92-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

443 10. 11. It is true that the District's consultant challenged the Planning Commission's May 26th action and that the Planning Commission reconsidered and readopted the exact same action 0n June 8, 1992. However, this, in and of itself, does not make the Commission's action on the report incomplete, particularly because the Planning Commission's actions and recommendations taken on June 8 were identical to those taken on May 26. Regarding the District's conclusion that Section L, The Neighborhood Impact Report, is deficient, it should be noted that as allowed by Commission Resolution No. 92- 8, the Draft Report to Council was modified prior to being transmitted to the City Council to discuss the status of negotiations with the sc.hool districts. Reference is made to Page L-3 of the Final Report to Council. It should also be noted that the Commission received the revised copy of the Report to Council prior to the public hearing on June 16 an.d prior to making its recommendation relative to the approval of the proposed Amendment. 12. Regarding the District's finding that Section M is . incomplete, reference is made to Commission Resoluuon No. 92-8 which instructed the Executive Director of the Agen~ toprepare this section and include it in the transmittal to the Council. It should be noted that the District fails to acknowledge that most Boards and Commissions op.erate by using staff to prepare reports and documentation. If the Comrmssion chooses to delegate responsibility for the preparation of reports and recommendations to ~ts staff or consultants, it has not "abused its discretionary authority and responsibility." By way of comparison and example, the District itself presented its FRC Rep.ort. and its written objections to the Plan Amendment vm ~ts staff and consultants. The District's FRC Report and written objections never appeared on a District Board agenda to be approved by the Board. ,Inadequacy of the Planning Commission Documentation and Action" ~: The District states that the Planning Commission's action finding the amended plan in conformance with the City of Santa Ana General Plan was based upon "erroneous informationprovided orally by the Agency staff, and without any written 0ocumentation to support or substantiate the findings" (page Process-25). The District supports this statem, ent by indicating that the amended Redevelopment Plan is not in conformance with certain elements of the General Plan and that the use of a negative declaration was inadequate to comply with California Redevelopment Law, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and CEQA Guidelines. 13 I