Loading...
CC - Item III.B & C - Resolution Of The City Councilstaf epor TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL FROM: FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER e DATE: JUNE 22, 2000 RE: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD RULING ON WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 2 ORDINANCE NO. 809 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. AREA NO. 2 - ADOPT As the City Council is aware, at the last regularly scheduled meeting, the Rosemead Redevelopment Agency and the Rosemead City Council held a joint public meeting to consider all relevant testimony pertaining to the Redevelopment Plan and the Environmental Impact Report for Project Area No. 2 and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for Redevelopment Project Area No. 2. This meeting culminated in both the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency certifying the Final EH2 and the City Council introducing and approving the first reading of the Ordinance adopting the proposed Redevelopment Plan. The next step in the redevelopment plan adoption process is for the City Council to adopt Resolution No. 2000-34 responding to written comments and for the City Council to approve the second reading of the Ordinance adopting the Plan. With respect to the written comments received by the City Council prior to closure of the public hearing, the City and Agency received two written comments including: (A) a letter from the local school district not requiring a response but stating that the district would like to cooperate with the Agency in the future and institute the proper means of calculating pass-through payments to the district; and (B) a letter dated June 5, 2000 from General Bank, located at 4128 Temple City Boulevard, which expressed concern about the inclusion of their property and stated that their property was in excellent condition having been recently renovated. A subsequent letter, dated June 19, 2000, was received from General Bank. v AG E V e"'t2Z.NDA JUN 2 7 2000 ITE Pdo..Z[C C Page 2. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2000-34 responding to this letter. The response would consist of the following comment: "The Agency does not intend that all properties within Project Area No. 2 will be redeveloped and has adopted rules providing for owner participation that allow for retention of property pursuant to an owner participation agreement. Where a property does not exhibit signs of physical blight an owner participation agreement can be entered into which will subject the participating property to the standards, restrictions and controls of the redevelopment plan and exempt the property from acquisition so long as the property is maintained in conformity therewith. This procedure, rather than exclusion from the project area, is the appropriate way to administer the plan with respect to conforming properties such as General Bank's property. The Agency believes that it is important to include the bank property for effective redevelopment and that the removal of individual properties will make elimination of blight and the provision of public improvements more difficult throughout the Project Area." The area is of mixed quality and it is not feasible to include only substandard properties in the Project Area. The property at 4128 Temple City Boulevard does not exhibit any signs of physical blight. A third letter dated June 20, 2000 was received from the County of Los Angeles Fire Department after the joint public hearing. The letter states that tax increment financing of the proposed project will place a financial burden on the Consolidated Fire Protection District, however, since pass-through of tax increment is statutorily set, the District will require the Agency to set forth an agreement for reporting and payment procedures. The Agency will meet with the District to address their concerns. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council take the following action: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2000-34 - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rosemead ruling on Written and Oral Objections to the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2. 2. Adopt Ordinance No. 809 - An Ordinance of the City of Rosemead Approving and Adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2. FGT: js Attachments Public Finance Urban Economics Development Services EAD AN 12 20-0 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE June 9, 2000 Mr. Frank Tripepi, Executive Director City of Rosemead Redevelopment Agency _ 8838 E. Valley Boulevard, P. O. Box 399 CITY Lt w: rr Rosemead. Califomia 91770 Subject: Letter for Public Record of June 13, 2000 Joint Public Hearing for the Adoption of Rosemead Redevelopment Project No. 2 on Behalf of El Monte Union High School District Dear Mr. Tripepi; On behalf of the El Monte Union High School District ("District"), an affected taxing entity within the proposed Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 ("Project"), Public Economics. Inc. ("PEI") wishes to bring to the attention of the Rosemead Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") certain matters pertaining to implementation of the AB 1290 payment process as it affects the District. When the Project is adopted, the District and the Agency will enter into a 30 to 45-year relationship with respect to the payments. The District desires to clarify aspects on this Ion,- term relationship in advance. As soon as possible after adoption of the proposed Project, the District requests a written response to the payment implementation matters enumerated in this letter. The District will put the Agency's response on file and use it as a starting reference regarding any questions it may have with respect to the payments, after these payments commence, at earliest, in January or February of 2002. ,Note: This letter is not intended as a statement of concern or objection to the proposed Rosemead Redevelopment Project No. 2 or its Redevelopment Plan. Furthermore, this letter is not intended to require a response from the Agency prior to the adoption of the plan. However, this letter is submitted to the Agency in order to be placed into the official public record of the joint public hearing for the adoption of the Project/Plan. The District does request Agency consideration of the payment implement matters described below and a written response to these matters as soon as possible subsequent to the adoption of the Project/Plan. 820 W Town and Country Road • Orange, CA 92868-4712 (714) 647-6242 • FAX (714) 647-6232 World Wide Web: hhtpV1www.pub-econ.com PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC. Mr. Frank Tripepi, Rosemead Redevelopment Agency June 9, 2000 Page 2 A. AB 1290 Payment Issues Not Addressed in Community Redevelopment Law The following four basic items involving the making of AB 1290 payments to affected taxing entities are simply not addressed in the relevant sections of the Health and Safety Code ("HSC"). The District desires to know the Agency's intentions with respect to these four basic payment matters. 1. Responsibility for Calculating and Making Payments. Based on the way HSC Section 33607.5 is framed, it is clear that the Agency is the entity intended to be responsible for calculating and making AB 1290 payments. In the future, the District will look first to the Agency, if it has questions relating to the payments. However, because county auditor-controllers are responsible for the allocation of property taxes within a county, many auditor-controllers provide annual information to redevelopment agencies regarding such items as the respective property tax shares of affected taxing entities within a redevelopment project area, for use by the agencies in computing AB 1290 payments. The District would appreciate being informed regarding what role, if any, the County is anticipated to play in calculating and making the payments. 2. Frequency and Dates of Payments. Since HSC Section 33607.5 provides no guidance with respect to the timing of AB 1290 payments, the District wishes to determine what the Agency plans to do with respect to the matter. One possibility is for AB 1290 payments to be made within 30 to 60 days of the Agency's receipt of each installment of tax increment. Alternatively, AB 1290 payments could be made twice a year (e.g., to facilitate payment by the District of principal and interest on future debt financing repaid in full or in part with AB 1290 payments to the District). Whatever the timing agreed to, the District wishes to be informed of and to have a payment schedule on which it can reasonably rely. 3. Documentation of Payment Calculations. In order to avoid misunderstandings, the District requests that AB 1290 payments be accompanied by a worksheet and other documentation showing how the payment amounts were calculated. Because payment calculations may be quite complicated and extensive, depending on parameters such as the number of taxing entities, tax rate areas in the Project area, and basic aid payments, it may be that a summary worksheet will be sufficient for transmittal along with the payments, and that the more detailed calculations be made available upon request. 4. Interest on Late or Deferred Payments. The District believes that under certain conditions interest should accrue to the District on AB 1290 payments not made in a C\ Documms\_peMosemud R AUPH mcmo sam • Mr. Frank Tripepi, Rosemead Redevelopment Agency June 9, 2000 Page 3 timely fashion. Accrual of interest on late or deferred payments is a reasonable business practice under most circumstances. For example, if AB 1290 payments to the District _ have to be deferred as a result of the subordination of such payments to bond holders agreed to by the District, interest on deferred payments would be appropriate. (The matter of subordination is discussed below.) B. Issues Needing Further Clarification It has been the experience of PEI, the District's redevelopment consultant, that the following issues regarding the AB 1290 payment process can benefit from further clarification: 1. Years of First and Last AB 1290 Payments. Clarification of when AB 1290 payments begin and end is of benefit to the District and the Agency. The law states that payments commence "with the first fiscal year in which the Agency receives tax increments." If the Project is adopted prior to the end of June 2000, based on typical assessed valuation cycles and assuming continued positive assessed valuation growth in the Project area, then the Agency will be allocated tax increment for the first time during FY 2001-02. Therefore, initial payments will occur based on tax increment received by the Agency in FY 2001-02. When during that year payments will actually occur will be dependent on what is decided in Item A.2, above. By statute, the redevelopment plan will expire mid-year 2030, if the Project is adopted as currently scheduled. The Agency may continue to receive tax increment until 15 years after expiration of the redevelopment plan. This means the Agency may be allocated tax increment until as late as FY 2044-45 (15 years after the expiration of the redevelopment plan in 2030). Payments to the District will cease when the Agency no longer receives tax increment from the Project. 2. Deductions for Low and Moderate Income ("LMI") Housing Set-asides. AB 1290 payment formulas are applied to tax increment allocated to the Agency after deducting the "amount required to be deposited in the [LMI] Housing Fund." It is within the powers of the Agency to cause this amount to be less than 20 percent, if the Agency makes certain findings. PEI wishes to note that if actual LMI set-asides are less than 20 percent, the lower set-aside amount should be deducted from (gross) tax increment, thereby increasing payments to the District. Stated another way, the District wishes to ensure that AB 1290 payments to the District are based on the statutory LMI set-aside amount (20 percent), or actual Project area LMI Housing Fund deductions, whichever is less. C\ Documms\_pdROSemradR AVPN m omm _ _....w - - . Mr. Frank Tripepi, Rosemead Redevelopment Agency June 9, 2000 Page 4 3. Tax Overrides. PEI wishes to remind the Agency that per HSC 33676(a) and 33670(e), the Auditor-Controller is required to allocate to the District, not the Agency, all current or future tax override amounts within the Project area for bonded indebtedness incurred by the District. No resolution by the District electing to receive such amounts is necessary. C. AB 1296-Payment Issues Subject to Misinterpretation The following two items have a significant impact on the allocation of AB 1290 payments to the District and other taxing entities in the Project Area and should be subjected to careful and ongoing consideration by the Agency. 1. Allocation of AB 1290 Payments after Accounting for Impact of Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund ("ERAF" )/"Tax Shift." Section 33607.5 of the Health and Safety Code, which describes the statutory payment process, states that the payments "shall be allocated among the affected taxing entities... in proportion to the percentage share of property taxes each affected taxing entity receives during the fiscal year the funds are allocated." Since property taxes include adjustments for contributions to and from the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (Revenue and Taxation Code, Chapter 6, Article 3), the statutory payments must be based on post-ERAF property tax shares. PEI believes that the payments should be allocated on a Post-ERAF/Tax Shift basis, and that the intent implied in the negotiations and the proposal which resulted in the redevelopment reform legislation which mandates these payments, AB 1290, supports the Post-ERAF position. However, some counties, particularly LA County, and to a lesser degree some cities, have resisted the Post-ERAF position because it significantly reduces their shares of the statutory payments. This issue is still unresolved and is treated differently by counties around the State. Even though LA County has been adamantly opposed to Post-ERAF allocations of statutory payments, we believe that the Agency should investigate this matter on its own, and, further, seek to stay in touch with this matter as it evolves over the next few years. 2. Sponsoring Community Share of Statutory Payments in Tiers 2 and 3. This interpretation issue will not affect the amount of AB 1290 payments to the District until the start of the second tier of payments, beginning the 11th year in which the Agency is allocated tax increment. According to HSC 33607.5, the community sponsoring the redevelopment project is not eligible to receive AB 1290 payments in payment tiers 2 or 3. The portion of the total statutory payment amount in tier 1 which goes to the community sponsoring the Project (if the community has so elected) should, in payment C:\ Documms\yei\Itosemead MAUPH memo.. Mr. Frank Tripepi, Rosemead Redevelopment Agency June 9, 2000 Page 5 tiers 2 and 3, be allocated on a pro rata basis among the other affected taxing entities in proportion to the affected taxing entities' property tax increment shares in the Project. (It is important to note here that the Redevelopment Agency is not an affected taxing entity.) D. Other Issues for Agency Consideration The following two issues are brought to the Agency's attention because of their potential long-run impact on the amount of AB 1290 payments to the District. 1. AB 1290 Payments as a Debt of the Agency. Because of the tiered, back-loaded structure of the payment formulas embodied in the law, the payments are potentially at their greatest at the point when a redevelopment project's need for revenues may typically begin to wind down, or even conclude. If in the later years of receipt of tax increment ("TI") an Agency were able to utilize the full flow of TI, the statutory payments would grow considerably for the taxing entities. However, it is probable that from years 30 to 45 of a project, if the Agency is receiving any TI, it is a flat, constant amount, serving only the purpose of paying-off bonded indebtedness incurred prior to the time when the Agency's ability to incur debt had terminated. With the flow of TI limited to repaying level or nearly level debt service in the later years, the growth of TI is constrained, and, therefore, so will be the growth in the statutory payments. This limitation on the back end of the statutory payment revenue stream to school districts acts as a significant inhibitor on the amount and the use of these funds for financing community/educational facilities. It would be a potentially significant commitment, if, at the appropriate time in a project, a redevelopment agency were to declare as its own indebtedness, for the purposes of financing agreed-upon community facilities, the maximum statutory payments to the District resulting from utilizing the full amount of each year's TI stream as the basis for calculating and making the statutory payments. The purpose of raising this issue now is to raise awareness on this matter and to suggest a future dialogue between the Agency and District regarding the most effective way to use the AB 1290 payment stream to benefit the Project, the Agency, and the District. 2. Subordination. "Prior to incurring loans, bonds, or other indebtedness, except loans or advances from the community," HSC 33607.5(e) allows the Agency to subordinate to such indebtedness its AB 1290 payments to the District, with the approval of the District. When requesting subordination, the Agency is required to provide "substantial evidence" that sufficient funds will be available to pay both debt service and AB 1290 payments to the District. The District may disapprove the subordination request "only if it finds, based on substantial evidence, that the Agency will not be able" to make AB C\ Dowmms\jxARosmmd.RDAVPH memo.mm Mr. Frank Tripepi, Rosemead Redevelopment Agency June 9, 2000 Page 6 1290 payments to the District. However, if a District "does not act with 45 days after receipt of the Agency's request, the request shall be deemed approved." The District wishes to make the Agency aware of certain inherent problems involving the subordination provisions of HSC 33607.5(e), which allow the Agency to interrupt the flow of_AB 1290 payments to the District. Interrupting these payments unduly handicaps the District in the efficient use of AB 1290 payments for debt financing to pay for their own facilities--especially in light of the potential reoccurrence of a real estate market contraction similar to that experienced in California during the early and mid 1990s. As a result of these concerns regarding subordination, the District is submitting, as Attachment I to this letter, "Guidelines Regarding Future Requests for Subordination" ("Guidelines") and requests that they also, along with this letter, be made a part of the public record of the Project adoption process. It is requested that the Guidelines be kept on file by the Agency for future reference. Among other things, these Guidelines describe what the District should consider "substantial evidence" when and if the Agency requests subordination from the District. The Guidelines also provide procedures to help ensure that subordination is not approved inadvertently or by default. PEI also is recommending to the District that they keep the Guidelines on file and apply them to any future requests for subordination from the Agency. District looks forward to correspondence from the Agency responding to the above matters, as soon as possible after adoption of the Project. This letter is written with the intent of establishing a clear and well-documented mutual understanding of the AB 1290 payment process. The District wishes the Agency success in achieving their goals for the Project, and also looks forward to the opportunity to cooperate with the Agency to improve our community. Sincerely yours, Public Economics, Inc. By: Carl Goodwin, Consultant to the District cc: Mr. Steve Copenhaver, GRC Associates, Inc. Attachment CA Documns\SciU m mmd. RDAUPH memo.mm . ATTACHMENT 1 Rosemead Redevelopment Project No. 2 Guidelines Regarding Future Requests for Subordination of AB 1290 Payments El Monte Union High School District The redevelopment agency ("Agency") is authorized pursuant to Health & Safety Code ("HSC") Section 33607.5(e) to request subordination of the District's AB 1290 payments to Agency bonds, loans, or other indebtedness. Subordination is good for the Agency, the District, and the community because it allows the Agency to issue bonds at lower interest rates and accomplish more with the available revenues. Subordination is bad for the District in the event that the Agency does not have adequate funds to pay the District. When requesting subordination, HSC 33607.5(e) requires the Agency to provide "substantial evidence" that sufficient funds will be available to pay both debt service and AB 1290 payments to the District. The District considers the following as constituting substantial evidence: 1. When requesting subordination from the District, the Agency should provide the following materials (most of which are typically produced as documentation for a tax allocation bond financing), at least 30 days in advance of debt issuance; a. Copy of the Preliminary Official Statement and related documents b. Report explaining how RDA intends to repay indebtedness and still meet its obligations to the District C. Annual tax increment projections, including annual assessed valuation growth assumptions d. Annual total debt service requirements of the RDA 2. In sizing its bonds, the Agency should utilize tax increment projections which assume an assessed valuation growth of no more than 2.0 percent in any year, unless clearly justified. 3. The Agency should request subordination only if tax increment projections, net of payments to the District and other affected taxing entities, are equal to or greater than debt service requirements in each year. 4. The Agency should submit all documents to the District via certified mail, followed by phone contact. 5. Unless written consent is otherwise provided by District, the District will not accept subordination of its AB 1290 payments unless AB 1290 payments to all other affected taxing entities are also subordinated 6. Any payments missed or deferred by the Agency due to subordination will be considered by the District to be a loan to the Agency, which should be repaid to the District, with interest, from the first tax increment available to the Agency. CA Documn¢\Seiaoumead RDA\Subeuide.Sanl QD General Bank X it 1k 4 EAD JUN /000 G. Domenic Massei Executive Vice President June 5, 2000 CI T Y CLERK'S OFFICE City Clerk of the City of Rosemead and Secretary of the Rosemead Redevelopment Agency 8838 East Valley Blvd.'., Lif n P. 0. Box 399 Rosemead, CA 91770"' Re: Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Objection of Property Owner to Redevelopment Plan Dear Donald Wagner: General Bank is the owner of the real property commonly known as 4128 Temple City Blvd., Rosemead, California (the "Property"), which Property is located within the proposed boundaries of the Rosemead Redevelopment Project No. 2. While General Bank appreciates the benefits that can result from redevelopment projects and is in general concurrence with the Redevelopment Agency's desire to renovate Valley and Rosemead Boulevards, General Bank objects to the inclusion of its Property within the proposed project area and so objects to the approval and adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. General Bank is a California chartered Bank operating 17 Branch Offices in California, two Branches in Bellevue, WA and Kent, WA., and a Loan Production Office in New York, New York. The Property was acquired by General Bank in 1993, and after acquiring the Property General Bank made significant improvements to the Property an extensively renovated the building located on the Property. The building on the Property houses various Departments that provide essential support services to General Bank, including Auditing; Central Services, Credit Administration, Human Resources, Operations Administration, and Small Business Lending Department. Approximately 100 employees work on the Property. Should General Bank be forced to relocate from the Property as a result of being included in the redevelopment project area, the disruption to its operations would be extreme and the costs of any relocation would be exceedingly high. The Property is unblighted and we do not believe that it is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the Redevelopment Agency's project area. The building on the Property does not require structural alteration, improvement, modernization or rehabilitation, nor is the Property of an inadequate sized or irregular shape that prevents the Property from being properly useful. To the contrary and as stated above, the Property and the safe and well-maintained building located on the Property are being put to good use. ROSEMEAD CENTER • 4128 TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD • ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 • (626) 582-7270 E-Mail: dmassei©generalbank.com Web Site: www.generalbank.com June 5, 2000 Page 2 It is General Bank's belief that the conditions that make it appropriate for a parcel of land to be included within a redevelopment agency project area do not exist with respect to the Property. Accordingly, General Bank objects to the proposed Redevelopment Plan and its inclusion of the Property within the proposed project area. Very truly yours, i ~a~i~~ll~elJ G. Domenic Massei CC: Frank G. Tripepi, Rosemead City Manager Mr. Li-Pei Wu, Chairman/CEO Mr. Peter Wu, President/C00 - a l i. b - . `a a 7 H• S - i ~ [4: i T Y'' t A ~ s~Y Y A p ' t r ~ ,y '~J~ yF1 r~ ~-s i •;j i z. ~ i r A ¢ ~1. 41 ~ :`i .~a5 ,.,d ! u r ;i~ s~"{'~' ! > 1 ..j i II QD General Banc G. Domenic Massei Executive Vice President June 19, 2000 Frank G. Tripepi Rosemead City Manager City of Rosemead 8838 East Valley Blvd. P. O. Box 399 Rosemead, CA 91770 RECEIVED CITY OF RQSE!'Ei tD JUN 22201V CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Re: Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 Dear Mr. Tripepi: _ 'i. 1. Per our telephone conversation of June 13, 2000, General Bank does not oppose the Rosemead Redevelopment Project No. 2. As discussed, General,Bank believes that the conditions that make it appropriate for a parcel of land to be included within. redevelopment agency project area do not exist with respect to its Property located at "4128 Temple City Blvd., Rosemead, California". General Bank does not desire to relocate, and certainly objects to be purchased through means of eminent domain. We thank you for the clarification presented, and look forward to many years of prosperity in the City of Rosemead. Very truly yours, G. Domenic Massei CC: Mr. Li-Pei Wu, Chairman/CEO Mr. Peter Wu, President/COO ROSEMEAD CENTER • 4128 TEMPLE CITY BOULEVARD • ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 • (626) 582-7270 E-Mail: dmassei@generalbank.com Web Site: www.generalbank.com COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 1520 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90063-3294 (323) 890-4330 P. MICHAEL FREEMAN FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN June 20, 2000 John N. Oshimo, Principal GRC Associates, Inc. 1340 Valley Vista Drive, Suite 120 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Dear Mr. Oshimo: SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - (CITY OF ROSEMEAD) PRELIN11NARY REPORT FOR ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 2 (EIR #896/2000) The Preliminary Report for Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2. has been reviewed by the Planning, Subdivision and Forestry Divisions of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. This project area comprises 260 contiguous parcels on 203 acres. The project area generally follows the alignment of Valley Boulevard and Rosemead Boulevard north of the San Bernardino Freeway (1-10). We have the following comments: FISCAL IMPACT: Tax increment financing of the proposed project will place a financial burden on the Consolidated Fire Protection District. Any financial loss will impede the District's ability to provide adequate fire protection and emergency medical services to the communities served. Although existing legislation allows the use of tax increment financing of redevelopment projects and mandates a partial pass-through of those tax increments to affected taxing agencies, the result is the District will realize a loss of approximately sixty percent (60%R) of tax increment revenue otherwise received from within the project area had the project not been created. Since ha¢c-TlTrne~h of ta. in Lr'rr„erft is. statutorily set, the District will rornlire Elie agency set forth I a ~ v r n~ e to et orth n e_rc-r..-,nt for reporting and payment procedures. The adoption of the redevelopment plan as proposed will not have a direct impact on the enviromnent; however, the build out of the plan may have a significant impact. The following conditions should be considered when planning the project implementation: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Size, complexity, and projected use of the proposed development may necessitate multiple ingress/egress access for the circulation of traffic, and emergency response issues. The Department may condition future development to provide a second, and in some cases, a third means of access due to the number of units and sreet widths in the existing development. SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF AGOURA'n,LLS BRAD?URY CUDAHY HIDDEN HILLS LANCASTER PALMDALE ROLLING HILLS EST?TES TELIPLE CRY ARTESIA CALABASAS DIAMOND BAR HUNTINGTON-ARK LA PUENTE PALOS VERDES ESTATES ROSEM--AD WALNUT AZUSA CARSON DUARTE INDUSTRY LAWNDALE PARAMGUNT SAN 0I1.1Aj VEST HOLLV'WOOD BALCWIN PARK CERRITOS EL MONTE IRWINDALE LOMITA PICO RIVERA 5ANTA CL+RRA WESTLAKE VILLAGE BELL CLAREMONT GLENDORA LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE MALIBU POMONA SIGNAL HILL WHIT71ER BELLP'-ONEF COMMERCE HAWAIIAN GARDENS LAKEWOOD MAYWOOD RANCHO PALOS VERDES SOUTH EL LIC•NTB BELL GARDENS COVINA Hn::THORNE LA MIRADA NDR'NALN ROLLING HILLS SOUTH GATE John N. Oshimo, Principal June 20, 2000 Page 2 The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows and hydrants. Specific fire and life safety requirements for the construction phase will be addressed at the building fire plan check. There may be additional fire and life safety requirements during this time. Every building constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of access roadways, with an all weather surface of not less than the prescribed width, unobstructed, clear to the sky. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the buildine. All bridges are to be constructed and maintained in accordance with nationally recognized standards and designed for a live load sufficient to carry a minimum of 70,000 pounds. When involved with a subdivision, Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows and hydrants are addressed during the subdivision tentative map stage. It is strongly suggested that fire sprinkler systems be installed in all commercial and residential buildings. This will reduce potential fire and life losses. Systems are now technically and economically feasible for residential use. CONLMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL: Development may require fire flows up to 5,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for up to a five-hour duration. Final fire flows will be based on die size of the buildings, their relationship to other structures, property lines, and types of construction used. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: 1. No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. 2. No portion of a building should exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. 3. When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet on a commercial street, hydrants shall be required at the corner and mid-block. Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. All on-site driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, clear-to-sky. The on-site driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. Driveway width for commercial or industrial developments shall be increased when any of the following conditions will exist: Provide 28 feet width when buildings are three stories or more than 35 feet in height above access level. Also, for using fire truck ladders, the centerline of the access roadway shall be located parallel to, and within 30 feet of die exterior wall on one side of the proposed structure. ?Vii } r ; Y I John N. Oshimo, Principal June 20, 2000 Page 3 2. Provide 34 feet width when parallel parking is allowed on one side of the access roadway/driveway. Preference is that such parking is not adjacent to the structure. 3. Provide 42 feet width when parallel parking is allowed on each side of the access roadway/driveway. 4. All "Fire Lanes" will be depicted on the final map, and will be designated with the appropriate signage. "Fire Lanes" are any ingress/egress, roadway/driveway with paving less than 34 feet in width, and will be clear-to-sky. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL: Development may require fire flows up to 5,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for up to a five-hour duration. Final fire flows will be based on the size of the buildings, their relationship to other structures, property lines, and types of construction used. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. 2. No portion of a building should exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced fire hydrant. 3. When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet, hydrants will be required at the corner and mid-block. Additional hydrants will be required if the hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. All on-site driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, clear-to-sky. The on-site driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of die first story of any building. The 26 foot width does not allow for parking, and shall be designated as a "Fire Lane", and have appropriate signage. The 26 feet width shall be increased to: 1. Provide 34 feet width when parallel parking is allowed on one side of the access way. 2. Provide 36 feet width when parallel parking is allowed on both sides of the access way. 3. Any access way less than 34 feet in width shall be labeled "Fire Lane" on the final recording map, and final building plans. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire Department use. SINGLE, -F.4✓MILY DWELLING UNITS: Single-family detached homes shall require a fire flow of 1,250 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a two-hour duration. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 600 feet and shall meet the following requirements: No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 450 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. 2. No portion of a structure should be placed on a lot where it exceeds 750 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. _ s,. John N. Oshimo, Principal June 20, 2000 Page 4 3. When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 450 feet on a residential street, hydrants shall be required at the corner and mid-lock. Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. Fire Department access shall be provided up to 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any single unit. If exceeding 150 feet, provide 20 feet, paved width "Private Driveway/Fire Lane" to within 150 feet of all portions of exterior walls of the unit. Streets or driveways within the development shall be provided with die following widths: L Provide 36 feet width on all collector streets and those streets where parking is allowed on both sides. 2. Provide 34 feet width on cul-de-sacs up to 700 feet in length. This allows parkine on both sides of the street. 3. Provide 36 feet width on cul-de-sacs from 701 to 1,000 feet in length. This allows parking on both sides of the street. Should any questions arise regarding design and construction, and/or water and access, please contact Inspector Mike McHargue at (323) 8904243. OTHER ErINWfRONMENTAL CONCERNS: The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or Fire Zone 4, archeological and cultural resources and the County Oak -rree Ordinance. The proposed project will not have significant environmental impacts in these areas. If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (323) 890-4330. Very truly yours, DAVID R. LEININGER, ACTING CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION BUREAU DRL jmb RESOLUTION NO. 2000-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD RULING ON WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 2 WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2 (the "Plan") has been prepared by the Rosemead Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency"); and WHEREAS, on June 13, 2000, a duly noticed joint public hearing on the proposed Plan was conducted by the City Council and the Agency; and WHEREAS, any and all persons having any objections to the proposed Plan or who deny the existence of blight in the Project Area, or the regularity of the prior proceedings, were given an opportunity to submit written comments prior to the commencement of the joint public hearing, or give oral-testimony at the joint public hearing, and show cause why the proposed Plan should not be adopted; and WHEREAS, the City Council has heard and considered all evidence, both written and oral, presented in support of and in opposition to the adoption of the Plan for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rosemead as follows: Section 1: The City Council finds on the basis of the substantial evidence contained within the Report to the City Council submitted by the Rosemead Redevelopment Agency and other substantial evidence in the record that conditions of blight exist within the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2, and that written and oral evidence in opposition received prior to and at the joint public hearing is not persuasive to the contrary. Section 1. The City Council and the Agency have duly complied with all the provisions, requirements, and procedures of Section 33202 and Articles 4 and 4.5 (commencing with Section 33330) of Chapter 4 of the California Community Redevelopment Law relating to the preparation and adoption of the Plan for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2. }iY r. Section 3: The City Council accordingly adopts the written responses set forth in the staff report to the written comments received and overrules all objections to the adoption of the Plan for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27 s day of June 2000. MAYOR Attest: City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 809 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ROSEMEAD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemead has received from the Rosemead Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2, a copy of which is on file at the office of the City Clerk, 8838 East Valley Blvd, Rosemead, California, and at the office of the Agency at the same address, together with the report of the Agency including the reasons for the selection of the Project Area, a description of the physical, social and economic conditions existing in the Project Area, the proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the Project Area, a plan for the relocation of families and persons who may be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities in the Project Area, an analysis of the Preliminary Plan, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead, a summary of consultations with Project Area owners and businesses, an environmental impact report which includes the Project Area described in the Redevelopment Plan, a summary of consultations with taxing agencies, and an implementation plan; and WHEREAS, Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead has submitted to the City Council its report and recommendations concerning the Redevelopment Plan and its certification that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan for the' City of Rosemead: and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on December 20, 1999 held a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 Cal. Adm. Code Section 15000 et seq.) and the EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to incorporate comments received and responses thereto; and WHEREAS, the Agency and City Council have certified the adequacy of the EIR, submitted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151 and Health and Safety Code Section 33352, and have determined that the redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan will have unavoidable significant impacts that cannot be fully mitigated by the measures and recommendations identified in the EIR; and WHEREAS, a Project Area Committee was not required to be formed in connection with the Plan because of the limited number of residences, the extensive public participation process conducted by the Agency and the distribution of the Redevelopment Plan to all residents on May 31, 2000; and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing on June 13, 2000 on adoption of the Redevelopment Plan in the Rosemead City Council Chambers, 8838 East Valley Blvd., Rosemead, California; and -1- WHEREAS, notice of said hearing was duly and regularly published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Rosemead, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and a copy of said notices and affidavits of publication are on file with the City Clerk and the Secretary of the Agency; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by first class mail to the last known address of each assessee as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the County of Los Angeles for each parcel of land in the Project Area not less than 30 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed to all residents and businesses within the Project Area whose addresses were reasonably obtainable by the Agency not less than 30 days prior to the hearing; and WHEREAS, each assessee in the Project Area whose property would be subject to acquisition by purchase, or condemnation under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan was sent a notice of the joint public hearing, including a statement to such effect, a map and legal description of the Project Area; and WHEREAS, copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing agency which receives taxes from property in the Project Area; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission, the report of the Agency, the Redevelopment Plan and its economic feasibility, and the EIR, has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard, and has received and considered all evidence and testimony presented for or against any and all aspects of the Redevelopment Plan and has made written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner and taxing entity. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The purposes and intent of the City Council with respect to the Project Area are to accomplish the following: a) The elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration and the conservation, rehabilitation and redevelopment of the Project Area in accord with the General Plan, the Redevelopment Plan and local codes and ordinances. b) The promotion of new and continuing private sector investment within the Project Area to prevent the loss of, and to facilitate, commercial sales activity. c) The achievement of an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural, landscape and urban design and land use principles appropriate for attainment of the objectives of this Redevelopment Plan. d) The retention and expansion of as many existing businesses as possible by means of redevelopment and rehabilitation activities and by encouraging and assisting the -2- cooperation and participation of owners, businesses, and public agencies in the revitalization of the Project Area. e) The provision for increased sales, business license, and other fees, taxes and revenues to the City of Rosemead. 0 The creation and development of local job opportunities and the preservation of the area's existing employment base. e) The replanning, redesign and development of areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized. f) The extension of the community's supply of housing (inside or outside the Project Area), including opportunities for very low-, low- and moderate-income households. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines, based on substantial evidence in the record, including, but not limited to, the Agency's Report to the City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2, and all documents referenced therein, and evidence and testimony received at the joint public hearing on adoption of the Redevelopment Plan held on June 13, 2000, that: a) The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.). This finding is based on the following conditions which predominate in the Project Area: (1) The existence of buildings and structures used or intended to be used for commercial, industrial or other purposes which have the following factors that substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings and lots, namely age and obsolescence, physical deterioration, substandard design, lack of parking, and inadequate size given present market conditions; and (2) The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate in size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership. (3) A prevalence of depreciated or stagnant property values and impaired investments, including but not limited to declines in assessed values, and vacancy in portions of the Project Area; and (4) The existence of adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent economic development of those parcels or other portions of the Project Area, including but not limited to the presence of residential uses next to commercial parcels which prevent expansion of commercial uses to meet current economic requirements of the private market; and (5) The existence of properties which suffer from deterioration and disuse because of inadequate public improvements, facilities and utilities, which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment. -3- Such conditions are causing and will increasingly cause a reduction and lack of proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social and economic burden on the City which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone, requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City and the State. This finding is based on the fact that governmental action available to the City without redevelopment would be insufficient to cause any significant correction of the blighting conditions, and that the nature and costs of the public improvements and facilities and other actions required to correct the blighting conditions are beyond the capacity of the City and cannot be undertaken or borne by private enterprise acting alone or in concert with available governmental action. b) The Project Area is an urbanized area. This finding is based upon the fact that not less than eighty percent (80%) of the privately owned property in the Project Area has been or is developed for urban uses, as demonstrated by the Agency's report to City Council. In addition, as demonstrated by the Agency's report to City Council, the Project Area is part of an area developed for urban uses. c) The Redevelopment Plan will redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. This finding is based upon the fact that the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law would be attained by the project; by the elimination of areas suffering from economic dislocation or disuse; by the replanning, redesign and/or redevelopment of areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized, and which could not be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without public participation and assistance; by protecting and promoting sound development and redevelopment of blighted areas and the general welfare of the citizens of the City by remedying such injurious conditions through appropriate means; and through the installation of new, or replacement of existing public improvements, facilities and utilities in areas which are currently inadequately served with regard to such improvements, facilities and utilities. d) The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. This finding is based on the fact that under the Redevelopment Plan the Agency will be authorized to seek and utilize a variety of potential financing resources, including tax increments; that the nature and timing of public redevelopment assistance will depend on the amount and availability of such financing resources, including tax increments, generated by new investment in the Project Area; that under the Redevelopment Plan no public redevelopment activity can be undertaken unless the Agency can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue to finance the activity; and that the financing plan included within the Agency's Report to the City Council demonstrates that sufficient financial resources will be available to carry out the Project. e) The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City of Rosemead, including but not limited to the City's Housing Element, which substantially complies with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65590) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. This finding is based on the finding of the Planning Commission that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan for the City of Rosemead. -4- f) The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan will promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the-City of Rosemead and will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based on the fact that redevelopment will benefit the Project Area by correcting conditions of blight and by coordinating public and private actions to stimulate development and improve the economic and physical conditions of the Project Area, and by increasing employment opportunities within the City. g) The condemnation of real property, as provided for in the Redevelopment Plan, is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan, and adequate provisions have been made for the payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. This finding is based upon the need to ensure that the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan will be carried out and to prevent the recurrence of blight, and the fact that no property will be acquired until adequate funds are available to pay full compensation therefor. h) Although the Project Area contains few dwelling units, the Agency has a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons who might be displaced, temporarily or permanently from housing facilities in the Project Area. This finding is based upon the fact that the Agency has adopted a plan for the relocation of families, persons and businesses who might be displaced, temporarily or permanently, from housing facilities if any are within the Project Area, by Agency projects. The Redevelopment Plan provides for relocation assistance according to law and the fact that such assistance, including relocation payments, constitutes a feasible method for relocation. i) There shall be provided, within the Project Area or within other areas not generally less desirable with regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who might be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. This finding is based upon the fact that no person or family will be required to move from any dwelling unit until suitable replacement housing is available for occupancy, that such housing must meet the standards established in State law and regulations, in the Agency's Relocation Assistance Guidelines, the City's Housing Element, and the fact that there are no identified dwelling units in the Project Area. j) Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the entire area of which they are a part, and any such area is not included solely for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial justification for its inclusion. In addition, all properties within Project Area boundaries were included because they were under utilized, because of blighting influences, or were affected by the existence of blighting influences, or were necessary either to accomplish the objectives and benefits of the Redevelopment plan or because of the need to impose uniform requirements on the Project Area as whole. Such properties will share in the benefits of the Project. 1) The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone -5- without the aid and assistance of the Agency. This finding is based upon the existence of blighting influences, including, without limitation, the demonstrated lack of private sector interest in redeveloping the Project Area properties, structural deficiencies and other indications of blight more fully enumerated in the Agency's Report to City council, and the lack of feasibility due to cost of requiring individuals (by means of assessments or otherwise) to eradicate or significantly alleviate existing deficiencies in the Project Area properties and facilities, and the inability and inadequacy of other governmental programs and financing mechanisms to eliminate the blighting conditions. 1) The time limitation in the Redevelopment Plan is reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the Project Area and to the ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the Project Area Section 3. The City Council is satisfied that permanent housing facilities will be available within three years from the time residential occupants of the Project Area are displaced, and that pending the development of such facilities, there will be available to any such displaced residential occupants temporary housing facilities -at rents comparable to those in the City of Rosemead at the time of their displacement. No persons or families of low and moderate income shall be displaced from residencies unless and until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy by such displaced persons or families at rents comparable to those at the time of their displacement. This finding is based upon the Relocation Assistance Guidelines and the Housing Element, and the Agency's familiarity with the local housing market. Section 4. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to Section 33411 and 33411.1. Dwelling units having persons and families of low or moderate income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan. Section 5. Written objections to the Redevelopment Plan filed with the City Clerk before the hour set for hearing and all written and oral objections presented to the City Council at the hearing having been considered and, in the case of written objections received from Project Area property owners, residents, businesses and affected taxing agencies, having been responded to in writing, and all written responses have been considered by the City Council. Section 6. That certain document entitled "Environmental Impact Report for Project Area 2, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Agency, and in the office of the City Clerk, having been duly reviewed and considered, is hereby incorporated into this Ordinance by reference and made a part hereof. All activities undertaken by the Agency and/or the City of Rosemead pursuant to or in implementation of the Redevelopment Plan shall be undertaken in accordance with the mitigation measures set forth in said Environmental Impact Report, and the Agency shall undertake such additional environmental reviews as necessary at the time of implementation of such activities. Section 7. That certain document entitled "Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2", the map contained therein, and such other reports as are incorporated therein by reference, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Agency, and the office of the City Clerk, having been duly reviewed and considered, is -6- hereby incorporated in this Ordinance by reference and made a part hereof, and as so incorporated is hereby designated, approved, and adopted as the official "Redevelopment Plan for the Rosemead Redevelopment Project Area No. 2. Section& In order to implement and facilitate the effectuation of the Redevelopment Plan hereby approved, this City Council hereby: (a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Redevelopment Plan, (b) requests the various officials, departments, boards, and agencies of the City having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and to exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with redevelopment of the Project Area, (c) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan, and (d) declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceeding, including the expenditure of moneys, necessary to be carried out by the City under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. Section 9. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Agency, thereupon the Agency is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan. Section 10. The City Clerk is hereby directed to record with the County Recorder of Los Angeles County a description of the land within the Project Area and a statement that proceedings for the redevelopment of the Project Area have been instituted under the Community Redevelopment Law. Section 11. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of the description and statement recorded by the City Clerk pursuant to Section 9 of this Ordinance, a copy of this Ordinance, and a map or plat indicating the boundaries of the Project Area, to the Auditor-Controller and Assessor of the County of Los Angeles, to the governing body of each of the taxing agencies which receives taxes from property in the Project Area, and to the State Board of Equalization, within thirty days following the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. Section 12. The Building and Safety Department of the City of Rosemead is hereby directed for a period of two (2) years after the effective date of this Ordinance to advise all applicants for building permits within the Project Area that the site for which a building permit is sought for the construction of buildings or for other improvements is within a redevelopment project area. Section 13. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby finds that there are no newspapers of general circulation published and circulated within the City, and in compliance with Section 36933 of the Government Code, directs the City Clerk to cause said Ordinance within fifteen (15) days after its passage to be posted in at least three (3) places within the City. Section 14. If any part of this Ordinance or the Redevelopment Plan which it approves is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or of the Redevelopment Plan, and this Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of the Ordinance or approved the remainder of the Redevelopment Plan if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. 7- adoption. Section 15. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, THIS DAY OF , 2000 MAYOR CITY OF ROSEMEAD ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY OF ROSEMEAD -8-