Res89 11191 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mayor Jack Grenalch November 21, 1989 Page 4 5. It Has Not Been Demonstrated That The Alleged Bliqht Cannot Be Eliminated Bv Private Enterprise And without The Assistance of Redevelopment. The Report concludes, without any supporting facts, that private enterprise cannot bear the cost of any of the various public improvements proposed by the Second Amendment. It ignores alternative funding sources for these improvements, including assessment districts and similar mechanisms available under state law, whereby the costs would be paid by property owners who would benefit from the proposed improvements, and funds from the recent San Mateo county voter approved tax increase for transit purposes. 6. A proiect Area Committee Should Have Been Created. As the FEIR recognizes, the Second Amendment Area is primarily residential, and the housing there is primarily rental and occupied by low and moderate income households. Over 400 households living in nonconforming housing could be eliminated by Agency eminent domain. Unspecified numbers of residential tenants could be displaced by land use succession. As a result, the proposed amended redevelopment plan has the potential for causing substantial direct and indirect displacement and a PAC is required. Creation of a PAC would also be sound policy, since it would give the Area's residential tenants the opportunity to participate in shaping the future of their neighborhoods. 7. Tenants Were Not Given Leqallv Sufficient Notice of Hearinq On The Redevelopment Plan. Owners of property in the Project Area were given personal notice by mail of the 11/20/89 public hearing on the Second Amendment. Tenants in these areas are similarly situated. have property rights by virtue of their rental agreements. may be affected by the Project since they may be displaced Agency or by private development caused by the Project. They They by the However, tenants were not given comparable notice by mail or other method equally likely to reach them and apprise them of the hearings and their right to be heard. This disparate treatment is unfounded and a denial of the tenants' rights to due process and equal protection. Scott v. city of Indian Wells, 6 Cal.3d. 541/ 99 Cal. Rptr. 745 (l972); pillsbury v. South Coast Reqional Commission, Cal.App.3d. 139 Cal.Rptr.760 (1972). In view of the foregoing, the FEIR and Second Amendment are legally inadequate and cannot be approved. If 11191