92-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Section 1: 'Failure to Comply with the California Community Redevelopment Law in Processing the Amendment." a. "F0il~re to Ob~ir~ Section 33328 Report" Objection: On page Process-4, the District states that the Agency's failure to request the County to prepare a "Section 33328 Report" limited the District's ability to identify financial burden or detriment resulting from the Amendment and states that such a report is required relative to the Amendment. Response: The Agency was not required to request the County to prepare a report pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33328. Because the Amendment will not add area to the Project Area, it was neither required nor appropriate to prepare such a report. Furthermore, in accordance with Section 33328 of the Code, "If a filing does not comply ~'ith the rec)nirements of Section 33327, the State Board of Equ. alizatlon or the official of the taxing agency entitled to receive those documents ~holl notify the filino aeencv within 10 davs. stating the manner in which the fili.n~ o.~ do6uments does hot comply with this section. If no notice ~s g~ven, it shall be conclusively oresumed that the agency has complied with the provisibfis of this section" (underline added). On November 21, 1991, the Agency transmitt.ed via certified mail to the District and St.ate Board of Equahzation, a copy of the Statement of Preparation of an Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South Harbor Boulevard Redevelopment Project, as required by H.ealth and Safety . Code Section 33.3.27. As provided by .Section 33328, the taxing agency shall notify the fihng agency w~thin 10 days, stating the manner, if any, in which the filing does not comply with Section 33327 of the Health and Safety Code. As a taxing agency (the District), however, did not choose to respond until January 13, 1992, a full 53 days from the date of receipt. This response, prepar.e.d b.y Community Systems Associates, Inc. CCSA"), the D~stnct's consultant, requested the Agency to request the County to prepare such a report.. As such, the ~istrict's failure !o timely notice the Agency of the purported noncomp!iance' results in a conclusive presumption that the Agency was m compliance with the law. It should also be noted that the Agency transmitted a copy of the "Section 33328 Report" prepared in 1982 for the Project on February 10, 1992 a. nd during the Fiscal Review Committee hearings also pr. ow.deal all participants with the FY 1991-92 assessed valuation information for the Project Area. 3 I