My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
92-070
Clerk
>
Resolutions
>
CITY COUNCIL
>
1952 - 1999
>
1992
>
92-070
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 12:31:32 PM
Creation date
6/26/2003 10:46:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Resolution
Doc #
92-70
Date
7/21/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
468 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />~: Inadequate documentation of why private enterprise <br />acting alone cannot accomplish the Project. (Comment 8) <br /> <br />Response: Page A,6 tllrough A-8 of the Report to Council addresses <br />this issue. Th.e Superintendent does not substantiate how this <br />documentation is inadequate. <br /> <br />Qb_iection: The area is not blighted. (Comment 9). <br /> <br />s~e~1220_S~: This objection is addressed in the response to Rancho <br />Santiago Commumty College objections, in particular Section II(2). <br /> <br />Qb_iection: The building and tax increment limits in the Plan are not <br />properly defined, quantified or established. (Comments 11 and 18) ' <br /> <br />Rest~onse: The Amendment d.o. es not propose any modification to the <br />Plafi language pertainingto building limits; th. erefore, this objection is <br />irrelevant. The Agencyhas presented in Se.c.t~on C of the Report to <br />Council the projections related to the estabhshing of the tax <br />increment limit. <br /> <br />Obiection: The Project does not adequately identify and evaluate the <br />mehsures stated in Health and Safety Code Section 33353.5. <br />(Comment 13) <br /> <br />Rgspons¢: Section 33353.5(c) presents these measures as items which <br />may be included in the Fiscal Review Committee Report. To the <br />extent that the FRC Report included any of the items, the Agency <br />responded to the recommendations as documented in Section M of <br />the Report to Council. <br /> <br />~: The Superintendent alleges that not all CEQA and <br />Redevelopment Law notices have been given. (Comment 14) <br /> <br />Response: The Sup.er. intendent does not present any documentation <br />to support this acquisition except that they "do not have sufficient <br />information from which to determine that all notices" w. ere given. <br />The A~ency believes this t° be inadequate documentation of their <br />objection. <br /> <br />Obiection: The Superintendent states that a housing study and <br />employer survey should have been undertaken by the Agency to <br />determine new housing needs and corresponding student population <br />growth. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.