Laserfiche WebLink
JAH:djrn 11/28/89 (011/#8) <br />based upon the fact that, while the Redevelopment Plan as amended <br />by the First Amendment did result in four noncontiguous sub -areas <br />in the existing Project Area, the Amendment Area being added to <br />the existing Project Area by the Second Amendment is totally <br />contiguous to and, indeed, envelopes two of such sub -areas. <br />k) Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements <br />which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare <br />is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the entire area <br />of which they are a part, and any such area is not included <br />solely for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax <br />increment revenues from such area pursuant to Section 33670 of <br />the Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial <br />justification for its inclusion. This finding is based upon the <br />fact that, as shown in the Agency's Report to the City Council, <br />all properties within the Amendment Area boundaries were included <br />because they were underutilized because of blighting influences, <br />or were affected by the existence of blighting influences, or <br />were necessary either to accomplish the objectives and benefits <br />of the Amended Redevelopment Plan or because of the need to <br />impose uniform requirements on the Amended Project Area as a <br />whole. <br />1) The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of <br />the Amendment Area could not reasonably be expected to be <br />accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid <br />and assistance of the Agency. This finding is based upon the <br />existence of blighting influences, including the lack of adequate <br />13 2 <br />OW? <br />