92-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,142 go The District clai.ms that the plan and method of relocation contatned in Sectmn D of the Report to Council is "not in compliance with present State and Federal statutes." Reference is made to page V-2 of the "Report to the Sggta Ana City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Santa Ana South Har),or Boulevard/Fairview. Street Redevelopment Project dated May 1982 which states that the Ag?.ncy, before undertaking activities that will result in displacement, shall adopt rules and regulations that amongst other things are "appropriate to the particular actavities of the Agency and not inconsistent with the act or state guidelines. Said rules or regulations issued by the Agency shall be promptly revised as necessary,, to conform t.o any amendment of the act, the Cahfornia Commumty Redevelopment Law, or the state guidelines." The Agency will never be in a position to ngt be in complfance with State statutes (and in fact is not required to be in compllanc~ with Federal statutes) in that prior to any displacement it must be determined that relocation benefits wdl be provided that conform to State guidelines. It is also noted that the District did not substantiate why the plan and method of relocation was not in compli.ance with State statutes. It is also noted that the District erroneously concludes that the Agency is required to be in conformance with Federal statutes. The Agency is a "State agency" and as such must comply with State statutes but, unless Federal funds are used for a project, the Agency is not required to comply with Federal statutes. The discussion regarding the inadequacy of using the Preliminary Plan for the. Origin. al Report dated May 1982 suggests that the analys~s contained within the 1982 Preliminary Report is inadequate for a discussion of the Prel(.minary Plan in 1992. In making this determination, the D~strict has overlooked the fact that the Agency is not changing the land use designations contained within the originalRedevelopment Plan. That is, the uses allowed in the Project Area remain "cormnercial/industrial," "parks, recreation and open space," "parks, recreational and open space/alternate use: commercial/industrial," "existing school," and "industry/alternate use: · commercial/industrial." The same land uses contained in the 1982 Plan, which was based upon the original Preliminary Plan, continue to be those designated in the Plan after the proposed Amendment. Therefore, it would have been irrelevant and redundant for the Agency to adopt a new Preliminary Plan and to prepare a new analysis of the Preliminary Plan because it would have been the same Preliminary Plan.