92-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

446 Section 33352 shall be prepared and made available to the public prior to the hearing on such amendment." Therefore, it ~s concluded that the 33353.7 report was properly prepared and transmitted. Section 2: "Lack of Substantiation of Blight" The following responses also address those written objections contained in the script presented at the hearing by Carol Enos entitled "Existence of Blight." Obiection: That the Agency has provided "no documentation of sul~stantial evidence to show that the Project Area as of the date of the Amendment is blightedpursuant to Section 33030, 33031, and 33032 of the Health and Safety Code" (page Blight-5). The District indicates that, th. erefore, the City Council cannot make the findings as set forth in Section 33367(d)(1), (2), (3), (5), (9), (10), (11), and (12) of the Health and Safety Code.~ Resoonse: Ther.e is no legal requirement that the Agency provide an update on the blight conditions. In Ordinance No. NS-1638, which adopted the South Harbor Redevelopment Plan, the Agency was required to find and determine [hat the Projec.t Ar.ca was blighted, Section 33368 provides "the dec~sion of the legislative body shall be final and conclusive, and it shall thereafter b..e conclusively presumed that the project area is a blighted area as defined by Sections 33031 or 33032..." Thus, the Project Area has been and remains conclusively presumed to be b!ighted. Moreover, nothing in the statutory provisions govermn~g the rede. velopment plan amendment process alters the presumption contmned in Section 33368. Health and Safety Code Sectlon 33457(1) states that the reports and information required by Section 33352 as well as the findings required by Section 33367 shallbe prepared and made "to the extent warranted by a proposed amendment to a. redevelopment plan." Thus, new findings of blight are not required In the plan amendment process. It should also be noted that the entire financing structure provided by redevelopment law is based upon the idea that blighted properties will be redeveioped, reassessed, and will generate higher levels of property tax increment needed to finance the redevelopment project. If redevelopment a~encie, s were required to delete redeveloped properties from their project areas, project financing would be impossible. Additionally, the District has overlooked the information .contained in Section A of the Report to Council which specifically ~dentifies for e. ach improvement to be undertaken by the project, the specific blighting condition, as documented in the 1982 Report to CoUncil that will be addressed. It concluded, therefore, that the Agency's documentation does not take a "position that tax increment financing and blight are separate and distinct." In fact, the Agency directly correlates the need and use of tax increment to alleviate blighting conditions in the documentation prepared in conjunction with the Amendment. The District also makes the conclusionary statement that "no evidence has been provided that private enterprise acting alone coul.d not accomplish the redevelopment of the project area." Nowhere in the documentation does the District present how 16