Laserfiche WebLink
440 <br /> <br />on the amount of tax increment to be collected, and never <br />modified the duration !anguage of the proposed amendment as <br />implied by the District s substantiation for making this finding. <br /> <br />"lngdeaua~ of the Community Redcvelonment Commission <br />D0cum-entation and Aq:Ii0n" - <br /> <br />Objection: The District contends that the Commission's <br /> ' " n r <br />approval of the Report to Council was based upo e rors <br />contained within the Report, incomplete documentation, and <br />false statements by the Agency staff and the preparer of the <br />Report, Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc." (page Process-19) and <br />that the Commission "abused its discretionary authority and <br />responsibility to approve a resolution and a report in an <br />objective and informed manner, and has exasperated the <br />Agency's failure to cOmply with th.e California Communi.ty <br />Redevelopment Law, the Califor.m.a Environmental Quahty <br />Act (CEQA), and the CEQA Guidelines" (page Process-24). <br />The Dist. rict also concludes that the Age,ncy "cannot <br />substantiate the findings and determinations as are required by <br />Section 33367(d) and (e) based upon the contents of the report <br />as adopted by the Commission" (page Process-24). <br /> <br />~: The following responses (1 through 12) correspond <br />to the findings presented on pages Process-21 through Process- <br />23. <br /> <br />° <br /> <br />The Commission received a copy of the proposed <br />Amendment text to the Redevelopment Plan at their <br />meeting of January 7, 1992 and .also received a copy of <br />the Preliminary Report at that t~me. Prior to approving <br />the draft Report to Council at the June 6, 1992 <br />Commission meeting, the Commission had a study <br />session at which time, as the minutes reflect, the revisions <br />to the proposed Amendment text were reviewed and <br />discussed. <br /> <br />The Agency did not '~vaive" the "Section 33328 Report." <br />The report was prepared in 1982 and was contained in <br />the original plan adoption documents. See Section <br />A(1)(a) of this response for additional discussion of this <br />matter. <br /> <br />Adoption of the resolution providing for transmittal of <br />the report does not require the Commission to have <br />reviewed all correspondence pertaining to the negative <br />declaration. <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br /> <br />