HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-070 - Redevelopment Plan for the South Harbor Blvd/Fairview Street· '' 427
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 070
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, RULING ON WRITTEN
AND ORAL OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING WRITTEN
FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
RECEIVED FROM AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS AND
TAXING ENTITIES AND RULING ON SUCH WRITTEN
OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SOUTH HARBOR
BOULEVARD/FAIRVIEW STREET REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA.
WHEREAS, an Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the South
Harbor Boulevard/Fairview Street Redevelopment Project Area
("Amendment") has been prepared by the Community Redevelopment
Commission of the City of Santa Ana; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 1992, a duly noticed joint public hearing
on the proposed Amendment was conducted by the City Council and the
Community Redevelopment Commission ("Commission") of the city of
Santa Ana; and
WHEREAS, any and all persons having any objections to the
proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan or the regularity of
the prior proceedings, were given an opportunity to submit written
comments, or to give oral testimony at the joint public hearing,
and show cause why the proposed Amendment should not be adopted;
and
WHEREAS, the city Council has directed Agency staff to prepare
written responses to written objections received from affected
property owners and taxing entities in detail, giving reasons for
not accepting specified objections and suggestions and has reviewed
such responses; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has heard and considered all
evidence, both written and oral, presented in support of and in
opposition to the adoption of the proposed Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council finds, on the basis of the
substantial evidence contained within the 'Report to the city
Council submitted by the Community Redevelopment Commission of the
City of Santa Ana and other substantial evidence in the record,
that written evidence received before or at the joint public
hearing and oral evidence in opposition received at the joint
public hearing is not persuasive to the contrary.
RESOLUTION 92-070
Page 2
Section 2. The city Council hereby makes the findings in
response to each written objection of an affected property owner or
taxing entity as set forth in Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein
by this reference.
Section 3. The City Council and the Commission duly complied
with all the provisions, requirements, and procedures of the
California Community Redevelopment Law relating to the preparation
and adoption of the Amendment.
Section 4. The city Council, accordingly, overrules any and all
objections to the adoption of the Amendment to the Redevelopment
Plan for the South Harbor Boulevard/Fairview Street Redevelopment
Project Area.
ADOPTED this 21st day of July , 1992.
ATTEST:
~lenrk o~ the Couk~i-1~
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Young Aye
Pulido Aye
Acosta Nay
Griset Aye
McGuigan Aye
Norton Nay
Richardson Aye
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Edward
City Attorney
43O
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
State of California
County of Orange
I, JANICE C. GUY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby certify the
attached Resolution ~-OTD to be the original resolution
adopted by the city Council of the City of Santa Ana on
Date
City of Santa Ana
431
EXHIBIT A
WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITI~EN OBJECTIONS
SUBMITTED AT THE
JUNE 16, 1992 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR THE SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD/FAIRVIEW STREET
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
July 16, 1992
BACKGROUND
On June 16, 1992, the City Council and the Santa Aha Redevelopment Commission
held a joint public hearing on theproposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan
for the South Harbor Boulevard/Fairview Street Redevelopment Project Area and
the environmental documentation ("Negative Declaration") related thereto. Section
33363 of the California Redevelopment Law requires the City Council/Agency to
respo, nd in writing to all written objections submitted prior to and at the public
hearing. The written responses must describe the disposition of the issues raised
and all written objections shall be addressed in detail giving reasons for not
accepting specified objections and su. ggestions. The response shall include a good
faith, reasoned analysis, and conclustonary statements unsupported by factual
information are not considered sufficient.
Prior to the June 16th public hearing, there were no written objections from
property owners or tenants from within the Project Area regarding the proposed
Amendment. At the public hearing there were four letters re.ceived fi.om property
owners which supported the proposed Amendment and additmnally, written
objections were received from the following:
1. Nancy Liao, County of Orange - a letter and copy of fiscal impact report
2. Rancho Santiago Community College presented the following:
a. Vivian Blevins, Chancellor, RSCC - script entitled, "Financial
Detriment" and RSCC Resolution No. 656
Bryan Conley, President, RSCC Board - script entitled, "Education
First"
Carol Enos, Trustee, RSCC Board - script entitled, "Existence of
Blight"
d. Bob Partridge, Administrative Dean, RSCC - script entitled,
"Condition of District"
eo
John Raya, Trustee, RSCC Board - script entitled, "General Plan
Conformity"
I
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
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
43,4
The District also states that the A~n. endment proposed by the
Agency requires, pursuant to Section 33354.6, the Agency to
follow the same procedure, and that the legislative body is
subject to the same restrictions as providedfor the adoption of
the Plan. While the Agency acknowledges that Section 33354.6
generally applies the same procedural requirements to plan
amendments as to adoptions of new redevelopment plans, the
Agency maintains that where the procedural requirements of
plan amendments are more specifically tailored to the special
circumstances ofplan amendments, the Legislature intended
these more specific sections to apply instead of the more
general adoption procedural reqmrements. In fact, Section
33457.1 states "[9 the extent warranted by a proposed
amendment to a redevelopment plan...the reports and
information required by Section 33352 shall be prepared..."
(underline added). It made no sense for the Agency to request
a Section 33328 Report which gives a breakdown of the base
year assessed valuation because the Age.ncy already had !n its
possession such a r.e .port which was provided to the District and
all other taxing ent~ties.
"Foil~re to Tron~mit Information to Fiscal Review Committee"
Objection: The District objects to the fact that certain
requested information was n. ot provided directly by the .Agency
to the Fiscal Review Comrmttee and instead the Comrmttee
was burdened with "collecting and duplicating the information
requested." The District also states that the responses to
requested information "do not address the cope (sic) of the
request or level of detail deemed appropriate and necessary to
enable the District to comprehensively conduct its analysis"
(page Process-6).
Response: Between the months of February and June 1992,
the Agency received approximately one dozen letters from the
District's consultant requesting information. The Agency
resp.onded t.o virtually every letter and did its best effort to
prowde the Information requested. However, it should be
noted that as soon as one letter was responded to and
information provided, another letter arrived requesting
additional information..~..e amount of documents r. equested
by the District comprised literally boxes of informatmn. For
the Agency to bear the cost of copying and supplyin/~ this
information only to then again be requested to prowde
additional information seems neither prudent nor expedient.
The Agency did make availab, le to any member of the Fiscal
Review Committee who was Interested all documents and
indicated the Agency's willingness to have the.m, copied at cost.
The only informatio, n not duplicated and provided by the
Agen~ to the District were the past City and Agency budgets,
past City and .Agency financial statements, and past Agency
statements of ~ndebtedness. Although these documents may be
of interest to the Fiscal Review Committee, the Agency does
not believe that failure to provide copies of all of these
4
Ill I
document, s in any way prohibited the Fiscal Review Committee
from analyzingthe iml~act of.the proposed redevelopment
project upon the affected tatung entities. The Agency
presented the original Redevelopment Plan, su .mm..arized
information of revenues collected to date., the origi.n, al EIR for
.the project adoption, the Report to the City Council prepared
in connection with adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, and
other documents that were directly related to the project, its
objectives, and its financial parameters.
"Fgilure to Negotiate in Good Faith"
Objection: The Di.strict objects that the "only meeting of
me~aningful discussion and negotiation of an offer of impact
mitigation was conducted on June 2, 1992" (page Process 9),
and the scheduling of this meeting after the notice of public
hearing was published is in violation of the provisio.m, of
Section 33328 of the Health and Safety Code. Additionally,
the District objects to the'sumn?ary language used by the
Agen.cy i.n the Repor. t to Counc. d regarding .negotiations with
- "~ ndoes
the District and particularly objects to the hume
portrayed by the language" (page Process-12).
Response: Section 33328 of the Health and Safety Code
reqfiires that the Agency "shall consult with each taxing agency
which levies taxes...with respect to the. Plan and allocation of
taxes..." (underline added). The District's objection that the
Agency did not properly comply with this section seems to be
dependent upon the definition of the wor.d "consult." Agency
staff maintains that there were "consultations" between the
Agency and all taxing entities, particularly through the fiscal
review process, prior to notice of the hearing. Although the
Agency may have waited until late May to early June to
present offers for alleviation of detriment to the various taxing
entities, the law does not state t.hat the Agenc~ must "make
offers to alleviate detriment" prior to publication of the notice
of hearing. From a practical standpoint, the FRC report was
transmitted to t.he .Agency on May 15, 1992. I.t was at that time
that all of the districts formally presented their findings of
fiscal detriment. The Agency then had to analyze all of those
reports in order to respond to each entity's findings. Agency
staff appr. oached the subsequent negotiations in a consistent
manner, i.e., the Agency attempted to make offers to alleviate
fiscal detriment based upon development scenarios which were
consistent as opposed to using the various de.v.elopment
scenarios presented by the various taxing entities.
Agency staff is not of the opinion that presenting[ the Ag.ency's
offer to alleviate detriment on June 2, 1992 was tn violation of
the H. ealth and Safety Code. The Agency consulted with the
District numerous times during the fiscal review process via
telephone and correspondence and, therefore, complied with
Health and Safety Cod? Section 33328 requiring the Agency to
"consult" with the District.
5
I
436
Agency staff acknowledges the District's three-page summar~
of the conversations which took place on June 2, 1992. As vnth
any negotiation session, there are two sides to the story and at
least two versions of ~hat took place. It was not the Agency's
staffs intent to "cloud ~the .account of the meeting" by the one-
paragraph summary contained within Section M of the Report
to Council. Health and Safety Code Section 33352(m) requires
that the report include "an analysis by the agency of the report
submitted by the County as required by .Section 33328, which
shall include a summary of the consultation of the agency, or
attempts to consult by the agency, with each of the taxing
agencies as required by Section 33328; and an analysis by the
age. ney of the report of the fiscal review committee, if any,
which shall include .the agency's response to the report of the
fiscal review committee, as requiredby Section 33353.7,
additional information, if any, and, at the discretion of the
Agency, proposed mitigation measures." The Agency prepared
a twenty-seven (27) page'response and dedicated one
paragraph each to summarize the consultations with each
taxing entity.
A portion of the June 2, 19.92 meeting, which the District's
consultant has overlooked ~n their summary of the meeting,
was the .A. gency's explanation of how the Agency was
aPProaching the calculation of fiscal detriment for each of the
affected taxing entities. That is, the Agency staff reviewed the
development scenarios which were presented by the various
taxing entities and des. cribed the revised sce. narlo the Agency
used to calculate detriment and why it was ~mportant for the
Agency t.o take a consistent approach to th.e negotia.tions with
each taxing entity. The Agency also described how ~t used the
impact rates generated by the District to calculate the
detriment, how detriment prior to 1992 was incorporated, and
the background for how the.proposed pass-through of 1.52% of
gross, tax increment was derived. The Agency also presented
specdic issues regarding the District's fiscal impact report and
identified discrepancies within that report. The Agency's
1.52% offer was based upon 'a clear set of assumptions, and the
backup for these assumptions was 8iven to the Dist. rict.
Agency staff indicated to the District's representat, lves that
they were unable to ascertain from the D~strict's fiscal
detriment report exactly what the District was requesting as a
pass-through~ Agency staff requested that the District present
a number which represented what they felt the. calculation of
detriment to be. After the District's "private t~me" during that
meeting, the District returned to the negotiations setting and
said they were willing to ac. cept 65% of their share and
indicated that this calculation was "picked out of the air." The
Agency consistently approached negotiations with all the taxing
entities on the basis of calculations which could be supported.
Agency staff does not believe that the District haspresented an
adequate substantiation for their proposed level of pass-
through. This is discussed further in Section L of this report.
437
do
"$1jl>vcrsion of the Fiscal Review Process"
Q..hj.edilJ~: The District states that the Agency has subverted
the FRC process "in an attempt to minirmze the importance of
the process and the conclusions arrived at as apart of the
process" (page Process-16). The District cites documentation
of this "subversion" in that the Agency modified its
documentation following the FRC process and "misrepresented
the implementation of the Amendment" (page Process-16).
~: Apparently the District believes that the Agency
"subverted" the fiscal reviewprocess because the Agency, after
receiving and reviewing the Fiscal Review COmmittee Report,
revised elements of the proposed Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan and, therefore, revised documentation
?rt.aining to the Amendment. Health and Safety Code
ectmn 33353.7 specffically requires the Agency to "address the
~ssues raised by the committee's report, including reasons for
not adopting recommendations of the committee regarding the
financial burden or detriment which the redevelopment plan
will cause." Further, Section 33353.5(c)(1) provides that the
Fiscal Review Committee can include recommendations which
would "(a) Modify the total amount of tax increment to be
received by the r~develo~ment aeencv" (underline added).
Finding 5 on page 4 of ttie "Final-RelSort of the Fiscal Review
Committee on the Amendment to the Santa Ana South Harbor
Boulevard/Fairview Street Redevelop .m. ent Project" states
"that .the langtmge contained in the Prehminary Report,
pertaining to the financial limits of the Amendme.n. ts to the
Redevelopment Plan and the explanation of such hmits by the
Redevelopment Agency were inconsistent and made the
analysis of impacts more complicated." As explained
.numerous times during the fiscal review process, the Agency
Initially proposed limits on t.he tax increment which were (a)
adjusted by the consumer price index, and (b) exclusive of any
pass-throughs to ~ther taxing entities, in an effort to set limits
that could be flerdble and take into consideration the impacts
(a) of inflation, and (b) of any pass-through agreements which
may be negotiated during the Amendment process. If the
Agency had, at the Preliminary Report stage of the.
Amendment p. rocess, includedan absolute cap or limit on the
receipt of tax ~ncrement, it would have been without the
benefit of knowing what the fiscal review process would
dete. rmine in terms of detriment and corresponding amo. unts of
tax Increment which .m. ay need to be paid to taxing entitles
rather .than being available for project implementation. The
Prelirmnary Report attempted, in its financing section, to
evaluate the level of costs associated with implementation of
the Redevelopment Plan and the level o.f revenues which could
be g.enerated by the Project Area. It is simple to see that if a
portion of. the revenues are instead passed throug, h to other
taxi.n, g entities, an equivalent level of revenues wall not be
avadable to pay for project implementation. This would result
7
I
41t8
in extending the time frame of the project in order to collect
sufficient revenue to implement the project. After benefit of
the receipt of the Fiscal Review Committee Report, Agency
staff recon~..ended modifyin~g the proposed Amend.ment to set.
an absolu, te hmit 9n. ~he receipt of tax increment whmh took
into congiddi:atl°fi tli~ amount of tax increment which would be
needed to alleviate "detriment" and still accomplish
implementation of the project.
It is an interesting "Catch 22" that the District now finds that
the Agency has subverted the fiscal review process bemuse the
Agency proposed to amend the language of the tax increment
limit. Clearly, the law envisioned that one thing that may occur
as a result of the fiscal review process is to "modify the total
amount of tax increments to be received by the redevelopment
agency." By modit~ing t. he Plan language and the
documentation supporting the Plan language, the Agency has
not "subverted the FRC process" but has accommodated the
FRC process which is the intent of the laTM.
It should additionally be pointed out that "Agency's steadfast
position that the original limit was not only necessary, but that
the Agency was unwilling to. cons. ider a capped limit in light of
their redevelopment object,yes" is not a true statement. The
Agency never indicated that they were unwilling to consider
such a limit but tried to communicate to the taxing entities its
reasoning for leaving the limit open at the time of the
Preliminary Report (Paragraph 1 of page "Process- 14")..
It should also be noted th.at the District and Agency continue
to disagree over the housing set-aside revenue, how it is spent,
and whether it generates detriment to the District. The
Project Area can grow in excess of 4% per year without the
construction of net new development. The Agency's pOsition is
that assessed valuation can grow in excess of 4% and the
District's position is that ~rowth beyond 4% can only occur in
the event of the construction of net new development.
Another point of differing opinions between the Agency and
the District reflects around the use of the General Plan "FAR"
designation of .4. The District maintains that the Agency must
exceed the .4 FAR in the future in order to generate the lev.el
of increment presented in the plan amendment documentation.
The Agency maintains that .4 FAR is a reasonable basis given
that that is what the current General Plan allows but has
8
acknowledged that .development may occur at a higher level
and has, therefore, increased the development assumptions
assumed in the Preliminary Report by 50% in order to
calculate and make offers to alleviate fiscal detriment.
It should also be noted that the Agency has never criticized the
District for a lack of analysis as implied in Paragraph 2 ony~age
Process-16. The Agency has o~y criticized the District in
presentation of volumes of demment analysis that are based
upon assumptions that are unrealistic, cannot be supported by
the marketplace, and are not allowed under the City's existing
General Plan. The District's consultant refuses to accept the
Agency's position with regard to the level of development
which can occur in the area and in regard to the level of
increment which could be generated in the area.
The District also contends that the Agency has "modified the
intent of the Plan from a 40-year amendment to a 55-year
amendment, much different than the intent expressed to the
FRC during the FRC process" (page Process-17). The
proposed language of Section 800 of the Amendment entitled,
"Duration of this Plan" has never changed from that which was
first presented at the time of the Preliminary Report. Precisely
the same language which was presented to the FRC was
recommended to the City Council the night of the public
hearing. The District consultant seems to be confused over the
difference between a duration for the "provisions of other
documents formulated pursuant to this Plan" and the time over
which the Agency may collect tax increment. Section 800 of
both the existing Redevelopment Plan (adopted in 1982) and
the proposed amendment provide that the Agency may issue
bonds and incur obligations pursuant to the Plan which "extend
beyond the termination date, and in such event, this plan shall
continue in effect for the purpose of repaying such bonds or
other obligations until the date of retirement of such bonds or
other, obliigations, as determined by the City Council." The
District's implication that the Agency staff h.as modified this
since the time of the FRC process is clearly m error.
The District's contention that the Agency's report co.n. tains four
major erro.rs (see last paragraph, page Process-17) wall be
addressed ~n Section L of this response.
The District's determination that the modifications the Agency
has initiated following the FRC process is "not.a constructive
response to the FRC report and recommendattons, but a self-
serving presentation to minimize the financial detriment or
burden suggested by the District, and offers the City Council
misrepresen.tations of the facts, based upon the manipulation of
the com. plex~ty of the assumptions, projections, and
conclusions," (page Procass-18) is not supported by the
evidence provided by t.h.e ~istrict. Clearly, Agency staff h~
laid out its reason for ~mtmlly not including an absolute linnt
439
I
440
on the amount of tax increment to be collected, and never
modified the duration !anguage of the proposed amendment as
implied by the District s substantiation for making this finding.
"lngdeaua~ of the Community Redcvelonment Commission
D0cum-entation and Aq:Ii0n" -
Objection: The District contends that the Commission's
' " n r
approval of the Report to Council was based upo e rors
contained within the Report, incomplete documentation, and
false statements by the Agency staff and the preparer of the
Report, Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc." (page Process-19) and
that the Commission "abused its discretionary authority and
responsibility to approve a resolution and a report in an
objective and informed manner, and has exasperated the
Agency's failure to cOmply with th.e California Communi.ty
Redevelopment Law, the Califor.m.a Environmental Quahty
Act (CEQA), and the CEQA Guidelines" (page Process-24).
The Dist. rict also concludes that the Age,ncy "cannot
substantiate the findings and determinations as are required by
Section 33367(d) and (e) based upon the contents of the report
as adopted by the Commission" (page Process-24).
~: The following responses (1 through 12) correspond
to the findings presented on pages Process-21 through Process-
23.
°
The Commission received a copy of the proposed
Amendment text to the Redevelopment Plan at their
meeting of January 7, 1992 and .also received a copy of
the Preliminary Report at that t~me. Prior to approving
the draft Report to Council at the June 6, 1992
Commission meeting, the Commission had a study
session at which time, as the minutes reflect, the revisions
to the proposed Amendment text were reviewed and
discussed.
The Agency did not '~vaive" the "Section 33328 Report."
The report was prepared in 1982 and was contained in
the original plan adoption documents. See Section
A(1)(a) of this response for additional discussion of this
matter.
Adoption of the resolution providing for transmittal of
the report does not require the Commission to have
reviewed all correspondence pertaining to the negative
declaration.
10
441
o
Although the .FRC Report was not included in the
agenda materials transmitted to the Commission for the
June 2 meeting, Agency staff verbally presented a
summary of t.hat report to the C.om. mission at the meeting
and communicated to all Comm~ssioners that the report
was available for their review. It is acknowledged that
the June 2, 1992 draft of the report did not contain the
analysis of the FRC Report but the resolution adopted by
the Commission clearly instructed the Executive Director
to prepare the response. This information was not
withheld from the Commission, but was submitted to
them prio.r to the public hearing held on June 16, 1992.
The District overlooks the fact that typically documents
are not actually prepared by Board members and
commissi.oners, but are prepared by staff. Clearly, the.
Co.m.misslon delegate, d the responsibility for prep. aratlon
of th~s particular section of the Report to Council to the
Executive Director,~and such delegation of responsibility
is within their purview.
Rega. rding the substantiation of blight, and why
elimination of blight cannot be accomplished by private
enterprise acting alone, see. Section 2 of this response
(page 16) which addresses ~ssues pertaining to the
substantiation of blight.
Regarding the substantiation of blight, see Section 2 of
this response (pase 16) which addresses issues pertaining
to the subs!antiat~on of blight. Additionally, the District
states that statements set forth in Section B also
contradicts (sic) the Agency's South Harbor Boulevard
Redevelopment Area Strategy Plan date.d March 1987"
(p.ase Process-22) but does not substantiate or give
evidence to the nature of these contradictions.
Regarding the District's determination that Section C of
the Report "contradicts the Preliminary Report p.r. epared
by the Agency", page C-4 of the Report to Council clearly
states "these revenue proje.ctions have been revised since
thepreparation of the Prehminary Report to reflect
modifications resulting from the fiscal review process.
The revisions are further discussed in SectionM of this
Report to Council." If the Legislature had intended that
Section C of the Preliminary Report and Section C of the
Report to Council must be ~dentical, the Legislature
would have stated such in the law.
11
I
,142
go
The District clai.ms that the plan and method of
relocation contatned in Sectmn D of the Report to
Council is "not in compliance with present State and
Federal statutes." Reference is made to page V-2 of the
"Report to the Sggta Ana City Council on the Proposed
Redevelopment Plan for the Santa Ana South Har),or
Boulevard/Fairview. Street Redevelopment Project
dated May 1982 which states that the Ag?.ncy, before
undertaking activities that will result in displacement,
shall adopt rules and regulations that amongst other
things are "appropriate to the particular actavities of the
Agency and not inconsistent with the act or state
guidelines. Said rules or regulations issued by the
Agency shall be promptly revised as necessary,, to
conform t.o any amendment of the act, the Cahfornia
Commumty Redevelopment Law, or the state guidelines."
The Agency will never be in a position to ngt be in
complfance with State statutes (and in fact is not required
to be in compllanc~ with Federal statutes) in that prior to
any displacement it must be determined that relocation
benefits wdl be provided that conform to State
guidelines. It is also noted that the District did not
substantiate why the plan and method of relocation was
not in compli.ance with State statutes. It is also noted
that the District erroneously concludes that the Agency is
required to be in conformance with Federal statutes.
The Agency is a "State agency" and as such must comply
with State statutes but, unless Federal funds are used for
a project, the Agency is not required to comply with
Federal statutes.
The discussion regarding the inadequacy of using the
Preliminary Plan for the. Origin. al Report dated May 1982
suggests that the analys~s contained within the 1982
Preliminary Report is inadequate for a discussion of the
Prel(.minary Plan in 1992. In making this determination,
the D~strict has overlooked the fact that the Agency is not
changing the land use designations contained within the
originalRedevelopment Plan. That is, the uses allowed
in the Project Area remain "cormnercial/industrial,"
"parks, recreation and open space," "parks, recreational
and open space/alternate use: commercial/industrial,"
"existing school," and "industry/alternate use: ·
commercial/industrial." The same land uses contained in
the 1982 Plan, which was based upon the original
Preliminary Plan, continue to be those designated in the
Plan after the proposed Amendment. Therefore, it
would have been irrelevant and redundant for the
Agency to adopt a new Preliminary Plan and to prepare a
new analysis of the Preliminary Plan because it would
have been the same Preliminary Plan.
443
10.
11.
It is true that the District's consultant challenged the
Planning Commission's May 26th action and that the
Planning Commission reconsidered and readopted the
exact same action 0n June 8, 1992. However, this, in and
of itself, does not make the Commission's action on the
report incomplete, particularly because the Planning
Commission's actions and recommendations taken on
June 8 were identical to those taken on May 26.
Regarding the District's conclusion that Section L, The
Neighborhood Impact Report, is deficient, it should be
noted that as allowed by Commission Resolution No. 92-
8, the Draft Report to Council was modified prior to
being transmitted to the City Council to discuss the status
of negotiations with the sc.hool districts. Reference is
made to Page L-3 of the Final Report to Council. It
should also be noted that the Commission received the
revised copy of the Report to Council prior to the public
hearing on June 16 an.d prior to making its
recommendation relative to the approval of the proposed
Amendment.
12.
Regarding the District's finding that Section M is .
incomplete, reference is made to Commission Resoluuon
No. 92-8 which instructed the Executive Director of the
Agen~ toprepare this section and include it in the
transmittal to the Council. It should be noted that the
District fails to acknowledge that most Boards and
Commissions op.erate by using staff to prepare reports
and documentation. If the Comrmssion chooses to
delegate responsibility for the preparation of reports and
recommendations to ~ts staff or consultants, it has not
"abused its discretionary authority and responsibility." By
way of comparison and example, the District itself
presented its FRC Rep.ort. and its written objections to
the Plan Amendment vm ~ts staff and consultants. The
District's FRC Report and written objections never
appeared on a District Board agenda to be approved by
the Board.
,Inadequacy of the Planning Commission Documentation and
Action"
~: The District states that the Planning Commission's
action finding the amended plan in conformance with the City
of Santa Ana General Plan was based upon "erroneous
informationprovided orally by the Agency staff, and without
any written 0ocumentation to support or substantiate the
findings" (page Process-25). The District supports this
statem, ent by indicating that the amended Redevelopment Plan
is not in conformance with certain elements of the General
Plan and that the use of a negative declaration was inadequate
to comply with California Redevelopment Law, California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and CEQA Guidelines.
13
I
R_~,Jp.9_.t~: The Agency and the District continue to disagre~
over the issue of the conformity with the General Plan and the
use of a negative declaration to comply with CEQ.A. .
requirements, ,These'issues are discussed in detail m Sections
4 and 5 of this responSe.
"Failure to Provide Adequate Notice of the Public Hearin_~"
~).hj.~3J.~: The District states that the notice of joint public
hearing should have been published for four consecutive weeks
starting May 19, 1992 rather than four consecutive weeks
starting May 26, 1992. The District also states that the legal
description of the Project Area "should have been included in
the public hearing notice."
Resnonse: The Agency acknowledges that Section 33354.6
generally states that the s. ame procedural requirements for
adopting new redevelopm.ent plans should be followed for
certain plan amendments including the proposed amendments
to the South Harbor Plan. The Agency, however, believes that
where the law provides more specific procedural requirements
for plan amendments, the legislature intended that the more
specific sections apply rather than the more general adoption
procedure. The Agency properly followed the notice
requirements of Section 33452 rather than Section 33361.
Article 12 of the Health and Safety Code, which includes
Section 33452, is entitled "Amendment of Redevelopment
Plans" and was specifically written to describe the processes
pertaining to plan amendments. The District consistently
relies on Health and Safety Code Section 33354.6 in its
determination that the proposed South Harbor
Redevelop.ment Plan Amendment requires precisely the same
plan adoption process as if it were an initial plan adopt!on, lit
should be noted that Section 33354.6 and all other sections
contained within Section 33353(1 through 7) through Section
33354.6 relate to the Fiscal Review Committee andits actions
and processes. In particular, this section states that in certain
plan amendments "the Agency shall follow the same
procedure, and the legislative bo. dy is subject to the sa.me
restrictions as provided for in th~s article for the adoption of a
plan" (underline added). This article refers to Article 4 of
Chapter 4 Of the Health and Safety Code (commencing with
Section 33330). It does not includ,e those elements of theplan
adoption process contained in Article 2 and 3 of Chapter 4of
the Health and Safety Code. The Agency believes that the
Legislature intended that the term "shall follow the same
pro.cedure" rela!es to the fiscal review procedure and that
,,Ar, t~cle 12 (Sections 33450 through 33458.5) entitled
Amendment of Redevelopment Plans" is the section of the law
that was intended to address specific procedures pertaining to
14
redevelopment plan amendments. Therefore, the Agency
properly followed the Section 33452 noticing requirements by
publishing the notice in accordance with Section 6063 of the
Government Code.
Section 33452 specifically states "the notice of hearing shall
include a legal description of the boundaries of the project
area by reference to the description recorded with the county
recorder pursuant to Section 33373 and of the boundaries of
the land proposed to be added to the project area, if any, and a
general statement of the purpose of the amendment." The
Agency's notice of hearing referred to the legal description
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder as
Document Number 82-235809 and additionally, the Agency did
publish !n the newspaper the legal metes and bounds
descriptton of the project area.
Furthermore, the District should not complain of defective
notice if they actually received notice of the joint hearing and
indeed attended the hearing and presented both oral and
wr. itten testimony. The Agency cannot conclude that the
District has demonstrated any harm as a result of the
methodology used by the Agency in publishing the notices.
"Failure of the Aeencv to Prepare a Report Pursuant to
Section 33353.7"- -
Objection: The District states that although they received
responses to the FRC Report, "the responses were not
prepar.ed and submitt?d (revie .w. ed andauthorized to be
transmitted) by the City Council, but r.ather was (sic) prepared
by. the Agency's consul.rant and transrmtted by the Agency staff
w~thout any consideratton of the responses by the City Council
acting as the Agency" (page Process-27).
~h: It is acknowledged by the District on page Process-
24 that the Commumty Redevelopment
Commission, by resolution, approved the Report to the Santa
Ama City Council for the Amendment to the South Harbor
Boulevard/Fai~view Street Redevelopment Project Ar.e.a and
authorizedtransmittal of the Rep. oft to the. City Councd.
Reference is made to City Councd Resolution No. 91-102
wherein the City Council resolved that the Redevelopment
Commission of the City of Santa Ama was authorized and
directed to carry out those functi.ons of the Commu~ty
Redevelopment Agency of the C~ty of Santa Ann whmh
pertained to the A~nendment of Redevelopment Plans
including but not limited to those functions of the Community
Redevelopment Agency's which are specified in Article 12
commencing with Section 33450 of Chapter 4. of the
Community Redevelopment Law. Included in Article 12 is
Section 33457.1 which states that "to the extent warranted by a
proposed amendment...the reports and information required by
445
15
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
447
o
private enterprise will accomplish the construction of needed sewer
improvements, storm drain improvements, utility improvements,
bridge construction improvements, street construction, sidewalks,
curbs and gutters, trees along parkways, traffic circulation system
improvements, recreati°n impr0~ements and other community
development programs.
Section 3: 'Misuse of Tax Increment Financing'
Objection: The District finds that the City's redevelopment tax
increment financing vehicle has "become a "windfall" for the City to
implement it's (sic) required capital facilities, which would have
nor .maily been an obliga, tion of the General Fund, at the e.xpense.of
the ~mpacts of the District. The City has used this vehicle In lieu of
implementing politically more difficult alternatives such as increased
~PnrOperty taxes, property assessments, general obligation bonds, and
creased development fees, etc" (page Windfall-5).
Response: The District has implied that the Agency has "misused" tax
increment financing; however, the Di.s. trict does not substantiate or
quantify ho.w the Agency has accomplished this "misuse". The District
impliedby ~ts tables that the "misuse" is the fact that property tax
increment is growip, g at a faster rate than other sources of revenue to
the City. The implication of the Dist. rict seems to be that only if the
tax increment collected within the C~ty was growing.more slowly than
other revenue sources, would the Agency not be "rmsusing" tax
increment. This kind of logic is irrelevant to this Amendment process.
The Agency's collection of tax increment is obviously related to the
increase in numbers of project areas created within the City and the
relative success of the redevelopment activities in those project areas.
The Agency has and will continue to use tax Increment as. legally
allowed for the purposes of redeve, lopment and the Districts
suggestion that the Agency has "nnsused" .funds has not been
sut)stantiated in the District's documentaUon.
Section 4: "Lack of General Plan Conformity and Inadequacy of
General Plan'
The following responses also address those w. ritten objections
~ontmned in the script presented at the heanng by John Raya entitled
General Plan Conformity."
a. "Adequacy_ of General Plan"
Obiection: The District implies that the City's Ge.neral Plan is
not- adequate because: a) it contains elements whmh reflect
obsolete base data, b) has not been updated enough, and c)
does not address the California Integrated Waste Management
Act of 1989.
17
I
448
Response: The most r.ecent comp.rehensive revision of the
plan was adopted by City Councilm 1982. State law
recommends that the elements be updated every five years or
as deemed appropriate by the local jurisdiction. The law
requires that the Housing Element be updated every five years.
This element was last revised !n 1989 in compliance with State
law to address preserved housing. In addition, four elements
of the general plan are under revision -- Circulation,
Education, Land Use, and Open Space and Recreation -- to
reflect current community needs and city policies. A new Air
Quality Management Element is beingdeveloped as required
by the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan, and City Council
adopted the State required Integrated Waste Management
Plan on June 1, 1992.
"Inter- ~n~l Intra-El~ment Consistency_"
Objection: The remaining 1982 General Plan Elements have
not-been updated, to reflect the contents of the Housing
Element, Educanon Element, Growth Management Element,
and Land Use Map amendments which were adopted
subsequent to the 1982 General Plan adoption.
Respon~.: Amendments to the generalplan are based upon
an analys~s of the impact of the proposedchange on all
elements of the plan. Therefore, an amended element
.establi.shes no new p. rogram or policy direction that is
inconsistent with erdsting General Plan elements. As amended
every five years, each housing element supersedes the previous
and reflects current City programs and policy for housmg that
are consistent with either the 1982 GeneralPlan or a more
recently amended element. New elements, such as Growth
Management and Education, may establish new policies
related to City action in these areas: but in no case are new
elements inconsistent with the existtn/~ general plan. It is noted
that in the District's objections, the D~strict failed to state an
example of the purported inconsistency.
"Adequacy_ of the Implementation and Administration of the
General Plan"
~: The District states that the City has no.t complied
rnment Code Section 65400 by conducting an annual
review of the General Plan. Further, the City has been
ineffective in coordination and cooperation with the District.
Response:
1. Annual Review
The City Attorney advises that, as a charter city, Santa
Ana is not subject to the State requirement for annual
review of the general plan.
18
ill I
449
2. Coordination with Rancho Santiago District
As required by State law, the City provides public
notification ofallpropose, d amendments and revisions to
its general plan. In addition, for amendments that are
deemed to be of general interest to public agencies or
property owners, the City duly notices and holds
community meetings to receive public comment prior to
finalizing a proposed amendment and forwarding a
recommendation to Planning Commission and City
Council for action.
"Failure of Amended Plan to Conform to the General Plan"
~: The Amendment does not conform to the
Land Use Element because the Amendment calls for
more development than allowed by the General Plan
floor area ratios.
Resnonse: A 1.988 Amendment to. the Land Use
Ele/nent estabhshed floor area ratios (FARs) as
development limits for nonresidential projects. The FAR
is a standard that may be exceeded by actmn of Ci.ty
Council. Such an amendment to the general plan ~s
typica, lly based upon environmental analysis which
identffies and mitigates the potential negative impacts
which may result from development at a higher FAR
than designated in the Land Use Element. Several such
amendments have been approved, and any property
owner may request such an amendment.
~: The Amendment does not conform to the
Public Facilities Element because the Amendment makes
provision for only those public facilities provided by the
City a.nd does not address impacts on other public
agencies.
.Response: This element is intended to address the
impact of the City's grow. th and developm.e, nt on public
facilities in general and is not limited to C~ty facilities.
.The element acknowledges that while the City has no
Jurisdiction over schools, deficiencies in educational
facilities are a City concern. The element goes o.n to
establish policies that support an impact nutigatmn fee
for schools.
~: The Amendment does not conform to the
Education Element because the Amendment will impact
schools but makes no provision for providing additional
educational services and facilities.
19
I
45O
Response: The Education Element establishes a basis
for greater interasency cooperation between the City and
school districts within i,ts jurisdiction. A large part of this
cooperation is the City s review of the impacts of new
development on the school system as it occurs. This
review procedu~:e is not only a requirement of the general
plan, but the California Environmental Quality Act as
well. The District and Agency have addressed school
i_m, pa.cts as a part of the fiscal review process. The
District and Agency continue to disagree on the level of
impact.
Objection: The Amendment does not conform to the
Housing Element because the AgenCY has indicted that
the low]mod funds generated will not be used for new
housing which is contrary to the Housing Element
prov!sions, and that not using low/mod funds for new
housing exacerbates the oversupply of jobs to housing
ratio.
Response:
a) Use of Tax Increment Housing Set-Aside Funds
The Housing Element includes a goal to promote
and encourage the development o~ a range of
housing stock suitable for the City s current and
]~arOjected households. This goal also includes
nguage that acknowledges that the City's
Regional Housing Allocation of more than 5,900
new units is beyond its capacity to produce given
recent homebuilding trends in the City. The .
Element goes on to include seven program actmns
which may be utilized by the City to encourage the
provision of new units. Use of tax increment set
asides is but one of several program actions
available to the City at its discretion for achieving
this goal. There is no requirement or intent in the
Element to limit the use of housing set-aside funds
solely for new housing construction.
b) Jobs/Housing Balance
There is no linkage between the City's source of
funds for ,providing incentives for new housing
construction and the jobs/housing balance. The
City's goal in this area reflects the fact that such a
balance is difficult to impossible to achieve on a
local basis. Rather jobs/hous!ng balance is a
regional target to be cooperatively pursued within
a wide economically and geographicall~ related
area such as Orange County. The City s goal
reflects its intent to cooperate with th~s effort on a
regional basis.
20
451
~ection 5: "Failure to Process and Prepare Adequate Environmental
Documentation"
The following responses als0 address those written objections
contained in the .script presented at the hearing by Bryan Conley
entitled, "Education First."
(Comment: Mr. Krupp of CSA, Inc. makes comments in reference to a
Janua~ 13, 1992 letter from CSA, Inc. to Ms. Cynthia Nelson,
Executive Director, Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Krupp
also makes comments regarding Ms. Nelson's response in a February
10, 1992 letter to CSA, Inc. anda follow-up letter from CSA, Inc.
dated February 12, 1992 to Mr. Robert Hoffman, Redevelopment
Manager, Santa Ana Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Krupp's comments
relate to his opinion that an Environm.enta! Impact Report (EIR)
should have been prepared for the project instead of aNegative
Declaration.
~p: An EIR w.as prepared for the South Harbor Boulevard
ment Plan In 1982. The EIR was a Program EIR as
allowed by Section 15168(a)(3). of the CEQA Guidelines. Section
15180(b) of the CEQA Guidelines also states that, "An EIR on a
redevelopment plan sh. all be treated as a program EIR with no
subsequent EIRs required for individual components of the
redevelopment plan unless a subsequent EIR or a supplement to an
EIR would be required by Section 15162 or 15163."
An Initial Study was completed .for the proposed Plan Amendment.
Through the process of completing.the Initml Study, it was
determined that the propose.d public works projects would not have a
significant impact on the environment. As a result, the Negative
Declaration prepared for the Plan Amendment was the appropriate
environmental document for this project because a Program EIR had
been prepared for the original Plan in 1982.
Comment: Mr. Krupp makes reference to Sec. tion 33333.3 of. the
Health and Safety Code that refers to the Notice of Preparation to the
EIR and a copy of the EIR .shall be sent to each affected taxing entity
and the fiscal review comrmttee.
Resnonse: The Negative Declaration was submitted to all affected
taxihg agencies and the fiscal review committee in compliance with
the applicable Health and Safety Codes.
Comment: The Enviro.nmental Checklist Form was notprepared in
accordance with subdivision (g) of Section 15063 of the CEQA
Guidelines. The City did not consult with the District with regar, d t.o
the resources affected by the Plan'.s Amendment to which the District
is responsible for and did not obtain the recommen.dation of the
District as to whether an EIR or Negative Declaration should be
prepared.
21
452
Response: In terms of the CEQA Guidelines, the District, although a
taxing agency, is a reviewing agency and not a responsible agency.
Therefore, the District was not informally contacted.
Comment: CSA~ Inc. states ~hat the appropriate environmental
docu. ment for this project should have been a Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report and a Subsequent EIR requires the
same public notice and review as a Draft EIR.
Resoonse: The comment is correct in that ff the proposed Plan
Amendment would have required an EIR, a Subsequent EIR would
have been pr.epared..H, owever, the Initial Study Form, once
comp~leted, did. not indtcat.e the Plan Amendment would have any
sigmficant enwronmental impacts. Therefore, a Negative Declaration
was prepared instead of a Subsequent EIR.
Comment: The Agency has not adequately respo, nded to the District's
comments on the Negative Declaration set forth in CSA, Inc.'s letter
dated January 13, 1992. As sudh, the public review process has been
pursued inappropriately.
The City did not consult with the District on the environmental issues.
The purpose of the review process appears to have been avoided and
has placed the District in a difficult position of having to either: a)
seek administrative and legal remedies available to the District, or b)
overlook the error and not pursue any further remedies.
Response: The Agency has not only complied with CEQA, but has
gone beyond the requirements. CEQA does .not require the L~.ad
Agency to respond to comments received dunng the public review
period of the Negative Declaration. In an effort to provide as much
environmental information as possible, the Agency did respond to all
written comments received to the Negative Declaration.
The Agency did consult with the District on the environmental issues
of the project. The Distric. t was mailed, by certified mail, a copy of
the Negativ.e Declaratign In November 1991. The Agency has
corn. plied with a. ll noticing requirements of CEQA and has not
avoided the revaew process.
Comm{nl: The scope of the Amendment far exceeds the contents of
the Original Plan and the level of evaluation contained within the
FEIR, dated June 15, 1982. Additionally, the specific projects set
forth in Section D and E of the Preliminary Report, has been
expanded far beyond the Original Plan, and as such
project impacts should be evaluated beyond the conclusions reached
m the Environmental Checklist For .m. More importantly, the Plan's
amended tax increment limit, if attmned, would result in the private
development and improvement of property within the Project Area,
which was not contemplated in the FEIR dated June 15, 1982, or
considered in the Environmental Checklist Form.
22
~: The Initial Study adequately evaluated the potential
significant environmental impacts associated with construction of the
proposed public works improvement projects. Future private
development projects will be. evaluated in compliance with CEQA at
the time a plannin.$ application for a specific development project is
submitted to the C~ty. Should it be determined at that time that
additional environmental documentation is required to comply with
CEQA, that documentation will be prepared. At this time, it ~s
?eeculative to determine or state the type or intensity of any furore
velopment, that might occur within the Project Area. Any potential
impact associated with future development that may occur over the
30-year life of the Plan is too speculative to evaluate and is not
required to be evaluated as stated in Section 15145 of the CEQA
Guidelines.
Comment: It is clear that there is serious public controversy with
regard to the environment.al effects of the Amendment, the adequacy
of prior designated mitiganon me.asures, and the appropriateness of
the Negative Declaration. The~e ~s further disagreement among the
Agency's experts and the District's experts and, therefore, the CEQA
Guidelines suggest that the effects shall be treated as significant and
an EIR form of disclosure shall be prepared. The District has
suggested and supported the position, that the appropriate EIR for
the applications is a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report,
pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.
1Rest>on.s~: The Agency does not believe that the Plan Amendm. ent
has ~enous public controversy. The "controversy" as described m the
comment refers to the number of potential new students generated by
the Plan Amendment from the Agency's perspective and the number
generated from the District's viewpoint. The Agency has not
~.dentified any significant impacts on the District with adoption and
~mplementatlon of the Plan Amendment. The District has not
provided to date information that indicates the Plan Amendment
would significantly impact the District by generating a significant
number of new students to the District.
The disagreem, ent b.e. tween the Agency and the District strictly deals
with fiscal review. Ftscal review is not applicable to the CEQA
Guidelines. Therefore, the Agency has prepared a Negative
Declaration for the Plan Amendment as allowed by CEQA.
Comm. ent: In the Agency's response to comments received on the
Negative Declaration, the Agency attempts to minimize the impacts
on the District and the need to prepare an environmental impact
report. The Agency further attempts to establish an after-the-fact
argument to su.bstantiate their position of no significant
environmenta, l impact on the District, and further attempts to suggest
that the District d~d not substantiate its claim of impact.
453
23
I
454
The Agency, by the preparation and acceptance of the proposed
Negative Declaration on the Plan Amendment, has suggested that
there will be no significant environmental impact on the District. In
contra.st, although the Agency has not agreed with the magnitude o.f
financml detriment ca.used to,the District, they have at least by their
recent offer of mitigauon, acknowledged that there will be some level
of financial i. mp.a. ct on the D. is.trict. It ~s co ~nf?ing as t.o how the
Agency can justify even a mammum level of financial unpact and not
justify some level of environmental impact.
Response: The Agency has stated from the beginning of the
environmental review process to date that the project would not
significantly impact .the District. Th.e District has Indicated the Plan
Amendment would ~mpact the District, and presented its calculations
and report on impact as part of the fiscal review process in accordance
with Health and Safety Code Section 33353.5.
The Agency has acknowledged that there may be some generation of
new students to the District. However, any new students that may be
generated do not meet the definition of significant as identified in
Section 15382 and Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
The Agency has consistently indicated that .fiscal impact and fiscal
participa. Uon between the Agency and the .D~strict .should
approprmtely be addressed as part of the fiscal rewew process
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 33353 through 33353.7.
Addressing th.ese fiscal issues as part of the environmentalreview
process is duphcative and unnecessary. The Agency has, in fact;
offered to provide revenues to assist the District in providing facilities
for approximately 500 new students that may be generated by
development in the Project Area over the next 40,~ears (an average of
10 stuoents per year). The potential generation ot these students over
.the next 40 years does not equate into a significant environmental
~mpact. Therefore, the Agency does not consider that the Plan
Amendment would have a significant environmental impact on the
District.
Comment: The basic variable to the District's responsibilities is the
number of students it must offer education services and facilities to.
As the student enrollment of the District increases, the cost to provide
instruction increases. Similarly, as the enrollment increased, the
District's facilities become overcrowded requiring expansion, new
facilities and new campuses. Also, as student enrollment increases,
the general environment around the District's campuses deteriorate as
a result of increased traffic, noise and activities related to the use of
their facilities. Finally, as enrollment increases, it necessitates the
District to initiate and pursue capital improvements to expand our
facilities, which cert.ainly have an effect on the physical environment
within the surrounding campuses. All of these effects are impacts as
defined under the California Environmental Quality Act, and as such
require some form of mitigation. The Agency cannot reasonably
suggest that there will notbe an environmental impact on the District,
based upon the documentation which has been presented to the
455
Agency to date. In addition, it is clear that a. Negative Declaration is
inappropriate as a d!sclosure document and ~s a violation of the
California Commumty Redevelopment Law and the California
Environmental Quality Act.
Am : The number of new students that may be generated due to
endment.is n. ot antic, ipated to deteriorate the existing
environment at the Dtstnct's facfltties. The small number of new
students that may be generated indirectly over the life of the Plan due
to the Plan Amendment would not deteriorate the campus
en.vironment by increasing traffic and noise. Any increased traffic,
noise, etc. that may be generated by the students would be
insignificant.
The comment is correct in that increased enrollment requires the
District to expand facilities. However, the ex~.ansion is required to
meet a cumulative student increase, not specifically due to the
proposed Plan Amendment. The District has not submitted
~nformation to the Agency that ifidicates or shows the proposed public
works projects would increase the number of new students attending
Dis!rict facilities. The Negative Declaration is the appropriate
environmental document for evaluating the potential envaronmental
effects associated with the proposed Plan Amendment and public
works improvement projects.
Comment: Using the Agency's projection of development of
2,415,000 square feet, the District has estimated an increased student
enrollment of 801 students whic.h has a pr?sent value cost impact to
the District of $17.9 million. Using the District's proje.ction of
development square footage, based on all light industrial, the District
has estimated an increasedstudent enrollment of 1,385 students which
has a present value cost impact, to the District of $31 million.
However, using what. the District feels is a more reasona.ble land use
mix, the District projects 4.,659,344 squ. are feet of industrial, office and
retail development, resulting in an estimated increase in student
enrollment of 1,454 students and a present value cost of $32.6 million.
The City Council should note that none of the Agency's l~roiections of
de elopment come close to atta~.mng th.e proposed $2.6 billion hmit
within the 40-year term as contamecl w~thin the proposed language of
the Plan Amendment. This sugl~.ests that the Amended Plan may not
be economically sound and feasible, or that if the Agency attains the
limit, the impact on the District will be greater than either the Agency
or the District has stated.
Clearly, irrespective of the methodology used or the projection of
development square footage, there will be. an impact on the District
which has not been mitigated. The financial detriment stated by the
District is the monetary expression of the environmental impact of the
Amendment of the Plan. Because of the high enrollment condition of
t e D~stnct s campus, es ~n comparison .to the capacity of t..hese
facilities, together with the limited availability of capital financing
25
456
revenues at the local and State level, any impact created by the
implementation of the Amended Redevelopment Plan willhave a -
significant environme.n.tal impact on the .District, and a substantial
financial detriment which necessitates mlUgation.
The District, thei:efore., challenges and objects to the considera, tion of
the Negative DeclaraUon, and requests that further consideration of
the Amendment be delayed and deferred until a Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report has been prepared addressing the
impacts of the Amendment on the District, setting forth adequate and
appropriate mitigation measures, and until adequate responses are
provided by the City relative to the comments set forth in the District
letter to the City, dated January 13, 1992.
R~sponse: As indica.ted in the Agency's February 10, 1992 letter ·
response to the District's letter of January 13, 1992, the issues raised
by the District are appropriately addressed, pursuant to Health and
Safety Code Section 33353 through 33353.7 as part of the fiscal review
process. The District's opinion that an increase in the quantity of
service should be addressed by the environmental documentation is
inconsistent with Health and Safety Code Section 33012 which states
that a net increase in the quality or g!!.O3l~ of service is "financial
burden or detriment" which according to Section 33353.5 should be
evaluated in the report of the fiscal review committee. The Agency
also does not agree with the metho.dology used by the D. istrict to
calculate student generation. This ~s discussed further ~n Section 8
below.
Comment: With the level of environmental inadequacy substantiated
in terms of the Negative Declaration and the Environmental Checklist
Form, it would appear that the City h. as the duty to consider the
impacts on the District in a more log:cal and accurate manner through
a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. In addition, the City has
the obligation to ensure that the California Environmental Quality
Act, the Guidelines for the i .mplementati. on of CEQA, and the
requirements of the Califorma Commumty Redevelopment Law, are
complied with, so as to protect the interests of the District, property
owners, business persons, and residents of the community.
Resoonse: The CEQA Guidelines have been followed in regards to
the ~reparation of a Negative Declaration for the project. The
Negative Declaration has adequately evaluated the potential
environmental effects associated with the Plan Amendment project.
Soc0on 6: "California State Community College Financing System"
This section appears to be for informational purposes and does not
raise objections to the plan and, therefore, requires no response.
Section 7: "District Information"
The following also responds to the script presented at the hearing by
Robert Partridge entitled "Condition of District."
This section provides information about the demographic patterns
and enrollment in the District and some of the basra assumptions
which have been used to establish the costs associated with each
student added to the District..The assumptions contain.ed in this
section were used by the District to calculate the financtal burden or
detriment presenteOin the followi.ng section. The Agency will,
therefore, respond to these issues ~n the following section of this
response.
~;¢ction 8: "Financial Burden or Detriment"
The following responses also address those written objectives
contained in the script presented at the hearing by Dr. Vivian Blevins
entitled "Financial Detriment."
a. "Basis for Financial Burden or Detriment"
No objection was made i.n this subsection; therefore, no
response is required.
b. "Loss of P. roperty Tax Revenue Produced bv a Chanee of
Ownership or N~W Constru~0on" - -
This section states that as long as the structure of financing
currently used by the State to fund the District is not altered,
there is no loss of revenue by the District produced by change
of ownership or new cons[ruction if the Amendment is .
adopted. However, it indicates that the State could alter ~ts
methodology over the 40-year term of the Plan and, therefore,
the District is of the opim~on that "any loss o.f revenue as a
result of State decreases m the revenue lirmt per full-time
equivalent student requires mitigation during the term of the
Plan."
This does not appear to be an objection and, therefore, the
Agency will not respond to this section.
"Net Increase in Ouali _ty or Quantity of Servi¢¢~ of the District
Caused by the Amended Plan"
This section states that the addition of students caused by
development results in a net incr.ease in the need to provide
capital facilities which is a financial burden. In particular, the
Agent's expenditures of low and moderate income housing
set-aside funds and the expenditure of tax increment that
"creates and/or influences nonresidential building square
footage in excess of the present building square footage of the
project area" causes an increase in service. Because this does
not appear to be an objection to the plan, the Agency will not
respond to this section.
458
"District Capital Facility Cost Estimates"
This section provid.es bac.kgroun.d.i.nformation on how the
District calculated ~ts capital facilities costs in terms of a cost-
per-student dollar amount. Because this section presents no
.objection, the Age~cy'.s response is limited to the following. It
~s noted that the D~smct has assumed the need for 500 square
feet per parking space. It is the Agency's opinion, based upon
experience with commercial development of varying sizes, that
the allocation of 350 s.quare feet per parking space is more
than adequate to provide both the space for the. parking stall
and the accessways through the parking lot. It ~s the Agency's
opinion that this correction alone would lower the cost-per-
student dollar amount from $22,400 to $19,400 or a 13%
decrease in cost. Because the Agency is not in a position to
comment on the other standards used (i.e., square foot per
student (22.5), the numb.er of parking spaces needed for
classrooms, nor the reqmred square feet per classroom) the
Agency will at th!s time accept that the District has not
overstated these ~tems in their calculation.
"Stadents Per Square Foot of Nonresidential Building"
In this section, the District presents its methodology used to
determine the cost per Sqluare fo.ot of nonresidential
development. No objecUon is raised in this section; therefore,
the Agency will limit its response to noting that the cost per
square foot is based upon a 1992 dollar cost per student of
$22,400 which presumes, in the Agency's opinion, excessive
cost for parking based upon the Agency's experience in the
construction of parking lots.
"Housing Set-Aside Requirements"
Although this section does not contain any direct "objections"
to the adoption of the am.endment, the District does again state
its opinion that the provisions of Resolution No. 84-3 and
Stipulated Judgment No. 3858-61 do not apply to the proposed
..Amendment. The A..gency and the District continue to
d~sagree on the apphcation of these requirements to the
proposed Amendment.
"Subsidy for Low and Moderate Income Housing"
Although this sect!on does not. raise any direct objections to
the plan, the Dist.nct has now ~.ndicatedthat the $25,000 per
housing unit subsidy assumed ~n their calculation of impact
caused by the hons~ng set-aside funds can be substantiated
based upon a new analysis by the District. The report states
"CSA contacted the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, as well as the State of California Housin$ and
Community Development Department to obtain statistical
information and assistance in developing a projection scenario
which represents a reasonable scenario for defining projected
average h.ousing unit subsidies that a public agency in Orange
County nught use. The conclusions of this analysis supports
the District estimate of a $25,000 subsidy, assuming a land cost
per acre of $1.090,000 and various mix and assumptions of
affordable housing tyPes and financial parameters" (page
Financial Burden or Detriment-15).
The Agency disagrees with. the analysis and conclusions drawn
regarding the level of subsid, y requ. ired to assist low and
moderate income new housmgumts..A numb. er of the
assUmptions used to support the District's esttmate of $25,000
per unit average subsidy are not ap. propr.iate to use in. regards
to Santa Ana projects. The following pmnts substantiate this
conclusion:
1)
Unit Mix - Given the housing market in the City, there is
no subsidy required to assist moderate income units. The
rental rates of moderate income units are the same as
market rate units; therefore, it is inappropriate to assume
a subsidy would be provided,
2)
Units Per Acre - The General Plan for the City of Santa
A:n.a provides for a maximum density of 15 un[ts per acre
wnhin those areas designated medium density residential.
There is no portion of the City currently designat.ed in the
General Plan for high density residential, except m the
context of a m. aster planned mixed use development. It is
assumed that if low income units were constructed, a
density bonus would be granted and, therefore, 20
housing units per acre density is more appropriate.
3)
Unit Size and Cost - The CSA report utilizes different
unit sizes and per square foot construction cost
depending on ,ncome level. Unit size and construction
cost standards within the City do not change based
strictly on income levels. A 3 to 4 person unit would be
the same size whether for a very low or low income
tenant.
The table below presents a revis!on of the analysis provided by
the District based upon the revisions noted above. This revised
calculation presents an average subsidy of $50,985.
29
I
460
Income Level
# of Persons
Income
Affordable HU $
HU Size (SqFt)
Const Cost/SqFt
Const Cost/HU
Land Cost per Acre
HU per Acre
Land Cost/HU
Total Cost/HU
Subsidy Required
Mix
Average Subsidy: $50,985
Very Low Very Low Low Low
3 4 3 4
$23,700 $26,350 $34,750 $38,600
$56,880 $63,240 $83,400 $92,540
900 1,100 900 1,100
$75 $75 $75 $75
$67,500 $82,500 $67,500 $82,500
$1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
20 20 20 20
50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
117,500 132,500 117,500 132,500
60,620 69,260 34,100 39,960
25% 25% 25% 25%
ko
Scenario 1 (i)
2')
Scenario 3 ~k})
Scenario
"Nonresidential ImPact"
No objection is raised in this section; therefore, no response is
required.
"Impact of Amended Plan Based on Agency_ Growth and
Development Assumptions";
and
"lmDacl[ of Amended Plan Based on Aeencv Growth
ASshmotions and CSA Derived Devel6pm6nt With All L.~ght
lndustflal Land Uses";
and
"Impact of Amended Plan Based on A~,encv Gro. wth
Asshmptions and CSA Derived Devel~m6nt w~th Mixed Land
U~s"
These three sections do notpresent any objectio.ns to the Plan;
however, each presents a different view of the District's
estimate of impact and required pass-through. The findings of
these sections are as follows:
Present Value % Pass-Thru of
Total Cost of Cost District's Share
$48,368,856 $17,942,963 56.20%
$83,554,014 $31,017,409 97.15%
$87,741,001 $32,579,621 102.04%
30
Ill
461
"Evaluation of Agent's Proposed Mitigation"
Objection: The District states "it is important to note that the
Agency is ackno.wledging that the Amended Pl.an will have an
impact on the District, which is in direct opposition to the
Negative Declaration whic. h concluded that th.e Amended Plan
.would have no significant impact on the District." This finding
~s based upon the fact th. at the Agency made an o~f.er to pass
through 1.52% of gross ~ncrement or 18% of the D~strict's
share of tax increment. The District further states that the
Agency's use of a $4.73 cost factor in calculating the proposed
pass through is in error and the cost factor sho. uld have been
$4.95 per square foot. Additionally, the District states that the
pass-through was based upon a pass-through for 55 years
whereas the amended plan term is only 40 years. Therefore,
the District concludes that it cannot be guaranteed that
sufficient increment would be received. The District objects
that .the Agency's calculation of pass-through .did not take into
cons~deration the timing of payments. The District calculated
the present value of the impacts to be $21,717,712 whereas the
~resent value of the Agency's p.roposed pass-through is
8,410,805. They assume a capitalization rate of 4%. The
District objects that the Agency has not included the impact
caused by the .housing set-aside fu.nds when c.a!cnlating
detriment. It ~s based upon the D~strict's opnnon that if the
Agency does not develop new housing units, the amended plan
will not be in conformance with the General Plan.
.Resoonse: The Agency's offer of 1.52% of gro. ss increment is
m r6sponse to the fiscal review process which ~s the proper
legal forum for determining fiscal impact. Unlike other types
of projects, the Health. and Safety Code presents a dist. inct
required p. rocess, the fiscal review proc.ess, for determaning
fiscal detriment when adopting/amending a redevelopm.ent
plan. By acknowledging and responding to the fiscal rewew
proc.es.s, the Agency has not misused the Negative Declaration
prows~ons of the CEQA process. Although the CEQA process
could be used to measure fiscal impact, CEQA does not
~ fiscal analysis (it is optional) and in this case, it would
have been needlessly duplicative of the fiscal review process.
When th.e Agency presented its offer to pass through 18% of
the District's "share" of increment, the Agency reviewed the
basis and methodology used in the calculation. The 1991-92
$4.73 cost factor was'based upon use of the .District's 1992-93
"p.er-square-foot cost factors" and the follovang development
mix:
31
I
1992-93
Factor per Dist. Report ~
20% Office $5.~97 psf $1.19
20%Retail ' ~'3'!85 psf .77
60% Light Industrial 4.95 psf 2.97
1992-93 Factor Used: $4.93
Adjusted for 1991-92 (4% "deflation") $4.73
It should be noted that the Agency's willinsness to look at 2.4
million additional square feet .o.f construction, rather than the
1.7 million assumed in the Preliminary Report was an effort to
compromise and ac.knowledge that change could occur over
the next 30 years which could increase the amount of
development which could be added to the area. The District
repeatedly tries to use this to conclude a.n. acknowledgment
that the Amendment conflicts with the City's General Plan, or
that the Agency has "subverted" the fiscal review process, or
that the Agency has violated CE. QA requirements. Because no
amount of analysis and calculation can absolutely accurately
determine the level of development which will occur at what
time in the Project Area,. the negotiating process requires each
side to be reasonable in its approach. Although Agency staff
believes that future long-term development in the Project Area
will not cause a significant financial burden to the District
anywhere near the levels the District is suggesting, the Agency
attempted to be "reasonable" and compromise with the
District. While the Agency does understand that the District
has and will continue to suffer from financial shortfalls, the
Agency d.o. es not agree that "redevelopment" h. asp. rimary .
responsibility for the shortfall. The District will hkely continue
to experience substantial growt.h resulting from changing
demographics and State educational policy more than from
development.
Regarding the District's objective that the cost factor used by
the Agency should have been applied to 1991-92 costs rather
than 1992-93, the 1992-93 factor used by the Agency was $4.93
as explained above.
Regarding the Dist.rict's conc. ern that the Agency cannot
guarantee that sufficient tax increment will be passed through
(beyond 40 years), it is noted that the actual amount of tax
increment passed through to the District under the Agency's
proposal would be a function of two variables: (a) actual
~qrowth in the Project Area and (b) timing of that growth.
either the District nor Agency can control nor accurately
project these variables; therefore, only reasonable assumptions
can be made. This same problem also relates to the District's
objection that the "present value" of the Agency's offer does.
not match the "present value" of the District's detriment. This
32
463
does not render the Agency's offer unreasonable. The
Agency's offer included a calculation of the "cost-of-detriment"
incurred to date (since 1982) which is not relevant when
calculating "present value".
Lastly, the Agency staff has rejected the Dist.rict's calculation
of detriment purportedly caused by t.he housing set-aside funds.
The District's calculation of this detrtment is based on
erroneous subsidy assumptions (discussed above) and
convoluted interp.retatio.ns of the City's General Plan which are
further discussed in Section 4 of this response.
"District's Election to Tax Increment Pursuant to Section 33676 of the
Health and Safe .ty Code"
This section documents the District's adoption of a reso. lution
pursuant to Section 33676(a)(1) and (2). No objection is raised and,
therefore, no response is required; however, it should be noted that
the Agency staff believes, under current law, that the adoption of this
resolution has no effect on the proposed Amendment to the Plan.
SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Objection: The Committee (Fiscal Review) recommended that an EIR be
prepared by the Agency for the South Harbor Boulevard Amendment.. In its
response, the Agency staff does not appear to understand that the taxing
entities believe an EIR should be prepared to address.environmental
consequences of the.amendment and the implementanon of new. projects. A
substantial increase in potential Agency activities will be authorized as the
tax increment cap is increased from $1.09 million to $2.6 billion. Such a
change in scope lustifies a detailed enwronment, al analysis. Also, the sixty
percent (60%) low and moderate income set-aside was lmp.osed on the Plan
after approval of the original EIR. This change alone const.ltutes a sufficient
basis for EIR preparation. However, the Agency characterized the taxing
entities' concerns improperly as relating only to financial bu_rden or
detriment. Even if the amendment does not propose modifications to
existing land uses or projects, an EIR would still be necessapj. This
additional environmental analysis should also entail consideration of
financial burden and detriment on the taxing entities.
Resnonse: At this time, the public works projects listed in the Plan
Amendment are the only projects th.e A. gency proposes to c. onst .tact.
However, additional development within the Project Area is anticipated to
occur over the life of the Plan: There are no development plans proposed for
any of the vacant parcels within the Project Area or any other parcels within
the Project Area. Any detailed environmental analysis of future
development on the vacant parcels, or any other pa. rcels in the P. roject Area,
wou. ld be speculative at thi.s time since specificproject information is not
available. Subsequent emaronmentai analysis for future development of
parcels in compliance with CEQA will be conducted at the time formal
planning approval applications .are submitted to the City. Once planning
approval applications are su.brmtted, specific project information will be
known so that ad. equate environmental evaluations can be conducted for a
project. Should it be determined at that time a project could have significant
464
impacts on the District, mitigation measures could be incorporated into the
project to reduce the impacts. Since specific project information is not
available at this time, it is too speculative to evaluate potential
environmental effects on the Dlstric[ due to additional development within
the Project Area.
The tax increment set-aside.revenues .may be ..u.sed to subsidize existing rents
throughout the City, rehablhtate existing dwelling units, and may be used to
construct new low and moderate income housing. The City will prepare
appropriate environmental analyses as required by CEQA at the time
specific low and moderate income projects are proposed to the City. At this
time, specific low and moderate income development projects have n. ot been
identified. Therefore, it w. ould be. speculative to evaluate the potential
impacts that may be associated with low and moderate income set-aside
revenues.
Ob_iection: The Committee also recommended that the Redevelopment
Agency consider potential alternative funding sources to finance its projects.
The Agency responded by describing various budget shortfalls which the City
has suffered as a result of the poor economy. This response suggests that the
redevelopment process is being used as a funding .source f.o.r.capital
improvements, and not for the purpose of addressing conditions of blight
within the Project Area. The courts and the Legislature have criticized the
use of the powers of redevelopment solely for purposes of inducing new
development to an area or for any purpose beyond remedying conditions of
blight. Charact.e. rizing tax increment financing as merely an alternate funding
source for the City's general fund and budgetary needs renders the
Redevelop. ment Plan Amendment proposal subject to challenge as an
inappropriate exercise of the powers of redevelopment.
~: The projects to be funded are projects which will help to alleviate
blight in the Project Area w.hich is a lawfuluse of the powers of
redevelopment. When looking for alternative funding sources beyond, tax
increment, the Agency must look to the funds and powers of the City, ~ts
legislative body. ~l'herefore, the Agency is jus. tified in discussing the City's
budget and funding issues because..the finanoal .condition of the City is
directly related to the Agency's ability to utilize financing sources other than
tax increment.
9bjecti0.: The Committee recommended that the low and moderate
~ncome housing set-aside for the Project Area be limited to twenty percent
(20%) of tax increment revenues for any increase of the tax increment cap
above its current level of $109,875,000. Santa Aha Unified and the other
taxing entities disagree that the sk. ty percent (60%) set-asid.e applies to plan
amendments. SUch an interpretation greatly affects the ab!hty of the Agency
to mitigate the impact of the amendment on the taxing entities. Also, the
Plan and amendment does not restrict use of these funds for construction of
residential dwelling units. The District is greatly concerned that this huge
potential income source could be utilized at some point in the future to
increase the City's housing stock and further overcrowd existing school
facilities.
34
.. 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
~ I~ t3 neeo$ o! a ,, ~ng and diverse I~0pulatlon.
MAJOR CHANGES:
POPULATION
204.000 ,,~"~=~ + gO.OOO
HOUSING UNITS
I~.000 ?~,000
'~="' ' '=="" ........ '"'="~''T + +7'OO011%
DENSITY
+ .ii
Range: 1.7 - ~
10~00
: 7.500 · · =='='" =="""='==='°==='~ + :~300
DENSITY . ...,..,
PARK ACRES
1.7
-.4
Figure IV-1
CHANGES WITHIN THE
CITY OF SANTA ANA
Taken from "A Recreation and Community Services Needs Assessment
for the City of Santa Aha, California, 1990-2000"
~: Santa Ama Unified requests that the City Coun.cil and
Redevelopment Commission postpone adoption of the ordinance which
implements the amendment as well as filing of the Notice of Determination
until such an agreement has been executed. We know of no legal constraints
which require you to act at this time. implementation of the South Harbor
Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area amendment without mitigation o.f
the impacts upon Santa Ana U.n. ified would greatly harm the District's ability
to provide adequate school facilities and a sound educational experience.
~: Agency st.a. ff has subsequently met with SAUSD represent.a, tives
but no resolution of differences has yet occurred. Adoption of the ordinance
approving the Amendment does not preclude the District and Agency from
further negotiations.
ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
In a letter from Leonard D. Brinley dated June 16, 1992, Mr. Brinley's
objections are contained in 28 numbered comments. Because many of the
comments relate to the same topic, the following summarizes the objections
by topic.
1. lnadeo_uate Environmental Documentation
(Comments 2,3,5,6,7,10,12,21,22,24,25 and 27)
Objection: The Superintendent states that the environmental
doc. umentation should have been an environmental impact report
which should have documented the level of impacts on the school,
cumulative impacts, and mitigation measures.
~: These objections and other related objections are
addressed in the response to the Rancho Santiago Community
College objections, m particular Section 11(5).
Fi~¢ol Detriment
(Comments 3,4,5,6,7,15,16,17,19 and 20)
O~ection: The Superintendent objects to the Amendment because
the A. gency has not documented the Superintendent's impact, nor
allewated the impact.
Response: The Superintendent, as required under the fiscal review
process, prepared a fiscal impact report which was incorporated into
the FRC Report. The Agency.previously responded to that report
and the response is contamedan Sect~o.n. M of the Report to Council.
The Agency has made a.n offer to the D~strict to pass-through a
portion of the revenue, m the future (.155%) or 7.2% of the
Superintendent's portion, but that offer has been rejected. The.
Superintendent and Agency continue to disagree on the calculatton of
impact and corresponding level of pass-through.
468
o
~: Inadequate documentation of why private enterprise
acting alone cannot accomplish the Project. (Comment 8)
Response: Page A,6 tllrough A-8 of the Report to Council addresses
this issue. Th.e Superintendent does not substantiate how this
documentation is inadequate.
Qb_iection: The area is not blighted. (Comment 9).
s~e~1220_S~: This objection is addressed in the response to Rancho
Santiago Commumty College objections, in particular Section II(2).
Qb_iection: The building and tax increment limits in the Plan are not
properly defined, quantified or established. (Comments 11 and 18) '
Rest~onse: The Amendment d.o. es not propose any modification to the
Plafi language pertainingto building limits; th. erefore, this objection is
irrelevant. The Agencyhas presented in Se.c.t~on C of the Report to
Council the projections related to the estabhshing of the tax
increment limit.
Obiection: The Project does not adequately identify and evaluate the
mehsures stated in Health and Safety Code Section 33353.5.
(Comment 13)
Rgspons¢: Section 33353.5(c) presents these measures as items which
may be included in the Fiscal Review Committee Report. To the
extent that the FRC Report included any of the items, the Agency
responded to the recommendations as documented in Section M of
the Report to Council.
~: The Superintendent alleges that not all CEQA and
Redevelopment Law notices have been given. (Comment 14)
Response: The Sup.er. intendent does not present any documentation
to support this acquisition except that they "do not have sufficient
information from which to determine that all notices" w. ere given.
The A~ency believes this t° be inadequate documentation of their
objection.
Obiection: The Superintendent states that a housing study and
employer survey should have been undertaken by the Agency to
determine new housing needs and corresponding student population
growth.
" 469
~: The fiscal revi.ew proces.s produced fiscal impact reports
from all affected school districts which attempted to measure student
~nrOWth caused by development. The Agency, when possible, supplied
form.a.tion to the schoo.1 districts t.o use in their studies (al.though all
of the districts chose their own varying development scenarios) and
responded to each school district's report presented in the FRC
Report. Redevelopment Law does n.ot require a "housing study" and
the Agency does not believe that additional studies would produce
any meaningful new information. The Agency and Superintendent
continue to disagree on the calculation of impact.
COUNTY OFORANGE
The County of Orange presented a letter and a copy of their fiscal impact
report. The Agency previously responded to the County's report in Section
M of the Report to Council.
I