89-108 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RESOLUTION NO. 89-108 REL:mb(6) 10/12/89 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, RULING ON WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING WRITTEN FIND- INGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS RECEIVED FROM AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS AND TAXING ENTITIES AND RULING ON SUCH WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE BRISTOL CORRI- DOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, a Redevelopment Plan for the Bristol Corridor Redevelopment Project has been prepared by the Community Redevelop- ment Commission of the City of Santa Ana; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 1989, a duly noticed joint public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan was conducted by the City Council, Redevelopment Agency and the Community Redevelopment Commission of the City of Santa Ana; and WHEREAS, any and all persons having any objections to the proposed Redevelopment Plan or who deny the existence of blight in the Project Area, or the regularity of the prior pro- ceedings, were given an opportunity to submit written comments, or to give oral testimony at the joint public hearing, and show cause why the proposed Redevelopment Plan should not be adopted; and WHEREAS, the City Council has directed Agency staff to prepare written responses to written objections received from affected property owners and taxing entities in detail, giving reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions and has reviewed such responses; and WHEREAS, the City Council has heard and considered all evidence, both written and oral, presented in support of and in opposition to the adoption of Redevelopment Plan for the Bristol Corridor Redevelopment Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The City Council finds, on the basis of the sub- stantial evidence contained within the Report to the City Council submitted by the Community Redevelopment Commission of the City of Santa Ana and other substantial evidence in the record, that conditions of blight exist within the Bristol Corridor Redevelop- ment Project, and that written evidence received before or at the joint public hearing and oral evidence in opposition received at the joint public hearing is not persuasive to the contrary.