overcrowded housing adversely affects living conditions of nearly one-half of all households within the Project Areas. Retail-commercial facilities within Project Area No. 2 suffer from abnormally high vacancy (6.7 percent) when compared to the corresponding vacancy rates that describe competitive neighborhood and community-oriented centers throughout Western San Gabriel Valley (1.5 percent). This abnormally high level of vacancy is an indication that retail-commercial facilities throughout Project Area No. 2 reflect functional deficiencies that do not exist at competing facilities within the surrounding area. Retail merchandisers within Project Area No. 2 are characterized by a weak overall level of sales performance ($207 per square foot) equal to 73.0 percent of the benchmark level ($282 per square foot) used to describe a reasonably effective retail district serving consumer needs in the surrounding neighborhood and community. Effective performance of existing retail is significantly influenced by a few strong competitors. Excluding a relatively limited number of strong competitors, effective sales performance drops substantially for more than 60.0 percent of retail merchandising storefront locations within Project Area No. 2 ($81 per square foot) to a level equal to 29.0 percent of corresponding benchmark used to describe adequately performing retail facilities. Retail-commercial space in Project Area No. 2 exceeds 1.0 million square feet but is dominated by relatively weak operators that contribute to an overall leakage of sales exceeding 50.0 percent of potential sales support represented by consumer residents of the community. A comparison of Police response records for the City of Rosemead and other comparable California communities indicates Rosemead is impacted by a heightened level of crime and public safety risk. Overall, the rate of Police response activity demanded per acre of developed land use within the City of Rosemead is 1.93 times higher than required for similarly dense communities. Different land uses can be expected to demand alternate levels of Police protection. Even after controlling for land use mix, Project Area No. 1 requires a level of Police protection activity (described in terms of response calls) that is 1.46 times higher than should be reasonably expected to protect residents and businesses in a comparable urban setting. Project Area No. 2 requires a level of Police protection activity that is 2.23 times higher than should be reasonably expected. The disproportionately high level of Police response activity within the Project Areas constitutes an undue monopoly of limited fiscal resources that places an economic burden on the community and reduces the level of public protection residents and businesses outside the Project Areas area effectively receive. 61 Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 Existing circumstances described above reflect conditions that remain and constitute a serious liability that is significant enough to constitute a serious economic blight and fiscal burden within the Project Areas and larger Rosemead community. 5.3 STATEMENT PROVIDING COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT CONDITIONS OF PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC BLIGHT ARE SIGNIFICANT THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT AREAS A review of the information provided above and in Appendices D, E and F show that there are a substantial number of parcels in the Project Areas that suffer from serious conditions of remaining blight. Based upon this information, the City Council may make the finding that the incidence of physical and economic blight as defined in the CCRL in the two Project Areas is significant. 62 1 j 3 cxemrur i tl ww ~ i wm q ~ ~a 's i fr t~ t o I fr 3 ~ a.c. J_.oe L L , s ~ F y yy _ ~ S T- 4_ _ S I ° I I z i 5 1 L--4 1 g ~ s 5 . Liming i Rosemead Community Development Commission PROPOSED MERGER AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NOS. 1 AND 2 FIGURE 5 BLIGHT SUMMARY MAP a ar uA..F 2 so.r<umn Fl.,u. m ae.oso.ocu.aa~..c fa _~e 4aunm_Fyymm 3 i 3 "e A inoo soa o raoo FM LEGEND 1:7 Rosemead Cay Boundary Freeways ~ Railroads Rosemead Redevelopmeht Projen C:: PmjectArea No. 1 t'= Pmject Area No.2 Cumulative Blight Weighting (CCRL Section 33031.(a)&(b)) C 0-19 20 or Abova • 0 Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 6.0 MAP OF THE PROJECT AREAS SHOWING PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT AREAS NO LONGER BLIGHTED, PORTIONS THAT ARE BLIGHTED, AND PORTIONS THAT ARE NECESSARYAND ESSENTIAL FOR THE ELIMINATION OF REMAINING BLIGHT Based upon the information generated for this Report to City Council, there are portions of the Project Areas, primarily the southern portion of Project Area No. 1, and the southern and northern portions of Project Area No. 2, that do not exhibit any blight characteristics. Figure 6 identifies these areas as the "Areas No Longer Blighted." The balance of the Project Areas consists of parcels that the City Council may find to be blighted because they reach the threshold of blight as described herein (identified on the map as "Areas that are Blighted"), and parcels which are necessary and essential for the elimination of the remaining blight because they exhibited conditions of blight but not to sufficient levels (identified on the map as Necessary 65 1 • • Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 ❖ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 66 .LA I newo. Y 3 rwev v v 8 - Q Y I- pp ~ r vvs t1 a un[„ use. i vnc ~ - a.. s 1. ~".m 5 i, Fy 6 I F 5 H 5 1 $ S j W i g 3 1.. ~ ds 5 y 111 I t II ~ 1,//"/ k----a i i Rosemead Community Development Commission PROPOSED MERGER AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NOS. 1 AND 2 FIGURE 6 BLIGHTED PARCELS AND NECESSARY AND ESSENTIAL PARCELS law 9 " i c i p i ! i a.. i 9 ~ y ii- A >m o F.a LEGEND C7 Rosemead City Boundary Freeways Railroads Pmj=Ama No. I r..j Project Area No. 2 N alighted! Paroels = Necessary and Essental Parcels 0 0 • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 7.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTS OR PROGRAMS PROPOSED TO ELIMINATE REMAINING BLIGHT This Report to the City Council recognizes the Commission has previously adopted lists of proposed projects and programs when Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 were adopted. Additionally, the Commission has identified proposed projects and programs within its current and past Implementation Plans, prepared pursuant to CCRL Section 33490. All of these documents are on file with the City Clerk and hereby incorporated by reference. Generally, these projects and programs fall into three main categories: • Development assistance • Public improvements • Housing programs The proposed Merger Amendment will not change the list of projects and programs; therefore, no further discussion is required. 69 Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. land 2 . . •3 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 70 1 0 Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 8.0 DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS WILL IMPROVE OR ALLEVIATE CONDITIONS OF BLIGHT As with the projects and programs outlined above, the description of how these programs will address blight was generated when the two Project Areas were adopted and also included in the past and current Implementation Plans. Generally, the Commission's continuing program of redevelopment is designed to alleviate the most prevalent conditions of blight that remain in the Project Areas. The Commission cannot solely eliminate all remaining conditions of blight. However, the Commission intends to continue to act as a catalyst to spur the private sector to further assist in the revitalization of the Project Areas. Development assistance programs will assist in the elimination of blight in a number of areas, including alleviating the most deteriorated and obsolete structures in the Project Areas. This program will also assist in the alleviation of economic blight by reversing conditions of impaired investment. The resulting increase in property values and the tax increment revenue will provide one of the main funding sources for future improvements. A public improvement program will fund improvements designed to strengthen the Project Areas and will provide environmental benefits as well. These improvements will specifically address the lack of adequate fire hydrants, hydrants spacing, and other important infrastructure items that are needed to not only protect local residents and businesses, but attract new uses. Housing programs will continue to implement one of the major goals of the CCRL, which is to increase, improve, and preserve low- and moderate-income housing. In attaining this goal, the Commission will also alleviate certain blighting conditions in both Project Areas. Development of new and the rehabilitation of existing housing will enhance the economic vitality of the entire city. 71 I Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 72 ! • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 9.0 REASONS WHY THE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS CANNOT BE COMPLETED WITHOUT THE MERGER AMENDMENT As with most issues, the lack of sufficient funding is the primary reason the list of projects and programs cannot be addressed by the Commission without the Merger Amendment. Without the adoption of the Merger Amendment, improvements in both Project Areas will suffer as tax increment generated in one project area must remain in that area. This limitation hinders the Agency's ability to complete the projects and programs discussed in this Report to the City Council as one project area may "outperform" the other at any given time. The proposed Merger Amendment substantially increases the Commission's efforts to eliminate blight and provide affordable housing by sharing a common pool of revenue. 73 1 • • Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. I and 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . 74 • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 10.0PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING THE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS Similar to other chapters above, the proposed Merger Amendment does not change any of the financial aspects of the Existing Plans except that tax increment revenue attributed to each individual project area may be allocated to the entire merged area. However, in accordance with CCRL Section 33486 (b)(2), if the Commission has an existing indebtedness incurred in a particular project area, tax increment revenue from that project area shall be first used to comply with the terms of the indebtedness. 10.1 AMOUNT OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUES PROJECTED TO BE GENERATED AS A RESULT OF THE MERGER AMENDMENT The proposed Merger Amendment will not change any existing projections of tax increment to be generated in the Project Areas. These estimates are included in the existing documents adopted by the City Council, which have been incorporated by reference. 10.2 SOURCES AND AMOUNTS OF MONEYS OTHER THAN TAX INCREMENT REVENUES THAT ARE AVAILABLE The proposed Merger Amendment will not change the existing description of other sources of funds for continued redevelopment of the two Project Areas. This information was included in the existing documentation when the two Project Areas were adopted, as well as the past and current Implementation Plans, all of which have been incorporated by reference. 10.3 REASONS THAT REMAINING BLIGHT CANNOT BE REVERSED OR ALLEVIATED WITHOUT THE USE OF TAX INCREMENT AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF THE MERGER AMENDMENT The proposed Merger Amendment will not change the use of tax increment funds, with the exception that revenue from the two Project Areas will be combined. A description of the use of tax increment was included in the existing documentation when the two Project Areas were adopted, as well as the past and current Implementation Plans, all of which have been incorporated by reference. 75 t • • Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 76 • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 11. 0 AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CCRL Section 33451.5(c)(7) requires the Commission to include an amendment to the current Implementation Plan that includes, but is not limited to, the Commission's housing responsibilities pursuant to CCRL Section 33490. The Merger Amendment proposes to combine tax increment revenues from Project Area Nos. 1 and 2, and will not increase limits or any other financial aspect of the Existing Plans. Therefore, no changes to the basic elements of the Implementation Plan are needed. However, CCRL Section 33487 requires the following related to low- and moderate-income housing: §33487 (a) Subject to subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 33486, not less than 20 percent of all taxes that are allocated to the redevelopment agency pursuant to Section 33670 for redevelopment projects merged pursuant to this article, irrespective of the date of adoption of the final redevelopment plans, shall be deposited by the agency in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund established pursuant to Section 33334.3, or which shall be established for purposes of this section. The agency shall use the moneys in this fund to assist in the construction or rehabilitation of housing units that will be available to, or occupied by, persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093, and very low income households, as defined in Section 50105, for the longest feasible time period but not less than 55 years for rental units and 45 years for owner-occupied units. For the purposes of this subdivision, "construction and rehabilitation" shall include acquisition of land, improvements to land; the acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction of structures; or the provision of subsidies necessary to provide housing for persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093, and very low income households, as defined in Section 50105. (b) The agency may use the funds set aside by subdivision (a) inside or outside the project area. However, the agency may only use these funds outside the project area upon a resolution of the agency and the legislative body that the use will be of benefit to the project. This determination by the agency and the legislative body shall be final and conclusive as to the issue of benefit to the project area. The Legislature finds and declares that the provision of replacement housing pursuant to Section 33413 is of benefit to a project. The Legislature finds and declares that expenditures or obligations incurred by the agency pursuant to this section shall constitute an indebtedness of the project. (c) If moneys deposited in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund pursuant to this section have not been committed for the purposes specified in subdivisions (a) and (b) for a period of six years following deposit in that fund, the agency shall offer these moneys to the housing authority that operates within the jurisdiction of the agency, if activated pursuant to Section 34240, for the purpose of constructing or rehabilitating housing as provided in subdivisions (a) and (b). However, if no housing authority operates within the jurisdiction of the agency, the agency may retain these moneys for use pursuant to this section. (d) If the agency deposits less than 20 percent of taxes allocated pursuant to Section 33670, due to the provisions of subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 33486, in any fiscal year, a deficit shall be created in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund in 7 1 • • Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 an amount equal to the difference between 20 percent of the taxes allocated pursuant to Section 33670 and the amount deposited in that year. The deficit, if any, created pursuant to this section constitutes an indebtedness of the project. The agency shall eliminate the deficit by expending taxes allocated in years subsequent to creation of the deficit and, until the time when that deficit has been eliminated, an agency shall not incur new obligations for purposes other than those set forth in Section 33487, except to comply with the terms of any resolution or other agreement pledging taxes allocated pursuant to Section 33670 that existed on the date of merger pursuant to this article. (e) Notwithstanding subdivision (d) of Section 33413, any agency that merges its redevelopment project areas pursuant to this article shall be subject to subdivisions (a) and (c) of Section 33413.[which states:] §33413 (a) 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 that is subject to a written agreement with the agency or where financial assistance has been provided by the agency, the agency shall, within four years of the 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 that have an equal or greater number of bedrooms as those destroyed or removed units at affordable housing costs within the territorial jurisdiction of the agency. When dwelling units are destroyed or removed after September 1, 1989, 75 percent of the replacement dwelling units shall replace dwelling units available at affordable housing 'cost in the same or a lower 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 destroyed or removed units. When dwelling units are destroyed or removed on or after January 1, 2002, 100 percent of the replacement dwelling units shall be available at affordable housing cost to persons in the same or a lower income category (low, very low, or moderate), as the persons displaced from those destroyed or removed units. (c) (1) The agency shall require that the aggregate number of replacement dwelling units and other dwelling units rehabilitated, developed, constructed, or price restricted pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) remain available at affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, persons and families of low-income, moderate-income, and very low income households, respectively, for the longest feasible time, but for not less than 55 years for rental units, 45 years for home ownership units, and 15 years for mutual self- help housing units, as defined in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 33334.3, except as set forth in paragraph (2). Nothing in this paragraph precludes the agency and the developer of the mutual self-help housing units from agreeing to 45-year deed restrictions. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the agency may permit sales of owner- occupied units prior to the expiration of the 45-year period, and mutual self-help housing units prior to the expiration of the 15-year period, established by the agency for a price in excess of that otherwise permitted under this subdivision pursuant to an adopted program that protects the agency's investment of moneys from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, including, but not limited to, an equity sharing program that establishes a schedule of equity sharing that permits retention by the seller of a portion of those excess proceeds, based on the length of occupancy. The remainder of the excess proceeds of the sale shall be allocated to the agency, and deposited into the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. The agency shall, within three years from the date of sale pursuant to this paragraph of each home ownership or mutual self-help housing unit subject to a 45-year deed restriction, and every third mutual self-help housing unit subject to a 15-year deed restriction, expend funds to make affordable an equal number of units at the same or lowest income level as the unit or units sold pursuant to this 78 • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission paragraph, for a period not less than the duration of the original deed restrictions. Only the units originally assisted by. the agency shall be counted towards the agency's obligations under Section 33413. (3) The requirements of this section shall be made enforceable in the same manner as provided in paragraph (7) of subdivision (f) of Section 33334.3. (4) If land on which the dwelling units required by this section are located is deleted from the project area, the agency shall continue to require that those units remain affordable as specified in this subdivision. (5) For each unit counted towards the requirements of subdivisions (a) and (b), the agency shall require the recording in the office of the county recorder of covenants or restrictions that ensure compliance with this subdivision. With respect to covenants or restrictions that are recorded on or after January 1, 2008, the agency shall comply with the requirements of paragraphs (3) and (4) of subdivision (f) of Section 33334.3. 79 Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. I and 2 e THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 80 • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 12.ONEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT REPORT The proposed Merger Amendment is administrative and fiscal in nature and proposes no changes to planning, development or redevelopment activities. Therefore, the Merger Amendment will have no significant negative impact on the neighborhoods included within the Project Areas. In fact, because the intent is to provide greater financial flexibility, the proposed Merger Amendment is expect to yield only positive results through the elimination or alleviation of blight. 12.1 RELOCATION Because the Merger Amendment is administrative and fiscal in nature and proposes no changes to planning, development or redevelopment activities, the Merger Amendment would have no impact on relocation activities, which were discussed previously when the Project Areas were adopted. The Commission has previously approved and adopted a plan and method of relocation for both Project Areas. The methods for assisting any displaced persons are the State of California Relocation Assistance and Property Acquisition Guidelines, which are incorporated herein by reference. The Commission has no current plans or proposed activities that are foreseen to require any relocation as further explained in Chapter 5.8.7 below. The Commission is required to, and fully intends to, comply with all federal and state laws and regulations regarding the relocation of persons and families as required by Commission actions. 12.2 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION Because the Merger Amendment is administrative and fiscal in nature and proposes no changes to planning, development or redevelopment activities, the Merger Amendment would have no impact on traffic, which was discussed previously when the Project Areas were adopted. 12.3 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Because the Merger Amendment is administrative and fiscal in nature and proposes no changes to planning, development or redevelopment activities, the Merger Amendment would have no significant adverse environmental impacts. All development or Commission activity will be reviewed by the City for design compatibility with adjacent land uses and impact upon adjacent properties. In addition, a more-specific environmental analysis of future major projects will take place as specified projects are proposed for implementation and as necessary and required by CEQA. 12.4 AVAILABILITY OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES The Merger Amendment is not expected to create any adverse impacts on existing community facilities and services since its entire affect will be to provide expanded funding options for redevelopment projects, some of which provide for the development and/or redevelopment of community facilities. Approval of the proposed Merger Amendment is expected to positively influence and reduce the demand, as well as increase the effectiveness of all safety services. 81 f Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans • for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 12.5 EFFECT ON SCHOOL POPULATION AND QUALITY OF EDUCATION Because the Merger Amendment is administrative and fiscal in nature and proposes no changes to planning, development or redevelopment activities, the Merger Amendment would have no impact on school population or the quality of education, which were discussed previously when the Project Areas were adopted. 12.6 PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS AND TAXES The Merged Redevelopment Plan will continue to be funded principally through incremental property tax financing and not through special assessment, new taxes or general funds. The ad valorem property tax rate will not be affected by the Merger Amendment. The continued revitalization of the Project Areas may have a positive effect on the market value of properties in adjacent neighborhoods, resulting in some increase in assessed valuation as properties change ownership and are reassessed. 12.7 THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS HOUSING PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF LOW- OR MODERATE-INCOME EXPECTED TO BE DESTROYED OR REMOVED FROM THE LOW- AND MODERATE- INCOME HOUSING MARKET THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MERGER AMENDMENT The Merger Amendment is administrative and fiscal in nature and no immediate destruction of dwelling units housing persons and families of low- or moderate-income is contemplated; therefore, no dwelling units are expected to be removed from the low- and moderate-income housing market as a result of the Merger Amendment. 12.8 NUMBER OF PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF LOW- OR MODERATE- INCOME EXPECTED TO BE DISPLACED BY THE PROJECT The Merger Amendment is administrative and fiscal in nature and no displacement is contemplated; therefore, no persons are expected to be removed from the low- and moderate-income housing market as a result of the Merger Amendment. 12.9 GENERAL LOCATION OF HOUSING TO BE REHABILITATED, DEVELOPED, OR CONSTRUCTED Generally, housing to be rehabilitated, developed, or constructed within the Project Areas, pursuant to CCRL Section 33413, will be located in existing residentially designated areas and will not change as a result of this Merger Amendment. Identification of specific residential units to be rehabilitated and specific development or construction sites will be based upon site availability and user needs. Development activities will be affected by market demand, cost and availability of funds. 82 E • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 12.10 THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS HOUSING PERSONS AND FAMILIES OF LOW- OR MODERATE-INCOME PLANNED FOR CONSTRUCTION OR REHABILITATION, OTHER THAN REPLACEMENT HOUSING The Merger Amendment is administrative and fiscal in nature and will not change housing programs for persons and families of low- or moderate-income is contemplated; therefore, no changes are expected in the number of dwelling units for persons and families of low- and moderate-income. The Commission will comply with CCRL Section 33413 and other applicable statutes. 12.11 PROJECTED MEANS OF FINANCING PROPOSED DWELLING UNITS FOR PERSONS AND FAMILIES FOR LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING The Merger Amendment is administrative and fiscal in nature and no changes in the financial methods for low- and moderate-income housing are contemplated. 12.12 PROJECTED TIMETABLE FOR MEETING REHABILITATION AND REPLACEMENT HOUSING OBJECTIVES Housing needs in the Project Areas subject to the Merged Redevelopment Plan will be addressed in accordance with the Housing Element of the General Plan and the Existing Plans. All replacement housing obligations will be met as rapidly as is feasible, and in any event, by not later than four (4) years following the destruction or removal of dwelling units housing persons or families of low- and moderate-income from the low- and moderate-income housing market as part of the Merged Redevelopment Plan. 83 Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans • for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 84 • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 13.01METHOD OR PLAN FOR RELOCATION The Merger Amendment does not modify any of the plans or methods of relocation of property owners and businesses provided in either redevelopment plan, as required by CCRL Section 33411.1. Therefore, no additional discussion is necessary for this item. 85 f • • Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK n 4% e. 86 • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 14.OANALYSIS OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAN Because the Merger Amendment does not change the boundaries of either Project Area, no Preliminary Plan was required. Therefore, an analysis of the Preliminary Plan is not necessary. 87 • Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. I and 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . 88 , • • Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 15.0REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION On December 15, 2008, the Rosemead Planning Commission found the Merger Amendment to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, and recommended to the City Council that the Merger Amendment be approved. The Planning Commission's report and recommendation was forwarded to the Commission, and is included under Tab 5 of the binder for the public hearing. 8g r • • Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 90 • 0 Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 16.OSUMMARY REFERRED TO IN SECTION 33387 The Merger Amendment does not change the Commission's authority to acquire property by eminent domain in either Project Area. For this reason, a Project Area Committee was not formed, and no further discussion is warranted. In lieu of a Project Area Committee, Commission staff and consultants conducted a public workshop on January 22, 2009, to discuss the proposed Merger Amendment and answer questions. About 10 people attended the workshop, which was held in the City Council Chambers. 91 1 • Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 92 1 • 0 Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 17.0REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 65402 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE This report required by Gov. Code Section 65402 is included in the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission, which is located under Tab 5 of the binder for the public hearing. 93 1 0 • Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. I and 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK . . 94 1 J a . Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 18.0REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 2151 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE It was determined by the preparation of an Initial Environmental Study that a Negative Declaration would adequately describe the environmental effects of adoption of the Merger Amendment and would comply with the State CEQA Guidelines. This determination was made because the Merger Amendment will not: • Change the boundaries of the either Project Area • Change time or financial limitations of either Project Area • Add new redevelopment projects or programs • Change any existing, or create any new, fiscal agreements with any affected taxing agency • Extend the effective life of either Redevelopment Plan The Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared for the Merger Amendment are incorporated and included in Tab 3 of the Public Hearing binder. 95 1 • 0 Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 96 1 • i Report to the City Council Rosemead Community Development Commission 19.0REPORT OF THE COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER AND ANALYSIS OF SAID REPORT Because the Merger Amendment does not alter boundaries, or extend time or financial limits, there was no report received from the County Fiscal Officer as required by CCRL Section 33328. Therefore, no further discussion is necessary regarding this item. Each affected taxing agency was notified and instructed to contact Commission staff if any additional information was needed or if there were any questions. Representatives from Los Angeles County have met with Commission staff and toured the two Project Areas. There is concern from the County that the Commission may be doing more than a simple merger, but that is not the case as has been outlined throughout this Report to the City Council. The Commission is open to any discussion with the County if there are outstanding issues. 97 1, 0 . • Merger Amendment to the Redevelopment Plans for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area Nos. 1 and 2 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 98 1 C, • APPENDIX A - METHODOLOGY HIERARCHY • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • >ll _ Y y. G ~ll Y~ "U V ~I N WA 0 Q a w Z CW C fn N w N Q W N N N T z 4 e m L y O L OI C n m m J ~ y C d m U ~ C d d 5 L > O m n m > O m 64 n `m d d m J m E o Q. N c ~ T O d m T ry J O O C ~ a m > a m y ~ d T"(T .L_. FBI ~ m a° FBI O N a (`0 m y N O m c E `o d m y Ol d - U G a m m y v a9 -0 0 3 ~ m m J'C ~ m m. ac > m, m 0 0 y m y f m y OI m ~ y L L y OI m j d m s ~ E y T.` O d O n O > C j L m y O y ~ .O u 9 L m C U C O _ J L y O ~.y.. mL C U m 9 O m m - > O U L C C D m OIdC w 3 m ~ - HIV W z Cj V W S.M O w Q O Q QO Z = 0 y W N Z Q 0 it Q IL IL 0 Cao C h u ~~11I ~I Frl 0 I~ 04 i s_e C V C m U m E- 0 y 6 m U J O ~ N V d O C C ~ d m .y_ J m Qi E 5 m'y N 6> J 6 O V L m E m a C d O 9 m 69 N ~ O m m U m m m C m ~ c C m m m a ° ' ~ E U E m _ m m O p y a a '0 N C v L O y m O C O J F a V d L 0 y O ~ 0 `ry C mca E E m ~ m m s a n N U Um L 0 n 3 ~ mt~ @to C 3 0 U C d o m t ~ 'm mUo U < 0 O n m ~ c t'~ m E o m y n m ;ma m m m m 1~_ 1 m v ° ~ roE- m L I n ` m ` ' ~ u o a~ c O N 1 t i t 11I _ O C T l0 a 4mmc- m C Fl ~ I 1 I V I t ^ J J i~ htl~ Y, a t m L d O 3 y j m -E N y t I ; I I O 'O OR 0 m m y L 1 i m B n m-doa cam r.~y~ _ r.. I ~ . m y m U G y 1 - • 'Q O Ol an d e d m ~ L da H U c d E , .L EI!!'. 1 ION V, C A L C y R O C m y O'E B 2 1 I 1 . V O m C S M ` I m O m O in c O 3 cEm (n d V m - , I : y j Ja~.Y Td li! 1 d o d O m d ~ C~ h 3 J a ~ L c O1 10 C ~ d y y m m p rn U l C O_ E c m d d m N m MR a a~" In y N y ' U a~ C C C T"O O N m O y O O m m a c 'O Ol L t m o c o 0 N H d O N 9 U O d m a~"m.°mcmmm 1 O z 0 m ~+m a t J x d c rn y c E m t O = mUL O)a>yTmVa m O C L m m L 0 m N O) ~ L L O N I 'm L ~'O y ` N m m E m d° E ❑ c m y J 5 F7 N o o a d S a mO-'N 0 °M-6 Eo~c i y y J U C O a -tBocm i ow O"U L d c v nSO m n ° ' d a ' ' L c m C O O y 0 O m N C J U y O y m m m c U U y 'O a L m J ` " n O O O d O J J O y ' ` w : 5 m v c a a V o a L S C W U wW tll J W W J J W .N ~ t !"1 U •^O cE`' z Y O -a .O 4-4 cld U O l^~ F- -I L. m L E 9 m C7 U C J m E m Cm Z 6 ma L 3 y ma 0 f0 U ~ a J C U C U m U (/J E v Q p C C = PD d 6'N p) ~ O T Q m 0 E m - m r p y ..a m m° 0 m 05 = O c N m N N m O O O 0 U U .a0 .-M E~ L E Q U N O J O O C N $ L 9 v v c m 'N O 'U m C m O m m U ~p U y- 'C.. L J O ~N U O C ~ m ~ m m O m N N O 0 Z E ~ o=D Q m D m U m U m c Q ~ E L m o E$ E p ~ ~ N C ~p m m= J iimE m y m m y H m'o n= oNN 3~^~Q m2 ti~ d~__ i m u' a ° ti ti ti 0 i. m N J m O m F m m Vj rn r = n .w A ~i y ~ y 7 O I..I c' m ~ m m U O U n•y m O m N d = l . . N a-O9 ~ Lr i • I m i V m m - ~ O d T y A L N n mm-O 'c N v L j n 6.~ O J N N d O J ~ 6J ~ r9 T a~ a sg D) C N a m N lJ a Z c m \ J 0 1 i m ym d ~ ~ _ ~ m m mF ~ E IIY=m aLL Z 0 E~~ O Q mn W p~ 1 cc: N N E 0 m m n 0 E C a N m y0 m N c C m y 0 m ~ = O m O IL N • • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 0 APPENDIX B - 40 BLIGHT INDICATORS 0 0 METHODOLOGY HIERARCHY PROJECT AREA DELINEATION METHODOLOGY: Identification and assessment of degree of urbanization, blight indicators and minimum standard thresholds Layer 1 Plus Layer 2 Must Equal Substantial and Prevalent Blight C 2006 Urban Futures, Inc. SUBSTANTIAL & PREVALENT • r-l O L m d or N O) N OI a tml m Or O ar m ~ D! 0 C ¢ ry C S6 C N C C C C U N Dm 0 N . O C a O _ U ~O N =p0 D W 'O alrjN 9 :R W W U K 0 U.~ O U Q a m- U m mr m m0 A N m N m m K LL p yS] U U.-: Of ON U "O~ O~ . j N mom dim l0 mN LL m0 m d0~ ~pN mN W m ry r:° c~ EoS~ m ina N 'EO 'CON 'CO ma'c~ c~ _ 'Eo Eo K O N d Wt ? c7 N 0 0 0 0 ~ d o m O m O 0 C N 0 0 r0 O N 0 O m > L2 Q m Q 01 y C O Q Z W O O O O O N O N O D N O O M N O N O N O N O UN U~ 7UU Na ~ttl In JU L) L) UU N u0 a2UU UU.- UU u0 r 3 N O O m 0 O O d a O ' m L U 0 M3 U 0 V a t` d O T • 2~ y N dna" T O U N N1] tt ry a a C am U N Y O Ol y 0 0 o J m u 0- C C r O E m 0 C N m> o _ 0 c na z D y E v t d ° a° 'y H " r u N E t0 h L m m m o N d y> 01 °3 d C 0 m E d C m = m ` > m 0 y 0 L o m= N o o a 9 E ` v m m 3 N a a c t o m S m 3 L m o m c d w m o E o _c~ 9 u ° =m cm 'n^b nt m 0 0 m„ 0 0 o L c ~ N L_ a m of `m d a c d N N m N y>o i N9 N C °i L ~9ma $L > E d E oc m m o~md a E z o d'c m N C i D U Y d d m N N L> C m d._ N0 - U x$ d T 3 N U y C o c c C d N N _ d d C 0 M t C m C L> L m> C O Q Q O L U > O U = C 0 C > C m w d a y C L y LL0 NUO~900N o> N-0aC p 0090 ZSZ a Lm N m n XS = E a16 m N c m am-m N m m m CN E c m v ¢ = am O .a E3 t 0l?- m o '2 ~L; d o EEx N N a m y o c m 0 u - = o E y t 'E N Q N ~ c y a m C N_ E L m c = m r O l - - a N` 0 "O D .D C m l0 O O L L C 0 I O Cpl N O Z Q U L_ N _ 0, - U N N p m V O p N d y T U N 0 O X D> O n y N m m w E E S N ° o° o ~ ° c m ( ll H m m d3 o m x y R L N N L L m 0 0 0 d ~ U U m .m m 7 J 6 3 d y N m Q 0 m ry L i N w Td 00'x~ C N Ny Odd amTO a :2 0 _ `d > m O ads U N > 0 0 . . N O m E `0 y b m O 0 E N W 6 C L L N L O O U m C m L _ ` L N I- C C 0 V 3 c N O N p N Ol y 0 F_ 0 d Ol L> y L OFLO~O° 3> L 2! >3dC E ONad dmr d V C M02 UNC _ DyU=01 td N O'.T. U d y 'O J J- N d a d U a a> i C 0 O r m .r d m dN J d N N N L N C .m. m N N C 0 p0 0 C T d 0 m 0 d 0 J E 6 6 L-. N CON p'~ O ' . 0 dm U 6 L a~ m N dy U 0 U~~ i N d mm D N ' 0 yl L L 0 o mo uy N m r] d y~0F2 C 'E 10N N m Eye U matE D N c~ . . o°dy 0 0 a N ° L o_ o m O O d V 2 N m j y ~ p 0 U C om m y D L OI m m N d V m C >N OOly Ol C ONL~ d d r N C mdm dNO y J Ly~ NN.y U~NCN N N d D y m: j J ¢ C dLS =L O N- LL m >i `OL ON d ~LLL L r L d U f-L m d d m C 6 L 0 Fta x 0 m W 6N W y d (n W y O ~ U Lll O N N U N O N O C T y m O O tp H o ' a 9 u; L ' a m ° o ° E Q 0 N m a ,6 m 0 ~ ao o d O > n `o m U m y C m RN m o NL ~ y N U 0 O a i. 0 0 a 6 , z N ¢ a N N _ L >`p O D y 6 m J ? m 0 0 U `0 w a m e N N 0 E c m t m E° 9 O ~ ~ N T N > . •3 C C N j n N V 0 2 FL y U rd „ 3 _ '3 T N y N C= 0 N 6 N L ~i Q m d° N m Z U 0 N N m a T D i p N C N C D 3:.0 O O O d J U c .3 3 4 y d ayi m m a m y `m D E E a y V m a m m ciE~ ~ 0 i- an9Q yJON . p ~-mo ° 0 ° 0 N2 3 N U Z ` 'C- U 63 N N C N aL 0 . m O IF 0 2 U N C y C._ L m W I m L aL.. 0 m m L N p 0 y C m 7 r N y y` O 9 O O J 6 O O d" r C C 0.2 O N C Ol Ol U N y n s C D N C D C 2 a N N a s ° j U D ` 2"9 N E r D t, an d m C 0 0 C ~m o >y o c 0 .05 ya ? om d ma °'°aa °u. ~ ~ °o d N a c cm o 5c m ° C mmolad d 0 0 0 ' NS9 d p ma"a d -.T, wd m- = m c 0 W a °m O L N V 2 N OL=~ ~ VQdm m a D6~ N m ` a E a € E m 6 d y m m c m o o n m X m N m m " d m U m N o o p o x o i ` y S p m o - x o w fL c v a o n 0> 0 m o m a a a - d z 0 0 N y d O Q N 2 0 C N N m_ U N W d d O ` ° m O 0 O d E O ' ° C O C m ~w a ' m m. c - a d m X1 o e m 'c . m u N P: d U Qm U U>n u U> U U D > o J t0 ~N ~N ~N N 1~ rN U m U m a m m m m m m m a m m m m w ¢ O m m m Q N L U N 3 n J 7 U N U p N d L 0 O O a C a a U D 2 N Z mmy W ZD"a ZDr° m Ny C_ O m ms>,-. ma d d pm.a c d r m 2 2 O c D a t m O m0 - j C° a ¢ N a E U O' 'L 'O E ? U d ON 0 aU N O 0 d 0 = m a 0 Q a m D 0 D 0 c 2 D O 0- m O N o O C . x 7 0 ¢ m U a ¢ Q Q ¢ m m m W # N m - p- 1 . t0 I~ 9 O N O I W N E it LL 0 N r, i m D OI m m D 0 C W ro 010 h m WO D m m D D w U N~ m U a m y U U W cc.1 C :0 p cm :0 ce m m A V m m U N 0 W U Z W' U 6 J .n¢ d O 'yJ 'mr ' J C C o n U n 4 6~'n U 6 U n y 1p m m IL r O M M N m m m m 0 1 0 J m N ° j y 0" g m e i S V m O S c~2 m N c° m W J y 'E° m J y J y a y K E v E m m ~ m o m m w o v Co o m 0 0 o m o m ~ Z a F a E J O U a U U U J U U D U U U U U U U J U J U J U (n Q m N 5 m C i m U y T E c O C U m 0 y 0 m 0 O ( yp 0 y m._ y L T = Y1 6 G Q C> C CI m U T E L F _ m y O T U J m a O y - X m T _ 0 m 0 = L m 0 U O~ U y L O m'0 Y m.= (ca - 0.0 0 M W' U 'o n m mN`y ` L y d O G mmm C U6 U mD m VC J N N ~ U c a N T O ~ m W 0 E N y m m U m 0m O m y J r o 0 Kl y m> J> y> 3'-= 0m v0i 01 00¢.0100 T m mo=~pW W JC O. C m m0W V ~OJc y.J.Cd CE6y0 COOCm ~T(nLC ~S=fOy yV3mE m~C '0 `m SVDU o m y mum-E U m U m-d m, 0 m O O m a 00 m T Mw= ; E L 'G L m E y 3 0 a 0 0 0 J y m o f T J O m a E m 'o a.- E= 0 D U E 0 . 0 Z 0 y m. L 0 m C 0 m U V °iE E E m y m y'C~ m0 ~ 0 82 m C= 0 m- U maT m m J D 0 m L a O d U E' Q 0 L y m m _ . m T G y 0 ' C > 0 C 15 2 m E X 0 J > _ C 0 = C > m E C y z m._.zm ma m E m L ~ o 43 C O= c cm m... e u > m m E J> mmmu c mEt >cm ❑ m m mn Eoa p _m m mt ` ~ mm . L •6 m mo to.~ o 6 a ~2 2 a' =O nmmm mm~N J t m ❑ am- O L m O O OF Z d m O C> m . `.Vy. O._ C a a m y ~ U_ m o m m 6 L y N a O m 0 --6 _Tt ii m Z 0= aI VT y 0 E m m6 D y 0V O 2 d U p 0 U C 3 m _ - m m'2 C o m m W W L m 6 E C m c 0 W m m - m 3 0 y m m L m L D= m O 0 J C E 0 T . m D m m y Fm Q cm0 W m yolm o mmE E„ WE 0 O C m amomd 6._ - y mo3> E D U ° d 0 0E0 O m cc 0 Z Q m S m a 0 C y L m 0 ~ m O C m O m m > E y m U ❑ m C 0 L m 0 O C (n y W m U m 3 0 m Y 0 O O O C > L Z' M m C H E "C 0 m m m m a 3 C m m a t a Lm y N 0' m L0 N n _ C0G n 00LJ x W .n3c c mmmmE m ~.c Wt U Wa N v m c._ c3 ym ~m mmt c m- E "r '-C E O m o ~'a n ma E fc m N L c>00u o c O O _m m O' a! C C 0 O W U._ J W 0 0 m m E 0 m m C 7 M E 0-` U O d yJjdyy Cy~mU dnm >:Q mmm~i mymm U mH9 ~ C30~ UmOy > mLdO WV T J ~J~ppm y y U O UO V 0 9 N m nmmT= 6 0... 0 ..2 m LL ' m CL N E> n~ 0 0 0 Cm0 m V m> 0 6CL m 0 a C J m O m. . m C 0 0.- J U C 0 a a D m E j( 01 L m 3 = 0 O 0 0 n.~ y 0 E m W N3 T'O m0-Oj O00 ELm OmONm OaOTS mOEp~ 00yJ pL_%0 aL H~ Y E O m= m :0 m m W O m G m N T U N m 2. y m U G W y d O y L C> C " O 2 N Tom T y a C0gm~ N C T COOd OQ0aQ C~ m py U E0 y-• y C C O . J C ` O 0L O .ma . N 0 E m (mj E y C m m E ~ y ~1 U d m C m N L m y a a 6 m y m a L % 0 n 0 U L Lm yU F- m y . mO m O IL V E m >i C Lmm3V L.'_nLmm H m a m U F- a 1- C a y LmOL map 1- O D H U U 0mmmm ❑ m U L m LOOM F l> C LmC" W 3 E CmmO D :s s s N W j N 10 N O O O O U O ~ N m N 0 m C m C O U C °S 0 W a E m C O 0 0 0 3 0 m _ L> M 3 c a m m ` m ' O O 0 D q W J o y N L 7 OI m C m 3 ` U . 0 m m 6 0 O .0 L m m > O 0 0 2 0 m > m C 3 " . U C 0 Ul J '0 W ~ $ m a m 'a y C C m . L 0- T m U C 0.2 ry 2 0 0 C d 0 W Z E m 0 N D >i - 0 y 3 m U J N 0 0 L 3 Ol J E O E E C m U T p d ry m E N C U m V L L L E O ` Z a m e O 0 o m O -m m m m E 3 n y T 3 c m 2 y 5 2 3= y 3 m T 5 a = y m Y 0 C n 0 O m c 0: ~ O Ys O y cm O m O uria ommo2 E-6 0 Lm t 5 Z> Omm mm a2 .o t c m m d u o a mc y m L. ~ ym c.c E 0001. m o En _ am w _ c~O1~c m 3a° h m aomoaE m m am J aE o+ mm W ❑ =mEy ~ m5 W a u~ ca a noG 0 o, aai °m o c° v ym m -~2U ~m N0 OmOmms dVd J~ jCCW L L m m D m m m m m _ E E O a .m. N O n mo m C U C m D J n C m` O m 3 O a ❑ m? E W O 0 m U _ 0 l 0 m _ ` C 0 m L V L W 0 V 03'0 m m a O E`0 Em= ur 2 2 ' m m m C m D m t . m > ;Dmm. ' - 200 o oa mc`mm c=- a 0 = a Dm m L c E c Om 6 m 0 E ` v m ` yvi m.` W a~ O 2Z _T omt m J~ ` am m u'c c 00 m - 2 o D o m E s m m E m 01 S ' E m o m 2 a o m c a m cm mc~ mv m' i cmc >>m m m~'o 'O iO `mo` C o m F. O 0 U 2 . o u m m O m O Z' O T - m m o m 0 - m o n o U a m - 3 m (9 m ..a > m N> n o VJ 0 0 0 ..T 1 01 O a 0 z -m m m c c o 0 c o c a a m> m o_ m m m m m a m y O Z5 m C m O1U N O O O O N 0 0 0 W W 0 O ' m N C m ` N . m N p m E 0 IG ❑ m0 00 m mro m v m m imam a0 o .U ❑ a.o ❑ o ❑ ❑ 0000 L) o> J ~ LL'O ~N a--N e -N r-N .-N ~N N 1~ N N U(7 m m as a 's SN, m~ E D m O 0 > o m > U Q •0 y m m ¢ m d U O a o ? c c m Z J 0 U 0 c O y ur m 0 m m m t, 0 O c O m i 0 z 2. m O Uip "i m~ m-J.N y U y . ommE a U oy U mE m C A y U J J 0 C a O mom m J V .4 Z5 o y 2 LL m i > 3 . J 0 . L o " J C f LL l IL N fn i a ❑ IL W LL IL O U` O Z W M M Z = W ❑ O O U U ~ LL LL LL LL LL U O N 0 LL O N • Ift m U C _ ° U 9 ~ m m d W F J ` .T. L C ~ zw o m m U w 'm of ~ nn an K R (n U C N m C 0 m w ~ c m R' ~ m< Q 'C m C 0 LL o c u 01 o E° m ry U A> i Q m o m ' m "'N m~O Eom°m t05 -0 c y~mm o Ens g tid is ECCwai m2 .m =m-m' ~ !n U' CcGQ~~ U(n d O A I O} ~ ZZ M O C UU A O° JU J U A d °i L_ d N 9 L Qi C O d C U Y C L T O T m m U 0 'L.. >i Oi A C C A y m m C L m UT 3 8 Y=i ~ c_ m c 9 E 9 L or ~ m m m- m m ~ -O d C C O 0 C N U m 0 C d m C J- U D A O y N P 0 U~ a N . C O pl p y a E C yj d E A N _ m NN N a O 2 .N.. 0 L _ m U` T d N m 3 L m O d D > H. N ° U d o C 0 `0 5 d o 9 ° N°m c L y c E m p L U A= O C L m d p ` E m A N d _m N U O O C ° O` m A N L U m O y n OL...`. O C A_ d = 0 6 A d O > N> d C A m 3 j C m> m 9 N ooaim ' U m N dD°m o O" N coYn m m C N =.y~ 6 EE d - or O d U N yN 0LN w W y~ 0c m ~ c9E c n d m=° m ~ 2 a"'- 3 9 L mp 0 m `o a ~T no-5 c ~ ~ ' A m = n m •'O >i : y 0 0U L m p N m o~ CO ' F C m C L d_ N > N.`0 0 O m 00 N m y 0O t /1 0 L : . C N A y N N N A U m y . m > A j =Q - A D ry 9 0 n>. c °E ~o~ d o ° u O oEO > pN L z pa m A d dmc im ' a N 0 266 N L.. cdoy T T Em 0 m 7 09 0 0 - = U E 0 O m C T O m G O j . . p N > O L V 9 O N O P° L_ A N C U 7 L y UJ N jp > O O ; O 1 V C N 0 d L 0 d N y G y z¢ e y m u20O'O t ~`0 y; m w 3~ a °m 0 an E N> L m ~ Na c- a m ° oE 0 S °t~ 9 '..L oA dnry °d crc al c p W mmE V C~48 9 dm Ev° L&mm d am0 E S; Ao yc 99 3 n~U9 NN OjC N~ m0'OU y ~L C0 U°> L N U 0 0 O A U Q L C n m a 4 iNA T U 0 N m d L nN C y) m m U 3 m L m E m c ~m may m 9 - 's T y m 'y uS n mom-~ c L n y 2Em o Ho 0 O Y V 0 N- O •O L - = ' O Z -.So ° Ol N 0 O 0 OI.E d 9 C T y C O a C U ° 0 N N N M 6 O m n O - ` N 0 d U C 0 j 3 0 6 `m 6 C s ° ~ o y V l cmp d O f t m o ` A N m O y a m E m d ~n~ . m ~a i ~ mo . c= m n N ' O 7 J y ° 0 N - 2 N Q f- O m C N m o U 7 U N = 0 LL N A = W a O = t 1- 5. m w J O O O yJ N N N ~O Q N > N n 3 0 T T Q a E v'`~ T m U 01 N m - N O 20 6 p d i C a L m 0 y 0 d d 0° d 0 t y y ° m U U U A° m m T m N N L d A o+m ° O O 6> m C 0 m m O D A 6 0 0 m C m N C O TL d L m A d N m O m p m r` 6 n'T' m" U L °l " 0 U a 0 A c 7 C - A n -E 0 0 >d 0 ua°>m "mm'u'E ~x5 E Eo ° m3~ t A i _ E A ° v° m d 0 u m d rn m" ` d° c m v N p m ' c ° m C a J Cl N N m m L D> Y V O m A 0 7 y O m m 0 E p 0 3: 0 a -O 0! :R 0 0 C . ` 0 C d O L N C 0° . 0 T p 0 F D Or p En CC...d 1 0 0, n 0 m U m U 00 H ED 0 ~ y Ot 90 C 0 ~i m :E m U C V ONI/ l~~ N O 0 y m T 75 O Cm U m M-Z O y O f 11 W N E2 C O U O C O Oi N N >i u Pi N d E I= 0 0 j> O a O 9 pi Gi 9 °i j .d m O O 9 O y 2 C ' m 0~ 0 L U= NC NY9 3NJUN 7UN CUL2 m 'SA ~ ,EV6 mL n n N3 LE°mm 0 DY ` mE o aL .v m mm d p1 ` °EO'> 0 a9 ' 9 ma= L° v `°a m =md in cm c°- o,- E pD m m m c j ~a L2 v,...C`p N o m i ~ ° m N c v S d o .3 0 e 9 3 N d m rn 3 m° u m 0 m C 6 3 N m p O m 0 U C N N V A 0 d 7 N d Ol m 9= 0 N G= m° E D 'x v m c " w E m m ° x 9 y zi m m m d c O d 7 O L 0 9 A 9 Y 10 N y O O O> 0 L 9 a N L E2 T 0 0 .t 9 m y E A J C ry d L d A] N L N ` % m U d 6 n d C> 0 3 U > Q 9 !%i C W C 6. d O 0> m D U f . w' m a 9 0 a n o m `p- € H E W d m C > C U U SO C 0 U ='0 m m C d N O a N d O) 1 2 _ Q 0 J O d U a J0 T d0L0 m0 p C0 O 0 d ° _ Z C ~ (n ❑ ❑ , L) w o ° C Win. C C 2.O N N N_ V Z:o U O U C) m m m m m m m o n 0 m ~ Q C m i y 0 N N ~ d y m P O m _ V J N 0 O V.N.. V = O 9 O O 2 a °~0 L 0 mw ~ p C O d ° C° e 0 m w °I 0 > A ~ m N C, m m N. . m a N y m d U LL' 2 6 N N y 9 T P m C P m C U ] U c? Em d?( ly ` 9mE ate= p mw~ d ntp `wa p] od U N 0 ocu O O C d V o.'- m E ym O A 0 ° S od C m > ao Oa m-_mm 5 m SJLL o. CL - - > U J W w o Z a - > - o U - - - - _ ~ N N N N N N N Ot N O n co 0 N E u°. 7 °o N 0 T 0 L a GOB Ol C C O i w m c . m E c a Ea m a y m a C V a O a E y E c m wo c m dmc m.oy v3im o~oiOm -a m "de mE°Jnmi °m W mc: 3 m °oc¢m W O O O Y N a C d J m m V E a 0I > of N j m 0 pl 0 G O rn e c E a o m m S m y j . s c a E m m m u m e 0 m 0 C C N 0 m m O m E m 0 L 0 m 0 0 Y h W F-da OLL~~ 2> O. QI ? fnQJZ U woz=ZZ O y T N 0 W m m E m J 0 L 5 C V O ❑ N 5 U m a `p. d c N ' a jU ` c 0 m 7M E H E c N C m o o T c C C 'N a 0 N ry N c c ` w EE as yep m > U m>' E y ' ' L 'U N~ O > 0 . N m U Vm-t E> o m a m m6C 0d 0 m m e 0 E ~0~u m O. F ° E y o.o E 0.0 m a ~ E° m Q K y O 0 N O U N U 0 E O 3 0 t O ° vii m L m N m m i C m X O L a 0 E .0 a O m m ; m m c U m O F 0 0 0 O ' ° y 6 N 0 O a 0 m C m N 0 E m N ` m o>'E L E ° m - m n m 5a yyEy 00 E _ c mE a > t m m d m E .S c 0 c c$ E n¢ - w Fo °rE~ cm ° ' m Q~ p p o E23E 3'> m > m Q 02 €a d a 9 c L c° o T V E y wo ~L .x U >a 0 C a m C~ m N 6 d m C a p m ; O L O 0 L a O C J ,0 E w ° N L m H 0 m o - y m N m L c O Q d a d d N L U 0 m 0 75 N 0 m m "O y O a 6a U U U _ _N N O T 0✓ C !q 0 7 V 0 .a>- m 0 U `p N ~O O N C ( J y m L O m H L C> S a C 0 0 a N 6 f a m y f C y W ~ ~n in U m n ~ Q j N 2 "O r a ; > L N > m O a p) O O N T.` p m L c Ol > m C T 0 dd c ` y TQ 0 d UYU°C m y- tY-9 L a 0O C N? E co A m p_d~ 0 _ N OI N U > m 'U d m = m N m N m N V L y m 0 m U p' m N a N N m C 0 0 0 N N C J ° m 0 L 0 m E n o E o > d o t a m v m T U C ° 5 > Z m i C L N > O 9 Ol p- 0 0 m m C 0 >i U N O C N a- O Y L L m y m 0 BOLL 60 0.- U a 7 C N rN m (n p j. N m 0 Q 0 m ; N C N N 3 L' w v E ° ~ ma vv m m o c m>;a= ❑ C0 > - o _ m °'[0]-~C m ` m 75 m m0 ~Uy000 0 .0 -a > a n J °i 0 ~ m U m m O Y V C 0 .T. N ` 0_ O C m a . y d 0. N N O J a O O;s 0 V V C 0 Of p n O m C > U 0 O 0 0 0 O' a~ 9m V 0 a O _ 3= 7 O'- W a > c o 0 N aS > m.. c c > > T 0 w O E m m > ~ Esc mm O m.= 22 mE $0 mu 2c 0i 0 0L F"d pay tHmo ° ° cL am w~E G E a z a ° E c w a> ° m a Q u i U 0 0 M m 0 J L B U Ol m 0` = O N m N J (p C y J N m_ - O m a 7 0 a 0 m j pyj Q_ > O J C Q M VJ O U > O (A ❑ Z R-O ~ m N N N Q U M ^ m y m a n m m o ~ N a> K 9 y a a 02 - m O m w ac cm o-- F o m w am W gu m 3. o 0 ° 0=t z m 2 m Ay uy c 3: m y o m 0_ a ? 7 r 0 F' O OI v U N E U ''J m m Q. ` 0 N O N m a U U y i> U' °l ` E m N U -T. m a O C y N 0 y 0 p~ O - m .Z` m > y C ` C O O m N N N O U (0l .N C 4.l N t` y 0 m O O LL aJ(n O.O0 ❑Q= d-O.-N O.O. ❑Q=U1 fn N O a J a a a a v a ~ N N N ~ m N t'l [~J c7 a g LL N LL 0 N 0 a w or rn v. m m z w v .N 'o a❑~ o ¢ rc m o° am r CO) c m o m' m N ° w W N . o = U V m m m Y] m Cm c E~m d N 'E° W O 2~ f c E c . o_ m oam "m 0 0 0-~ 09 0 ry C O C 0 W m O d m d O W O L) C) D0 UCUmm L) C) UV _ . y TO.L.. L d a m N W Ol 0 c 3 "2 m = a c c U a O a N m m m p~ c c o m r "O w 0 ` L W W 0 0 m T E y'C C N J m U C m d p m d m T N a y` O Ln O N = m-o C C 02 C N N 0 N N ~°p ~ m2-C 0-> U ° mTL m Ol 7N0.~ - N d O a 0 -U m m N 0 NOt m V D ry` jm n N O y J 3 C y N d m c 0 W V N N= LJ 3 N p U N D E 3 0 m J W O N Z' N E 2 m' m °O ml E d mN EONNE ~ CC SNUB N0 m0 W'~NUN 2 N"°IN E?'~ UNmd mmt CGEWnaar -O ..m - ad Vd- O1 m 2= T mN 5 uc'u ~D u`mo Emw= N~ NZE U' Z d 0 3 m m O a A C 3'O 0 m E 0 > N m U N V L L .m ~ p 1 N O m m m W T N L D 0 L d C° 09, 0 F L m e° o m D d N I L d 0 0. ° a o 0 2" 0 3 - m d T 3 L d c 3 mY~L E D= m N LL p -T- 3 3 m E E d E 0 n a E d m L N am 0 m a r` U c E v ` C'-'Sl mm-m o m T cE j 0 C d 3 m W N d` t Q o a m m.m m"c `mcm~0 oc °mt-3 mc8 °00o 0 o m .-O N o$ w osd _ dd NmEoi Zf Q Nmmmi c.° E >s mm E2 m mm > LN c NmN 2` ' a mC N J N D- N C W m U m - C O N y O 0 U U L N J a j T a m C T U m 3 O 0 ° m T 3 m m ° N W V Ip U m i¢ J0 O H?-d d Nm= dm E oo DNE'Cm N W>a dCC tm CLa to =N» m~ w Na d E^ 00L> d m d m N d U m C N U U U y N U m a C : N d N L N` r O "N r N % Ld30S T~ " C_WOC OOa a m LO' °E CAP`- ` d 0 0d °i m. U Cm 0p1 "O m w ay mm~E rn cm L c~3dm >m c_ m• om E>'~ mT0 y m r cE > LycA ndE N%2 d m._ W- mL wt Em 0 LE nc ac ter.. Eyo d '°'mDmS c° nj'mCu 0Tm . mE=~ac.E m N . e m_ d o N p$ n- d"~ Eca m m ` .and p m=t-~ n m d 0 M d ` `0 3 o o ti > a n "m E o `o m E n m E a m a m'~ E m m d- D m m c m d' tO t L r c m o m m- o m 0 N T - C N N n U ° m T U 0 m d 0'C Ll 69 C Ol U d 2 W° 'y - N j D a 0 L. L d C C n O O N d a O C.2 2 N m N d C ~ > m U E C jC Ol U d "U W L Ln Eoomum-`~ ~3 a~mom % mmm o J N> oo~'~ac . > . n_c ~m J Nom m N O ❑ 6 2 t ~L.. U Wi 1, 0 O O (n S d C i N 0 X_ Q D m O m L m C U d O m y ❑ d a U 1C O L d L f a N L N a N O f v Q m r N W D O N O t0 ° N Y7 Q 0 N j R d C m C 0 0 N m 7 N TL' T N C O V ^.m~ m m 0 L w t E 3 u m d En C O m m N m d O~ J U d U N U ~ W d N C d 0d.` m C 3 L_ y 0 N N D (Yp ~ "Q yNj L-. 3 N N 0 J 0 d Y O L m p 0 d C C O r'N 4 6 N C O N'n U L N `G 00 D C C OL.. ~>°a L 06 0 o D door 3 = Nd- Y 3 0 0-6-- am a o c _ u a10Ey d nom C N N m'-~°°'m O 3-° V L 0 C O d C y U V i 3 n° m U C L ° N 0-6 0 m d C C U a m 'Y d 6 ❑ 0 . n 0 L N y E y 3 C m° L V O 0 ~ mr y o r° mud o y -ME N N 0 0 c °E E ❑ a o 'my ~aa m~ m m L N 0 - o - N % d d N o Y i 0 C Y m m E3 L O C m NC D m- d N m U d m D' N 0 M N G C r p yC D "52) 0 Q p -j d Ua 0' d'~ in t CC m N'yN an d C d 3 d d O d d N= U I a m N N O 0 a N d> C .5 U 0 O U L f/1 Z w o L< C a O C 2 0 ~ d E v L S N U C ° a 0 a O d N D C O 0 W O N O D N J 0 ~ 0 ry C O m O 0 C O) _ ^ 0 . d "C m 'C m d m o m E a"m ~ ~ cyEEm= V U = > O O t p U m N m Jm ^ I~ N ~N ~N M U m m a m Ss m m m m c m - 4 pl C ❑ V 2 T 0 d d p c a m m ° m Do T a m r m ° o in i. a °o 3 2 ' N.O. C C C m 3 L U `o v n2 0 `dm c'^ N mm m m K (/l 0- m 5~ > ~iLN U j j U m x m U n M °v s n LO m N O LL °o N 0 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • APPENDIX C - 0 MINIMUM THRESHOLD PHOTOGRAPHIC SAMPLES • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • . 0 0 Blight Indicators: "Minimum Threshold Standards" Catalog ANPA -Additian Not Permitted (Room Addition/Alteration, etc) ANPB- Patio Cover (or other minor construction) Not Permitted AS -Appurtenant Structure AEH - Apparent Electrical Hazards AB- Adult Business AEH-Apparent Eleetrieal Hazards 11 Blight Indicators: "Minimum Threshold Standards" Catalog FBW - FmcdBlock WO/Other outdoor waB structures FCM- Faulty Construction Materials BAR- Ban an Doors/Windows BO -Boarded Occopied BU- Boarded Unoccupied ESW - Exterior Structure Sapport Walls Blight Indicat • : "Minimum Threshold Standards" Catalog FH-Fire Hazard FND-Foundation FND-Foundation FO- Fractional Obsolescence (ad hoe change of use) FEN- Fenestration -windows, screens, doors FME-Deteriorated Firtares/Mechanical Equipment/HVAC 0 • Blight Indicators: "Minimum Threshold Standards" Catalog G - Graffiti D.D - Inadequate Loading/Docking Facilities IE -Poor Site Ingress/Egress (including emergency vehicle access) GC - Garage Conversion Not Permitted D.D - Inadequate Loading/Docking Facilities IEX - Inadequate or impaired access to Building Exits • • Blight Indicators: "Minimum Threshold Standards" Catalog DIP- Potential of Infestation of Rodmts or Insects i Imo' IP-Irregdar Parrd OV- Overgrowndimardons Vegetation IV-Inoperable Vehicles IV - bnoperable Vehides OPR- Obstruction of Public ROW J Blight Indicators: "Minimum Threshold Standards" Catalog OV - Overgrawu/Harardous Vegetation PSL - Poor Site Layont PDL- Presenm of Payday Lenders or Pawn Shops P - Paint-related issars PRI- Deteriorated/Absmt Private Infrastructure PQ- Poor Coustraction Quality/Cor eapted Steel/Building Type Blight Indicators: "Minimum Threshold Standards" Catalog R-Roofs R-Roofs SS - Secondary Structures PIII- Deterionted/Abseut Public Infrastructure Street, Curb, Parlong SCF-Security Fencing SD - Substandard Design (structure) • Blight Indicators: "Minimum UM- Apparent Unreinforeed Masonry • Threshold Standards" Catalog WP- Weather Protection UST- Unsafe Missing Stairways or Walkways • • APPENDIX D - BLIGHT THRESHOLD BY PARCEL THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • • The following matrix identifies by parcel number (left column) the acronyms (top row) for the 40 blight indicator codes and the values assigned to each parcel (more completely defined in Appendix A) used in the blight analysis contained in this Report. C THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK a ' ~'xp ppC~ ppN . ~ t x ? a a a~~aa aa~~~aa aasaa~ as SRRaaxx£E a asaz aaaaasa aaasaxax asasaaa aaaaaxa sa"aaa a xaaaa eases Fa a~n~he 5axaa~ea a aka""~ a a ~"a~ xa a 0 0 m ; i°m 1 m9 1 aaa~ aassssa a k HUSH R R ass ssssa~s sass"s°s~Benl ...seas aas~i~saa ~as..asass AMR ...seas seaaasa s saasaas ss~~aa°"lll mmm~m~m a~a~m~„a m mmm 0 0 Ask <0 4 .j I~ . a't V3. ' ° v e ? 1 ° 3 i to ° l Y t Ji 3 f ° . ° °e ~ Q ~ 3 I t I o o Y sj ; i ` Y X3 t~ ) ° 1 t I o ° °t 1 rI ry............................. o0 d 'S 1 F R ° ° ° l~i 1 CI E 0 ~ ! I Cun rv it rv rv k o ° 3 ry o 0 Y ft A r ° I Bt J ~ ° - J b A b # ! f 9°. i^ t Y L rv .4 Y' rv e e° 3 u rv n 3 rv S t Y t i 3 ° ° t 3d°~ I o°8 Lrvv ~rv a t1 0 0 e°aooao.o ° ° e t a ° a s s s s a x as ~a~ ggds sasaaa-assns` ~sssa s~~ss s asses s sasssssa"~as~ass a..s a sssassssasssa s - ^nsesesessasssssssseassssssssssssssesnassessasasssssrs 0 0 o p; ~ i ~ fl ~ 3 r 3 ° f I ~ o°" r ~ tf Y r ' !Y 1 o- ° y { t z i < F ~ ° ° a r~ Lt C~ 1 f~°: i I f 9 i °o ° ° o°° 00 0°°no 31 nh °a n 3 1 °f J P eoe O y, l e a R` L O S e o rv°p y' oao o e eo 3 e eoeeo r {°Ti r °ne v °eeoe nnnnee o ' e° - - eeo - ee ° °e - o° o°a . 0 ° o °a e 3 E n e ° e to °nrvrv ervenn _wo°o e 41 e°° eo °°°°o r E o o °n n°°o ° 5 ni ° 1 a s 1 1 C{ [ 4 t7. I ! t Y k 1 e 3 f t r a t~ ° n 1 ° f v + o ° ~ ~ rv 'Y wrv ~ e ° w y 3s t ° e en n n°°°°°. a F i °4~~ ~~r " " rv mamam"m~~m~~~ m~m~m ^mam^ m~m~a "'n ae_a aaa n,~ a:ee n~aa~n. naaa,~~na~e^r'ee~eae~~ae^e~e~~ 1 as h fl r i If ry e s ~ f t 4; f i 1 ~.f :!a ) u it ; P a$~I~s sa' - assansss ss $$$s sgg RRa RRRRR S~s RRR RR,~RR 8888855 588888B$ 8 88i eSe~ n30 eH3he3e~y~nSe~e~e~e~e 0 0 s1 , a . ° ° e _!f ? t ui tfe ~ t .1} 1o( - o ° - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 ° Slo v a JI Sr° ~I ~j {I Vf E 4 1 o is ajo ,.o _ oaoao°o 9 ° ? ° 1 1 W t f{ ill i 'Y f } o °}o ~ ii v u E e o r°'m° E s k° 5 a Y 5 to E o E ° 7 v; ° o• ° ° o'° 9 0 ° ° ° 21 x' ' a '..r 14 - v e 1 F 4,° 1 ° ° °a r1i c£ .o Y ij 1 t ry ° a 6 v } f ° S5- " A k 7 3 o a ~~a fi L<J SS o' 9 ° 5 r• 1 . ¢ M ij S. ty . q 1 tt ' { l 5 ? ao °i ' y ° } a 0 t t +i w}er'` f' I. , oonnnan nn a n ° ° t n t $ of ~t° t f' to o' a ~ eo 5 ~ $g~ ss8 Z,Rs ss , M 11121H a ms s sAa~~Bmmml 0 0 Am AOL ° ° 8;°f+ Srv y. R rF ~ iii i) T ]1 # ] ) _ _ I I 9°1 1 ° t = t r } a ° s u ° K, i +a t: ° ° ° t r e I° o ° + k. ccccce ° . r°s t ° . i° + o s rv °P ° ) ) $ ) a ~i 4, ° { ° t ° R R ° 3 -0 w u ~ ° ° ° _ ° ° _ ° { o ° rf ° ° +t J 67 ° ' ~ I . V a J z d; e<° ° s lm" ° I ~ ~ ) s 1 i al 1 rv. ° ° ° n l If + j 5 ~ t i T a 1 1 o............ e e f 1 f ] y1 i ~1 1 A f rvoe rv rv f o `I 1 ° °°°°°e f . e a a ° } 1 , e4 V, . . a f e ao *o = a oo~o oe F i 1 ] g g 95HH ~A88888 UH M $M 8 fi8~8 R 88 888E 88 8 88~~dmm ~ ~a 9m~~m~~dmammmm~~mmm~m^ mmm~mmmmmmmmmmmmmammmam Rmmmmmommammmmm~mmemommm RA. mm n~Chnheee~e`~688he~~`~6n3Fee.^on68 eF~nen6.~ho$nernpepp,^.eGe c 1 r 7 s, i .I ~ ~I s1 i ~ , ° ~ ~ r 'rv r , t Si= J E1 4, 3 }v . I= t ~ jo I ° o V 5 Y 3 4 ii V FVry Vry Q 9 2 q 1 lc) ° ..In o oo0 O Y ~ II J J S ~.o ° i o0 6 I I ° it rr °°°°=oR°o o ° ° ° °n n° lt.. L 1 i.. ° . 10 I ° e e+-~ e4 -.0- H. 0 5 ° ° O f ~M1 I _ 0 000 cl Z, J; S° t 4 ° tl JI T J 1. e ° e °°°e 5 M ° t: S I3 ° o J a I S `51, 3J i L } J LJ ° L ~ °nncooo o o e ° YI i ~ ' t ~ S i oo _ o°o ee a o o a g "L 4 ij fa °O oo{o s a s a$-s---------- s sssas a a~~~sassa~a a gRf Ra~Rol a R RRR RRARRR A AR R R R ARF~RRA a`~~ A~ R R3~e n3no3nn nn nne nnnnnn nnnnh 0 0 r „E v C3 ' i e" E 7 a 7Rn t u_ i t a,l y 7 r b 1 ° J ~ o "I 0.3 3 °_xr S ;°o - oR J e to a ene 15 n >r A T la y t le O $ e}9 v o . 7.1 ° ° u r ° to ° oo° o0 0 °O 1r s 1 ° 0 000°0 ,r o ° r r H ' moe e W ' i Y 01 ~ r z~ f o a) z Y q l 1 ~ ry 9 i ° r oo°o ooo °°°°o° o° ° ~ag$ R~RARR Rss a s~a~ ax as .a .Q A~~a~~amm$ E R ~R~m° mmammm°mmmA °°ARRRAA°R g o R mm ma Rd9gmmm°m Rmmmm R He -~0hnna~63`ri6`;~enn5.enenen^ne^oeeeer`rin~Aeneh eCeeee o3npnee~en~636«nrv Ah Ah t , %5 l 3' 71 8 ~ , t i7 ~ P~ 1 , n e{ l . . 1 ° e F Y 0 0 0 ° ° n Ali o ° ° ° ° ° p I fl ~ p )r dl e~{ f I 1' e l 4, Y } J ,Y t "Ni 1 5 .1 I ~ it a - - - Q f ~ ! o e e e t} 31 I Sf a Ll f > Y 1 } d 1 `I I ° c ° J Y ry { i ° I 1 ° ° 0 1, oR° 4 „ ° . ` ~ ° , , 1 e ~ e ° ° s . < z' a o° ~o o ° ° o ll ~ e y 5 ° 1 ° ° . e or . . 3 zj: ° ° { 1 1Y Y' l : 1 1 S , . ( 0 0 0 o . ° _ A d &5 ti -1 t l ° Ml A e o e °o° < w ~ ~ r 4 5 k_ t v o o- t a y g gg 3 5 W1m11RR R~.RI R SS~B~~ ss ~assss~ -eR-R R"R 8888~8$8v8e88~8 ~~~~~I S ~~A R R"RRRRRRRR RR~R R .,~~,R RR~ , R Sa Eem°=mm%bm aZm, _ hie _ ne° ° ° l 0 0 r-1 Ago, t d Y f . ! 1, w 9 I . 3 e ° °p ml o l I °5 P c h _ _ a= _ ° rya \ I r R a _ 0 ' _ ~ o _ _ °eO°°°°°°__ r 0 1 3 - a . r ° } r ° 1 _ r r=rr n====ry ry ry n I Kj i t ° o°° ===ee 1 1 . so° ; r t ° ° °o°a 5 =-"aes v`a saaa~ssseaosso?oss"asaoa"aa~s~sss s"I•I°sa$soooss 9$ssss~ o~ e . = o ,a °amaaaaasmma aa=m Na°a°s=m°aaaaammaaaasxssmaamaammammaammaxmamamm =m~mmm esam msmsssmmsmsas~emmesssmnmm~smsmsmem„„e 0 0 Ah r 38 ~ ~ ~ ~-~R aNsN as ° 1~ E v C £ r , . ° ° °tk ,_{b a { ° t ° ° ~ F ° o 0 o { °f e { 0 ° e O ry ° ~ { Oe ° ° oi J I R t ( e R 00 R o °°°°o°o o o 0 00 °°oo v ° ooo.~ _ 0 0 0 0 ° o000 ° i oo ° ° n d ° ; k:° °°e a e m o a S, i k~ f eee N ° ° ° Y . e e Z ~ g ' r ° ° fm . 6 °ob , e( A Se o° °ee ~~ass ~ s~~ arias a----- aaaaaasa sa°a aasaaaasea°se^^^a nas g ~ aaa~~ s as as ~ as a ~sg aaa$$ ~~a a~~ $~nam ~~ss~~~~sa ~ °ah~~e~enene~°s°nenr°n ea°he~rngnenne.,n„peesasaeaeaesasehe 0 r z ~ ke F~ 1 ~ ° =I z o s t + 0" - 1 r 1 - ° e 0000""""" .t o' 0 , Milo I: . ~o . °p°° x * tj ° ~n C . o ee o...... e o o na n.°°eeoenno a c o o' > o° ..0 T kt .0000 o 0000 PIZ ~.oF. a .o ° o00 ° m o . 0 000 0000 000.00 0°=°° =a°= ° .o _o_oo.o «00000 O ; Q 1 F o °oo.............. _ A 1 M1 ``o Y e o°°°° al ooa ooao 1 r 1^i ° ° k t'. _ 15 ° a < ° s s - `""m°°seeaaR^Ra°aa"as Rnn~ ~a aaa~na "°°n° nnn nnn ~an~eneah~n~~e~ 0 0 A ~ is Y r 4~a ~ r f y. i ~ i ti a R r R'R . ~ to e ~ y sC ~ - 1~t 3 I° F o ° c} j veto } ° ° o V 4 f o ° ° o ° 3 o °o 55 a i yo ° o e o o o ee° oRR.°e'° °e°e°°o°o°°00000 °=o RR o°o°o°°b°a°° '°R,.=R°°RRe°°°o°R °°°°°°oo°°o ° r Y o e °o o°oo0 0 a'o . _ o o°°oo.................... r° o ° ° ooo°°°° c o000 i F e e ° t ` R Z~ ° °o o°°°o f °I ° o A o n o s 13 ° ° r o aI° a o ooo F1 1° z < +n 0-0 4 n eeon o°e < Z ° ° o° e l , t u < o y (i ,f asyX"as2yapXy3X ~s xa asp $ss as--s"s_s-a_---s"s_ esaas--~aa~~aaoooaa Uffi ffi affil-SHIM~sm aaI a°m. --sammsmRasasmsmsxaxsommR`a~aa"""smmmsaR ° ssa °ns°a °e~e 0 0 ,X x t vIR^ 'f: ° r ft .9 ! 1 o I 3 E~ ' a e_ I' o ° Jo ! t I° t- f ' A~ t T ° 4 >i w}° F! ° o t _ o ' o0 00 s ° o M1 ° - i ~'t 1° J 4 i y j ea°° ~5°i 4 G S '.1 a R~ I RR°ee oRoR °Ro oR f! Jio ° ° ° I J° , ° ° 5a t - - ° °o -A A y'° 1 f.° 5. ° l° ° f''° s , c° a f x° } o .ice cF . 2 t I . i° ° ' ' c° f a 3 ' i ! c, ! ° { f3 i 9 s?° f i. rl ° f J ! 1 9 ° 1T n k V° 7 t f r + now wn i P 4 f o ! o °o _ as t t° 4 i r f e t ° ° a °f..° gV a 4 f - g g - _ ss_aaoo"s_s_"s_s_e~'a_a_a_aBa$ oo sum SSS82888~1 ave8 ~ d2 28° a J§Rlzaaaa gm-sass----------- ------------------sass-------ssmasas asOOs~as~~° - naaaaeeea^„a°a°aaa~~°aa°aa°ene„~°ae~e:°en° °°°n°°° °e° ea 0 0 3 1 AY C 4'. p . N 3 M1 s',° I° S t R• a e A I~ '4 i e x v F r o~ ° o j ° °L ° 3 ~i 1 O° . ca A ry.: ~ 1 LJ ] f~ t a A ~ f c.ft ti f A M .h ! c, O a a i °Y :n 'It } e a - eA e° d °o°° R° ° .No ° A ` e; ° r ' r o rry° ..o a o ° 0 0000 0 p o °°a° ' x °e 'o e - °°o r e o0 F e }JO L e ° 0 1 p 1 f h 4= ° 6{ .c{ ooh * a o t° t ° 0 } I3 A ~f ~ ° e I3 c e. ° :y cc°e J A N4' ` ~ Jirv 'fin°~ 9N°.S ° Q ye . of ' coos e t t ~ vI° S 4 ° { . 06 6 i ~ VP° y sl glh 600aa4 aaa$~i58 a ~s s~saa ~~~~aa s as aaaa~s~ asH H H SH .s f`g a~~~~~~E~~s~~~~~~~s~~~ ~~~~~„aea~~ s a°aa Aft F- --I ' i ' r t r, z x o c ° J o v e 1 0 v ~7 ° t } 1 000 , c a io 1 µ aau °v va vo c ..1 o cc°e ° v _ o r " . U O o=o Y ofo a e o ooca o eve coa oo vv v e o ooa °v I v Y v evc oovv u~ a c oov a ooooa ° a ve cc oa o° - v ' v~ 3 o ev o a v ease aoc co ~ v f. ervn see v n w v ' v vee vve o ve e a ev o I~ v e oa va ( ` ` U _o 04 0 0 oooao 00 3 e 1 1 e 3 e ea 1 h d Y o C f f ' see ~ 'R v ° v t ° ° " ° 0 E ' ° ° , 3 .a r t a a ° x v°v ° . , . n. ° ° < 1 E . 88 8 E8S b"8 388888~R RRRRRA B MA ~8 AV, ° G~~3h RRR8G~6~G~e~6~9ho8RRy~~RRRRNe°~noar8 n~6~3n Gn e~6n°Gehen^o3aa6m„ a f i = r R R }n m ° ° q t 3 \ . {i ° i a ;Pi ~N ° - ° mrl ri ' m _ I ' e mm°mmmm~m on nno i~ nY Y a'a m ~m c o° o o°o o e ee Q eeen...... Q 8 a o ° _ g 1 ee m aoe eee V I oo mee oo° I 1 oa 1 y A t 1 1 S - eases ec O ~m eece.......... T 9 ° ° o a 0 fG ~ S r 71 t: t x i s mm I i m I3 3~ °d a i 4 f m ° ° a s e' o t ee a °aoe 1 aka"s ~ s ss ss~ ~a$ssaa aaa~~ ~a~ ~~sa~~s~s so`s "ss~ma^^ ~sa~g s~ a as m asaa a ssaR s seas ss~"aRasgs ^maamaaaamammmmmmaaamnaaaamms°aaaaaaaeaam~$aommm~3mmmm~0mmmammmaammeas n N 3 2 °i: a + o° + - - it 1~ a 1 { o 0 n as A4 ~l Is s 71 ° o ,.s Is oooo°a o0 0°° . o° z " nn ~ { a °o°n°°°°°o°°n°°„o°°° o °C°°°°°°°°°co°°°° .o° _ °o o° °°c°° ° ° °o°°rv,.° p°°°o la o °oo°oo 3° S o °o o°ono °o. r° o°o°o°. e 3 c ° ° ° ? a o a c ° of 5 f1 ; y °'x 4 I° o rvnrvnoon °°a oo „ °o no 0 0 w o°oa°° ° P, s is oa 0 °°o a @-sas$gga_-$° _ g es Rea s s9$ss^ g -$sssasns----------------- anss~~~~~1ss~~~~ rv ssso- s s m sas s~ as a . ease x as aaa as°a°°aaaaaae 0 $ °°s~ os . ~ msm~s.~aamssaa H~aasmasa~msamm°smmmH ~0 ~~mmamsa~a~mssas~~mmmmm~~mm 0 0 Ah ~ k t t L ` R AF o f1 l ~ f A a G~ 1 } > e i ] 1 x ° 1 . 1: $ s vi 1 " 1 4 *9 1 ~ . .1 1 'n S a ° ° cl' x r ' i o 1 j t : ! is ato t o{ 5 ° Y .5 ° . } o 4 O ° 5 t , p 0 0 ° 1 ~ 5 CF O a j VT. Y ° I o ° o , 1 r r l ° R oe,° o { o 0 a :r iN • 0 0 • APPENDIX E - 0 SUMMARY OF BLIGHT CONDITIONS • THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK • i 4 c 3 btyr S ttrn 1\ w xoew ! I i 1 xeu+r Y nx.•i g ' f ~ ~^te l ~i Y - I .~~r-7emry -y.r t~ r l I 5 o ss ~ 1 rw.. ~ g J 4E B ¢ 2 -.i 13 - E 4 7 2 r x. S 5 h W ~ •6 W Y ; moon ertaw W ,Z. ~tutxvx w.rmo uvun came [crow wmuontl`\~\\ woman t~ -zip I"' r en r.. q l t rt.. 1 I 4 E! I. 1 „0. I a n I-- _ `II`I I I I: I . _.~rt I I I I SARA' I i Rosemead Community Development Commission PROPOSED MERGER AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NOS. 1 AND 2 APPENDIX E SUMMARY OF BLIGHT CONDITIONS neaaer.um Sereirow~ruus r. xa en. ta> sa.Q. act a ns.....a om oa PA n.. r. A tooo soa o fnoo LEGEND C~ Rosemead City boundary Freeways Railroads Resemead Redevelopment Pmjed t Project Area No.1 rn Pmjed Area No.2 Cumula0ve Blight WeightN (CCRL Section 3303L(a)&(b)) [-1 0 1-9 C 10-19 0 20-39 O 40 or Above - • APPENDIX F - APPENDICES DESCRIBING ECONOMIC BLIGHT THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK u j . . 10 0 APPENDIX F-1 CENSUS 2000 POVERTY LEVEL HOUSEHOLDS AND POPULATION PROJECT AREA NO.1 (SOUTH PROJECT AREA; ROSEMEAD,CA Project Area No. 1 City Of Rosemead Los Angeles County Households and Poverty: Share of Occupied Households At Or Above Poverty Level 75.2% 80.9% 84.9% Below The Poverty Level 24_8% 19.1% 15.1 % 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Family Structure Of Poverty Households Non-Family Households 3.9% 2.8% 5.2% Married-Couple Family Households 11.1% 9.8% 4.8% Single Parent Family Households 9.8% 6.5% 5.1% All Households 24.8% 19.1% 15.1% Indexed Against City 1.30 1.00 0.79 Indexed Against County 1.64 1.26 1.00 Household Population And Ratio Of Income-To-Poverty: Population Living At Indicated Poverty Ratio Under 0.50 9.2% 7.9% 8.0% 0.50 To 0.99 17.1% 14.9% 9.9% 1.00 To 1.49 15.6% 15.3% 12.0% 1.50 To 1.99 14.1% 12.0% 10.1% 2.00 And Over 44.0% 49.8% 60.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Age Structure Of Poverty Population: Share of Population Below Poverty 26.3% 22.8% 17.9% Indexed Against City 1.15 1.00 0.78 Indexed Against County 1.47 1.27 1.00 Age Composition 11 Years and Younger 24.6% 23.9% 27.3% 12 To 17 Years 12.5% 13.2% 11.0% 18 To 64 Years 54.7% 57.3% 56.2% 65 Years and Older 8.3% 5.6% 5.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Alfred Gobar Associates. Rosemead Ez ibifs Values 7-081/29/2009 I i I I I Ili I I I Ii I ! i ! I ll I I ~ I I I I I I i I' I I ' I I I i I , I li i I I I I ~ I I I I I l i ~ I I I I lil I I I I I I I i I I I I i , ~ i i I I I I I I I i o aa) o - z E V O - i N U C O 0 Q ' I v o ® I I I 0 0 N cn m a cU W ~ p Z w W F- fA ~O W o ' OQ aw Qa LL Z 0 W X- 3 a<W Z ? d aax Qa~ LL O O U) Z~ Op N Z R' Q aCL to 2W OQ U o V oW CD " NO rj) w =a U) Z lL U rn ~ m ~ 0 o ` v S o ~ r O T O O ` O w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ tOD 40Y V PO') N O O ¢ LL NouvindOd :10 9NVHS • • APPENDIX F-3 CENSUS 2000 OVERCROWDED HOUSING CONDITIONS PROJECT AREA NO.1 (SOUTH PROJECT AREA; ROSEMEAD,CA Project Area No. 1 City Of Rosemead Los.Angeles County Tenure Of Occupied Households: Owner Occupied 43.5% 48.8% 47.9% Renter Occupied 56.5% 51.2% 52.1% Occupancy Of All Households: 0.50 or less occupants per room 22.8% 26.1% 46.2% 0.51 to 1.00 occupants per room 32.0% 33.4% 30.8% 1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 17.2% 16.3% 7.9% 1.51 to 2.00 occupants per room 14.3% 12.7% 7.4% 2.01 or more occupants per room 13.7% 11.4% 7.6% Overcrowded Households 17.2% 16.3% 7.9% Severly Over-Crowded Households 28.0% 24.1% 15.0% Indexed Against City 1.16 1.00 0.62 Indexed Against County 1.86 1.60 1.00 Occupancy Of Owner-Occupied Households: 0.50 or less occupants per room 31.4% 37.5% 58.0% 0.51 to 1.00 occupants per room 34.7% 35.6% 28.4% 1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 16.3% 13.8% 6.2% 1.51 to 2.00 occupants per room 9.7% 7.3% 4.3% 2.01 or more occupants per room 7.9% 5.8% 3.1% Over-Crowded Owner Households 16.3% 13.8% 6.2% Severly Over-Crowded Owner Households 17.6% 13.1% 7.4% Indexed Against City 1.34 1.00 0.57 Indexed Against County 2.37 1.76 1.00 Occupancy Of Renter-Occupied Households: 0.50 or less occupants per room 16.2% 15.3% 35.4% 0.51 to 1.00 occupants per room 29.9% 31.4% 33.0% 1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room 18.0% 18.7% 9.6% 1.51 to 2.00 occupants per room 17.8% 17.8% 10.2% 2.01 or more occupants per room 18.2% 16.8% 11.8% Over-Crowded Renter Households 18.0% 18.7% 9.6% Severly Over-Crowded Renter Households 36.0% 34.6% 22.0% Indexed Against City 1.04 1.00 0.64 Indexed Against County 1.63 1.57 1.00 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: Alfred Gobar Associates. Resemead Exhibit Vatues 7-08 112912009 O 0 o O z E U (p N N d O N ¢ o O ¢ d p "T w a 0 ~ 0 0 I ~ li I ~ i !I ~ III I l it Q U ZQ CL 2 nw VO 00~ O ' 0 Q O ui 2 M wQ fA LL O W n z0w w Z o. a0= a(n i- QRO L c G T UZ oQ oW N U) Q D to U ZW W n v 0 m a I 0 o e e e o o 0 0 0 0 In a C coif N N LO O O O SOlOH3snOH 30 3MVHS 0 E `0 H r 0 LO 0 0 0 Q' W a y F- z Q IL U o U 0 0 w LL1 0 N N d O O u7 O m w E a w Q 0 z 0 co z CD D 00 N Q 7 L O O Q (n Q w Q d' as of O Ln U W K O S Qd a LL, V) P Q w o Z Z Z N a O } Z U a z w a U Q > F J U w Fa- O W a D w 2 w y O w 0 T u r w o 0 0 A A f~ LO r V a1 fl r 7 7 6) O O LL7 V m t LL LL} ^ M m o m m V C y N LL N N N N N N O Q d) m a Q J LL LO M N r O O y 0) W C) W O 00 00 _ a m r N r N Cl) 0 C m m m O) M L) r 0 m O IL (D d 0 0 m O - (n C N C' tD O m O C r al CO CO r r N N d (a O LL _ C r Lo Ln y m al y v 0 U a T C. w C a) Q J J m d U U C a) w v a) m d d V L L 41 m al C) Q a) C LA LI'J Q N r- - a O) C m c L c~ a 0 C a1 Z fA J ~ I 0 Z • m r c r w` E tt } U QU C.) z >a U Q> U co Fx o ON N N LL = O X}.z a W Q -J LU W J w a. < QWU W op O Qa: CD a Z U) Q = cnU) N W W > 0 a m ` m r v o 0 ~ o Z ry E c E o U m m U) a 3i U U) .0 W O` a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m ui ui v vi 91VN AONVOVA 0 .~o 8-01 0 0 0 N ~ O LL L C N n n O L 8002 n m m Oti LOOZ a x W O£ LOOZ E m 0 OZ LOOZ O L LOOZ Ob 900Z O£ 9002 OZ 9002 O L 9002 Ob SOOZ O£ 9002 OZ SOOZ OL 900Z a c0 _d Ob b00Z a d Y O O£ 4002 d U OZ ti00Z w x OL b0OZ 2 5 U) • 0 Z P N H_ . N OO Z 422 WO QU H H Z r; w ~ LL 0 LL xQ, W pa0 Z I aQN IL W J Q Qya' OSW LL CG LL G OO V J v~ W w J v' O cc J Q F- = w ~ U Z N W O m - ' Z. f r W O W U Q F- _ U U` W W Z of J CL D G El F ' ~V k k 1 ~ N ~ k hM1 A ~ p F rof 1 C mx FL• y 2 d~ k 3 f 5' 1 o e o e 80- N N O N O M M N N I SINON33HOIS AO 3UVHS o e N O I!el9ld uoN m ~euoissalo~d U t` anilowolny SaoinlaS ia4lo aiedaa 5901 J96 leuoSJad 0 m 2 N 0 d m m m U na9MOEUS -6ui~uuo -6wuia awoH keooao g pooj soiualaal3- saoueilddV -ajnliwnd Grua g aspyow va -AlleioadS soot's -1ajeddV 2 O a U LL VJ 5 U a. O f7 w 0 co U) 3: Q OZ LL fn O J J Do QQ LL u) L) X d Z F-W W aWU) Q J O LL LL O CC) o (J NN • N m N ~ m N d o ~1] C'l a e m ^ 0 ~ 01 r 0 m Of N 0 N N D m r Oi o n m tG e M O of F O m a Z m o x m m O O 3 m 0 0 J ~ O O O t7 O ° N V r m K 3 Q ° ~ N O N r t7 O m ~ C ^ (m0 m ° N L 3 a m m ` m E Z 0 m m U U N y O (7 O O m e n J C m O N U ~ m a ~n ~n ~ r N o, m m m ^ °a o vO rn o a o° no x n n n r n N a rn _ m CD Cq m L o o a w m - I 0 m d d r a io u E m n h m m ❑ m K c E m C y O a m m m S U m o 0 a n m m In n a p J m ^ m o r r ~o m co v r r~ 2 m S m m a n W of m r QI w m T N fA n N N N N N C m L J J _ 3 U W D m rn 0 a m o m 0 2` N m o m m p N m w N ~ m m - ° n n m = m ° m o C m ~ ~ o h II O y m ~ i0 ° N E ° ' 2 6 n m E t m o E - a °1 i m E .o N N n J m o m y Q Q n ~ _T N m Q w w o c J 0 10 E `m m N N 'O m r m N O C m m m O m U Q ❑ L E N m ` 0 (o O m O d 5 ° m N m N m J ~ E 10 m ~ 'm m m w rn 0 m m ~1 o o c J m to m - 0 Q 2 ` m o u c ° `m m m a s m m a O m m m m N a v n m m Q (D ❑ , d W x m Q rn 0 Q Z m U to w w` E K • O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL « y It co M G M M, m N n N y M V N V 7 V 4 c+i l: Ld C N Q y N O Z Q W Q F- L) a) W LL n X oa W p aQ Q W uj W O z LL O U v v ai o0 (C o0 00 00 00 00 0 00 00 ' CO C M M V NO C O 0° m N m L) fn O ID A m IY w LL L m N N C 3 OI Y R O R O O O O O O O O O d5 m d ~ N a ' C) C C M co 0 CO 0 0) Lfl M m U O O O OJ of - co U) a N M L w m ° U a n " N7 E E U) > U O m m H E a U 0 0 o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 m e ° U w O a O M h O O d' O Cl) aD M 0 c o M N O CD Cl) O W O N M N O ° c e' R 0 o m o m In O d a LL o O m m c ~ o O O N r N O O Lf) N E N o N P.- 0) 00 co O I-- LO N N LO CO 0) M 00 (D O ° ' _ N LO LO N N m N ,C y U. al LO O (O a) r f` r N (V co V) ° c m U b m M V 7` t!) N co co n . a R O i f v o CL > F fA w ° m N ° m - O o c o 0 0 o a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 ' ocnv ovv n o s o a d w 0 4 ) LO Co O O r- m ° R QI E T ~ O c U) c ~ (n m a > ' m y ° ~ m L C O^ O 0 IT _ O 'V f- w ~ p I- M cO I c 5 ° Y O y m y O Y ~ o y c m m U o c a c m E ~ c m m j y C R p p m n m 0 0 ; q E N d 3 N O ~ YI a) - O U N Q L Y c m a_ i m 'ul ( N > wo u V c m T p N d > Q ° m C R T d p LL > Q 'O t E m m Q y a) C O) Q co y r d a1 U R C R R 7 ca E 7 Z v s i6 ❑ y O U) 75 3 m C E U) Q) y y M- R p > .2 m a O co O r 0 N ~ R W~ y y ° s ° w y U N O R R N a) 'O y H y ' 12 C to 0 0 a) y co Cl) U) y L m C U :0 ' `m " y C m O R a C W r w d O O R C U) Z a) u Y to m m n 00 w y t m 2~ L m o N 0 N L •O OLm + do c C a) m U v w + U O y a N a R LL tYi Ili a) i ui c a t 2 E m d a U U C C d p p p U rn Y p m u y C "m 7 C , L R m C d m Q V a) O N .R 3 c u N R p 2 If n E WU + v) U~ dO y~ °I LL m C Z NZ0 OF Z N a0 wa a0 ~U LLOa oavi J CL U CL W a W W N 02 ce O LL U Od UW 0 w J w Q Q W J Q zZ W a a 0 0 U) w f¢ E3 13 U Ilela2i uoN m -leuoissaloJd U u angowolny U Z m m Sa~INaS` ~a410 m -~leday m E Sa~WaS` y leuosJad 0 naeMOeuS -6uhluu4 -6ulwa awoH tiaoaJ I m V Pooj y m U m solu0:13913- saouellddV -amllwnd 6nrua g aspy0IN •ua -laleloadS saoys -laieddV A N N r O 33VdS O3ldnooo do 3HVHS 0 O U a w CL w o: O F- U) rn 0 0 N N O LL x d °n 6 0 d a L w a m E m ~ I LL X of z W ai Q . • o 0 0 0 0 o a v o O O O~ U ~ N ~ m C C a N t fi N (O D ( V m ? Y O U) _ O ~ d N D O O O D O m 0 O m m d N V N N N C C ~ N C C r W o- C (O CD N N f- V 1~ I I (6 (y V~ C11 m m I- co C^ mK C C (n 0 N O oD ED i~- N O m C ^ C G m C m ~ o L o I _ t9 N r ('7 M M O O I~ O 0 M N C N C C A A Q m m (D O f~ m (0 N E co » N N M N m m N V> C C L ~ O N I ~ co o ..oo.. \ \ \ o (V a L N N O m m t mo 0 ( m O m O C ~ > O D) m N I~ m O m m V O O 0 - a j n 2 Q D U) y e e o 0 0 o a o o N o 0 C O N m O m N O N M C I~ D O m n m m m o m m V d L (n N O U) co 'O LL CO (h o m N n W co O N y N m (D O m N N N O. O m N N V m V N m m m ~ N V U m V ~ 0 (7 m ~ m U M O p O (/7 y m N m m f~ r N -IT W - 0 O _T U > N 67 N U N O y 1 2 co ca CD m U 2 C (n N s 2 U O y N a o m n E N y U 3 C y ayi ran a m _a) ❑ E L L t O W= N U CO O > U d _ J Q o a) CD E Q L U 05 C Ol O (6 y C U C7 ~i LL LL LL M Q of 0 A m m 3 C N m O `m `o a m c y E m m m 2 J ry a V C m U L ~ N y ~ L° E m m m , C L m 0 O V 0 a m m a m E d m a ' ~ m " m y 6 ~ d d n o m m R 1 c m. o c o m m 'm m e° m o U n 5 o m L U C C d J e m m U W E N m m c m ~ m T L E m a a o E m m ° °1 E m ° D U ~ 3 U a m ` m m o m mc n m ~ 5 = a Q N a ° m ~ L m I`- ~ 6 m m L ~ m m fJ OI U N d d z m > m O L U y ` °m m N ` m m c v U L E L 'H a o 3 o o c c m c m ~ m L N L t m y L 6 2 m am c m E ° ❑ m L O m m D N fL cC N 6 Z 0 N N 4 X C n m 0 v a w m 0 Y a 2 U Z w m N c; Z N a J w = LL ao ~x w a X0Z a0. Z w o w U a 0. UJ w~ NO OLL ~w LL w `y0 a 1 N w C.) -J N U Z F- U) R w • Y a U Z w m co O O N J a N O cq R ~ r r O O O 30NVWH0=11J3d S31VS (33X30NI O O N O O O • an!lowolny 10913-Iddy-wnd a6eJ9nas g )!oeuS N O Z m d lsab OAS PI-1 < U d 'o a c lsaa OAS Ilnd N L E tiJ90OJ0 g pool a pelaa snoeuepaos!w a U 0 U l6 9Je0 IeuosJ9d-y11eaH y °o c d L `o sajo1S u!O-!q!epadS U a 0 c 6n~0 aspya~aW 1e~aua00 a~ N tV L C O tisooy-saoys-saylo10 L a m 0 N O Z m 0 0 N m N N LL a m n n m 0 n' m a r W E 0 • 0 APPENDIX F-13 INCIDENCE OF POLICE RESPONSE - CITY OF ROSEMEAD FOR EXISTING DEVELOPED AND VACANT LAND -Land Use Classification Existing Land Use Acreage Non-Aaric Distribution Share Of Share Of Acreage Response Calls Per Acre Of Land Use' Residential 1,758 67,7% 69.6% 25.91 (Res. Dist.) (Res. Dist.) SFD V-Low (0.5-2.9) 20 1.1% 0.6% 13.34 SFD Low (3.0-4.9) 501 28.5% 19.5% 17.78 SFD Mad (5.0-8.0) 1,081 61.5% 73.8% 31.11 MFA Med (8.1-14.9) 100 5.7% 3.8% 17.34 MFA High (15-35+) 41 2.3% 1.7% 19.34 Mobile Home Parks 15 0.9% 0.5% 15.34 Commercial-Retail Commercial-Office/Prof Svcs Industrial/Comm'I-Mfg Institutional Civic/Administrative Educational Hospital/Congregate/Etc. Developed Open Space Public Parks/Playgrounds/Etc. Private Parks/Grounds Golf Courses 291 11.2% 20.1% 45.30 106 4.1% 3.9% 23.90 83 3.2% 1.6% 12.35 310 11.9% 4.5% 9.47 25 1.0% 0.4% 9.47 Natural/Passive Open Space Hillsides/Canyons/Etc. Other Passive Use Areas C i rc/Ag r i c. /Drainage/ Etc. Vacant/Undev. Properties Land Use Totals 0.0% 0.0% 52 2.0% 0.0% 0.01 25 1.0% 2,649 100.0% 0.0% 0.95 100.0% 24.72 Note: Estimate of existing land use based on the total acreage calculations given to the consultants by Hogle Irelmd coupled via Google Earth aerial photography. 2 Describes the annual incident rate of police activity generated per acre of land use activity based on a total volume of 65,475 responses to 44,082 unique incidents, including multiple responses and officer initiated responses during the 12-month period ending July 2008. Source: City of Rosemead; State Dept.of Finance; Hogge-Ireland; Alfred Gobar Associates Rosemead Exhibits Values 7-081/29/2009 • C~ a Qm~QQQ o o m nr rr r mv~ m NM mo°N m m mr.-min ~n n rn c~ Qa QQ Qarm o m rQ om r `o E o min m [7 r n 0 m N Ih ! m m OI 0 OI O Q O O O Q In N' m N _ m N ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ Q N r N N h U c K n V O1 Cl Ql N f'l m O h~ In ` m 0 O N N N Q m O Q Q Q T n C t7 m W m 01 O m m N m n r n n O m m N m jn O m n M m N M .N o n ro m M 0 co cc of o 0 0 0 0 o ai n v ax o ~m a Q N n m m m °I 0 O OI t7 0 N m m 0 m m O Q ~ M mm M n m m m mmmm m.-Q mQQ o Q om m°mm N ' m O~ m O n m N Q Q Q Q Q Q N O O O O O O m O ~j j N Q W ~ Q U) O U) m m 0) Q m m m m N N N N N m 0 Q m (7 m O Q m Q W N m O O Q W m 0 Q N m O O O O m Q m Q m CI O O Q 0 pm n Qnmm~Q N n N (h M Ci ti NM"O O 00 NOmn Z U o~ o Q Z J W Q m m m ~~II~~ Q Q N Vl m m In Q N U7 LJ 47 U7 C9 m m N M W M N N N O M' Q y a N m N N m Q QI N 1n tp N In W O n h 0 0 m m N M O r O W Q n Ln m m m m N M r 0 tp 1° In VJ 0 N O O O O O Q N n C) [O 9 0. n m O W J U m O O O O N M m O r ^ O O O O O N O N m m m N m n Q N N c_ W J m m m O m m m M O N N N N N 0 0 M Q Q Q M C] 0 OO 0 m m > O 0 Q 0 O N 0 In N 0 Q M M M M M n O O O O O N 0 N r pj m 6 wa LL Q 9 N m' Nn m ' 0 r rn O Q Q m O Q N 0 H Z D r m O m M r Q Q Q Q Q Q n r M O Cl N r O O N M O Q! m r 0 ~n Q Q r Q ' ~ C'I Q 0" O D) 0 N n N ~ W O M N Q N N N 0 N N m LL Q O N 0 In m N N Q Q Q 0 m 0 i° 0 M a V J m m l(J N N Q O m M 0 0 0 0 ~ m m m O N Q N O N ~ ~p O QI m r _ Q Q ~ O) M O a ^ m N ^ r N 4O 10 m ~ O O O O O N 0 N 0 N N QI ~ N 'Q d ~fJ x m 0 Q M Q N m N V] 0 0 0 0 0 p1 ^ M M M M N N 0 M N O r y a N l[JN Q 00 0 n 0 N N N N N Q N N N N O n oo mn m mm LL I- U o < Q r Q Q M O m N N N N N N N O O O O O N Q N Lo 1() cal C ry X_ W M > J N m 0 p p= O H W o m Nmm nv mm Um c Qo mmmm m: mqM °o<mN W Q n m mo0oi 00 0 V Mao ui~ o mi rm Nuio~n Z a d x Q m Q m O O OJ Q r m 0 n N n m m m m m 7 Q N Q Q Q , N r 0 O M Q q O LL j 0 N N r N N Q M n M N N N N N M O O'O O O M N N H V L a m ' `m U) O m M N m vmi E LU IX m Q inn m Q n nnnn o QN cy nm o m o m m mm m o m Nm Doom n nN d' O a n ~0 ro d of r rr r o 0 0~n Nan in m LU m ° O= m 6 ~~C m m m o o 6 036 °m°mmm U m mrm ai 0 ci v V o non N~QN a c a F U N E > 0 a m O a a O) N 0 m 0 0 m Q Q Q Q n m m O m n n p v N Q r m N M N M n M M , r O 0 O m O m N Q a W y m 0 N`O O m 0 0 0 0 O O Q Q N~~'. m Q ~ LL n a- p m Z m o a m m Q N m o o N m m m m m m M M Q Q Q n n Q o m o m o_ O Q N Q 0 0 0 n m N N N N N Q N M M M N M N O Q Q 0 9 U O m m n Q n Q Q n O In N N N N N N N O O O O O N m N Q m Q) m m Z m 0 m 0 (q a a w n Nln m in Q m mmmm m QM mmm m M mm rme~ nQ m m U m m~ .N n O N 0 " N" ^ Qm 7 O n0 OQtmnrn E m p N V N N (G M - 0 0 COO O O N N N fV 0 Z N K o G O m 'C T N 'y~ y _T m QI O m N U y m C C m is ¢ m° U L` v~o o'_C? w w y n m N a~ mQ'~Q¢ r o io p V `j. ` t° m m y D N.U. 'a- 0" E 6] o m E m m m° C w m U U E o m E o D o m = m m ~ m m N m~ o~ m m w° m m m m~ m E U > O p - E y m~ ✓l y c i d 7` M> m Y U m` m m pLL~-Qu¢.o O E .Smo v.sy >m'y a ~Q 9 ~cc m~ y LL~/](nLL~~ ° E cU p m m 'yU y m m m_ t0 co In U ` U C¢ wo D d m 0 m m d A C J J O N m m m C R ° o .Q m 0 U C D J' - m m m O Q C m m m m m J) D O p> a m= L C Q G a p- a j J E E 3 =vw= iaa`0 X20 m a o°-mJ mdII C U U O z Q > C a d- °o m Q LL a n m 0 n' m 7 N E m 0 0 APPENDIX F-15 INCIDENT RATE OF POLICE PROTECTION SERVICE CITY OF ROSEMEAD - PROJECT AREA NO. 1 Land Use Activi Agricultural Single-Family Multi-Family Residential Mobile Home Retail-Comm'I Office-Comm'I Industrial Public Quasi Public Vacant Projected Service Demand Actual Service Acres Citywide Demand Benchmark Demand In Project Incident Rate Projected Incident Rate Projected Area No. 1' Per Acre Calls Per Acre Calls Ratio of Actual Versus Projected Note: ' Total acreage exludes parcelized right of way acres. 0.0 0.01 0 i 0.01 0 102.6 17.78 1,824 i 13.39 1,374 29.9s 17.34 518 11.91 356 5.7 15.34 88 9.92 57 100.7 € 45.30 4,561 i 29.03 2,923 85.6 € 23.90 2,046 10.86 929 22.3 € 12.35 276 7.80 174 68.8 € 9.47 651 € 9.47 651 2.6 € 9.47 24 i 9.47 24 4.1 i 0.95 4 i 0.64 3 422.3 23.66 9,992 0.65 6,491 9,540 € 9,540 0.95 : 1.00: 1.46 :1.00 Source: City of Rosemead Police Department; Los Angeles County Sheriff; Alfred Gobar Associates. Rosemead Exhibits Values 7-08 1129=09 } F F" Q w cn z 0 a t w0 MZ wQ Uw JQ O a F- LL v w ~0n ~w0 LL H a X~Z Z Q www m a M Qzy LLj -0 J w Q LL ~0 v} cn U :3 M U) 0 W LL w D w H U w n O m a 0 0 CD CD CD V N O co COD C r r r r O O O 31b21 TIVO 3AUV-13N Ul CO Y W E L U C d m N (9 7 U Q } F- a d J ~p J U > y U W > Z O mCL U) aLLJ w U J O IL N ca 0-1 Y N E U D N m m n w a • APPENDIX F-17 INCIDENT RATE OF POLICE PROTECTION SERVICE CITY OF ROSEMEAD - PROJECT AREA NO. 2 Acres Citywide Demand Benchmark Demand In Project Incident Rate Projected Incident Rate Projected Land Use Activity Area No. 2' Per Acre Calls Per Acre Calls Agricultural 0.0 € 0.01 0 0.01 0 i Single-Family 1.3 € 17.78 22 13.39 17 Multi-Family Residential 0.3 17.34 5 i 11.91 4 i Mobile Home 0.0 € 15.34 0 9.92 0 Retail-Comm'I 94.9 45.30 4,297 29.03 2,754 Office-Comm'[ 11.5 23.90 275 i 10.86 125 Industrial 2.9 12.35 36 i 7.80 23 Public 28.6 9.47 271 i 9.47 271 Quasi Public 3.3 i 9.47 32 i 9.47 32 Vacant 7.1 0.95 7 0.64 5 Projected Service Demand:' 149.9 32.99 4,945 ` 21.56 3,231 I- I L I Actual Calls In Reference Area I Actual Service 7,208 7,208 Ratio of Actual Versus Projected Note: ' Total acreage exludes parcelized right of way acres. 1.45 : 1.00 2.23: 1.00 Source: City of Rosemead Police Department; Los Angeles County Sheriff; Alfred Gobar Associates. Rosemead Exhibim Values 7-081I2MOO9 F- H H Q W N Z 0 a N w0 wZ W¢ UW J OQ a i- LL U LLI Do 0 13 r W 0 LL F- xza ZZ< W W W a0E a-W <ZU) -0 = Q = LL r0 U > at yU y0 W LL W W H U W '3 0 w a 0 11 R rfs+rr~' - -04 - XM ¢ ~ r,~s-r ,'a r' pg ' Y~ Y ' _ , ' O O o O O O O O '7 N O 03 co V N O 31b21 TIVO 3/111`-1321 W co °v O O O c0 ca E L U C d m (/1 c0 U Q H a ~ J (0 a ~ U w U y Z > O 'Fa IL 2 NN L) UJ Q LL l!J U J 0 a co Y (0 E L U C N m LL Q n E • ATTACHMENT E 0 0 CA Codes (hsc:33030-339) • Page 1 of 4 HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 33030-33039 33030. (a) It is found and declared that there exist in many communities blighted areas that 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. (b) A blighted area is one that contains both of the following: (1) An area that is predominantly 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 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 that 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 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. (c) A blighted area that contains the conditions described in subdivision (b) may also be characterized by the existence of inadequate public improvements or inadequate water or sewer utilities. 33031. (a) This subdivision describes physical conditions that cause blight: (1) Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. These conditions may be caused by serious building code violations, serious dilapidation and deterioration caused by long-term neglect, construction that is vulnerable to serious damage from seismic or geologic hazards, and faulty or inadequate water or sewer utilities. (2) Conditions that prevent or substantially hinder the viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. These conditions may be caused by buildings of substandard, defective, or obsolete design or construction given the present general plan, zoning, or other development standards. (3) Adjacent or nearby incompatible land uses that prevent the development of those parcels or other portions of the project area. (4) The existence of subdivided lots that are in multiple ownership and whose physical development has been impaired by their irregular shapes and inadequate sizes, given present general plan and zoning standards and present market conditions. (b) This subdivision describes economic conditions that cause blight: (1) Depreciated or stagnant property values. (2) Impaired property values, due in significant part, to hazardous wastes on property where the agency may be eligible to use its authority as specified in Article 12.5 (commencing with Section 33459). (3) Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, or an abnormally high number of abandoned buildings. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-binldisplaycode?section=hsc&group=33001-34000&file=33... 8/12/2009 0 0 CA Codes (hsc:33030-339) • Page 2 of 4 (4) A serious lack of necessary commercial facilities that are normally found in neighborhoods, including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and other lending institutions. (5) Serious residential overcrowding that has resulted in significant public health or safety problems. As used in this paragraph, "overcrowding" means exceeding the standard referenced in Article 5 (commencing with Section 32) of Chapter 1 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations. (6) An excess of bars, liquor stores, or adult-oriented businesses that has resulted in significant public health, safety, or welfare problems. (7) A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare. 33035. It is further found and declared that: (a) The existence of blighted areas characterized by any or all of such conditions constitutes a serious and growing menace which is condemned as injurious and inimical to the public health, safety, and welfare of the people of the communities in which they exist and of the people of the State. (b) Such blighted areas present difficulties and handicaps which are beyond remedy and control solely by regulatory processes in the exercise of police power. (c) They contribute substantially and increasingly to the problems of, and necessitate excessive and disproportionate expenditures for, crime prevention, correction, prosecution, and punishment, the treatment of juvenile delinquency, the preservation of the public health and safety, and the maintaining of adequate police, fire, and accident protection and other public services and facilities. (d) This menace is becoming increasingly direct and substantial in its significance and effect. (e) The benefits which will result from the remedying of such conditions and the redevelopment of blighted areas will accrue to all the inhabitants and property owners of the communities in which they exist. 33036. It is further found and declared that: (a) Such conditions of blight tend to further obsolescence, deterioration, and disuse because of the lack of incentive to the individual landowner and his inability to improve, modernize, or rehabilitate his property while the condition of the neighboring properties remains unchanged. (b) As a consequence the process of deterioration of a blighted area frequently cannot be halted or corrected except by redeveloping the entire area, or substantial portions of it. (c) Such conditions of blight are chiefly found in areas subdivided into small parcels, held in divided and widely scattered ownerships, frequently under defective titles, and in many such instances the private assembly of the land in blighted areas for redevelopment is so difficult and costly that it is uneconomic and as a practical matter impossible for owners to undertake because of lack of the legal power and excessive costs. (d) The remedying of such conditions may require the public acquisition at fair prices of adequate areas, the clearance of the areas through demolition of existing obsolete, inadequate, unsafe, and insanitary buildings, and the redevelopment of the areas http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-binldisplaycode?section=hsc&group=33001-34000&file=33... 8/12/2009 0 0 CA Codes (hsc:33030-339) • Page 3 of 4 suffering from such conditions under proper supervision, with appropriate planning, and continuing land use and construction policies. 33037. For these reasons it is declared to be the policy of the State: (a) To protect and promote the sound development and redevelopment of blighted areas and the general welfare of the inhabitants of the communities in which they exist by remedying such injurious conditions through the employment of all appropriate means. (b) That whenever the redevelopment of blighted areas cannot be accomplished by private enterprise alone, without public participation and assistance in the acquisition of land, in planning and in the financing of land assembly, in the work of clearance, and in the making of improvements necessary therefor, it is in the public interest to employ the power of eminent domain, to advance or expend public funds for these purposes, and to provide a means by which blighted areas may be redeveloped or rehabilitated. (c) That the redevelopment of blighted areas and the provisions for appropriate continuing land use and construction policies in them constitute public uses and purposes for which public money may be advanced or expended and private property acquired, and are governmental functions of state concern in the interest of health, safety, and welfare of the people of the State and of the communities in which the areas exist. (d) That the necessity in the public interest for the provisions of this part is declared to be a matter of legislative determination. 33038. It is found and declared that blighted areas may include housing areas constructed as temporary government-owned wartime housing projects, and that such areas may be characterized by one or more of the conditions enumerated in Sections 33031 to 33034, inclusive. 33039. The Legislature of the State of California recognizes that among the principal causes of slum and blighted residential areas are the following factors: (a) Inadequate enforcement of health, building, and safety laws. (b) The fact that the limited financial resources of many human beings who inhabit them make only this type of housing available to such persons. (c) Racial discrimination against persons of certain groups in seeking housing. (d) The neglect of absentee landlords. It is, therefore, declared to be the public policy of this State that, in order to cope with the problems of the rehabilitation of slum or blighted areas, these factors shall be taken into consideration in any rehabilitation or redevelopment program. It is further declared to be the public policy of this State that such rehabilitation or redevelopment programs shall not be undertaken and operated in such a manner as to exchange new slums for old slums or as to congest individuals from one slum to another slum. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-binldisplaycode?section=hsc&group=33001-34000&file=33... 8/12/2009 0 0 CA Codes (hsc:33030-339) Page 4 of 4 1, 9 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-binldisplaycode?section=hsc&group=33001-34000&file=33... 8/12/2009 # •