92-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. 465 Response: The Agency responded to this issue numerous times, most recently on page M-9 of the Report to Council on the proposed Amendment. Objection: The FRC recommended that the Agency consider the speci~.'.c recommendations of Santa Aha Unified and other individual taxing ent~ues which are contained in the Committee's Final Report. The Agency bell?es that reference to these documents and information does not meet the criteria for the Report as described in Redevelopment Law. We believe that the _A.gencynuscharacterizes the Redeve.!opment Law, since the Report of the F~scal Review Committee is statutorfiy contemplated to analyze fin. ancial burden or detriment upon one or more members of the Fiscal Review Committee. There is no legal requirement that the .Fiscal Review Committee must prepare its findings according to criteria set forth by the Redevelopment Agency. In addressing t.he evidence prepared by the Committee members, the Agency contends that httle of the economic development in the Project Area will create jobs for people not already present m the general area, and that it consequently does not fully accept the Contention that there is a "nexus" between nonresidential development and household creation. There is no basis for this argument by the Agency, as the Agency has not advanced any evidentiary support for the notion that existing area residents possess t e skills to exploit job opportunities created by the economic development in the area, or that the Redevelopment Agency could reasonably preclude the immigration of new residents from outside the general Project A~'. ea who seek to take advantage of ec.ono .mic opportunities within the Project Area, especially in today'.s econormc climate. The Agency's argument that population growth in Santa Ana for the last ten years has resulted more from immigration and statewide economic policies than from commercial and industrial development is also not supported by any data put forth by the Agency. ~tp_.9.II~: Demographic data included in the report entitled "A Recreation and Community Services Needs Assessment for the City of Santa .Ana, California, 1990-2000" (dated April 23, 1992, preparedby Econormcs Research Associates and Barrio Planners, Incorporated) shows that between 1980 and 1990 the total City population grew by 90,000 or a 44% increase (from 204,000 to 294,000) while the number of housing units increased only 7,000 or 11% (from .68,000 to 75,000). During this time, the density or persons/household ~ncreased from 3.0 to 3.9, or a 30% increase (see following exhibit ent. itled "Changes Within the City of Santa .ama). Clearly, there is docume, ntat~on that growth has .occurred, not from development, but from increases ~n household size which ~s not the result of commercial and industrial development. This increase in density is also documented in a study pre?fired for the District entitled "Facilities Master Plan" prepared by School Planning Services dated July, 1991, pages III-14 - III-20. 35 I