Laserfiche WebLink
REL:jd <br />5/25/82 <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 82- 78 <br /> <br />A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF <br />SANTA ANA RULING ON WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS <br />TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SANTA <br />ANA NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, a Redevelopment Plan for the Santa Ana North <br />Harbor Boulevard Redevelopment Project has been prepared by <br />and for the Redevelopment Commission of the City of Santa Ana, <br />the Community Redevelopment Agency, and the City of Santa Ana; <br />and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, on June 15, 1982, a duly noticed joint public <br />hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan was conducted by <br />the City Council and the Redevelopment Commission; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, any and all persons having any objections to <br />the proposed Redevelopment Plan or who deny the existence of <br />blight in the proposed Project Area, or the regularity of the <br />prior proceedings, were given an opportunity to submit wrStten <br />comments prior to the commencement of the joint public hearing, <br />or give oral testimony at the joint public hearing, and show <br />cause why the proposed Redevelopment Plan should not be adopted; <br />and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the City Council has heard and considered all <br />evidence, both written and oral, presented in support and in <br />opposition to the adoption of the North Harbor Boulevard .Re- <br />development Plan for the Project; <br /> <br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF <br />THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: <br /> <br /> Section 1: The City Council finds on the basis of <br />the substantial evidence contained within the Report to the <br />City Council submitted by the Redevelopment Commission of the <br />City of Santa Ana and other substantial evidence in the record <br />that conditions of blight exist within the proposed North Harbor <br />Boulevard Redevelopment Project, and that written and oral <br />evidence in opposition received at the joint public hearing is <br />not persuasive to the contrary. <br /> <br /> Section 2: The City Council and the Redevelopment <br />Commission have duly complied with all the provisions, require- <br />ments, and procedures of Articles 4 and 4.5 (commencing with <br /> <br /> <br />