HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 2179 RESOLUTION NO. 21.79
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN JACINTO ADOPTING WRITTEN
FINDINGS AND WRITTEN RESPONSES TO
WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED IN REGARD TO
THE SAN JACINTO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
AMENDMENT NO. 1
WHEREAS, the San Jacinto Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency') has
prepared the Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the San Jacinto
Redevelopment Project Amendment No. One (the "Amendment") and has filed
its Report on the Amendment with the City Council of the City of San Jacinto;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed Redevelopment Plan would integrate the
existing San Jacinto Redevelopment Project with the Amendment and add
certain property suffering from conditions of blight to the project area of the
San Jacinto Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 1993, a duly noticed joint public hearing on
the proposed Amendment was conducted by the City Council and the Agency,
and said hearing was continued to December 21, 1993; and
WHEREAS, any and all persons having any objections to the proposed
Amendment, or the regularity of the proceedings, were given an opportunity to
submit written comments prior to the commencement of or at the joint public
hearing, or to give oral testimony at the joint public hearing, and show cause
why the proposed Amendment should not be adopted; and
WHEREAS, Section 33363 of the California Community Redevelopment
Law (California Health and Safety Code, Section 33000 et seq.) requires the
City Council to make written findings in response to each written objection of
an affected property owner or taxing entity, addressing such objections in
detail and giving reasons for not accepting specified objections and
suggestions; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has directed the Agency staff to respond to
written objections received from affected property owners and taxing entities,
giving reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions, and the
City Council has reviewed such responses; and
WHEREAS, the Citv Council has heard and considered all evidence, both
written and oral, presented in support of and in opposition to the adoption of
the Amendment.
?BL:9925_11336JE2763.1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
San Jacinto as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby finds that the City Council and the
Agency have duly complied with all the provisions, requirements and
procedures of the Community Redevelopment Law relating to the preparation
and adoption of the Amendment.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that all persons have had the
opportunity to be heard or to file a written objection to the proposed
Amendment and the Redevelopment Plan.
SECTION 3. Having heard and carefully reviewed all oral objections
presented at the joint public hearing on the Amendment, the City Council
hereby finds and determines that compelling reasons exist in the record of the
joint public hearing (including, without limitation, testimony presented by
Agency staff in response to such oral objections) to justify adoption of the
Amendment as proposed, notwithstanding such oral objections, and such oral
objections are, accordingly, overruled.
SECTION 4. Having heard and carefully reviewed all written objections
presented by each affected property owner or taxing entity, the City Council
hereby makes the required written findings and responses to such written
objections, as set forth in EXHIBIT A, attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference, and determines that (i) the responses to written objections
are supported by substantial evidence, and (ii) there are compelling reasons to
justify adoption of the Amendment as proposed, notwithstanding such written
objections.
SECTION 5. The City Council, accordingly, overrules any and all
objections to the adoption of the Amendment.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21 st day of December, 1993.
Mayor, City of San Jacinto
ATTEST:
City Clerk, City of San Jacinto
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 1 ss.
CITY OF SAN JACINTO )
I, , City Clerk of the City of San Jacinto, hereby certify
that the above and foregoing Resolution No. was duly and regularly
passed and adopted by the City Council at a publicly noticed regular meeting
thereof, held on the day of December, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Ford, Solorio , Williams , Mayor Hafliger
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmember Leahy
ABSENT: None
City Clerk
EXIHIBIT "A"
RESPONSE TO COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
ANALYSIS: City of San Jacinto Redevelopment Agency Proposed Project
Amendment No. 1
Dated: December 7, 1993
The County's 16 page analysis forms the core of its written objection to the proposed San
Jacinto Redevelopment Project, Amendment No, 1 (Plan Amendment). The objection
attempts and fails to show that the Plan Amendment is invalid because the documentation
in support of the Plan Amendment's findings fails in several regards (headings used by the
County are used herein solely for ease of reference):
1. Failure to Prove Depreciation of Valise and Impairment of Investment
2. Failure to Prove Causality
3. Failure to Prove Necessity of Assembly of Irregular Parcels
4. Failure to Prove Conflict of Topography
5. Failure to Prove Heed for Public Services
8. Failure to Prove Inability of Private Enterprise to Fund Public Improvements
7. Failure to Prove Finding of Blight
8. Failure to Prove Urbanization
In addition, the County's submittal included a notebook that was divided into 16 sections
(A-P). These inclusions will be discussed in turn in the last section to this response to
written objections.
Except where otherwise indicated, citations of law refer to the Community Redevelopment
Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq, (hereinafter "CRL").
The following response and rebuttal is organized to treat each of the County's allegations in
turn, and to show why much of the County's factual information and reasoning is faulty,
misleading and ill founded.
General Observations
The overall thrust of the County's argument is that because much of the land in the area
covered by the Plan Amendment ("Project Amendment Area" or "Amendment Area") is in
agricultural use, the various blighting conditions documented in the Preliminary Report
and the Report to Council cannot be found. This is tantamount to saying that a
particularly noxious and blighted use cannot be classed as blight, because the use exists, is
not vavcant and does produce income of some sort. The County also argues that there can
be no blighted area unless there is no economic use. Obviously, blight could not be found
under any condition using this test. Thus, the more appropriate and accurate test as to
whether blight exists and predominates is set forth by statute in the record. (See CRL
Sections 33320.1, 33030, 33031, and 33032.) As the Council was reminded at the joint
Response to County of Riverside Objections
public hearing on December 7, 1993, and in the record, for a redevelopment plan or
amendment to be adopted, there must be substantial evidence in the record to support
findings enumerated in CRL Section 33367.
Thus, if the-test-of urbanization contained in CRL Section 33320.1 can be met, then
blighting conditions as described in CRL Sections 33031 and 33032 would apply no matter
what the use.
Introduction
The County asserts that the area is neither blighted nor predominately urbanized; that the
existing uses are valid and profitable, and contribute to the benefit of the City; and that the
Agency has not proven that its goals could not be achieved by the private sector.
Substantial documentation has been provided by the Agency in the Report to City Council
that discusses these issues. The Report indicates widespread conditions of blight that are
causing a serious impact on the community. The numerous conditions of blight combine to
thwart private sector efforts in the Project Amendment Area and thus, necessitate the use
of the special powers of the Agency. Particularly important are the Agency's abilities to
provide public improvements and to assemble properties for proper usefulness and
development consistent with the San Jacinto General Plan.
Failure to Prove Depreciation of Value and Impairment of Investment
The County states that agricultural land has a lower value per acre than residential and
commercial land. The City does not dispute that point: land with no improvements
generally is lower in value than land with improvements. However, the County claims that
the inclusion of agricultural land in the calculation of values in the Amendment Area
inaccurately implies disproportionately low values for residential and commercial
properties. The intent of the Agency was to show values for the entire Amendment Area,
not to choose selected parcels that would alter the values. The statement that average
values are higher if the low values are not considered is completely capricious.
It is odd that the County would desire such a methodology in determining values because
the Agency could very easily eliminate commercial property from the equation and show a
per acre value that is even lower than thosediscussed in the Report to City Council.
Instead, what is persent in the Project Amendment Area and what the Agency's Report to
City Council demonstrates is overall lower values in the Project Amendment Area.
It is important to note that even when agricultural land is factored out, the per acre values
in the Amendment Area are still significantly lower than the average values in the City.
According to the County's analysis, the adjusted per acre value is $40,014. Compared to
the City-wide average of $55,130, the adjusted Amendment Area value is 27.4% lower.
This is still a detrimental valuation relationship, especially when the City only receives
about 16 cents of every property tax dollar.
2
Response to County of Riverside Objections
The County also included a discussion on the base year of properties and reported on the
values from different years. The City does not dispute the numbers. However, without an
offering of how to determine present value based on different base years, the examples only
illustrate that land is worth more today than it was in the 1970s. Absent the budget to
perform independent appraisals on each parcel of land in the Amendment Area, the Agency
staff used current assessed value information provided by the County Assessors Office.
Additionally, the overall assessed valuation of the Project Amendment Area declined
significantly between fiscal year 1992/93 and 1993/94. Project Amendment Area
valuations in 1992/93 amounted to $98.0 million, but declined by 3.5% to $94.6 million in
1993/94. This datum strongly suggests that conditions in the Project Amendment Area are
resulting in declining property values and the resultant disinvestment. Such declines are
generally regarded as a prime indicator of blight.
Failure to Prove Causality
The County appears to argue that "economic dislocation, deterioration or disuse" as
described in the Community Redevelopment Law cannot be found in the Project
Amendment Area, because much of the land in the Project Amendment Area is devoted to
agricultural development, which contributes to the local economy.
This argument seems to assume that merely because the land in the Project Amendment
Area is used for agricultural purposes, it cannot be in a redevelopment project area due
merely to its class of use, There is nothing in the Community Redevelopment Law that
states that a class of land use is not blighted merely by definition.
The County claims that the Redevelopment Agency asserts without attribution that the
Agency has claimed that existing agricultural development does not contribute to the
economy of the region. The County fails, however, to show where such an assertion is
made, because the Agency nowhere makes such an assertion. There is nothing in the
Preliminary Report, in the Final Environmental Impact Report, or in the Report to Council
that states that the Project Amendment Area does not contribute to the economy of the
region. Rather, these documents show through detailed empirical analyses that the Project
Amendment Area experiences significant damage and impairment to value which cannot be
remedied by the private sector acting alone or by government without the use of
redevelopment. These facts are further substantiated through the written testimony of a
number of Project Area farmers and property owners. Specifically, letters that have been
included as part of the record show that the utilization of the land for the present "use" is
damaged and impaired due to a number of infrastructure problems, including inadequate
flood control facilities. Refer specifically to the letters from:
Mike Record, dated December 3, 1993
Paul Oddo, dated December 6, 1993
Randy Record, RGR Farming Company, dated December 6, 1993.
Clayton A. Record, Record Farms, Ltd., dated December 7, 1993
Vincent Record and'vVilliam Record, Record Rancho, dated December 1, 1993
3
Response to County of Riverside Objections
Calvin N.Westra, dated December 7, 1993
Richard and Linda DeVugst, dated December 3, 1993
All of these letters variously demonstrate that flooding conditions in the Project
Amendment Area have caused significant property damage, erosion, and loss of crops.
Additionally, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region,l
has stated that dairy operators are required to retain all wastewater on their property,
including stormwater runoff from manured areas and offsite water flowing into the dairy
that could commingle with polluted water. This is to help avoid downstream water
contamination from dairies. Obviously, drainage improvements are required to divert
upstream water around dairies in order to avoid undue water pollution and the resultant
threats to the public health, safety and welfare. It is highly unlikely that dairy operators in
the Project Amendment Area can provide such improvements without assistance from the
public sector. The record in fact substantiates that during flooding contamination is
occurring which burdens downstream properties. (See De Vugst letter and Oostdam
comments to Brian McNabb.) To the extent individual property owners erect berms or
dams to prevent or minimize the flow of excess water onto their land, while their costs will
increase, this will transfer rather than solve the flooding problem.
The County then quotes considerable information from the 1992 Agricultural Production
Report, but only analyzes the data relative to the whole of the San Jacinto/Temecula Valley
district. No attempt is made to evaluate trends or relative productivity in the Project
Amendment Area. It is only necessary to demonstrate that conditions that lead to
"economic dislocation, deterioration or disuse" exist in the Project Amendment Area, and
not that they exist throughout central Riverside County. Because the data is collected and
reports are made on a countywide basis and there is no basis discussed for the interpolation
of such results with respect to the relevant area (namely, the Project Amendment Area),
this material is of doubtful evidentiary value. The County's discussion of the 1992
Agricultural Production Report thus cannot be used persuasively to show blight or the lack
thereof in the Project Amendment Area. Note though, to the extent a sub-area less than
the entire County -- the San Jacinto/Temecula Valley District -- is isolated that the 1992
Agricultural Production Report shows clearly that agricultural production throughout the
San Jacinto/Temecula Valley area is declining at a much more rapid pace than throughout
the County as a whole. Between 1990 and 1992, the values of agricultural production in
the San Jacinto/Temecula Valley district declined by 14.4%, while between 1989 and 1991,
County-wide values declined only 4.6%. Looking at the directly comparable 1990 to 1991
period, the San Jacinto/Temecula district declined by 23.8% while the County as a whole
declined by only 8.3%.2 In short, the value of agricultural production in the San
Jacinto/Temecula district is declining at about three times the County-wide rate. The
County's claims to the contrary, such markedly greater rates of decline are usually clear
evidence of economic dislocation and disinvestment.
1Letter from Gary D. Stewart, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, dated December 8,
1993. Attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
21992 Agricultural Production Report. Office of the Agricultural Commissioner, County of
Riverside. n.d. See pages 9 and 10.
4
Response to County of Riverside Objections
Note also that the County of Riverside has placed large tracts of land in agricultural
production into redevelopment area. Specifically, approximately 17,000 acres of
agricultural land in Thermal (in the Coachella Valley) are currently in a Riverside County
redevelopment area, even though the value of agricultural production in the Coachella
Valley increased by 8.7% between 1990 and 1991. Using the County's line of reasoning, it
would appear that because the Thermal project is in the Coachella Valley, and because
agricultural production increased throughout the Coachella Valley, there are no blighting
conditions extant in the Thermal project area. The County thereby cannot justify the
continuation of this Project Area based on continuing blight.
The County further quotes agricultural production statistics for the Project Amendment
Area obtained from the Agricultural Commissioner.3 The County says that agricultural
production in the Project Amendment Area accounts for 9.4% of the total valuation of the
San Jacinto/Temecula district in 1992. This statement is incorrect. In coming up with its
9.4% number the County compared apples and oranges by adding together all agricultural
production in the Project Amendment Area (including livestock and dairy), and then
compared it only to crop production in the San Jacinto/Temecula Valley. When apples are
compared to apples, then the Project Amendment Area's share shrinks to a paltry 1.28%.
When the per acre value of crops in the Project Amendment Area is compared to the
County-wide per acre value of crops, then it becomes abundantly clear that the Project
Amendment Area is significantly less productive than the County as a whole, thus showing
signs of"economic dislocation, deterioration or disuse." Specifically, the County-wide value
of crops averaged $1,646 per acre in 1992, while Project Amendment Area per acre values
were 9.7% lower at $1,487.
The County first introduces into the record material from the Agricultural Commissioner,
then, when this proffered source material does not satisfy its desires, the County arbitrarily
and without explanation attempts to apply a 200% inflator to the Agricultural
Commissioner's estimates of the value of agricultural production in the Project Amendment
Area. Application of such multipliers can be misleading, however, especially when they are
only rules-of-thumb.4 The instant multiplier, however, is intended to give a generalized
picture of the value of shipping and processing added to an agricultural crop by the time it
reaches the table.
Thus, even setting aside the Agency's evidence for the moment and looking solely at the
data provided by the County, it becomes abundantly evident that current agricultural uses
in the Project Amendment Area are significantly less productive than agricultural uses in
the County as a whole. Evidence from Project Amendment Area farmers and property
owners indicate clearly that this relative lack of productivity is a result at least partially (if
not wholly) from the lack of adequate flood control improvements.
3Letter dated November 24, 1993 from Gan-L. Foster, Deputy Agricultural Commissioner to Denise
Harden. Letter included as item I in the County Exhibits and Supporting Documents.
4Gar-v L. Foster, County of Riverside Deputy Agricultural Commissioner, telephone conversation
December 16, 1993, and Ron Radnez, California Department of Food and Agriculture, telephone
conversation December 16, 1993.
5
Response to County of Riverside Objections
The County then begins to argue that since Project Amendment Area land values have
increased, depreciation or impairment of value, and thus blight, cannot be shown. ,While
this objection is treated in more detail below, it should be pointed out that land values in
the Project Amendment Area as a whole have declined, as demonstrated in the Report to
Council. Land value increases on specific parcels may also be the result of inflationary
pressures and land speculation. As shown above, agricultural production at least appears
to be decreasing rather than increasing.
The County appears to assume that the conditions listed in CRL Section 33031 and 33032
cause blight directly, but in reality they may be indices of underlying causes. Also, each of
the conditions may in and of itself not eliminate the ability of the private sector acting
alone to cause development, but taken together they may eliminate any potential for
achieving underlying public purposes such as the General Plan.
Failure to Prove Necessity of Assembly of Irregular Parcels
The County suggests that the Agency substituted analytic observation with an "almost
word for word" quote from the CRL regarding irregular parcels. However, as the County
submittal shows, the Agency cited the CRL when discussing irregular parcels. The citation
is from Section 33036 (c) under the heading of Declaration Regarding Inability of the
Individual Landowner to Remedy Blight. In doing so, the Agency is showing that the CRL
recognizes the inability of the private sector to act alone in the redevelopment of the area.
The County also suggests that the Agency's choice of words in the Preliminary Report (page
41) relative to the effects of small parcels in widely scattered ownerships changes the intent
of the citation. The Agency agrees that the language is not a quote (and it was not
presented as a quote) but the intent of the language is the same. Section 33036 (c) of the
CRL indicates that blight is found in areas that are subdivided into small parcels, held in
divided and widely scattered ownerships, and frequently having defective titles. Because of
these characteristics, the CRL continues, the private assembly of land for redevelopment is
difficult and costly. The Agency has evidence of land subdivided into small parcels and of
land being held in divided and widely scattered ownerships. Information regarding
defective titles is not readily available to the Agency so the connection between the
characteristics was drawn because they are often found in a blighted area.
The County objects to the Agency's use of the word "development" instead of
"redevelopment" when referring to the purpose of assembling parcels. The Agency used
"development" because, for the most part, the Project Amendment Area includes vacant
land that has physical restrictions to development that can be mitigated through
redevelopment with land assembly and adequate infrastructure. This mitigation would
allow development on previously undevelopable property. The objection thus turns out to
be one of semantics; the upgrading of the Project Amendment Area would constitute the
"redevelopment" of that area.
In addition, the County alleges that the size of a parcel does not constitute a blight
condition. The City directs the County to Section 33032 (a) of the CRL which states as a
6
Response to County of Riverside Objections
condition of blight: "The subdividing and sale of lots of irregular form and shape and
inadequate size for proper usefulness and development". [emphasis added]
The County indicates that of the 74 irregular parcels in the Amendment Area, about 72 or
73 are already owned in conjunction with adjacent properties by the same owners. This is
not true. An analysis of the ownerships in the Amendment Area using information from
the County Assessors Office shows that only 37 irregular parcels have adjacent parcels
owned by the same owner. If those parcels were assembled, 16 still remain irregular. This
equals 9.5% of the Amendment Area. An example of four of the 74 irregular parcels is
included in this response on the following pages. These maps show parcels, as they exist on
County Assessors maps, that are subdivided in irregular form and shape and inadequate
size for proper development. The examples also include one area where the combination of
irregular parcels owned by the same owner still does not alleviate the problem. Instead, it
creates a larger irregular parcel. A complete list of the irregular parcels was included in
the County's submittal.
Regarding the reconveyance information supplied by the County, it shows that there is
some degree of conveyance activity, but the presentation of mere numbers does not show
where the parcels are located, if the parcels were small or irregularly shaped, if the parcels
were combined to facilitate development or were done on speculation, and many other
factors that could explain such activity. In addition, the conveyance data also shows a
significant drop in values since 1990.
7
12 s
Example of the Subdividing of a Lot of Irregular Form and Shape
and Inadequate Size for Proper Usefulness and Development
E
Cat_�o# PDR SECS. 2745_e34, 7.74S, F-f�ra
5
r ISOUTH CEHJ7-17AI- AV.-.>
I00..P•
O Q '4 t w a ` ✓` L' a A.
t Mr 1 Ae�r.y Ar�I n
S
< �J t aJJJae
®\ ® { ;m e=_ � � ® � •+3 ' � euww f Jura
�Vw r i -. /� `a� �7� a'®�+aP0.•'�•.S Sa'S:�O.....• TZf '-sl a/
P 4 r(a .-!. /`0y B.iB ,i u• R w• 1Bwm'� -.JaV19 ttJ•' P�aM
It L s Q4"/1 e� 4- ,
J"r
Peet nn •n •-. /./ya//..(y•)�.
` °�P-• m ® •t t' 6.Sa G� �7i � 1lDD
JC g i 4 4 oti i9
. +apt Qr� ee-r.-` �rt � �� ®� ®p �� � • ®� �
toms Snddirisias of Farmw COfs 640a
i CQBd -Associatiaw
e Cand B Wa�tr iaamps +9dBition tB 5aar J. < _
v
a v
0
w J JS Sd sci v, Rs' A' - - mt� -s%oFf
o
t .
at s w p: L O 1 S>P �jFC jLP1 r% lw �� 6 /y
s v 'O
wjvsr 7 ' 4 ,f °i i Pm®ti
IS —r'—
+CS
r'------- i r- m ss nc
a —--- 6 _ 1 a�t01 I IIYZD ►r.ei
a
a c a •• •aca
S60 1 l %�1 JET. h I IA'Il�
97o060c
�TP07 w { ���a=' 3s�`�': 1 S r 9 •�.>'� ►/ �../ O
. � 1
o
s
0 7 F 8 S STKi
oF� e5'c stir 93C st s% a r,f (2 O
®� P os 09 —09 K vri
4 s
1 in G' (OP31A QLNL7Vr XVS VY YOd)
luauzdoFanaCj puu ssaujntas j iadoad lo3 oziS azEnbapuuj pue
adsgS puu uuo3 juinfaui ;o io-r r 40 'DucptncpgnS aql 3o aidunxg
439-07
Example of the Subdividing of a Lot of Irregular Form and Shape
and Inadequate Size for Proper Usefulness and Development
439-07 -C. d. Oro-050 POR_ Ra S4N G MW7 0 AEJO
O/0_7a2
(7W-Rlw)
435 ,
i
21
!i l ®re
—s
a s ® s4t:�2";
.�9y
/rs 200'
M.2
s•�-=r� v r ' Abe rur A= asJ.twr
Foe Poe Z 1 K ^
aryfa. J`J
ItrfgcY
a eras
=asaas ,$ Z
QSpJGNZ
aaa-
a /(O.`JU aazu' sac
' Pot Pat 3
Ysf£ aBamt v 11 (� iC a Aac Anc j 3
cuss u �
/AeW is N.sr ElY.m w M /G"�
d® s rr r I v y 3 cgs 4 e r-.iFX
•. .i.Sr gg'i ® Poe Pbl4 n
o / w asr®
4 ,� e �ia•�5 �
a � � = 1
MAMW
a.
AMI"ia
MM
TRACT
stet s+ ss ssioo,A..S TIl PZ La' "' E of SUM7 4E/.s.
.-Aw./aT-
rns
- yr �z r...h• .z eex
tr -
r:a! P t►
9� Y
A
439-16
Example of the Subdividing of a Lot of Irregular Form and Shape
and Inadequate Size for Proper Usefulness and Deveiooment
i r. CA AM. FCV? Ro. S41V J4CINM VIEW /
ct
! 7S
i �7t7U ytrt E.l3 C-S
O � �
ry
/93 ay?��
c
7 4r7G d a
ti
RECOW of 4ZI64
k►►�1/!!/V1!!!�\jjt
Response to County of Riverside Objections
Failure to Prove Conflict with Topography
The County throughout this section appears to claim that if land has been historically used
for agricultural purposes, there can be no topographic issues, and that parcels are properly
configured. However, there is nothing in the Health and Safety Code that exempts
agricultural land from the tests contained in Section 33032, and the fact that land may
have been well configured for one use may not mean that it is configured well for other
preferred uses or to meet current health and safety issues.
For instance, the topography of much of the Project Amendment Area puts it in a flood
plain, and thus subject in places to almost annual floods. While this flooding may have
been acceptable 100 years ago, it is not acceptable at present, either for agricultural uses or
for the urban uses most of the Project Amendment Area is currently General Planned and
zoned for. The flooding causes significant damage. Also, as described above, Regional
Water Quality Control Board standards require dairy farmers to contain runoff on site,
including any flood waters originating upstream and not diverted around the farm. This
measure is intended to help reduce downstream water pollution. Obviously, the location of
the dairy in a flood plain leads not only to high mitigation costs on the part of the farmer,
but significant downstream public health, safety and welfare issues. From this perspective,
portions of the Project Amendment Area subject to flooding are not well suited to dairy
farming, among other agricultural pursuits. Also, numerous letters from Project
Amendment Area farmers show clearly that flooding adversely affects the usability of their
land for agricultural purposes.
Agricultural development aside, however, the General Planned and zoned urban
residential, commercial and industrial uses in the Project Amendment Area will all require
significant flood control improvements, as demonstrated in the Preliminary Report and the
Report to Council. Flood control improvement costs alone will cost an estimated
S75,000,000 in 1993 dollars. This cost is likely to be similar whether agricultural land or
urban land is being protected from flooding.
The definition of urbanization contained in the Community Redevelopment Law clearly
does not exclude land used for agricultural purposes, as the County would like the reader of
its comments to believe. Rather, the definition of "predominantly urbanized" contained in
the Community Redevelopment Law at Section 33320.1 clearly includes land that is
"...characterized by the conditions described in subdivision (a), (b), or (e) of Section 33032..."
In turn, Section 33032(a), (b) and (e) includes subdivision of lots of irregular form, form
shape and size, laying out of lots in disregard to topography or physical characteristics of
the land, or various other conditions that pertain to Lake Tahoe. Thus, land that meets
these criteria is classed as "predominantly urbanized" by the Community Redevelopment
Law. Clearly, none of this limits the counting of agricultural land as urbanized for the
purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law whether or not the County chooses to
substitute its own definition of urban for that of the Community Redevelopment Law.
Note also that the County's implication that agricultural land cannot be counted as
"urbanized" cannot be squared with the County's position taken elsewhere that such other
redevelopment project areas as the County's plead Valley and Thermal project areas are
12
Response to County of Riverside Objections
blighted and urbanized. Both of these project areas use Section 33032(a), (b) and (e) to
define vacant and agricultural land as urbanized.
The County then includes a 100 year old description of the San Jacinto area in an attempt
to show that the San Jacinto area was well adapted to agriculture at the time, and that the
area appeared prosperous to the description's author. The relevance or materiality of such
antiquarian information is difficult to fathom, especially because the 100 year old piece
reads suspiciously like an advertising broadside, rather than like an objective analysis of
San Jacinto's wealth 100 years ago. The 100 year old description also shows how San
Jacinto's relative fortunes have declined over the last century. Where in 1893 San Jacinto
was the second largest city in the County, it is now the 15th largest.l The County's quotes
demonstrate clearly that the City's position in the County has declined significantly
relative to other areas of the County. While no data are available, this decline could be due
in whole or in part to the configuration of agricultural lots in throughout the area. Note
that the 100 year old puff piece quoted by the County applies to the San Jacinto area as a
whole, rather than to the Project Amendment Area. Such area-wide arguments cannot be
used to demonstrate blight or the lack thereof in the Project Amendment Area. To this
extent, the County's argument that if there was no blight 100 years ago there must be no
blight now is totally inapplicable.
The overall thrust of the County's argument that the because the Project Amendment Area
may have been suitable for agriculture 100 years ago it could not be blighted today is
tantamount to arguing that if an area was wealthy and healthy 100 years ago, then
blighting conditions could not exist today. Changing economic, social and physical
conditions would not result in changing expectations and standards regarding land use. In
other words, if a downtown was economically prosperous 100 years ago, then all conditions
in the downtown must be prosperous today. If this were the case, then all older downtowns
must never have lost their prosperity, and there must be no blight. Obviously, such an
argument is preposterous, as is amply demonstrated by conditions in our central cities
today.
The County also asserts that the Agency's argument regarding (one assumes) blighting
conditions in the Project Amendment Area is not credible, because the City claimed that
agricultural land would be protected as part of Annexation 66, but that redevelopment
activities would promote growth in the Project Amendment Area. The point of the airing-
out of the County's hard feelings that the majority of voting participants at LAFCO
disagreed with the County's block of votes is not apparent. Does the County truly see any
relevance of such Annexation to these proceedings, or is it merely "getting even" for a
perceived slight? In any event, the County conveniently ignores the fact that the City
adopted mitigation measures that would protect farmland as part of Annexation 66, as part
of the Sunrise Ranch Specific Plan, and as part of the Environmental Impact Report for the
instant project. Clearly the City of San Jacinto is sensitive to the preservation of
agricultural land where it is feasible to do so.
Be that as it may, though, the private sector appears to be signaling strongly that
agriculture will not work in the Project Amendment Area, and that most, if not all, of the
1State of California, Department of Finance. Riverside County Population and Housing Estimates,
Report E-5. April 27, 1993.
13
Response to County of Riverside Objections
land presently used for agricultural purposes will transition to residential, commercial and
industrial uses during the term of the Amended Redevelopment Plan. This trend is amply
demonstrated by the specific, documented instances of damage and losses experienced
within the Project Amendment Area as well as changes in Williamson Land Act contracts.
Of the 1,011.1 acres of land presently under Williamson Land Act contracts, notices of non-
renewal have been filed on 536.5 acres, or 53.1%. In other words, the owners of 53.1% of
the land no longer wish the agricultural protection offered by a Williamson Land Act
contract.
The County concludes its remarks regarding failure to prove conflict with topography by
saying that evidence of land sales in the Project Amendment Area is evidence that
blighting conditions do not exist pursuant to CRL section 33032(a). The County fails to
show what land sales patterns have to do with the size and shape of lots. Note though,
that reconveyance activity has dropped off sharply in the Project Amendment Area since
1991, and that overall assessed valuation in the Project Amendment Area declined between
fiscal year 1992/93 and 1993/94 by about 3.5% from $98.0 million to $94.6 million.
In sum, despite their claims to the contrary, the County has entirely failed to show
properties in the Project Amendment Area do not suffer from topographic problems.
Failure to Prove Need for Public Services
The County claims the Agency has been unable to prove the need for additional public
services. The only argument that the County presents is that because the City, as part of
Annexation 66, said that community facilities districts would be used to finance on-going
public safety services, there is no need for public services in the Project Amendment Area.
One supposes that the County means to say that existing community facilities districts
eliminate the need for additional public services in the Project Amendment Area, or City-
wide for that matter.
This argument is fatuous at best, and amply demonstrates the County's gross lack of
understanding of the redevelopment process, redevelopment law, and public service
financing.
The financing powers authorized under the Plan Amendment may only be used to provide
capital facilities, administer redevelopment in the Project Amendment Area during its
lifetime, and provide other one-time or short-term assistance programs to local residents,
property owners, and business operators. The Redevelopment Plan specifies the scope of
these programs. Redevelopment revenues are of limited duration, and may not be used for
recurring operational expenses such as police and fire protection.
Ongoing services such as police protection, fire protection, facilities maintenance,
operations and administration are generally financed out of recurring funds such as the
General Fund. To finance such services out of limited-term revenues (such as tax
increments), or out of one-time revenues (such as development fees) is irresponsible at best.
14
Response to County of Riverside Objections
Rather, one of the roles of the Redevelopment Agency's facilities improvements programs
will be to relieve competing pressures on the General Fund and other on-going revenues to
provide both capital facilities and various services. This does not mean that community
facilities districts will not be needed in the future to provide much needed public services in
newly developing areas. Rather, this means that there may be less of a reliance on
community facilities districts in the future as redevelopment funds are able to help finance
more and more capital facilities in the community. Finally, with regard to the County's
allegations (in this and other sections of its "Analysis"), the Agency has been criticized for
not considering financial alternatives other than redevelopment as a means to address the
problems existing in the Project Amendment Area. This criticism is unwarranted. As
noted in the memorandum of Pam Easter, transmitting these responses to the City Council,
staff has in fact considered other financial alternatives to redevelopment. Contrary to the
County's claim, assessment districts are not the answer, not only because they would
economically overburden the land, but because assessment districts would be driven by
future development and would not solve the presently existing health and safety dangers to
which current Amendment Area owners, businesses and downstream property owners are
exposed as a result of flooding and flood-carried farming contaminants.
In short, the Agency does not claim that redevelopment is needed to fund public services.
Rather, the only claim made by the Agency is that there is a City-wide public service crisis,
and that the Agency's capital facilities activities will help free up General Fund moneys to
increase funding for public services, including police and fire protection.
Failure to Prove Inability of Private Enterprise to Fund Public Improvements
The County asserts that it is fallacious for the Agency to report that the needed
improvements in the Amendment Area would cost each owner about $220,000, because
two-thirds of the area is agricultural land and, as a result, the per acre values of non-
agricultural land are higher. First of all, the County itself showed that by eliminating the
agricultural land from the equation, the per acre values are still much lower than the
median in Riverside County (See Failure to Prove .Depreciation of Value and Impairment of
Investment). Second, the calculation in question was made based on the number of
individual owners, not the value of their properties. If individual property owners were
forced to pay for the needed infrastructure, it would cost about $220,000 regardless of the
value of their properties. The basic fact is that each property owner would not be able to
afford this cost, especially in an area where the median household income is half of that of
the State.
The County also argues that if the General Plan succeeds, there would be many thousands
of new residential parcels and wage earners living in those residences that could fund the
infrastructure envisioned in the Redevelopment Plan. This is not necessarily true. First of
all, the Agency has provided significant evidence that the build-out goals of the General
Plan will not succeed in the Amendment Area because of the many blighting conditions.
Second, with CFDs and other means of financing, any new development may be able to
fund the improvements for itself. This, however, does not address the problems that exist
today. As discussed in the Report to City Council, there are already $88,000,000 of needed
15
Response to County of Riverside Objections
facilities just to service the existing development. Future development will create the need
for more public facilities and it is possible, as demonstrated in the Report to City Council,
that other means of financing will be used in conjunction with tax increment funds. It is
important to note that CFDs, and other methods of funding that are paid for by property
owners and developers, create an additional economic burden on a community that already
has a very low median household income. As demonstrated in the attached letters from
property owners in the Amendment Area (see Attachment A), the money is not available to
individuals to pay for the improvements.
The County asserts that the Agency is incorrect for basing the analysis on current median
household income because most of the land in the Amendment Area is not currently
residential. Inasmuch as the Agency did use the median household income as a part of the
analysis, the number of residential parcels in the Amendment Area is irrelevant. In other
words, an increase of the number of residences in the Amendment Area does not mean that
the household income will increase.
As far as the County's claim that the Agency provided no documentation relative to the
ability of the Project Amendment Area to carry debt is concerned, even the most cursory
reading of the Preliminary Report and the Report to Council would have revealed that
Tables 10 and 11 of the Report to Council (or Table 9 of the Preliminary Report) contain a
detailed analysis of the tax increment revenue generation potential of the Project
Amendment Area.
The City was not incorrect during the LAFCO proceedings for Annexation 66 when it stated
in its report that "public financing districts, Measure A, and TUMF" may be used to finance
improvements for new development. Again, these financing tools may take care of future
needs on a parcel-by-parcel basis, but will not address the wide-spread infrastructure needs
to service the existing development. Alternative methods of financing were proposed in the
Redevelopment Plan and in the documentation for Annexation 66. While different
alternate methods were discussed, this is hardly a "dramatic reversal" as the County
alleges.
Failure to Prove Finding of Blight
• In its Report to City Council, the Agency pro�2des substantial evidence of conditions of
blight:
• Faulty Exterior Spacing (page 32)
• Depreciated Values/Impaired Investments (page 34)
• Irregular Parcels (page 41)
• Age, Obsolescence, Deterioration, Mixed Character, and Shifting of Uses (page 50)
• Defective Design/Physical Construction (page 54)
• Public Service Issues (page 55)
• Inadequate Public Improvements (page 57)
This information supports the Agency's and Council's determination that the conditions in
the Amendment Area constitute a serious physical, social or economic burden on the
community.
16
Response to County of Riverside Objections
The County's assertion that the area is not blighted because there are land uses that are
supporting notable economic benefits to the community is not based on any source other
than its own County departments. As letters from farmers and others within the
Amendment Area indicate, it is evident that flood problems relating to lack of adequate
infrastructure and parcels that were laid out in disregard to the topography and other
physical characteristics are creating an economic burden on the community.
Failure to Prove Finding of Urbanization
In its evaluation of the urbanization of the Amendment Area, the County conveniently
ignores the evidence that 2,250.32 acres of land are affected by flooding or parcelization
problems and that 153.21 acres are an integral part of an area developed for urban uses.
These characteristics are exempt from the calculation of vacant land according to Section
33320.1 of the CRL.
Further misinterpretations of the CRL on the part of the County can be seen in the
urbanization chart in their submittal. In it, the County subtracts property solely on the
basis of its existing land use and ownership. This is not consistent with the CRL which
does not allow the inclusion of land based on the statement that it has "historically been
productive and appropriately used", as the County so claims. Instead of current land use,
the CRL allows the exemption based on parcelization and the physical characteristics of the
land. In its Report to City Council, the Agency includes substantial evidence supporting
this finding.
The County's observation about removing publicly owned streets and roads while not
removing other publicly owned land has some validity from a calculation standpoint. In the
Report to City Council, this issue was raised but due to a processing error, the alternative
urbanization chart was not shown. Table 7 in the Report should have shown the
urbanization without streets and Table 8 should have shown the urbanization with streets.
Instead, two copies of Table 8 were included. The text, however, is correct. When streets
are eliminated from the equation, the Amendment Area is 83.9% urbanized. Because
Section 33320 of the CRL is unclear as to whether improved right-of-ways are included or
excluded from this calculation, the Agency prepared an additional urbanization chart. This
alternative, in which all publicly owned land is included, resulted in an urbanization
number of 85.4%. The missing Table 7 is below.
Total number of acres in Project Area (including streets 3,885.05
Total number of acres of streets counted as vacant 93.75
Total number of acres of streets counted as integral) 81.29
Total number of acres that are developed for urban uses 762.94
Total number of acres that have been developed for urban uses 0.00
Total number of acres that are an integral part of an area developed 153.21
for urban uses
Total number of acres that are characterized by the conditions 2,250.32
described in Section 33032(a), b , or e
% property in Project Area that is urbanized 83.9%
17
Response to County of Riverside Objections
Conclusion
The County's assertion that the Amendment Area "may be ideal for new development -
save for the flooding...- is not a concern of the redevelopment code" is very misleading.
When flooding is caused by inadequate public facilities and parcelization that was done
without regard to the topography or other physical characteristic to such an extent that it
restricts development and causes damage on existing property, it most certainly is a
concern of redevelopment law.
The Agency has provided substantial evidence to show that each sub-area has at least one
characteristic of blight and that the conditions of blight could not reasonably be expected to
be alleviated by the private sector acting alone. The problems in the Amendment Area
have slowly occurred over time and the private sector has yet to redevelop the area. In fact,
property owners in the Amendment Area have demonstrated that they can not only not
afford to pay$88,000,000 for of needed improvements, but that recurring flooding problems
cost them money. These conditions have cumulated to the point that they are now a
significant burden on the community. Therefore, the Amendment is legally sound and
would be a benefit to all residents, businesses, and taxing agencies in the region.
18
Response to County of Riverside Objections
RESPONSE TO EXHIBITS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Section A -Aerial Map of the Project Area
Response - The aerial map shows the existing Project Area and the Amendment Area. Post-
its have been placed on recent residential developments that are not within the boundaries
of the existing Project Area or the Amendment Area. Except insofar as such activities
outside the Project Area or the Project Amendment Area may imply that the Project Area
or Project Amendment Area are hindered by factors which cause them to be bypassed by
development, this map is of no relevancy or probative value with respect to this Project and
no further response is necessary.
Section B - San Jacinto Redevelopment Agency Project Amendment Area Maps
Response - These are the maps provided by the Agency and included in the Report to City
Council. The reason of the inclusion of these maps in the County's objection is unknown as
they are not referenced and no additional information is included on them. In addition, as
part of the Report to City Council, they all already part of the public record for this project.
Therefore, no further response is necessary.
Section C - Assessor's Parcel Maps
Response - The reason of the inclusion of these maps in the County's objection is unknown
as they are not referenced and no additional information is included on them. It should be
noted that the Agency used this information in its blight and urbanization analyses.
Therefore, no further response is necessary.
Section D - Assessor's Property Data
Response - The reason of the inclusion of this information in the County's objection is
unknown as it is not referenced. It should be noted that the Agency used this information
in its blight and urbanization analyses. Therefore, no further response is necessary.
Section E - Information from the City of San Jacinto and Redevelopment Agency
Response - The County has included in its submission copies of correspondence between
itself and the City, the Agency's newsletter, and other materials produced by the City.
None of the items can be considered an objection to the Amendment. Therefore, no further
response is necessary.
19
Response to County of Riverside Objections
Section F - Tables and Summary Analysis
Response - There are five tables with value, conveyance, and urbanization information.
Generally, the Agency does not disagree with the information presented because the source
of the information (the County Assessors Office) is the same source used by the Agency for
similar calculations. However, with the exception of the urbanization chart, this
information is not referenced in the objection and, as a result, no explanations or
conclusions are made as to their meaning. Therefore, no further response is necessary. A
response to the urbanization chart is included in Response to Analysis: San Jacinto
Redevelopment Agency Project Amendment No. 1, Failure to Prove Finding of Blight.
Section G - Charts and Graphs
Response - The charts and graphs are comparisons of values and base years by land use.
Generally, the Agency does not disagree with the information presented because the source
of the information (the County Assessors Office) is the same source used by the Agency for
similar calculations. However, the use of zoning to illustrate a large percentage of future
agricultural land uses is incorrect and misleading. The County claims that 66.1% of the
Amendment Area is zoned for agricultural uses. However, there are only 223.07 acres of
land zoned for agricultural uses. This is only 5.7% of the Amendment Area.
In addition, Redevelopment law requires that the Redevelopment Plan be consistent with
the City's General Plan and there is no land designated for agricultural uses in the General
Plan. See Response to Analysis: San Jacinto Redevelopment Agency Project Amendment No.
1, Failure to Prove Depreciation of Value and Impairment of Investment.
Section H - Letter from the Department of Conservation
Response: See separate response memorandum for this letter. The fact that the letter,
which is dated December 6, 1993 finds its way into the middle of a large objections report
dated December 7, 1993 shows that the letter was probably written at the behest of the
County, and may not represent the reflective, independent judgement of the Department of
Conservation. This is especially evident since the Department of Conservation neither
commented on the EIR's notice, nor on the Draft EIR. This would show a real lack of
concern on the part of the Department until prompted by the County. Additionally, the
Department moderated its statements in a subsequent letter dated December 8, 1993.
Section I - County Agricultural Commissioner's Report
Response - See Response to Analysis: San Jacinto Redevelopment Agency Project Amendment
No. 1, Failure to Prove Causality.
20
Response to County of Riverside Objections
Section J- 1992 Agricultural Production Report
Response - See Response to Analysis: San Jacinto Redevelopment Agency Project.Amendment
No. 1, Failure to Prove Causality.
Section K - Flood Control
Response - This section contains charts and maps. The reason of the inclusion of the charts
in the County's objection is unknown, as they are not referenced. However, the charts do
show that there has been significant flooding in the area.
The County has also included a copy of a map showing flooding areas and copies of the
Agency's flooding maps with notes on them. The two are not consistent and the sources of
the information are not cited. The large map has a hastily hand-written legend, part of
which is torn away.
The Agency generated the flooding maps from information on the Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) and the City Planning Department.
Section L - Fiscal Review Committee Documentation
Response - The Report of the Fiscal Review Committee, and response thereto, is in the
Agency's Report to City Council. Therefore, no further response is necessary.
Section M - Comments on the Environmental Impact Report
Response - The comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report ended on
October 7, 1993. The County was a commenting agency and responses to their comments
were incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report, which is included as an
Appendix to the Report to City Council. Pursuant to CEQA, the responses to the comments
were made available to all responding agencies on December 3, 1993.
Section N -Legal Documentation
Response - The inclusion of AB 1290 is puzzling, as the bill does not take effect until 1994; in
other words to the extent the County must rely upon AB 1290 to support its position, it is
relying upon legal requirements or provisions which are not applicable. Resort to citation
to AB 1290 is in the nature of an admission by the County that its position is not
supportable based upon currently applicable law. The County also included a
Memorandum from the law offices of Goldfarb & Lipman regarding A131290. In a
telephone conversation with Jack Nagle, an attorney at Goldfarb & Lipman who was
responsible for the preparation of the Memorandum, the Memorandum is one law firm's
interpretation of AB 1290 and was not intended to be used to judge a project of which the
firm has no knowledge. In fact, Mr. Nagle was unaware and surprised that the County had
21
Response to County of Riverside Objections
possession of and was using the copyrighted Memorandum. In answering the question of
the use of the standards in AB 1290 on projects adopted prior to January 1, 1994, Mr. Nagle
specifically pointed to the first line of Section II on page 14 which states "AB 1290 institutes
major reforms of both the procedures and the substantive findings involved in adoption of
new redevelopment plans and certain types of plan amendments on or after January 1,
1994." The intent of the Memorandum, according to Mr. Nagle, was to describe a new law
that will take affect on January 1, 1994. Clearly, the provisions of AB1290 do not apply
because it is not part of current redevelopment law.
The County includes in this section copies of three published cases dealing with the
adoption of redevelopment plans or amendments: Emmington v. Solano County
Redevelopment Agency, (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 491, Sweetwater Valley Civic Association v.
City of National Citv, (1976) 18 C.3d 270, and Rebus v. City of Baldwin Park, (1977)
70 Cal.App.3d 968. The County's misapplication and misinterpretation of the Emmington
and Sweetwater cases is discussed in the Agency's response to the David K. McElroy letter
dated December 7, 1993.
Although the County provides no explanation why the Regus case is included in its
materials, the Regus is also inapposite to the present situation. In Reg ids, certain sites
were proposed for inclusion in a redevelopment project area for the purpose of obtaining tax
increment adequate to support the issuance of a bond, but with "no substantial evidence
suggest(ing) the existence of blight at either site." (Regus, at pages 976-977.) In discussing
the report which set forth reasons for the Project, as proposed by Baldwin Park, the court
continued: "The existence of blight as a reason for the selection of the Project area was not
mentioned." (Re us, at page 979.) The court indicated that testimony in favor of the
project "invoked the hope of commercial and industrial development," but the court
observed that blight was a prerequisite to the inclusion of area within a project area.
(Regus, at pages 979-980.) In contrast, relative to the proposed Amendment No. 1 to the
San Jacinto Redevelopment Project, there are significant conditions of blight which
presently pervade the Project Amendment Area and injuriously affect the health and safety
of the community. These conditions are discussed at length in the administrative record.
Furthermore, it has been and remains an identified objective of the Agency to eliminate
blighting influences. (See Report to City Council for the San Jacinto Redevelopment
Project, Amendment No. 1 by the San Jacinto Redevelopment Agency, December, 1993,
page 12). In addition, a finding that blight is present and pervasive to the extent
contemplated by CRL Sections 33030, 33031, and 33032 is supported by substantial
evidence in the administrative record.
Section O -Annexation 66 Documentation
Response - The inclusion of approximately 200 double-sided pages of information related to
Annexation 66 seems capricious when the County refers to only two paragraphs from this
information in its objection. However, the annexation documentation includes information
that helps provide evidence of blight and urbanization in the Amendment Area. The Local
Agency Formation Staff Commission Staff Report describes the area, which is the bulk of
the Amendment Area, as having "constraints to forecasted growth". These constraints
include "the San Jacinto River's periodic flood-related problems, rugged terrain, and
significant slope areas." The Staff Report and the County Letter and Analysis both agree
22
Response to County of Riverside Objections
that agricultural uses in the area will shift to commercial and industrial development. This
suggests that the use the land in this area is not as economically viable as the County now
suggests. See Response to Analysis: San Jacinto Redevelopment agency Project Amendment
No. 1, Failure to Prove Finding of Blight.
Section P - Sub-Area Analysis (Photographs)
Response - Although there are no specific objections in this part of the County's submittal,
the City Council will respond to each photograph and the overall comments.
SUB-AREA 1
Photo Exhibits
Photos 1-1 - 1-29 show property that is affected by flooding problems that are a result of a
lack of needed infrastructure and parcels that were not laid out with regard to topography
or other physical characteristic. In addition, all property is designated as Commercial,
Industrial, Residential, or Public uses in the San Jacinto General Plan. There is no land
designated for agricultural uses in the Amendment Area,
Photo 1-30 is of a property that is not in the Amendment Area.
Photos 1-31 - 1-51 show property that is affected by flooding problems that are a result of a
lack of needed infrastructure and parcels that were not laid out with regard to topography
or other physical characteristic. In addition, all property is designated as Commercial,
Industrial, Residential, or Public uses in the San Jacinto General Plan. There is no land
designated for agricultural uses in the Amendment Area.
Slides 1 - 4 show property that is affected by flooding problems that are a result of a lack of
needed infrastructure and parcels that were not laid out with regard to topography or other
physical characteristic. In addition, all property is designated as Commercial, Industrial,
Residential, or Public uses in the San Jacinto General Plan. There is no land designated
for agricultural uses in the Amendment Area.
Overall, it is important to note that the photographs were carefully framed so as not to
capture the closure of Sanderson Avenue which was closed for approximately 10 months
due to flood damage.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area, including one
development that is not in the Project Amendment Area. Interestingly, there are several
references to properties that have abandoned structures, abandoned farms and agricultural
land, and agricultural land that is not in production. In addition, the submittal describes
residences that are "older and not as well cared for." These are similar to those conditions
described by the Agency in the Report to City Council.
23
Response to County of Riverside Objections
According to Sections 33031 and 33032 of the CRL, age and deterioration of structures,
inadequate public improvements, and the laying out of parcels in disregard to topography
or other physical condition are all characteristics of a blighted area.
There are no objections stated, so no further response is necessary.
SUB-AREA 2
Photo Exhibits
Photo 2-1 is of a property that is not in the Amendment Area.
Photos 2-2 - 2-3 show properties that were not laid out with regard to topography or other
physical characteristic.
Photo 2-4 shows the San Jacinto River which is the source of frequent flooding problems.
There is also a reference to properties that are not in the Amendment Area.
Photos 2-5 - 2-6 show properties that are affected by flooding problems that are a result of a
lack of needed infrastructure and parcels that were not laid out with regard to topography
or other physical characteristic.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area. The City agrees
with the County's finding that this Sub-Area is a "very hilly mountainside" and is bisected
by the San Jacinto River "which during the rainy season often floods." After providing that
evidence, the submittal then claims that there is no urbanization or blight conditions.
According to Section 33032 of the CRL, inadequate public improvements and the laying out
of parcels in disregard to topography or other physical condition are characteristics of a
blighted area. In addition, according to Section 33320.1 of the CRL, vacant land that is
characterized by the laying out of parcels in disregard to topography or other physical
condition is considered to be urbanized. Therefore, Sub-area 2 displays conditions of blight
and urbanization. These conditions are described in more detail in the Report to City
Council,
SUB-AREA 3
Photo Exhibits
Photo 3-1 is of a property that is not in the Amendment Area.
Photos 3-2 - 3-8 show commercial and residential properties that are not developing due to
the subdivision of lots of irregular form, shape, or size for proper usefulness and
24
Response to County of Riverside Objections
development. The two parcels that have been developed show signs of piecemeal
development and circulation problems due to faulty exterior spacing on the irregularly
shaped lots.
Photo 3-9 is of a property that is not in the Amendment Area.
Photo 3-10 shows commercial and residential property that is not developing due to the
subdivision of lots of irregular form, shape, or size for proper usefulness and development.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area, including one
development that is not in the Amendment Area. There are no objections, so no further
response is necessary.
SUB-AREA 4
Photo Exhibits
Photos 4-1 - 4-8 show properties with a variety of blighting conditions including age,
obsolescence, deterioration, mixed character, defective design, the subdividing of lots of
irregular form, shape, or size for proper usefulness and development, the lack of inadequate
infrastructure, depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and economic
maladjustment. These conditions are described in more detail in the Report to City
Council. See also Photos 29-30 in the Report to City Council.
Photo 4-9 is of a property that is not in the Amendment Area.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area. There are no
objections, so no further response is necessary.
SUB-AREA 5
Photo Exhibits
Photo 5-1 is of a property that is not in the Amendment Area.
Photos 5-2 - 5-13 show properties with a variety of blighting conditions including age,
obsolescence, deterioration, mixed character, defective design, ;the subdividing of lots of
irregular form, shape, or size for proper usefulness and development, the lack of inadequate
infrastructure, depreciated values, 'impaired investments, and social and economic
maladjustment. In addition, Photo 5-6 is an excellent picture of the flood damage to the
streets in the Amendment Area due to inadequate public improvements. These conditions
25
Response to County of Riverside Objections
are described in more detail in the Report to City Council. See also Photos 18, 23, and 31 in
the Report to City Council.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area, including two
developments that are not in the Amendment Area. There are no objections, so no further
response is necessary.
SUB-AREA 6
Photo Exhibits
Photos 6-1 - 6-3 show properties that are affected by the subdivision of lots of irregular
form, shape, or size for proper usefulness and development, the lack of inadequate
infrastructure, depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and economic
maladjustment. These conditions are described in more detail in the Report to City
Council.
Photo 6-4 is of a property that is not in the Amendment Area.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area. There are no
objections, so no further response is necessary.
SUB-AREA 7
Photo Exhibits
Photos 7-1 and 7-2 show properties that are affected by the subdivision of lots of irregular
form, shape, or size for proper usefulness and development, the lack of inadequate
infrastructure, depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and economic
maladjustment. These conditions are described in more detail in the Report to City
Council.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub:Area. The submittal
describes the "triangular parcel...with a not very active" commercial use. These are similar
to those conditions described by the Agency in the Report to City Council. See also Photo
26
Response to County of Riverside Objections
12 in the Report to City Council. There are no objections, so no further response is
necessary.
SUB-AREA 8
Photo Exhibits
Photo 8-1 shows properties that are affected by the subdivision of lots of irregular form,
shape, or size for proper usefulness and development, the lack of inadequate infrastructure,
depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment. These
conditions are described in more detail in the Report to City Council.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area. The submittal
describes the Sub-area as "a very tiny triangular parcel." This is similar to those conditions
described by the Agency in the Report to City Council. There are no objections, so no
further response is necessary.
SUB-AREA 9
Photo Exhibits
Photo 9-1 - 9-3 shows properties that are affected by age, obsolescence, deterioration, mixed
character, the subdivision of lots of irregular form, shape, or size for proper usefulness and
development, the lack of inadequate infrastructure, depreciated values, impaired
investments, and social and economic maladjustment. These conditions are described in
more detail in the Report to City Council.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area. The submittal
describes the Sub-area as having "very tiny triangular parcels ...[non-conforming] single-
family and multi-family residential and a tattoo studio". This is similar to those conditions
described by the Agency in the Report to City Council. There are no objections, so no
further response is necessary.
SUB-AREA 10
Photo Exhibits
27
Response to County of Riverside Objections
Photo 10-1 and 10-2 shows properties that are affected by age, obsolescence, deterioration,
mixed character, the subdivision of lots of irregular form, shape, or size for proper
usefulness and development, the lack of inadequate infrastructure, depreciated values,
impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment. These conditions are
described in more detail in the Report to City Council. See also Photo 28 in the Report to
City Council.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area. The submittal
describes the Sub-area as having "very tiny triangular parcels ...with [non-conforming]
single-family residential". This is similar to those conditions described by the Agency in the
Report to City Council. There are no objections, so no further response is necessary.
SUB-AREA 11
Photo Exhibits
Photo 11-1 and 11-3 shows properties that are affected by age, obsolescence, deterioration,
mixed character, the subdivision of lots of irregular form, shape, or size for proper
usefulness and development, the lack of inadequate infrastructure, depreciated values,
impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment. These conditions are
described in more detail in the Report to City Council. See also Photo 14 in the Report to
City Council.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area. There are no
objections, so no further response is necessary.
SUB-AREA 12
Photo Exhibits
Photo 12-1 shows properties that are affected by the subdivision of lots of irregular form,
shape, or size for proper usefulness and development, the lack of inadequate infrastructure,
depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment. These
conditions are described in more detail in the Report to City Council.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area. The submittal
describes the Sub-area as a "small vacant parcel" and that there is evidence of dumping.
This is similar to those conditions described by the Agency in the Report to City Council.
There are no objections, so no further response is necessary.
28
Response to County of Riverside Objections
SUB-AREA 13
Photo Exhibits
Photos 13-1 - 13-9 show properties that are affected by faulty exterior spacing, age,
obsolescence, deterioration, mixed character, defective design, the subdivision of lots of
irregular form, shape, or size for proper usefulness and development, the laying out of lots
in disregard to the topography or other physical characteristic, the lack of inadequate
infrastructure, depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and economic
maladjustment. These conditions are described in more detail in the Report to City
Council. See also Photos 4, 7 - 11, 13, and 25 - 27 in the Report to City Council.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area. There are no
objections, so no further response is necessary.
SUB-AREA 14
Photo Exhibits
Photos 14-1 - 14-9 show properties that are affected by faulty exterior spacing, age,
obsolescence, deterioration, mixed character, defective design, the subdivision of lots of
irregular form, shape, or size for proper usefulness and development, depreciated values,
impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment. These conditions are
described in more detail in the Report to City Council. See also Photo 1 in the Report to
City Council.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area. The submittal
describes the Sub-area as having "many small parcels" and "older [non-conforming] housing
stock and businesses". This is similar to those conditions described by the Agency in the
Report to City Council. There are no objections, so no further response is necessary.
SUB-AREA 15
Photo Exhibits
Photos 15-1 - 15-8 show properties that are affected by faulty exterior spacing, age,
obsolescence, deterioration, mixed character, defective design, depreciated values, impaired
29
Response to County of Riverside Objections
investments, and social and economic maladjustment. These conditions are described in
more detail in the Report to City Council. See also Photo 1 in the Report to City Council.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area. The submittal
describes the Sub-area as having "many small parcels" and "older [non-conforming] single-
family residential". This is similar to those conditions described by the Agency in the
Report to City Council. There are no objections, so no further response is necessary.
SUB-AREA 16
Photo Exhibits
Photos 16-1 - 16-4 show properties that are affected by faulty exterior spacing, age,
obsolescence, deterioration, mixed character, defective design, the subdivision of lots of
irregular form, shape, or size for proper usefulness and development, depreciated values,
impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment. These conditions are
described in more detail in the Report to City Council.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area. There are no
objections, so no further response is necessary.
SUB-AREA 17
Photo Exhibits
Photos 17-1 and 17-2 show properties that are affected by age, obsolescence, deterioration,
mixed character, defective design, depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and
economic maladjustment. These conditions are described in more detail in the Report to
City Council.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area. There are no
objections, so no further response is necessary.
30
Response to County of Riverside Objections
SUB-AREA 18
Photo Exhibits
Photos 18-1 - 18-4 show properties that are affected by age, obsolescence, deterioration,
mixed character, the subdivision of lots of irregular form, shape, or size for proper
usefulness and development, the lack of inadequate infrastructure, depreciated values,
impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment. These conditions are
described in more detail in the Report to City Council.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area. There are no
objections, so no further response is necessary.
SUB-AREA 19
Photo Exhibits
Photo 19-1 shows properties that are affected by the lack of inadequate infrastructure,
depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment. These
conditions are described in more detail in the Report to City Council.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area. There are no
objections, so no further response is necessary.
SUB-AREA 20
Photo Exhibits
Photo 20-1 shows properties that are affected by the laying out of parcels in disregard to
topography or other physical condition, the subdivision of lots of irregular form, shape, or
size for proper usefulness and development, the lack of inadequate infrastructure,
depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment. These
conditions are described in more detail in the Report to City Council.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area, including a
development that is not in the Amendment Area. The submittal describes the Sub-area as
a "small vacant parcel". This is similar to those conditions described by the Agency in the
Report to City Council. There are no objections, so no further response is necessary.
31
Response to County of Riverside Objections
SUB-AREA 21
Photo Exhibits
Photo 21-1 is of a property that is not in the Amendment Area.
Photo 21-2 shows properties that are affected by the laying out of parcels in disregard to
topography or other physical condition, the subdivision of lots of irregular form, shape, or
size for proper usefulness and development, the lack of inadequate infrastructure,
depreciated values, impaired investments, and social and economic maladjustment. These
conditions are described in more detail in the Report to City Council.
Photo 21-3 is of a property that is not in the Amendment Area.
General Comments
The County's submittal describes the existing land uses in the Sub-Area, including a
development that is not in the Amendment Area. The submittal describes the Sub-area as
a "long narrow vacant parcel". This is similar to those conditions described by the Agency
in the Report to City Council. There are no objections, so no further response is necessary.
OVERALL
The County's submittal of photographs and observations, if anything, strengthens the
Agency's findings of blight and urbanization in the Amendment Area. This is because
examples of blight and urbanization are included in their submission. In opposing the
Agency's findings of blight and urbanization, the County offers no evidence to prove such
opposition. The mere description of existing land uses does not outweigh the substantial
evidence provided by the Agency in the Report to Council. The obvious attempt of the
County to include photographs and descriptions of developments that are not in the Project
Amendment Area is troubling, raises questions as to whether other comments which the
County asserts apply to the Project Area (or the Project Amendment Area) in fact relate to
non-included territories lying elsewhere whether inside or outside the City of San Jacinto,
and should be considered in evaluating the reliability of the County material, the weight to
be given such material, and the validity of their objections.
32
RESPONSE TO COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Letter dated December 7, 1993 from David K.McElroy to the Mayor and City
Council of San Jacinto
The County letter first claims fiscal detriment as a result of implementing the proposed
Redevelopment Plan Amendment. Then the County claims that the Redevelopment Plan
Amendment does not meet various specified legal tests. Finally, there are a number a
deficiencies relative to blight findings according to the County. This response
memorandum will first address the fiscal detriment issue, then the legal questions
espoused in the letter, and finally the blight finding issues. For the most part, these latter
issues are discussed in detail in the response to the County's Analysis: City of San Jacinto
Redevelopment Agency Proposed Project Amendment No. 1 (hereinafter Analysis).
1. The County has claimed fiscal impact and detriment as part of the report of the Fiscal
Review Committee. A detailed analysis of the County's claims of fiscal detriment is
contained in the Report to Council, and was forwarded to the County of Riverside on
November 30, 1993. The objection letter totally fails to mention this fact, and
completely ignores that fact that the County's fiscal detriment arguments were refuted
in their entirety by the November 30, 1993 transmittal.
The Agency's response to the County's fiscal detriment arguments is set forth in full in
Appendix C of the Report to Council. The Agency's response to the County's fiscal
detriment arguments is incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth.
2. The County makes a number of farfetched comments which are based upon faulty
analysis and interpretation of legal statutes and case law. These comments are set
forth below with the Agency's response following each comment.
Comment
According to Mr. McElroy, most of the sub-areas covered in the Amendment apparently
fail to be urbanized or exhibit blight which cannot be cured by the private sector acting
alone. The proposed Amendment contains 2,383 acres of agriculturally zoned land,
including 1,709 acres covered by Williamson Act contracts, within the proposed project
area. The agricultural land makes up over sixty-one percent (61%) of the territory to be
added and contains acreage with prime agricultural soils. This acreage is neither
blighted nor urbanized.
Response
Urbanization Issue: As the term is used in the CRL,"urbanized" has both a common
parlance definition and two highly technical definitions. Under CRL Section 33320.1(b),
an area is "predominantly urbanized" if not less than eighty percent of the land:
1. has been or is developed for urban uses; or
2. is characterized by the conditions described in subdivision (a), (b), or (e) of
Section 33032; or
Response to County of Riverside Objections
3. is an integral part of one or more areas developed for urban uses which are
surrounded or substantially surrounded by parcels which have been or are developed for
urban uses.
It is clear from Mr. McElroy's letter that he faults the Agency's blight determination on
the basis that the entire Project Amendment Area does not meet the common parlance
"has been or is developed for urban uses" definition set forth in CRL Section 33320.1(1).
What Mr. McElroy fails to fully appreciate are the other two more technical definitions
of "urbanized" set forth in CRL Section 33320.1(2) and (3) and the fact that several
portions of the Project Amendment Area were found to be "urbanized" because these
areas comported with the other two more technical definitions of "urbanized" set forth
in CRL Section 33320.1(2) and (3). Mr. McElroy and the County seek, in the context of
these proceedings (in contrast to the approach taken by the County in connection with
various County redevelopment projects) to apply a "truncated" version of
Section 33320.1; there is no basis for such a reading of Section 33320.1 which would
"recognize" some parts of the Section but ignore others. As amply demonstrated in
Chapter V("Finding of Urbanization") of the "Report to City Council for the San Jacinto
Redevelopment Project Amendment No. 1" (pages 64-72), the responses contained
herein, and other information contained in the administrative record, over eighty
percent of the property to be added by the proposed Plan Amendment either: (1) is or
has been developed for urban uses, or (2) is characterized by the conditions described in
Section 33032 (a), (b), or (e), or (3) is an integral part of an area developed for urban
uses.
Blight Issue: A blighted area is one which is characterized by one or more of those
conditions set forth in CRL Sections 33031 or 33032, causing a reduction of, or lack of,
proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical,
social, or economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be
reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. (CRL Section 33030.)
As illustrated in Chapter III (pages 14-60: "Physical, Social, and Economic Conditions')
of the "Report to City Council for the San Jacinto Redevelopment Project, Amendment
No.l," the responses contained herein, and other information in the administrative
record, those conditions listed in CRL Sections 33031 and 33032 do exist and
predominate within the territory to be added by the Plan Amendment. The record
shows that those conditions exist to such an extent that they constitute a serious
physical, social and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be
expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. Some of the
specific evidence substantiating the existence and predominance of such conditions is
contained in the response which follows the next "comment."
Comment
Mr. McElroy cites Emmington v. Solano County Redevelopment Agency, (1987)
195 Cal.App.3d 491, as support for his claim that agricultural land within the Project
Amendment Area is not blighted just from lack of infrastructure, "if the current
infrastructure is adequate for the present use of the property and does not end its
present economic use." Mr. McElroy asserts that the Report to City Council "provides
no evidence that location of a portion of the area in a flood hazard zone and lack of
infrastructure has rendered the land unproductive, the land is dropping in value beyond
2
Response to County of Riverside Objections
comparable properties, or that the property has become a serious economic burden to
the taxpayers of the County. Moreover, the land is not unusable
Response
The ruling in Emmin tg_on shows that the court determined that there was not
substantial evidence in the record to support a finding of blight regarding the case then
before the court. Emmington may also indicate that the mere circumstance that an
area is depicted on a map or otherwise indicated to be subject to a "possibility" of
flooding does not show that serious damage in fact occurs, and hence is not, without
more, persuasive evidence as to blight.
It is notable that Mr. McElroy does not dispute the fact that the Project Amendment
Area suffers from a lack of infrastructure (in fact, he appears to be even acknowledging
that such is the case); nor does he deny that flooding occurs. As Mr. McElroy notes, one
of the characteristics of blight set forth in CRL Section 33032 is an area characterized
by the existence of inadequate public improvements. Instead, what Mr. McElroy
asserts precludes the Agency from finding the Project Amendment Area to be blighted is
the fact that these infrastructure inadequacies have not rendered affected properties
virtually unusable.
It should be noted that this same argument that the blighting conditions must have
resulted in total deterioration of the area was rejected by the Court in National City
Business Association vs. Citv of National City, (1983) 146 Cal. App. 3d 1060, 1068,
where the Court stated:
The propriety of inclusion of the neighborhood improvement
areas in the redevelopment plan is also supported by the
likelihood of continued deterioration of the areas
absent redevelopment due to the low incomes of the
residents and the already faulty public improvements.
"'Blighted area' urban redevelopment legislation
aims at preventing the causes of slums, even
while the area is still in the process of
deteriorating, before the area becomes so
bad as to be totally unusable; it is thus the
process of deterioration which constitutes
the 'blight,' not the total deterioration
itself." (Annot., Urban Renewal Statutes
'Blighted Areas' (1972) 45 ALR 3d 1096, 1103.)
(Emphasis added.)
Consistent with the Court's statement in National Citv, the administrative record is
replete with evidence demonstrating that much of the Project Amendment Area suffers
from another blighting characteristic economic dislocation, deterioration, or disuse as a
result of infrastructure inadequacies. The following testimony from business and
property owners amply demonstrates this.
Response to County of Riverside Objections
• In a letter dated December 7, 1993, Steven R. Peacock states:
I have witnessed severe flooding in the area. Last winter during the
heavy rains, approximately 300 acres were under water and after the
rain subsided, approximately 100 acres remained flooded for several
weeks.
I would also add that the roads in the area during these storms have
to be closed making access to our properties literally impossible.
We have studied the possibility of importing dirt to our property to
take it out of the flood lane but this solution is simply too expensive on
the scale required.
• By letter dated December 3, 1993, Mike Record states:
[my] property is in a flood plane and during a heavy rain, water will
run off adjacent property and then flow across my property.
This is a viable commercial site and for quite some time we have been
interested in developing but cannot due to the expense of flood-
proofing the property.
We have consulted with an engineering firm and have discovered the
costs associated with mitigating the flooding problem render the
development of the property economically unfeasible. There will have
to be a large amount of fill-dirt imported and impacted as well as
contributions made to off-site improvements called for by the master
drainage plan.
• By letter dated December 6, 1993, Paul Oddo states regarding his property:
In recent years the heavy rains have made ditches as much as five
feet (5') deep all around the property. I am afraid that someone could
go over the edge and be seriously hurt or even killed because there are
no guard rails for protection. Because of water erosion and flooding, I
personally put in 20 bags of asphalt and a 4" guard rail at our
entrance.
I would appreciate any consideration and care that can be given to
reduce the risk of injury due to this problem.
4
Response to County of Riverside Objections
• By letter dated December 6, 1993, Randy Record states:
During March of 1991 and January of 1993 my operations suffered
extensive damage as a result of flooding. Several years of
development in the San Jacinto Valley have created a situation where
increased run-off during rainstorms causes severe problems to my
farm. Major erosion and substantial crop damage now occur
frequently due to a lack of flood control facilities to deal with storm
run-off. As a result, the farm land is decreasing in value and its
current use as a vegetable ranch is in jeopardy.
During periods of wet weather the streets and the Lyon and De Anza
area over to Ramona Blvd. become flooded. I am concerned that in an
emergency situation it would be very difficult for fire or ambulance
personal (sic) to be of assistance.
This flooding problem needs to be addressed in the very near future.
• By letter dated December 7, 1993, Clayton A. Record, Jr., states:
I reside at 890 N. Lyon Avenue. Every year after the rainy season
run-off water from upstream drainages make Lyon Avenue
impassable. My driveway washes out and access to my home is
impossible. Last year, the flood was so great that it divided at Lyon
and Cottonwood where the portion of the water travelling west on .
Cottonwood and north around the San Diego Aqueduct Reservoir.
The flow eroded soil from pipelines and created significant channels in
our farmland. This is an ever-increasing problem that requires
immediate attention.
• By letter dated December 1, 1993, partners of the Record Rancho stated:
We run a family dairy on Ramona Blvd. and a heifer ranch on
De Anza Drive and Potter Road. each year during heavy rainfall,
our two business locations along with our residence on Chase Street
have suffered flooding due to poor flood water drainage at our end of
the valley. The dairy has experienced extreme difficult and expense
building up our property line along Ramona Blvd. to keep from getting
inundated from run-off water. Our calf ranch also has a difficult time
as run-off water follows Lion (sic) Avenue, then empties onto De Anza
directly in front of our facility, many times overflowing the roadside
ditches and flooding buildings at this site resulting in heavy feed
damage and high death losses among young calves. Finally, our
residence on Chase Street was completely flooded out during the flood
of 1980, and extensive repair work was necessary along vacating our
home for several months.
5
Response to County of Riverside Objections
The problems caused by flooding make normal business during these
times impossible because of the added burden of flood damage along
with the difficulty of accessing these locations. They also cause
significant expense each year.
Something must be done to alleviate this annual flooding problem.
• By letter dated December 2, 1993, Charles Rogness observes:
There is also a need for additional help in the construction of flood
channels that will serve the entire San Jacinto valley.
• By letter dated December 7, 1993, Calvin N. Westra, writing on behalf of the Westra
family, states:
Due to last spring's flooding we lost several acres of crops. This
caused us to purchase feed from outside the area instead of relying on
our own production.
We are also concerned about the lack of planning in regards to the
improvements recently completed by EMWD. Our secondary
driveway adjacent to the EMWL) plant is now very well protected
against future washouts while our primary driveway just north of the
area was not taken into consideration and is in jeopardy when the
rains come this spring.
• By letter dated December 3, 1993, Richard and Linda De Vurst(check spelling) state:
We are presently farming the Martin ranch on the corner of
Sanderson and Ramona Expressway. The flood control channel
basically ends at Sanderson and just floods this piece of property
making it impossible to plant a winter crop. If funds were available to
extend the flood control channel to the San Jacinto River it would
greatly benefit this property and the adjoining De Guzman ranch
which also floods, making both of them more profitable farm ranches.
• In discussing the effects of flooding on his dairy, John Oostdam stated in a phone
conversation on December 7, 1993, that during the rains of 1993-1993, the run-off in
the ditches along Ramona Blvd. exceeded capacity and flowed through the corrals
resulting in manure and other debris from the corral areas floating downstream.
• According to Capt. Bob Wilson of the San Jose Fire Department, flooding from rain
results in (1) slower emergency response when roads are flooded and/or closed,
(2) fire engines damaged in 1980 when they had to travel through water that was
deeper than axle level, (3) difficulty in accessing property in rural areas with water
flowing in ditches and (4) having to wade across the water because driveways are
washed out.
Numerous factors make it easy to distinguish the situation that was before the court in
Emmington from the present situation. In Emmington, most of the 10,350 acre project
6
Response to County of Riverside Objections
area (87.9%) was owned by five major corporations who leased most of the land for
farming. According to the court, "these corporations are holding the land for future
development, and they will develop it when they see a profit." In contrast, the
agricultural properties in ,question constitute only a portion of the Project Amendment
Area, and are owned by numerous individuals who have and continue to experience
significant economic losses, and in some cases even the inability to reside in their own
homes, as a result of serious flooding problems.
In Emmin1gon, the needed public infrastructure improvements alleged to constitute the
blighting condition included "maintenance and improvement of existing roads,
industrial road construction, rail line construction, deep water access and berthing
facilities, and sewage facilities." The agency's report to the Board of Supervisors noted
that "[a]ccess from most the area is poor to nonexistent and infrastructure is inadequate
to serve planned industrial use." (Emphasis in original.) In contrast, the inadequate
public improvements in the Project Amendment Area-- a legacy in part bestowed by the
County upon the City in the recent annexation -- are flood control/drainage facilities
and flood proofing of roads in order to adequately serve existing uses within the Project
Amendment Area.
• In Emmington, the court faulted the agency's report to the Board of Supervisors for
lacking evidence that the asserted blighting conditions substantially burdened the
existing uses of the area for agriculture. In contrast, the administrative record in
the present situation is replete with evidence that blighting conditions substantially
burdened the existing uses of the Project Amendment Area for agriculture. The
flooding within the Project Amendment Area has also been shown to burden
"downstream" property owners, to necessitate public expenditures for roadways; and
to adversely affect emergency response times.
• In Emminglon, there was no showing "that the occasional flooding and lack of
infrastructure has rendered the land stagnant or unproductive." In fact, the opinion
noted that the occasional flooding could actually benefit farmers by nourishing the
soil. In contrast, the testimony of farmers and ranchers in the Project Amendment
Area cited above, amply demonstrates that their properties are being rendered
stagnant or unproductive as a result of periodic floodings. In reviewing the land
identified by the County/McElroy letter as agricultural as well as photographs
submitted by the County, it turns out that many of the areas pictorially depicted
have sustained serious losses. (See, for example, County Analysis pictures 1-32, 1-
33, 1-46, 1-47, and 1-48. Pictures 1-32 and 1.33 clearly illustrate erosion and repair
activities resulting from the flooding documented by the letter of Randy Record,
Pictures 1-46, 1-47, and 1-48 illustrate sedimentation and repair activities resulting
from the flooding documented by the letter of Vincent Record and William Record.
• In EinmingWnn, there was no evidence the land was dropping in value or that the
property had become a serious econoinic burden to the taxpayers of the county, nor
was there a showing to the lack of infrastructure had unduly burdened the existing
agricultural use of the area. In contrast, the administrative record shows that city
taxpayers cannot reasonably assume the extraordinary costs of the improvements
7
Response to County of Riverside Objections
needed to correct flooding problems in the Project Amendment Area. The
administrative record also demonstrates that existing agricultural uses in the
Project Amendment Area are indeed unduly burdened by the lack of such
improvements.
• In Emmington, "the thrust of the information compiled on the project area is that
Solano County will be improved if the land is developed for water-related industry
rather than allowing it to remain in agricultural use." In contrast, the
administrative record here indicates that the use of redevelopment to provide the
badly needed flood control;drainage improvements would benefit existing
agricultural uses.
• In Emmington, the record revealed "that the vast majority of the project area is
already owned by large, well-financed private interests." In contrast, the
administrative record shows no large, well-financed private interest landowner that
can step forward and correct a deficiency that is beyond the ability of private
enterprise acting alone to remedy.
Comment
Mr. McElroy rhetorically asks "can farm land be classified as urban?" Next, Mr.
McElroy recites CRL Section 33320.1 in the California Supreme Court's holding in
Sweetwater Vallev Civic Association v City of National City (1976) 18 Cal. 3d 270 that
a golf course was not blighted. Finally, Mr. McElroy concludes that "[bly applying both
Section 33320.1 and the Sweetwater decision to agriculturally develop parcels in the
San Jacinto proposal, one could conclude: (a) while developed consistent with applicable
zoning laws, the parcels would not be developed for "urban purposes" and (b) an
agriculturally developed parcel does not possess the characteristics of blight."
Response
Mr. McElroy's construct is not the law; requirements as to blight are statutory, as set
forth, for example, in CRL Sections 33030, 33031, and 33032; these and other portions
of the CRL are set forth in the Agency's Report to City Council. It is those statements,
and not Mr. McElroy's mischaracterization or the County's flawed attempt to quote CRL
Section 33032 that form the basis to assess blight.
Mr. McElroy's attempt to bootstrap an argument regarding "urbanization" by discussing
Sweetwater is unintelligible, given that the facts presented in the present situation
differ so substantially from those in Sweetwater. In Sweetwater, over 88% of the
proposed project area was owned by a single party. (Sweetwater, at page 273.) A golf
course (including a driving range) comprised 79% of the proposed project area. Id.
While the Court noted that the golf course had become subject to flooding due to
development of a nearby area, the evidence of damage was limited to down-times up to
three weeks to repair the driving range and the closure of the golf course "for a day or
two." Moreover, the golf course had continued in consistent use (except for a day or two)
had increased in popularity, and there was "no evidence" that membership or revenue
had decreased; "rather, use has increased." (Sweetwater, at page 274). The site owner
had plans to build another golf course nearby. (Sweetwater, at page 276). Further
distinguishing the situation in Sweetwater from the present situation is the fact that, in
Sweetwater, the proposed project area had "not become an economic liability"; the golf
course was economically profitable. In contrast, the administrative record regarding the
8
Response to County of Riverside Objections
Project Amendment Area contains substantial evidence of continuing serious problems
adversely affecting residents and businesses in the Project Amendment Area.
Comment
Mr. McElroy references the letter dated December 6. 1993, from the California
Department of Conservation expressing "serious concerns about the large amounts of
agricultural and open space lands in the proposed redevelopment project" and implying
a conflict with both the Williamson Act and redevelopment law.
Response
The Department of Conservation letter is discussed in detail in the memo attached
hereto. The Agency would note here that the letter's assertions that the inclusion of
certain lands as part of a redevelopment project area is contrary to provisions of the
redevelopment law and the Williamson Act are not supported by any cited authority or
citations to specific sections of either law that are contravened. The Agency contends
that the reasons for such lack of authority is simply that the underlying contention was
in error. While the Williamson Act does contain a requirement that a particular
procedure must be followed in connection with the change in use of land subject to a
Williamson Act contract (see Government Code Section 51200 et seq.), the Williamson
Act does not state that lands which are or have been subject to a Williamson Act
contract are not to be included within a redevelopment project area. At such time as
provisions of the Williamson Act are implicated, the Agency or City will notify the
Department of Conservation. However, at this time, there is no public acquisition by
the Agency of land under Williamson Act contracts underway. A follow-up letter by the
Department of Conservation, dated as of December 8, 1993, mentions such a possible
future contingency (namely, notification to the Department of Conservation) "if'
contracted land is to be acquired for a project by a public agency. However, the
circumstance that acquisition could occur at some future time does not require
notification of the Department at this time. The December 8 letter softens the position
from the December 6 letter, merely accepting there is a "general" conflict of the project
"with the purpose of the [Williamson] Act to preserve agricultural land". The authority
cited for that proposition (Government Code Section 51200) does support the notion that
agricultural land is important, but it does not support the position that such lands
cannot be included in a redevelopment project area. As to the efficacy of the inclusion of
such lands in a project area in terms of redevelopment law, the CRL contains no
prohibition, Der se, against the inclusion within a project area of land subject to a
Williamson Act contract. There are requirements as to what may be included within a
redevelopment project area; the applicable statutes and supporting data are set out at
length on pages 14-82 of the Agency's Report to City Council.
3. The County's arguments regarding impairment of value are answered by the referenced
Analysis response. Refer specifically to the section entitled Failure to Prove
Depreciation of Value and Impairment of Investment. The County's assertions
regarding irregular parcels is answered in full in the Analysis response section entitled
Failure to Prove Necessity of Assembly of Irregular Parcels. The County's assertions
regarding public service issues are answered in full in the Analysis response section
entitled Failure to Prove Need for Public Services. The County's assertions regarding
inadequate public improvements are answered in large part in the Analysis response
9
Response to County of Riverside Objections
sections entitled Failure to Prove Causality, Failure to Prove Need for Public Services,
and Failure to Prove Inability of Private Enterprise to Fund Public Improvements.
In its objection letter, the County describes the $13 million business incentives program
as a "giveaway." The County appears to be arguing that various business development
programs, employment development programs, economic development strategies, and
rehabilitation programs are merely wastes of public funds. Yet the County's Economic
Development Authority operates such "giveaway" programs as redevelopment project
areas, rehabilitation programs, and economic development strategies.) The letter
totally fails to explain why the County can have an economic, development program,
while the City's efforts to improve the economic well being of its citizens would only be
branded as "giveaways."
The developments referred to in the letter as proving that development is occurring in
the Project Amendment Area are all outside the Project Amendment Area. This could
be seen as proof that conditions in the Project Amendment Area deter development.]
The County letter also asserts that the Agency made to formal response to the Fiscal
Review Committee Report. The response was delivered to the County 8 days prior to the
joint public hearing, as is demonstrated by the attached receipt.
The County also asserts that the EIR is faulty. Note that full responses are contained in
the Final EIR. These responses were made available to the County on December 3, 1993
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
The County mysteriously alludes to some purported "appearance" of conflict of interest --
which is not described let alone substantiated. While the Agency can understand a motive
to make an argument in a record to preserve later rights, such a superficial non-specific
mention as the County makes does not even accomplish that. It would be troubling if such
an allegation were lightly made to vex, confuse, and cause the Agency or its officials to be
subjected to the Kafka-esque exercise of trying to divine what it is that has been done
which the County finds objectionable. In fact, it is the tactic of the County that is
objectionable. If these were facts leading the County to believe these were genuine
concerns with conflicts of interest (or even the "appearance" thereof), the County should
long ago have brought these to the attention of the City and the Agency as a matter of
public policy.
1Refer to the Agency's Report to Council, Appendix C, Attachment J for copies of the County's
Economic Development Agency borchures. 10
Response to Department of Conservation Objections
Letter from Pat Meehan, Assistant Director for Administration, dated
December 6, 1993.
COMMENT
In a letter dated December 6, 1993 to Mr. Henry Haflinger, Mayor of San Jacinto, (the
"Letter'), the State Department of Conservation (the "Department") has voiced concern
regarding the inclusion of certain lands within the territory to be added to the San Jacinto
Redevelopment Project by the proposed Amendment No. 1 to the San Jacinto
Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan Amendment'). The Department states, "[i]nduding these
lands in the redevelopment project conflicts with both the Williamson Act and the
redevelopment law." No indication is made in the Letter as to which Sections of the
Community Redevelopment Law (California Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et seq.)
(CRL) the Department believes are being violated. The Department indicates that
"Williamson Act Contracts" appear to cover approximately 1700 acres of land within the
territory to be added by the Proposed Plan Amendment. Therefore, the Department
maintains that it must be given notice and an opportunity to respond to such notice
pursuant to California Government Code Section 51291(b).
RESPONSE
Section 33363 of the CRL requires that the City Council make written findings responding
to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity, addressing
such objections in detail and giving reasons for not accepting specified objections and
suggestions. (Emphasis added.) As the Department does not own land or collect property
taxes on land within the territory to be added by the Plan Amendment it is neither an
affected property owner or taxing entity within the terms of Section 33363; therefore a
response is not required to the District's Letter. Nevertheless, the City of San Jacinto (the
"City") makes the following response to the District's letter.
I. CEQA Issue:
Initially, it was unclear whether the Department was framing its objection on the
basis of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections
21000, et seq.: CEQA. If so, the time limit for such a response has clearly expired.
Pursuant to CEQA, Notice of Preparation and a Draft EIR were sent to the State
Clearinghouse on June 8, 1993 and August 19, 1993, respectively. Under State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15023, it is the responsibility of the State Clearinghouse
to forward the Notice of Preparation and the Draft EIR to the Department. The
Department had thirty days to respond to the Notice of Preparation, and forty-five
days to comment on the Draft EIR. However, despite the fact that Agency records
indicate that the Draft EIR was forwarded by the State Clearinghouse and received
by the Department on August 21, 1993, there is no record that the Department
responded to either the Notice of Preparation or the Draft EIR. As stated by the
Governor's Office of Planning and Research (the author of the State CEQA
Guidelines) in the discussion following State CEQA Guidelines Section 15089: "[i]n
order to save time, the CEQA process provides only a once-around review system. It
Response to California Department of Conservation Objections
requires public review only at the draft EIR stage." Since the Department did not
comment on the Draft EIR during the forty-five day comment period which ended
October 2, 1993, the Agency is not required under CEQA to respond to late
comments.
Following the close of the joint public hearing on the adoption of the proposed Plan
Amendment on Tuesday, December 7th, the Agency's redevelopment consultant, Mr.
Ernest Glover of GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Inc., contacted the Department
and received further clarification regarding its objections. In a letter dated
December 8, 1993, addressed to Mr. Glover, the Department stated that " ... our
December 6 comments were not made pursuant to CEQA." Therefore, the
Department has made it clear that it has declined to proffer any comments or raise
any concerns pursuant to CEQA.
II. CRL Violation Issue:
Additional conversations between Mr. Glover and the Department after the close of
the joint public hearing clarified the District's bare assertion in its Letter that the
inclusion of the land in question "... conflicts ... with the redevelopment law." In that
phone conversation, the Department based that assertion on its belief that the
territory to be added by the proposed Plan Amendment was not "urbanized" and not
"blighted."
A. Urbanization Issue:
"Urbanized," as that term is used in the CRL, has a technical definition. Under CRL
Section 33320.1(b), an area is "predominantly urbanized" if not less than eighty
percent of the land:
1. has been or is developed for urban uses; or
2. is characterized by the conditions described in subdivision (a), (b), or
(e) of Section 33032; or
3. is an integral part of one or more areas developed for urban uses
which are surrounded or substantially surrounded by parcels which
have been or are developed for urban uses.
It is apparent that the Department is unaware of the technical definition of
"urbanized" as set forth in CRL Section 33320.1. The District assumes that
"urbanized" means "has been or is developed for urban uses" (the definition set forth
in CRL Section 33320.1(1)), but it ignores the definitions set forth in CRL Section
33320.1(2) and (3). However, as demonstrated in Chapter V ("Finding of
Urbanization") of the "Report to City Council for the San Jacinto Redevelopment
Project Amendment No. 1" (pages 64-72), and other information contained in the
administrative record, over eighty percent of the property to be added by the
proposed Plan Amendment: (1) is or has been developed for urban uses, or (2) is an
integral part of an area developed for urban uses, or (3) is characterized by the
conditions described in Section 33032 (a), (b), or (e).
2
Response to California Department of Conservation Objections
B. Blight Issue:
A blighted area is one which is characterized by one or more of those conditions set
forth in CRL Sections 33031 or 33032, causing a reduction of, or lack of, proper
utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social,
or economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be
reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone. (CRL Section 33030.)
As illustrated in Chapter III ("Physical, Social, and Economic Conditions") of the
"Report to City Council for the San Jacinto Redevelopment Project Amendment
No.l," (pages 14-60) and other information in the administrative record, those
conditions listed in CRL Sections 33031 and 33032 do exist within the territory to be
added by the Plan .Amendment. In addition, the record shows that those conditions
exist to such an extent that they constitute a serious physical, social and economic
burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or
alleviated by private enterprise acting alone.
III. Williamson Act Issue:
The Williamson Act (California Government Code Sections 51200 et seq.) (the "Act")
Section 51291(b) provides:
[w]henever it appears that land within an agricultural preserve may
be required by a public agency or person for a public use, the public
agency or person shall advise the Director of Conservation and the
local governing body responsible for the administration of the preserve
of the intention to consider the location of a public
improvement within the preserve. . . Within 30 days thereafter
the Director of Conservation and the local governing body shall
forward to the public agency or person concerned their comments with
respect to the effect of the location of the public improvement
on the land within the agricultural preserve. . . Failure of any
public agency or person to comply with the requirements of this
section shall not invalidate any action by the agency or person to
locate a public improvement within an agricultural preserve.
(Emphasis added.)
A public agency to which Section 51291(b) of the Act applies is defined as ". . . any
county, city, school district, or other local public district, agency, or entity. . ."
(Section 51291(a)). An "agricultural preserve" is defined as land devoted to an
"agricultural use" which means ". . . use of land for the purposes of producing an
agricultural commodity." (Section 51201(b) and (d)). Section 51291(b) indicates
that notice is only required to be given to the Department when "the location of a
public improvement within the preserve" is being considered. The Agency is not,
in connection with the adoption process for the Amendment or otherwise,
considering the location of public improvements on the property in question.
Therefore, it is premature for the Department to suggest that notice is required
Response to California Department of Conservation Objections
pursuant to Section 51251(b). In the future, if the location of a public improvement
on the property in question will be considered, the Department will receive the
requisite notice.
4
RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS OF STE]PHEN JENNING BRYAN AND
HARRY ELMER BRYAN,JIL
Letter dated November 21, 1993
The letter merely files a protest to the adoption of the Plan Amendment.
The protest is hereby noted. However, since no arguments for the protest are given,
no analysis of the protest is possible.
FINDING AND DISPOSITION
The City Council of the City of San Jacinto finds that the foregoing written
responses provide a good faith, reasoned analysis of the foregoing written objections
to the Redevelopment Plan for the San Jacinto Redevelopment Project, Amendment
No. 1, and give reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions; such
written objections are hereby overruled.