92-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

432 II. f. Marshall Krupp, CSA, Consultant to RSCC - Amendment No. 1 to. the Redevelopment Plan for the South Harbor Boulevard/Fairview Street Project Area with reference attachments Volume 1 and Volume 2 Orange County Department of Education, Leonard Brinley, Counsel to OCDE - letter - executive summary - copy of fiscal impact report Santa Ana Unified School District, Mike Vail, Senior Director of Planning, '~restimony to the Santa Aha City Council and the Santa Ana Redevelopment Commission" This document presents the objections and the corresponding written responses to objections submitted, both on the Plan and the environmental documentation. Although the Agency is not required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to respond to the written co. mments at this point in t.he environmental review process, the Agency will provtde responses. Fii'st, a brief summary of each objection is presentedfollowed by the response to the objection. SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAN AMENDMENT AND RESPONSES TO EACH OBJECTION A. RANCHO SANTIAGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT The Rancho Santiago Community College District (RSCC) pres. ented its objections, both orally and in writing. The oral testimony submitted by Bryan Conley, Vivian Blevins, Ca.rol Enos, Bob Partrid.~e, John Raya, and Marshall Krupp was presented in written form and, in addition, CSA presented three bound documents of information/objections. For the most part, all of the oral testimony (also the written form of the oral testimony) is essentially repeated in the three volumes of written information entitled, "Amendment Number One to the Redevelopment Plan for the South Harbor Boulevard/Fairview Street Project Area." Therefore, the following responses will correspond to the information provided in Section 1., Volume 1 of the document. It should be noted that the D~strict's report includes a large amount of background material, statutory language, and citations to legal opinions, some of which are related to and some of which are not relevant to the District's objections. Because of the volume of information presented, the following presents a summary of each of the district's objections. The Agency will attempt to restate what it believes to be the District's objections and respond to those restated points. The Agency generally will not respond to the background information, statutes, and cases because the Redevelopment Law does not require agencies to respond to such background analysis and the Agency wishes to reserve its right to respond to such material at a later time if necessary. 2 I